|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 13:59:11 GMT -5
What about old people? They can't have kids. Should they be allowed to marry? How about infertile couples? They can't have kids. Should they be allowed to marry?
Quoting the FRC on gay issues is like quoting the NRA on gun control.
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:06:15 GMT -5
Men and woman can marry and adopt.
|
|
|
Post by GreatJunta36 on May 16, 2008 14:06:43 GMT -5
Haven't read any of the comments so this has probably already been said: Let them pay taxes like the rest of us. If they wanna get married, go for it!
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:07:49 GMT -5
As can gay couples. In two states, they can marry. And they can adopt.
Why don't you answer my bible quotes?
"Your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” (Genesis 3:16)
Genesis 19:35-36 35And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
Incest. Huh.
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:12:26 GMT -5
That is about Women's desire for man.
The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless"
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on May 16, 2008 14:13:01 GMT -5
This has another hurdle it will most likely have to pass: The people of California.
There is a proposal for a state constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in November to ban gay marriage, specifically. Not civil unions, but marriage. If it passes, the state Supreme Court's decision is meaningless. The amendment would require a simple majority. If the people vote to allow it, more power to them and God bless them. If not, more power to them and God bless them. Simple fact is that it's doubtful four judges will make the final choice on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:13:50 GMT -5
Could you give the full part where he says it's because of homosexuality?
I can see why some of those things would be true, because of people that want to discriminate against us in the name of God.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:14:38 GMT -5
This has another hurdle it will most likely have to pass: The people of California. There is a proposal for a state constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in November to ban gay marriage, specifically. Not civil unions, but marriage. If it passes, the state Supreme Court's decision is meaningless. The amendment would require a simple majority. If the people vote to allow it, more power to them and God bless them. If not, more power to them and God bless them. Simple fact is that it's doubtful four judges will make the final choice on this issue. Actually the voters approved it to the constitution in 2000. That's what the judges struck down. The voters approve it again, it will be struck down again.
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:14:58 GMT -5
This has another hurdle it will most likely have to pass: The people of California. There is a proposal for a state constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in November to ban gay marriage, specifically. Not civil unions, but marriage. If it passes, the state Supreme Court's decision is meaningless. The amendment would require a simple majority. If the people vote to allow it, more power to them and God bless them. If not, more power to them and God bless them. Simple fact is that it's doubtful four judges will make the final choice on this issue. The people will overturn it in November because this ruling goes againist the will of the people. America is a traditional country and is againist unnatural acts like sodomy.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:15:58 GMT -5
This has another hurdle it will most likely have to pass: The people of California. There is a proposal for a state constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in November to ban gay marriage, specifically. Not civil unions, but marriage. If it passes, the state Supreme Court's decision is meaningless. The amendment would require a simple majority. If the people vote to allow it, more power to them and God bless them. If not, more power to them and God bless them. Simple fact is that it's doubtful four judges will make the final choice on this issue. The people will overturn it in November because this ruling goes againist the will of the people. America is a traditional country and is againist unnatural acts like sodomy. Interracial marriage used to be against the will of the people and the court had to rule to make it legal. Slavery used to be the will of the majority. African-Americans were thought to be lower, they were separate, they weren't allowed in the same places, to use the same water fountains, they had to sit in the back of the bus. You know why? Because the majority wanted it.
|
|
|
Post by bulldog77 on May 16, 2008 14:18:02 GMT -5
The people will overturn it in November because this ruling goes againist the will of the people. America is a traditional country and is againist unnatural acts like sodomy. Interracial marriage used to be against the will of the people and the court had to rule to make it legal. Slavery used to be the will of the majority. ZING!! Owned
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:19:02 GMT -5
Interracial marriage can create a baby.
Slavery is wrong and America righted itself on that issue.
America fixed things that were immoral.
|
|
The Doctor
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 3, 2002 19:03:52 GMT -5
Posts: 3,446
|
Post by The Doctor on May 16, 2008 14:19:11 GMT -5
This has another hurdle it will most likely have to pass: The people of California. There is a proposal for a state constitutional amendment to be on the ballot in November to ban gay marriage, specifically. Not civil unions, but marriage. If it passes, the state Supreme Court's decision is meaningless. The amendment would require a simple majority. If the people vote to allow it, more power to them and God bless them. If not, more power to them and God bless them. Simple fact is that it's doubtful four judges will make the final choice on this issue. Actually the voters approved it to the constitution in 2000. That's what the judges struck down. The voters approve it again, it will be struck down again. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, but in 2000 it wasn't an amendment to the state constitution. It was a law, but not an amendment. If I'm right (and I do not claim to be), then this is going to be quite interesting.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:22:08 GMT -5
Interracial marriage can create a baby. Slavery is wrong and America righted itself on that issue. America fixed things that were immoral. But the majority wanted it. You are putting the majority on a pedestal and knocking them off. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. People being second class citizens is immoral and I can't wait until we correct it. Two states have already started the process.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:26:14 GMT -5
Have you ever worked or done anything but rest on Sunday?
Exodus 35:2
2Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:26:23 GMT -5
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.
Teaching perversion to children is wrong and immoral.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:27:11 GMT -5
So, should we just force teachers to teach the bible and forget the other stuff?
I think corrupting their mind with hate is worse.
|
|
|
Post by kennethtogash on May 16, 2008 14:29:13 GMT -5
So, should we just force teachers to teach the bible and forget the other stuff? Teach history of America and math and english. The basics. No religion in the schools.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on May 16, 2008 14:31:40 GMT -5
Gays are a part of history. Sorry to break it to you.
Why won't you respond to bible verses that I've quoted here?
|
|
|
Post by Mole on May 16, 2008 14:31:48 GMT -5
So, should we just force teachers to teach the bible and forget the other stuff? Teach history of America and math and english. The basics. No religion in the schools. If they're supposed to be teaching history, math, and english, then what's the issue? They don't teach marriage. Hell they barely even discuss sex in classes that are devoted to the education of it. How would that be any different if same-sex marriage/union/whatever was legalized?
|
|