Think you might want to rewrite that. It makes absolutely no sense the way it is written and there is no way you could base a code of morality on that.
Legally this is false. Saying stuff like this is as pathetic as saying “He isn’t my president”. Factually incorrect.
Same sex unions are no different than infertile heterosexual couples, elderly heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples that do not want children. I am not calling you any of those items, I am just calling you wrong.
Sure, I get it: they're your imbeciles, so everything's copacetic as far as you're concerned. Most likely you've never stopped to consider that rights that can be given can taken away. I don't see any color for the proposition that any state has any power under a provision the repeal of which would have no legal consequence, AFAIK. Get real, you're in no position to evaluate that. What you trust them for is their determination to maintain the "protected class" status of homosexuals.
Hate to sound snarkey but.....Anybody, Anybody with a third grade or higher education read the following and tell me if it makes the least bit of sense............ Now I would ask, is it possible to diagram this sentence? Then, how do you begin to apply that line of thought (if there is one) as a basis for deciding morality?
Also in yours. Assuming you live in the US, or any of a hundred other countries, marriage is not just between 1 man and 1 woman. It’s just reality.
then call them same sex unions, they are not marriage. Marriage is a positive (male) plus a negative (female). You want to join two negatives or two positives.....not the same. Who wired your house anyway?
Again, same sex couples tried to have civil unions first — the anti-gay organizations and religious groups intervened to block gay people from those unions you are now saying “why don’t they just call it this”. In the present day, same sex unions are marriage. It looks foolish to say they are not when same sex marriages are occurring every minute all around the world.
Yes. If someone brings a case and they can overturn a previous ruling I don't see it happening in this case. But sure.
Okay my apologies. So if you want to cut someone open because they have appendicitis and even though cutting them open would Causeharm it would allow you access to remove the inflamed appendix that amount of harm is acceptable and therefore not immoral.
Laws change. So something I'm trying to figure out about your side of the argument. Which of your rights are being interfered with by homosexuals in relationships being allowed to be married legally?
Thank you. I am not going onto the limb to pronounce it will be overturned but if ever there is a ruling in need of being overturned, that is simply one of them.
Your history is wrong. I voted to grant them to obtain the union. And then as a resident of CA, our highest court approved it. It was homosexuals raising holy hades over it and not christians.