Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

So homosexuality is in God's will.

 

1416088[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Loving thy neighbor is in God's will.

 

Jesus said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." He didn't say, "Lord darn them for they are evil momos."

 

[Clubfoothead]

I want to dislike God but she's got a classic sense of hughmor. Truly classic.

[skins]

I want to dislike God but she's got a classic sense of hughmor.  Truly classic.

 

1416097[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That quote Ursa bolded was a doozy in context, too. I'm still laughing.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I want to dislike God but she's got a classic sense of hughmor.  Truly classic.

 

1416097[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Plus she looks like Alanis Morrissette.

[Clubfoothead]

Plus she looks like Alanis Morrissette.

 

1416101[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

So John Elway as a brunette?

 

Az always wins.

 

I have The Gospel of Judas on TiVO. Good?

[SuperBalla]

Jesus says yer an idiot. Read Matthew 19:12. His disciples ask him whether they should marry or not marry, and he holds up the non-married bachelors, celibates, castrates, and even--ooh, scary--the "born Eunuch" as examples of those who were not married and still able to participate in God's plan. Think about that for a minute, he chose those who were the antithesis of the Jewish scriptural norm--remember, Jewish law said not to marry and procreate was a sin--and specifically said they can receive it (God's plan).

 

1416057[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Don't you find it strange that there are two types of people...men and women? Something amazing happens when they have a relationship. You mention these bachelors and celibates and Eunuch...sure...I hold them in high regards too. An Eunuch is way beyond my realm of dedication but abstaining for a belief is remarkable. It should be held higher than people that follow what we're here for sexually. I don't see homosexuality in there...why not?

 

Homosexuality has nothing to do with Jesus or God.

 

Whether it is "ok" or not is a stupid question. Which is probably why you went back and edited it.

 

God's will? I dont even know what yer asking. The foundation you have erected for yer belief system is one set up to exclude people based upon what you believe is the "right" way to live. And then you call it God's will or God's plan. That is not what Jesus taught. He did not exclude the least of us--that was the point.

 

1416092[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I am just making sure that you aren't saying that Jesus would approve

of homosexuality. You say he has nothing to do with it but why not? Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

Loving thy neighbor is in God's will.

 

Jesus said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." He didn't say, "Lord darn them for they are evil momos."

 

 

1416094[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Pure Hyena.

Edited April 12, 2006 by SuperBalla

[Clubfoothead]

I'll bet you a million dollars being circumcised in 128 AD was not a decision taken lightly.

[SuperBalla]

Pretty much wraps that argument up, then.  There you have it, directly from the Messiah.

 

1416068[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I just got it. I was walking the dog and I about fell down. Nice werk.

[skins]

Don't you find it strange that there are two types of people...men and women? Something amazing happens when they have a relationship. You mention these bachelors and celibates and Eunuch...sure...I hold them in high regards too. An Eunuch is way beyond my realm of dedication but abstaining for a belief is remarkable. It should be held higher than people that follow what we're here for sexually. I don't see homosexuality in there...why not?

I am just making sure that you aren't saying that Jesus would approve

of homosexuality. You say he has nothing to do with it but why not? Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

1416120[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you read it closely, Balla, born "Eunuch" could easily mean a homosexual or asexual person. The Greek word was used to mean a bachelor, an unmarried man (a widower), a castrate, a celibate, or, as Jesus specifically says, someone born "Eunuch". Some early church writers interpreted born Eunuch as a man averse to sex with women. Well, that could easily be a homosexual. Regardless, his point was to specifically include those furthest from the Jewish norm of sexual behavior (the unmarried not procreating, the castrate, the celibate, and the born Eunuch).

 

And the fact that you are still asking about what type of sexual behavior Jesus would approve of means you are still operating within yer exclusionary framework. And in answer to why I think Jesus probably didnt address each specific thing we shouldnt do, it is my opinion he was not preoccupied with specific behaviors. Rather, he was about forgiveness and tolerance and giving regardless of the type of behavior or "sin." Unlike wierd modern Christians like you, there is no evidence Jesus was hung up on sexual ethics or defining abnormal sexual behavior.

 

And Im gonna give you a freebie here: the destruction of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Edited April 12, 2006 by skins

[rhino]

Wow. Couldn't read all of this thread, but a good read nonethless.

 

I tend to agree with some of you, but now I've forgotten who y'all were.

 

One thing I'm always dumbfounded by, and the original posted article does the same, is that we seem to forget that "tolerance" does not equal "acceptance". It appears the original posted article uses these two terms interchangably (sp?). Shame.

