The gay attack on religion is dangerous

Most hetrosexual couples marry because they love each other. Homosexual couples weren't allowed to marry the person the persons they love. And before you bring up the marrying of a child, dog, cat, or whatever, remember the phrase "Consenting Adult".

So yes, a homosexual could marry a person of the opposite sex. Now a homosexual can marry the person they love, a person of the same sex. On that, a hetrosexual person can also marry a person of the same sex, if they so desire.

 

I think they get a little mahogany in thinking about having the churches all shut down.

 

It hardly makes sense to answer a question based on a nonsensical premise.

If they merely disbelieve in every "version of God" they've encountered, obviously not.

I have no opinion on that, and I don't much care one way or the other.

 

Any question of denial is moot, since it isn't possible for a man to marry a man, and never will be. The right you're actually contending for, obviously, is the right to impose your delusion on the rest of society under color of law.

 

Shutting down or suing me for not making a gay wedding cake is force. I resent that for two reasons. One, it is against my religion. Secondly, it's against my freedom.

The perversion is the sex between two males or females in a species that is clearly male and female for reproduction.

I'm not against selling a generic wedding cake to anyone for any reason. I just would not specialize it or delivery for a gay wedding. Some may not want to knowingly sell a generic wedding cake and should not be forced to.

I appreciate that you do not flamboyant your sexual preference.

 

Since you deem the man/woman requirement dispensable, what's so special about the "consenting adult" requirement?

 

As expected....nevermind.

 

They understand it, they just don't care because they don't have a consistent belief system that is based on articulable principles and logical conclusions. It is pure opportunism and self-serving emotionalism that drives about 99% of the political opinions on a given political forum. That is why you will hear them simultaneously champion and demonize private property rights depending on the context, and they will call their inconsistency "nuance" or "balance" when it is just rank hypocrisy dressed up in sophistic language.

 

cool; i "refuse" to "buy in" to our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror without signed, voluntary agreements.

 

Can you think of any reason why you shouldn't have the right to refuse?

 

I can think of some; but, right now, I favor the version of the right for equal work for equal pay purposes.

 

According to the state I live in, I am able to marry the man I love. Me wanting that right is not imposing it on anyone else.If you don't like it, don't come to my wedding.
The main reason people don't like gay marraige is because 1. They claim their religion. Think 1st ammendment. Our laws are not based on religion. So that is a mute point. 2. They can't procreate. Number of hetrosexual couples aren't able to procreate but get married. Some couples are past their child bearing days and still get married. There are number of children in orphanages and foster homes that need adoption. Again mute point. 3. It's just plain gross. Well don't think about the actually sex act and you'll be fine. Besides there are many things that I find are gross and they are perfectly legal. So mute point.

 

Just because someone sues some else, doesn't mean they are forcing them. We will let the courts decide on that one. No one forced anyone to shut down. That pizza joint, decided on their own, to shut down. I don't agree with the threats that were given. I think that the threats should be treated as real and investigated by the police.
As far as the perversion, don't think about what two other people do in their own home. I have a husband. Do you know what he and I do in our own bedroom? Either way, I'm not planning on telling you. It is none of your business. You just assume you know what goes on in there. Now hetrosexual couples have anal and oral sex. Those are not for reproduction. How about a women that is no longer able to have kids. If she has sex it isn't for reproduction.
As far as me not being flamboyant, it isn't for you. It is just who I am. Some guys are rather feminine. Even some guys that are in hetrosexual relationships. Just because a guy is feminine doesn't mean he is gay and just because a guy is masculine, doesn't mean he is straight.

 

The government has declared the age of consent. It varies by state but baisicly is between 16 and 18. 16 is getting rather young. Although my grandmother did get married at 14, to my grandfather who was 21. They were married over 51 years, when my grandfather died. So it can happen.
I think a child is not mature enough to give consent. And the fact that they may be forced into it, when they are too young to realize what is happening.

 

Wouldn't matter if there were a federal constitutional amendment to that effect, because We the People don't get to redefine marriage any more than We get to redefine humanity.

No you don't.

Really, there is no sense in appealing to a document of which you have no understanding.

So if the government undeclared it, a 50 year old marrying a 5 year old would be no problem. Right?

 

Who gets to redefine marriage then? It has been done numerous times over the history of marriage.

I'm glad you know what someone, who you don't know personally and just by being on the same website, feels for their spouse.

I like how you only look at the first sentence of my second post, skip over the rest of it, and reply.

 

Liberals have superior morality and authority can never be refused, only obeyed.

 

Nobody. You're welcome.

Not by anyone who matters.

So as far as you're concerned, love is all about feelings. Whodathunkit?

You like dodging the question a lot more, obviously.

 

The gay rights movement has been thoughtfully orchestrated by a small group of gay activists, it targets people with common beliefs (such as people who see religion as repugnant) and aligns them into supporting the gay agenda. Similar to the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept.

You can disagree with religion, and even find religion repugnant, but the free expression of religion is a right explicitly listed in the First Amendment. You have no right to not be offended.

 

Of course religion has an agenda. That's not the issue. The issue revolves around the government taking away people rights because a part of the population (even a majority) does not like those rights.

 

Oh, you know, it all started with the secularists War on Christmas. Before too long, the Christianists are going to demand that prayers be said before all sports games, rational people are going to say "no", and the Christianists are going to claim they are being attacked again.

 

Unfortunately, Materpiece Bakery(denied gay wedding cake) has been ordered by a judge to make gay wedding cakes or be fined.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

While I consider homosexuality a perversion of human biology and do not want it given official recognition, I respect homosexuals right to their relationships due to everyone is entitled to liberty.

I have no problem with gays that will just accept that Christians refuse to go against their faith in recognizing gay weddings, but I despise those who wish to force their lifestyle on others, in any form.

You seem like a very nice guy. I wish you well in your life.

 

There are no laws about love.
Marriage is a 1000 benefits from the government.
1000 benefits is a way to regulate relationship between man and woman, because such relationship need protection from the government.
That is it.
Gays have no business in marriage.

 

So no one gets to redefine marriage? So people marry now the same as Adam and Eve did? Where you there for that wedding ceremony?

Someone redefined it there.

Was your marriage arranged?(assuming you are married). I don't know a single person who had their marriage arranged "as early as birth". Then it was redefined.

I could continue on, but you should get the point. And I got these quotes from wikipedia. I know its wikipedia, but still.

I never said love is only about feelings, but it does have a part of it. Either way, my point was you made an absurd assumption about someone you do not know.

I didn't dodge the question. I was referring to my original post, if you would have read the whole thing, you'd find my answer in there. I didn't see a need to repost it, just because you are too lazy to read it.

 

Maybe the government should get out of marriage all together and just leave it up to the churches. Oh but wait, there are churches out there that are more than happy to marry gay couples.
What is so special about a hetrosexual relationship that it needs "protection from the government"?
Earlier you said gays could get married, now you are saying they have no business in marriage? Can't you make up your mind.