- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 61,967
- Reaction score
- 27,068
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Congratulations. Too bad the United States isn't run by the Bible.
Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
Apparently 29 of them are and the SCOTUS that said gay marriage is okay in CA says that Gay marriage bans are okay in those states too. If judicial activism were a baseball game, the old slaughter rule wouldn't seem to be favoring the left's position at the moment.
Congratulations. Too bad the United States isn't run by the Bible.
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
Yeah, and that's the problem with America. Just because a majority of people in a state follow a certain religion doesn't mean they should be able to oppress others in the state by forcing biblical based legislation on them.
Indeed.
Perhaps we need to have public officials swear in with one hand on the Constitution.
No, come to think of it, the Constitution needs to be open, so they can read it. The Bible can stay closed, and be read in church instead.
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. It has been done before and it will be done again. Just because Presidents are individually religious doesn't mean every American is the same religion.
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Uruguay
or perhaps civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage.
Good.
If I'm ever elected, which is unlikely since I never run for anything, I'm swearing in on t he Constitution. Every American should at least believe in that.
Dont forget these countries if you are going to talk about "militant homosexuals"
Only "militant homosexuals" from the United States believe in free choice. Riiiiight...
It's nice how people can take things out of context and make pretty charts to slander a religion and probably make an attempt to dig at them for accepting the fact that homosexual sex is a sin and in God's eyes a homosexual couple is neither married or living out of sin.
It's biological based legislation. Bushmen of the Kalahari, former headhunters from Papua New Guinea, Native American tribes, Hindus, Taoists..... everyone except a bunch of militant homosexuals in the USA get that the "man and woman" joining relationship is known as "marriage" and same sex relationships are known as "friendships".
It's like a who's who of nutcase progressive nations and damned if we didn't join them. I'm wondering how long France will keep homosexual marriage with the outrage people have expressed against it there.
Meanwhile, most of the world and most of the United States maintains the sane position that if it isn't a man and a woman it isn't a marriage.
And be not conformed to this world....
Marriage LAW has to do with property rights, inheritance, etc. It has nothing to do with your pseudo-darwinist socio-biology claptrap. There are plenty of good reasons marriage as an institution evolved. The reasons marriage LAW evolved is quite different. We're talking about marriage LAW in case you didn't notice, wallowing in lumpen sociobiology the way you were.
Let me put it to you this way, since Conservatives like to legislate with the Bible: here ya go
Romans 12:2
If the rest of the world favored killing people indiscriminately would you be advocating that as well?