[spain]

Pretty much wraps that argument up, then.  There you have it, directly from the Messiah.

 

1416068[/snapback]

 

 

 

No you didnt!!

[spain]

  if someone can produce something that says men marrying men is a fundamental right, then i will agree with you.

 

1415978[/snapback]

 

 

 

2 things that I can think of off the top or my head:

 

1. The United States Constitution. You know, that supreme law of the land document that our form of gobment is based upon. Well, hidden way in the back of that bad boy are these ammendments called the Bill of Rights. You know the ones that say I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to own a gun, etc. Well, one of those suckers says something about Equal Protection. I am sure you have heard of it. What it basically says is that everybody gets treated the same under the law unless there is some compelling reason not to. In other words, you cant discriminate or treat people differently, simply because of their race, creed, gender, color, sexual orientation, or because they believe in some dumbass fairy tale bull shucks in the bible. So, if you want to keep booty bandits from getting married and enjoying all the benefits therein, you better have a dam good reason to do so. And just because you think Homosexuality is un-natural, sinful, or the reason that liberals are so limp wristed, is not a good reason.

 

2. The United States Supreme Court: You know, those lecherous old farts wearing the makeup and the black robes? Well sir, they have decided this issue already. They said that that old piece of paper referenced in point 1 above, actually means what it says. Weird as that may sound. But homosexuals have the same dang rights as everyone else. You cant discriminate against them because YOU think they are unnatural, or because you dont like the way their diks smell. They MUST be afforded the same rights under the law as those of us who enjoy the occasional whisker bisquit. Marriage is a legal right, and so they get it. Get it?

 

So, those are the 2 highest legal sources our country has to offer. It dont get no more authoritative than that Cowboy! Now, tell me again why you believe the state has some compelling interest too keep Skins and Azz from finally tying the knot. Because this whole, "it aint natural" or the "bible says so", just dont cut it as far as legal arguements go.

[cre8tiff]

2 things that I can think of off the top or my head:

 

1.  The United States Constitution.  You know, that supreme law of the land document that our form of gobment is based upon.  Well, hidden way in the back of that bad boy are these ammendments called the Bill of Rights.  You know the ones that say I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to own a gun, etc.  Well, one of those suckers says something about Equal Protection.  I am sure you have heard of it.  What it basically says is that everybody gets treated the same under the law unless there is some compelling reason not to.  In other words, you cant discriminate or treat people differently, simply because of their race, creed, gender, color, sexual orientation, or because they believe in some dumbass fairy tale bull shucks in the bible.  So, if you want to keep  booty bandits from getting married and enjoying all the benefits therein, you better have a dam good reason to do so.  And just because you think Homosexuality is un-natural, sinful, or the reason that liberals are so limp wristed, is not a good reason. 

 

2.  The United States Supreme Court:  You know, those lecherous old farts wearing the makeup and the black robes?  Well sir, they have decided this issue already.  They said that that old piece of paper referenced in point 1 above, actually means what it says.  Weird as that may sound.  But homosexuals have the same dang rights as everyone else.  You cant discriminate against them because YOU think they are unnatural, or because you dont like the way their diks smell.  They MUST be afforded the same rights under the law as those of us who enjoy the occasional whisker bisquit.  Marriage is a legal right, and so they get it.  Get it?

 

So, those are the 2 highest legal sources our country has to offer.  It dont get no more authoritative than that Cowboy!  Now, tell me again why you believe the state has some compelling interest too keep Skins and Azz from finally tying the knot.  Because this whole, "it aint natural" or the "bible says so", just dont cut it as far as legal arguements go.

 

1416248[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[The Holy Roller]

... there is no evidence Jesus was hung up on sexual ethics or defining abnormal sexual behavior...

 

1416140[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. I don't think Jesus was "hung up" on anything mankind could throw at him. He did tell the woman accused of adultrey to go and sin no more, however. So perhaps He did have access to a source of righteousness that for that woman meant not committing adultrey. Not disagreeing with your basic premise(s) but there are references to what Jesus thought about some of mankinds behaviors and some of those behaviors were not good.

 

So he just forgave them, loved them, and told them what to do to move on. No problem.

 

Except for some of the "religious" leaders who He somehow found very little to admire.

