- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,575
- Reaction score
- 6,767
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
They're trying to create something that didn't exist before and using a term that has offended many people.
I suspect that is the point of wanting it in the first place but, I could be off-base.
They are the will of the people of the state who voted for them and no liberal activist judge should be allowed to overturn them.....To me its not against gays hooking up......call it anything you want just don't change the definition of marriage.
I don't recognize the comparison. Use some other example that actually makes sense.
Read.
I was speaking of indoctrination, not comparing people of different races with homosexuals.
When our children are scolded for not accepting sinful acts as normal, there's something pretty messed up going on.
No ones opinion is any less important than another here and, YOU as a Mod, should adhere to that notion.
Not if one considers SSM a sinful 'commitment'
That's what you fail to grasp.
Faith! Find faith.
Yes, that's a conundrum for those who don't embrace the knowledge God has passed to us.
You have been told all of you life that it harms no one and is perfectly natural when in reality it harms us all in God's eyes
What are most opponants of SSM?
Religious
I asked "how far will it go" and got no answer (including from you)
50 years ago, no one expected Gays and Ssm to be normalized or legal.
My point is as valid as it gets.
They're trying to create something that didn't exist before and using a term that has offended many people.
I suspect that is the point of wanting it in the first place but, I could be off-base.
A single member of a court cannot (should not be able to) decide that for the people who voted against it. Let the states decide.
The fact that you choose not to recognize the comparison isn't surprising. 50-years ago the majority of people didn't want to see interracial couples married. They were in for a big surprise by 1967 and were probably just as pissed as you are.
>>>>
No they are not trying to "create" something new. Yet again, doesn't force anyones beliefs on you, you don't have to marry someone of the same sex.
Firstly, morality is relative. Secondly, since the acts are not sinful, there is nothing to scold. And thirdly, since there is nothing abnormal about the acts (if we forget about statistics), there is, again, nothing to scold.
Your opinions are less important than facts. What you consistently do is present your opinions as if the ARE facts, which they are not. I will keep pointing this out.
Then that is YOUR problem and yours alone. Your particular problem with it has no bearing on anyone else's relationship.
No, they're not. There are plenty of religious people who SUPPORT SSM. I am one. Most opponents of SSM are either rigid, uneducated on the issue, or who allow personal opinion to trump facts. I have no issue with you being against SSM because of your religious beliefs. I do have issue with you pretending that these opinions that you hold are facts and trying to present them as such.
Again...talking about *beyond* SSM. When will the depravity end?
Since they are creating something *new...they can call it something *else.
Is that so hard? Or would that fly in the face of the whole agenda?
Again...talking about *beyond* SSM. When will the depravity end?
Since they are creating something *new...they can call it something *else.
Is that so hard? Or would that fly in the face of the whole agenda?
I might believe you except for the the actual real world experiences I've had in my own family.
Since they are creating something *new...they can call it something *else.
Is that so hard? Or would that fly in the face of the whole agenda?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?