I never said God wanted it.
Yes, you did.
I believe God intended for there to be slaves
????
Intended and wanted are 2 different words last time I checked.
why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?
Isn't that up to the nation to figure out, not you or I alone?
Yes. "What the majority wants" and "What the Constitution requires" are not identical things.
It's a very simple question, riVeRraT. It would be nice if you answered it:
What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?
Are you saying that it is better to allow popular prejudice to subjugate the minority than to fight for a free society where all can live without interference?
Do you not understand that if you claim that "majority rules" is the end-all/be-all of government, that the majority can quite easily turn against you? What will you do then? Simply grin and bear it? "Well, if that majority wants me flayed on national television and made to eat the excrement of a thousand camels, then that's what I'll do because, well, majority rules!"
What you're arguing for, riVeRraT, is moral relativism: That whatever the majority decides is good and right and just actually is good and right and just, that there are no standards of behaviour that transcend popular whim, and that the only reason marauders shouldn't rape you to death, eat your flesh, and sew your skin into their clothing...and if you're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order1...is that said marauders don't want to for now?
There you go again putting words in my mouth again.
Constitution first then majority(consitution has priority over majority, intil the majority changes it). Didn't I type it that way? Why is it that you don't understand that, or is it your narrow view of christians that makes you put words in my mouth?
But the Constituion requires equal treatment under the law and thus things like same-sex marriage.
Using the words "equal treatment" and "same sex marriage" in the same sentence is a contradiction of terms. You have to define that same sex marriage is different than straight, but you also claim that it is equal.
They can have equal rights, but under a different law, one that isn't on the books yet.
It to me is so funny how they want to be the same, yet they want to be different.
Can you think of a single non-religious argument that can justify denying the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement of equal treatment under the law and thus same-sex marriage should be legal? Let's hear it. Let's hear this wonderful legal argument that somehow justifies treating one class of people differently under the law that doesn't invoke any sort of religious theme.
I believe I gave valid reasons for this also. are you reading my posts?
If it was OK to "redefine" marriage as being between people of different races, even though the founders never considered that to be allowable, why is it not OK to "redefine" marriage as being between people of the same sex?
Because we are talking about man with man woman with woman and man with woman, which has nothing to do with race, why would you compare the 2?
Being gay is not a race. There is no race of gay people.
You can understand why some would find you a threat to a free society.
This is what my belief religous and non-religious is trying to protect, our freedom. You don't see that, because you choose not to believe in God, and you feel same sex marraige is the same. when the word marraige was invented it was not intended to describe man with man, or woman with woman. It was modified to clarify the difference, as should our constitution, to provide equal rights for a different thing.
How did you make your choice? I want specifics. How many men did you sleep with before you decided that you didn't like it? Is it possible that you just didn't find the right man? Whom do you still find sexually attractive and what would it take to make you reconsider your choice?
Who the heck do you think you are? lmao
Then you went on to talk about hot steamy man sex, as if you knew what that was.
This was and is none of your business.
Have you ever been approached by a gay person? Has he asked to be with you? Did you make a choice? Are you now a bi-sexual because of that?
Because there are gays in the world we are all now bi-sexual? Is this what you are saying?
But the First Amendment clearly indicates that religious justifications have no place in government.
So why are you bringing it up?
Because this is a forum(not the government) where people state their opinions, reguardless of what you think it should be. I can point out more things for you if needed.
What you don't understand and what you have been told repeatedly is that nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. Nobody is saying you have to like gays, get married to someone of the same sex, or have sex with someone of the same sex.
I am being asked to give tax dollars to support such an issue.
This does not mean that they can't have equal rights, just a clarification of the difference between the 2.
Your insistence that gay people are not entitled to equal treatment under the law is, indeed, unamerican.
again? words in the mouth.
I did. The fact that you don't like what you said is not my fault. You said you would fight a law that granted equal access to marriage by people of the same sex.
How can you possibly justify that with an equivalent claim that you would fight for the rights granted by the Constitution when the Constitution clearly indicates that gay people are entited to equal access to marriage due to the fact that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law?
You are nothing but a trouble maker, and you are inspiring gays to hate me and all christians for our beliefs, yet we do not hate them or you (true christians) Because I want a clarification between the 2 different kinds of marraige, does not mean that I do not want equal rights for both, or anyone else for that matter.
I never said I fight a law that would grant equal access to marraige of people of the same sex. You said it.
Why do you feel the need to differentiate between the 2 different kinds of marraige, I wonder? Because they are different, but should be allowed based on freedom.
What if I want to marry a lamb? Would I be covered?
What if i wanted 3 wives?
There needs to be clarification.
Also you need to go look up the word spouse and see why that word wouldn't work either.
Spouse is plural of spouse, does that mean I can have more than one wife?
Main Entry: 1spouse
Pronunciation: 'spaus also 'spauz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French espous (masculine) & espouse (feminine), from Latin sponsus betrothed man, groom & sponsa betrothed woman, bride, both from sponsus, past participle of spondEre to promise, betroth; akin to Greek spendein to pour a libation, Hittite sipant-
: married person : HUSBAND, WIFE
™ Version 4.2