[tonorator]

2 things that I can think of off the top or my head:

 

1.  The United States Constitution.  You know, that supreme law of the land document that our form of gobment is based upon.  Well, hidden way in the back of that bad boy are these ammendments called the Bill of Rights.  You know the ones that say I have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to own a gun, etc.  Well, one of those suckers says something about Equal Protection.  I am sure you have heard of it.  What it basically says is that everybody gets treated the same under the law unless there is some compelling reason not to.  In other words, you cant discriminate or treat people differently, simply because of their race, creed, gender, color, sexual orientation, or because they believe in some dumbass fairy tale bull shucks in the bible.  So, if you want to keep  booty bandits from getting married and enjoying all the benefits therein, you better have a dam good reason to do so.  And just because you think Homosexuality is un-natural, sinful, or the reason that liberals are so limp wristed, is not a good reason. 

 

2.  The United States Supreme Court:  You know, those lecherous old farts wearing the makeup and the black robes?  Well sir, they have decided this issue already.  They said that that old piece of paper referenced in point 1 above, actually means what it says.  Weird as that may sound.  But homosexuals have the same dang rights as everyone else.  You cant discriminate against them because YOU think they are unnatural, or because you dont like the way their diks smell.  They MUST be afforded the same rights under the law as those of us who enjoy the occasional whisker bisquit.  Marriage is a legal right, and so they get it.  Get it?

 

So, those are the 2 highest legal sources our country has to offer.  It dont get no more authoritative than that Cowboy!  Now, tell me again why you believe the state has some compelling interest too keep Skins and Azz from finally tying the knot.  Because this whole, "it aint natural" or the "bible says so", just dont cut it as far as legal arguements go.

 

1416248[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

good try lincoln hater, but it doesn't work. i asked for anything that defines marriage as something that can exist outside of a man and a woman. the fundamental right to marry, and everyone having equal protection to do so, means that men can marry women, and women can marry men and all individuals have that right. since the beginning of our country, that is what was meant by marriage and that is what has been supported by our justices. i've seen nothing from the constitution or from our supreme justices that specifically states that marriage can be defined as a single sex arrangement. that is what i would need to see as supporting evidence to this claim that gays being able to marry is a fundamental right of all americans.

 

and skins, i agree that Jesus was not hung up on all types of sexual behavior. however, He did clearly command those who sin to "sin no more," so He had a higher expectation of us than just allowing us to sin away and then be openly and continually forgiven. the most important aspect when discussing Jesus is whether you believe who He said He was - the son of the living God. the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac. this ties Him to the God of the OT who commanded payment for sin. Jesus was the ultimate payment ... not so that we can freely sin and then just ask for forgiveness, but that when we fully take in the sacrifice He made on the cross for us, it would change our hearts and our behaviors to continually strive to be better people. that is the heart of christianity my brother.

[Squeegiebo]

good try lincoln hater, but it doesn't work.  i asked for anything that defines marriage as something that can exist outside of a man and a woman.  the fundamental right to marry, and everyone having equal protection to do so, means that men can marry women, and women can marry men and all individuals have that right.  since the beginning of our country, that is what was meant by marriage and that is what has been supported by our justices.  i've seen nothing from the constitution or from our supreme justices that specifically states that marriage can be defined as a single sex arrangement.  that is what i would need to see as supporting evidence to this claim that gays being able to marry is a fundamental right of all americans.

 

1416687[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You're not paying attention. States make laws that define marriage, define who can have a driver's license, define the legal drinking age, define educational grants, etc. Some are rights, others are provileges that the state has decided to bestow on its citizens. In either case, the state cannot do these things in a discrimintory fashion unless it can legally justify it.

 

The state cannot provide that divers licenses can only be issued to Christians, or blondes, or people with brown eyes, or heterosexuals, because these attributes do not relate to the individual's ability to drive. Any such law would be struck down as unconsitutional.

 

Nor can a state define marriage to limit it to couples of the same race, or same religion, or opposite gender, because the government can offer no legitimate, legally valid reason to discriminate against biracial couples or homosexual couples. Your personal religious beliefs are not a legally valid reason.

 

The fact that the right to marry is a fundamental right only means that the state has to come up with a more compelling justification to make it legal.

 

You are attempting to make your religious beliefs into state law. That is unconstitutional.

[Azazello1313]

I am just making sure that you aren't saying that Jesus would approve of homosexuality.

1416120[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

so what makes you think he would have condemned it any more than he frowned on marriage and sex in general? the fact that paul condemned pederasty in rome 30 years later?

 

if you really look at the "scriptural" condemnation of homosexuality, it's actually quite weak. you've got the stuff in leviticus that's right along a bunch of other rules, 90% of which all modern christians have discarded. then you've got paul writing about pederasty. that's really it.

