The future of marriage

First, approving MARRIAGE (not simply civil unions) for gays, is not an attack on Christianity. Supporting MARRIAGE, full, equal and identical rights for homosexuals is a Christian Duty. Opposing such rights has nothing to do with Christianity and is simply bigotry. Good!First off, marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. Marriage is no more Christian than it is Jewish or Hindu or Wiccan. Marriage is a secular contract, nothing more.A secular marriage can be sanctified by your church, but you cannot get married without first getting the secular license. Your marriage cannot be dissolved without secular approval as well.Allowing homosexuals to get married changes nothing. If your cult decides not to recognize gay marriage, fine. It is your right within your cult to be bigots. That does not allow you to impose your narrow ideas of morality though on the rest of the world.If you think homosexuality is a sin, fine. Go right ahead believing that. But sins are between God and the sinner. The sins of folk other than yourself are none of your business.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Bullshit.Sin has nothing to do with rights. And homosexuality is not a sin in the first place except in the minds of SOME folk.The duty of a Christian is NOT to "extricate people from their sins because they care enough about them not to allow follow their desires down the primrose path". The duty of a Christian is to try to live their own lives as best they can.Your life. Not others lives. No I would not agree. Sorry but that is just more NONSENSE for Jesus. Notice I did not say you are lying because I imagine you actually believe that bullshit.You said, "Secular law defines marriage as being a man and a woman, not a man and man, a woman and a woman, a man and a dog, a woman and a goat, or a man and a tree." If that were true there would be no need for all you bigots to propose NEW laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman. In reality, that is absolutely false statement and you have been told before that it is a false statement and the fact that bigots like you support NEW laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman totally refutes your assertion.You also try the old conman trick of trying to misdirect the readers attention while you palm the pea. No one is talking about a man and a dog or a man and a tree. To introduce such things is just plain dishonest. Again, just another FALSE statement for Jesus. In reality, that is absolutely false statement and you have been told before that it is a false statement and the fact that bigots like you support NEW laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman totally refutes your assertion. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then do not commit homosexual acts.The only sins you business dealing with are YOUR sins. Other peoples sins are none of your damn business

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry, but it looks like not only do your posts seem racist and bigoted, you also seem supremely ignorant or you are just plain being dishonest.What did the "Defense of Marriage Act" do? It defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.What are all the laws being passed in the states doing? They are defining marriage as between a man and a woman.Those are NEW laws being passed. Ah, another classic tactic of the conman. Change the subject. Create a false dichotomy. Move the goal posts and throw in a strawman at the same time. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Typical example of the ignorance of most Christians.Laws have NOTHING to do with sin. Sin is something decided between the individual and GOD. Other peoples sins are none of your business.Police enforce laws. Laws are not related to sins. Laws are behavior standards agreed upon by society.You say: Again with the left? Folk don't dance when a priest or minister backslides. Frankly, it is the right that gets upset and sends the person away. What the rest of the world does, and that includes those on the left as well as conservatives like myself, is point out the total hypocrisy and bankruptcy of the Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Religious Right movements.Do you think most folk care when a minister sins with his gay prostitute? Hell no. Frankly, I don't even see a problem with it if it was consensual. Why do you even care? Others peoples sins are none of your business.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, we don't doubt that many folk feel that way. The question is, "What does that have to do with anything?"Denying human rights just because folk think living by the Constitution and really acknowledging equal rights is silly is silly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hoot Mon pulls the classic conman trick of trying to misdirect the audience's attention while he palms the pea. Not only are you trying the good old Gish Gallop but it is just yet another stupid comment.The answer is of course, "Hell yes I would accept such a transfusion."Only an idiot would not.BUT...that has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Like I said, only an idiot would turn down such a transfusion.First, transfusions are given when the choice is die NOW unless you get blood.While there might be a faint possibility of getting HIV from such a transfusion, the other option is not getting the transfusion and dying for sure right then.In addition, HIV is treatable and far more folk not only live with HIV but increasingly have a good quality of life.Finally, HIV is NOT limited to homosexuals. There is as high a possibility of HIV infection among promiscuous heterosexuals or drug users of ANY sexual orientation.Your example was simply stupid. Sorry, no other way to describe it.Once again, as usual, you were simply trying to misdirect the audience attention so they didn't see you palm the pea, change the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You continue to try to misdirect folks attention while you palm the pea. Fortunately many of us are not taken in by snake oil salesmen like you.The issue is really very simple. By denying homosexuals the right to marry you deny them equal protection under the law. You deny them inheritance rights, access to health care, protection under spousal abuse laws, power of attorney rights and the right to speak for a spouse.It has nothing to do with blood, with HIV or anything else.I did not say anything about blood analysis, I simply said only an idiot would turn down a blood transfusion regardless of the source when the other option was a sure and immediate death.You can continue to try to change the subject, but I will be here to remind you and all the readers of just what you are doing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Even if that were true, what the hell does it have to do with marriage?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You don't seem to understand, that would be "Straight HIV" not that thar "Queer HIV".LOLThese are all the same old stupid arguments we went through about 50 years ago. It is the same ignorant folk that fought integration, didn't want that darkie blood or darkie organs.The names have changed but it is still the same folk opposing progress and civil rights and in that half century they have not even been able to think of one new obstacle or objection.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, sorry. It was meant to be an insult to folk like you. But I old and sometimes not as accurate as I once was.I'll try to make it clearer.You're just trying once again to misdirect folk so you can palm the pea, change the subject, without them noticing.So once again you want to play dancing goal posts. Now we have made the GREAT CIRCLE and we are back to changing the meaning of marriage.The tactic you are now using is that every time the fallacy of your position is demonstrated you move to another one. Eventually you arrive back at the beginning and hope that we won't remember how your argument went down in flames last time.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Another bullshit attempt to mislead the audience. The issue is not your opinion. No one really cares what your opinion is. It is your actions, your behavior that we object to. I don't really give a damn what your opinion is, only when you try to make stupid assertions like blood transfusions are related to the issue of marriage do I speak out.As to Nosy's suggestion, I have long advocated a simple, one line Federal Law which supersedes all State and Local Laws. It would say that anywhere in any Law or Regulation the word Marriage or Married is used the term Civil Union or Civilly United may be inserted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ROTFLMAO.The Churches already have the right to decide who is or is not married. They already have that. No one is proposing taking that right away from them.Look, if some church full of bigots does not want to recognize same-sex marriages as valid, they are free to do so. If homosexuals were allowed to marry, the churches could still continue to show their asses by denying it is a valid marriage.NO ONE cares whether a church recognizes a marriage as valid except the member of that church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here is the deal.Right now there are over 1000 Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations that are based on the word Marriage.So here is jar's proposal.Let same-sex couples get married. Then the Churches can call their ceremony Theological-Union.That way everyone has what they want, Churches can recognize or ignore any Theological-Unions and keep their nose out of Marriage.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion