Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

I think the point is that there is nothing revisionist about the current interpretation of the first amendment. Further, there is a history of abuse that more than justifies what Jefferson did. Puritans vs Quakers vs Catholics from the very early days of this nation. Yikes.

Yes, and we also have individual idiot fundamentalists who spew hate and bigotry. One NC pastor said that gay folks should be fenced off from the rest of humanity until they die off. One individual opinion means little and is not representative.

I can guarantee you that I'll be reciting this line of discussion in a future thread. This was flat out pathetic on your part.

Would have? We don't need to make hypotheticals or speculate. Obergefell v Hodges and the other attached cases were all about state enforced indignities lumped on gay couples. Not being able to be listed on a death certificate so their loved ones could be cremated, lack of support for their adopted children or their rights to adopt. And states like North Carolina not only outlawed gay marriage, they outlawed any attempt for recognition of gay unions including state granted rights.Had that not been the way the states were screwing over the civil rights of their citizens, April DeBoer, James Obergefell, David Michener would not have had injuries to complain about. The Supreme Court was left with little choice but to declare that not having your marriage recognized was an injury that was not allowable under the Constitution.

Tangle is an atheist. He would call anything involving God superstition. Your attempts to read what he wrote do not make much sense.Sins are things we do against God. That concept is different from things that are wrong because they are crimes, hurtful, stingy, evil, etc although there is a great deal of overlap.

We are talking about Tangle's perspective and not your own.

That's all fine, and a great summary of what the Bible records. The problem with that is that we don't see that kind of connection in very many cases of adultery and murder.Have you ever heard the story about Lazarus and the rich man? Do you remember when it was that God's justice was applied?

Luke 16:19-31.

What I was saying is not important. I was hoping that a Christian would understand what Jesus was saying. Given our past interactions, I don't think there is much point in my injecting any of my own thoughts here. Let's leave it at that.

It is a bit of both actually. I understand that the wording of the 10 commandments seem to make it about property, but the fact that men could also commit adultery means it wasn't just about men's property. And of course, men were not women's property.

There are biblical laws against a lot of stuff, but in the past, when confronted with the facts that Christians single out homosexuality to get all huffy about despite the fact that other sins that are labeled as abominations are ignored, you've tried to make the point that homosexuality was some special abomination.Your ability to extend that to men wearing woman's clothing exposes the hypocrisy of that entire line of argument, as if we could not already see the inconsistency in it.Unless the locals are absolute morons, they will avoid the excesses that caused their last ruling to be overturned by the Supreme Court. Apparently this fool is giving them plenty of ammunition.

Your posts are way too long and rambling. I am not sure the extra sentences are helping you to make your case.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.