 

on the other hand, the scriptural warnings against pride, against focusing more on the perceived sins of others more than our own, against trying to use legalism to slam the doors of heaven in peoples' faces...these warnings are clear, emphatic, and abundant. jesus was more clear how he felt about all that than pretty much anything else. let's read a bit from matthew 23, shall we?

 

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. 4They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,* and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. 5They do all their deeds to be seen by others; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long. 6They love to have the place of honour at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, 7and to be greeted with respect in the market-places, and to have people call them rabbi. 8But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students.* 9And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.* 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted.

 

13 ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.* 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell* as yourselves.

....

 

23 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

 

25 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup,* so that the outside also may become clean.

 

27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. 28So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

 

29 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, 30and you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” 31Thus you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your ancestors. 33You snakes, you brood of vipers!

 

Edited April 12, 2006 by Azazello1313

[Azazello1313]

so this morning on my way into work, i was listening to the christian radio station and they were giving a little 'focus on the family' news update. they were talking about how this generation of college students is the first in american history that attends church more than their parents, yada yada yada, and that more and more college kids are "letting their morals inform their political views, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research". and it got me to thinking...all this "moral" concern about issues that, almost without exception, concern only OTHER PEOPLE. think about that.

 

is that morality? is that christianity? is it something a christian should celebrate? sounds more like sanctimonious pharisaism to me. sounds exactly like the people jesus was talking about in matthew 23.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Azazello1313

[tonorator]

You're not paying attention.  States make laws that define marriage, define who can have a driver's license, define the legal drinking age, define educational grants, etc.  Some are rights, others are provileges that the state has decided to bestow on its citizens.  In either case, the state cannot do these things in a discrimintory fashion unless it can legally justify it. 

 

The state cannot provide that divers licenses can only be issued to Christians, or blondes, or people with brown eyes, or heterosexuals, because these attributes do not relate to the individual's ability to drive.   Any such law would be struck down as unconsitutional. 

 

Nor can a state define marriage to limit it to couples of the same race, or same religion, or opposite gender, because the government can offer no legitimate, legally valid reason to discriminate against biracial couples or homosexual couples.  Your personal religious beliefs are not a legally valid reason.

 

The fact that the right to marry is a fundamental right only means that the state has to come up with a more compelling justification to make it legal.

 

You are attempting to make your religious beliefs into state law.  That is unconstitutional.

 

1416852[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

your last statement is completely untrue. i'm not trying to convert my religious beliefs into any laws, i'm just stating my opinion. i've started no campaign. i vote just like any other american on what comes before me.

 

i'll try again. at issue for me is the DEFINITION of marriage. i submit that the definition is the union of a man and a woman. that is what it is, and what it has always been. we don't have a history of same sex marriages and a long tradition of honoring any two people who want to marry, regardless of gender. the man/woman nature of marriage is integral to a marriage being possible. it's like saying you want to play a game of football, but you don't have a football. no football, then you can't play. you first have to find ball, so you can have a game. no man and woman, no marriage game to be played. two guys named steve show up for a marriage, and it's sorry guys, you don't have what it takes to play.

 

the issue is not about fundamental rights that already exist. the issue is a redefinition of the marriage agreement itself. now, if you can find the documentation that defines the marriage agreement as "any two people, regardless of gender" then i will stand corrected.

 

for the examples you give, driver's license, grants, drinking age, etc., there are requirements for each. you gotta have all the boxes checked before you can play. marriage has a fundamental requirement of having a man and a woman to play, and i don't believe that should be changed. i'm not imposing anything with that opinion, i'm freely expressing my view.

 

hey, i'd like to fly, but i don't have wings. i'd like to breath underwater, but i got no gills. some things are what they are ...

Edited April 12, 2006 by tonorator

[Squeegiebo]

so this morning on my way into work, i was listening to the christian radio station and they were giving a little 'focus on the family' news update.  they were talking about how this generation of college students is the first in american history that attends church more than their parents, yada yada yada, and that more and more college kids are "letting their morals inform their political views, on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research".  and it got me to thinking...all this "moral" concern about issues that, almost without exception, concern only OTHER PEOPLE.  think about that. 

 

is that morality?  is that christianity?  is it something a christian should celebrate?  sounds more like sanctimonious pharisaism to me.

 

1416878[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Cliche] It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some "Christians" change their tune when the shoe is on the other foot. [/Mr. Cliche]

[tonorator]

is that morality?  is that christianity?  is it something a christian should celebrate?  sounds more like sanctimonious pharisaism to me.

