Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

What are you talking about? The First Amendment does not allow public business to discriminate.And being unable to discriminate with your public business in no way affects your ability to practice your religion.

From a legal perspective, marriage is just a contract that establishes rights and obligations.You're talking about marriage as a religious institution.Nobody wants to change the religious aspects of marriage, they only want to change the legal ones.

Different cultures have different religious aspects and different governments have different legal aspects. There is no universally recognized institution unless you strip all the different marriages of their defining qualities.Which, of course, is what you will do and claim that they're all just between a man and a woman. Well, there's a lot more to it than that. Then forget the whole legal aspect of it. You can go have your private religious marriages outside of the government like the Mormons and Wiccans do.And too, all the legal stuff that people are doing for the gays must be inconsequential to you if you don't think there should be any legal criteria. Instead, though, you're acting like it will actually affect you in some way. But it won't.And of course, despite your opinion that there shouldn't be any legal criteria, you would demand the legal protections that you'd expect from a marriage if and when you ever found yourself in a courtroom. Then you're not even talking about what people are talking about with gay marriage. They're just talking about the legal institution. They couldn't care less about your private matters.The only leg you're ever going to be left with to stand on, is all the nonsense you spout about gay marriage leading to the judgement of the nation.But that's just religious belief and should have zero impact on the legality of the situation.

Then you really shouldn't care at all. Why would you care about that? Especially if it doesn't affect you?And if it truly cannot be validated in nature, then it doesn't matter at all if governments are validating it "outside of nature" - it still wouldn't be valid in nature and you should have no complaint.But regardless, it has been validated from a legal standpoint. And no, you don't have to treat it as valid.You can keep going on believing that all the gay marriages are invalid even thought the state has recognized them.Now that you've changed your argument to this, you really don't have any leg to stand on.Under this standpoint, there really is no good reason for you to oppose the state recognizing gay peoples' marriages. It has zero impact on you and you don't even have to think they're valid either.There is absolutely zero benefit to yourself in you opposing it. From a legal standpoint it is a contract. Who would oversee the the particulars of, and any disagreements within, the contract if not the government?Further, whoever you do choose to govern these contracts is going to end up being a governing body anyways. So it might as well be the already established government.Even more so, governments have been involved in marriages since governments have existed. That's the whole point of having contacts is so that a governing body can come in and rule on it if anything ever goes wrong.

So, doom and gloom from the Almighty God if we let them gays get married?Is that about all of it?Or is there some other way that you think gay marriage is going to affect the condition of society?

Uh, no. He was obviously saying that you are substituting fantasy in place of reality.Since that is what you have defined as mind rape then that is what you are doing.

Of course, they're obviously not the same. I don't think they care about universal recognition. Nobody is going to stop you from believing that their marriages are unnatural or illegitimate.The treatment that they are attempting to get is an equal protection of the legal rights associated with the legal contract of marriage that the state is involved in.That you consider this to be a substitution of a fantasy in place of reality, because it goes against your religious beliefs, is not a sufficient reason to stop or prevent the legal precedings.Since you admit that it won't affect you personally, and faced with the fact that you have no legal dispute (as you admit by stating that you think that the government should just stay out of it), then shouldn't you just stay out of the way and keep your mouth shut? No, you don't. None of them really care about that. They just want that legal stuff that you agree the government should be involved in anyways.As you've admitted, its too late as they already are; so why do you care enough to fight against it?You admit that it won't affect you personally. Faced with the fact that there doesn't have to be a universal treatment of sameness, how else are you going to excuse your behavior?

You're right, you don't have to. But it is a way. You can't know that because you are not one of them.Go ahead and ask them if they care about the things that I said that they didn't, and instead if they really care about the things that I said that they did.I think they'll tell you that I'm right and you're wrong.

Except, as I've explained, since you don't even think the government should be involved in marriage, then any changes to that government definition cannot destroy what you hold the meaning of marriage to be.You've admitted it has no impact on you.This objection of yours is hollow.

Let me get this straight, you think that the government should not be involved in marriages.But you also let them define, for you, what marriage means to you?How could that possibly work? I guess I just cannot understand trying to stop something that I have no personal concern for. Wow, you're judging their motivation? How rude.Honestly Faith, regarding gay marriage, all the gays want is equal rights. They don't care about what you think about their marriages. They just want to be able to enter the contract with each other.I'm sure there are some that are seeking societal progress and acceptance and stuff, but that's really a side issue to the question of whether or not they can enter into a legal contract. This doesn't make sense at all.You're acting like if society re-defines marriage, then everyone must accept and embrace that definition. But then you're also arguing that society cannot change the real definition of marriage, because it means something different to you.That's contradictory. And think about it: How can a legal definition change your personal definition? You still perfectly capable of not considering those gay marriages to be real marriages. How could a re-definition make you think otherwise?And if it can't happen to you, then what makes you think that its going to happen to anyone else?

And you're creating your own version of what Biblical Marriage is.At least jar is quoting the Bible. You're just making stuff up.

Maybe for religions, but from a legal standpoint it is still just two people entering a social contract.Remember, nobody care what your religion thinks of marriage, they just want the legal rights.All this religious stuff you keep mentioning is really beside the point.

Outside of the participants being male and female, there are all kinds of differences between different cultures' rules and laws regarding marriage.As far as just uniting heterosexuals, well, not any more. Its changing. And I agreed that you don't have to, but it is a way to get there.Just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't. From a legal standpoint, it is just another contract.How is it different, legally, from other contracts?

Except, well, it doesn't undermine the meaning of marriage.You can still have your traditional marriage. You can still reject that gay marriages count. Nothing has been undermined. You keep saying this stuff... really Faith, they just want equal rights.Cognitive dissonance and cynicism truly have nothing to do with it.

Here's part of what he said:

quote:

---

8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

​

10 The disciples said to him, If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.

​

11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

---

That last line always made me wonder...Those who can accept it should. Doesn't that imply that there are those that cannot accept it? And therefore they don't have to accept it?Sounds to me like Jesus left some leeway in there.And I still think that he was using "eunuchs that were born that way" to refer to gay people.If they are unable to accept marrying the opposite sex, then they don't have to accept that.I think Jesus would realize that there's really nothing wrong with two people of the same sex getting married, per se. But especially in the legal sense. His, seemingly, stance against it looks like it was based on the Law of Moses, and we just don't follow that any more.Of course if there is a religious argument against it, then that's fine and dandy if you don't want to enter a gay marriage. But that shouldn't stand in the way of what the laws say.