 

1416878[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

having and supporting laws that agree with your sense of morality doesn't make you a sanctimonious person. you would only be sanctimonious if you thought they didn't apply to you as well ...

[Azazello1313]

having and supporting laws that agree with your sense of morality doesn't make you a sanctimonious person.  you would only be sanctimonious if you thought they didn't apply to you as well ...

 

1416890[/snapback]

 

 

 

well i'm pretty sure abortion law can't apply to men, gay marriage laws can't apply to straight people, and (not to get all skinsy) laws about scientific research can't really apply to people who think jesus rode around on a brontosaurus.

 

so that's exactly my point. these folks are all fired up about "moral" issues that do not apply to them. the very definition of sanctimony, indeed.

Edited April 12, 2006 by Azazello1313

[cre8tiff]

having and supporting laws that agree with your sense of morality doesn't make you a sanctimonious person.  you would only be sanctimonious if you thought they didn't apply to you as well ...

 

1416890[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think Azz used it right, as an adjective:

 

sanctimonious

 

adj : excessively or hypocritically pious; "a sickening sanctimonious smile" [syn: holier-than-thou, pietistic, pietistical, pharisaic, pharisaical, self-righteous]

[wiegie]

this thread made me think of this:

 

BRIAN: Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains. Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips. Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely. Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar. Tuscany fried bats.

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

REG: Agreed. Francis?

FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--

STAN: Or herself.

FRANCIS: Or herself.

REG: Agreed.

FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

STAN: Or sister.

FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

REG: I think you'd finished.

FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one. 

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[Squeegiebo]

your last statement is completely untrue.  i'm not trying to convert my religious beliefs into any laws, i'm just stating my opinion.  i've started no campaign.  i vote just like any other american on what comes before me.

 

1416883[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You vote for people and laws that enact your religious views as state law. You insist on this discrimintory definition of marriage soley because you believe your religion forbids it. This isn't like abortion where you can say you're protecting the rights of an unborn child. You don't want to protect anyone's rights - you only want to mske sure that the government denies them to a certain group based on your religious beliefs.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. The government isn't entitled to make gay people live according to your idea of what the Bible says. You support the latter, and that means you want the Constitution to be violated.

 

i'll try again.  at issue for me is the DEFINITION of marriage.  i submit that the definition is the union of a man and a woman.  that is what it is, and what it has always been.  we don't have a history of same sex marriages and a long tradition of honoring any two people who want to marry, regardless of gender.  the man/woman nature of marriage is integral to a marriage being possible.  it's like saying you want to play a game of football, but you don't have a football.  no football, then you can't play.  you first have to find ball, so you can have a game.  no man and woman, no marriage game to be played.  two guys named steve show up for a marriage, and it's sorry guys, you don't have what it takes to play.

 

 

1416883[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The definition of marriage is what it is because that is what the state says it is. I don't care how long the state defined it that way - it is contrary to the Constitution. States for a long time had laws defining the qualifications for voting rights in such a way that excluded blacks (e.g., you can only vote if your grandfather could vote), but those laws were struck down as unconsitutional because they discriminated against a certain group without justification.

 

Your argument that procreation is the only thing that makes marriage possible, or justifies marriage is preposterous. Marriage is, and always has beeen, a legal contract that gives the parties to that contract legal rights and responsibilities. You cannot justify prohibiting homosexuals from entering into this legal arrangement without resort to your religion.

 

More than that, marriage is two people deciding they want to face life together and share life's experiences with each other like they will with no one else. It is a declaration of love, of obligation, of commitment. There is no rason why two guys named Steve cannot have that.

 

the issue is not about fundamental rights that already exist.  the issue is a redefinition of the marriage agreement itself.  now, if you can find the documentation that defines the marriage agreement as "any two people, regardless of gender" then i will stand corrected.

 

for the examples you give, driver's license, grants, drinking age, etc., there are requirements for each.  you gotta have all the boxes checked before you can play.  marriage has a fundamental requirement of having a man and a woman to play, and i don't believe that should be changed.  i'm not imposing anything with that opinion, i'm freely expressing my view.

 

1416883[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This issue is absolutely about fundamental rights that already exist. You will aknowledge that you stand corrected when you are able to grasp the concept of equal protection of the laws. That is the fundamental right at issue here. Your marriage definition violates it and always had. People didn't challenge it in the past, and a law cannot be held unconstitutional unless and until someone challenges it. Now that people are, they are winning.

 

If you want your definition of marriage to remain the law of the land, you are the one who has some constitutional amending to do.