No gay scout leaders but lots of molested boys

[_Darth J]

The State has never defind marriage, religious people did. The State simply used the event to collect a tax.

It's like every time, I'm all, "No, he can't say anything stupider."

And yet I am always proven wrong.

[_LittleNipper]

Sorry, but with science lesbian couples will shortly be able have children that are biologically wholly theirs. And the same technology will then be available for male couples but will require a surrogate for the fertilized zygote.

Sorry, but such isn't a reality yet. And perhaps there will be dire health complications/consequences. Maybe the Anti-Christ will be such a product of a homosexual couple ----- Maybe such will be Satan's corruption of the virgin birth? Or maybe this is just another "Jetsons" moment.

[_Darth J]

Government did not define or establish marriage.

Okay, good. Go tell your local district attorney that you are purporting to marry elementary school children to adults, and let us know how that turns out.

Government recognized that which has been established by the Creator. Redefining marriage would affect how God's image is understood and portrayed, how we understand God-like love, and how kids understand their own gender identity.

First, the way God's image is understood and portrayed is a religious issue, not a legal issue. Second, you have not established what the legal definition of marriage is, and you are thus begging the question by talking about "redefining" a thing you have not yet defined in legal terms.

How about if Mitt Romney got elected, and the State started defining marriage in terms of Mormon polygamy? That's the way the LDS Church used to and the FLDS currently understands and portrays God's image. So you'd have no issues with that, right?

People are not arguing that homosexuals are lesser people or they ought to be ostracized in our society or that they ought not to enjoy the same freedoms or protections that the rest of us enjoy.

Oh, so you are in favor of same sex-marriage now.

The issue is that one doesn't rewrite the nature of God's design based on contemporary cultural mores.

The issue is that the alleged nature of God's design is not relevant to the legal issue of what the legal relationship called "marriage" is and who has the right to exercise it.

[_LittleNipper]

Okay, good. Go tell your local district attorney that you are purporting to marry elementary school children to adults, and let us know how that turns out.

First, the way God's image is understood and portrayed is a religious issue, not a legal issue. Second, you have not established what the legal definition of marriage is, and you are thus begging the question by talking about "redefining" a thing you have not yet defined in legal terms.
How about if Mitt Romney got elected, and the State started defining marriage in terms of Mormon polygamy? That's the way the LDS Church used to and the FLDS currently understands and portrays God's image. So you'd have no issues with that, right?

Oh, so you are in favor of same sex-marriage now.

The issue is that the alleged nature of God's design is not relevant to the legal issue of what the legal relationship called "marriage" is and who has the right to exercise it.

40 years ago, if I told the district attorney that I wanted to marry a man, I would have been taken to a sanitarium. 40 years from now (the way things are proceeding) the district attorney may try to hook me up with his own child... Actually, I can now imagine human with pet marriages. That should follow not long after polygamy is sanctioned. The issue is that the Federal Government didn't establish marriage. The Federal Government has no right to define marriage (a religions rite) to suit opinion polls. What the Federal Government should do is set up a legal bond (called a partnership). What the Federal Government has now done is to define what constitues religious criteria. And it is beginning to interfer with want people may publically believe and how they are to believe it. The Federal Government is in a real sense establishing State Religion. I am obviously not in favor of "State" marriage or its CONTROL of what constitues what marrige represents or how it is to be administered. Could the command of the Anti-Christ be far behind?

[_Darth J]

40 years ago, if I told the district attorney that I wanted to marry a man, I would have been taken to a sanitarium.

And likewise if 60 years ago you told the DA that you wanted to marry a black person.

40 years from now (the way things are proceeding) the district attorney may try to hook me up with his own child...

Yes, because every single gay person is a pedophile. Every one. Much like how every single Christian murders doctors at abortion clinics.

Actually, I can now imagine human with pet marriages. That should follow not long after polygamy is sanctioned.

I'm sure you can imagine that, because you are an idiot. It would be right around this point that a person whose I.Q. is greater than his shoe size would recognize that human/animal marriages are a non sequitur in the equal protection of law issue.

The issue is that the Federal Government didn't establish marriage. The Federal Government has no right to define marriage

Nobody argues otherwise, except the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act, who keep losing in court.

(a religions rite) to suit opinion polls.

Courts are not purporting to define marriage as a religious right, but as a legal relationship. Court also do not base their decisions on opinion polls (unless of course they reach a conclusion you don't like, in which case they a priori were doing things based on opinion polls). Striking down a ballot initiative because it is unconstitutional---like Prop 8 in California---is the opposite of suiting opinion polls.

What the Federal Government should do is set up a legal bond (called a partnership).

You bet they should! The hell with the 10th Amendment, I say! (It is at this point that I should mention that state governments have set up the type of partnership you suggest. It's called "marriage.")

What the Federal Government has now done is to define what constitues religious criteria.

No. What federal courts have done is follow the Constitution, which says that religious criteria cannot define legal relationships.

And it is beginning to interfer with want people may publically believe and how they are to believe it.

Clearly, if two gay people get married, you can no longer believe that homosexuality is a sin. Some people are atheists. This interferes with your right to believe in God. Some people practice Judaism. This interferes with your right to believe in the New Testament. People in Nevada can gamble. This interferes with your right to believe that gambling is a sin.

The Federal Government is in a real sense establishing State Religion.

I think it's just self-evident that if people have the right to do things contrary to your cherished beliefs, the government is making a mockery of your First Amendment rights.

I am obviously not in favor of "State" marriage or its CONTROL of what constitues what marrige represents or how it is to be administered. Could the command of the Anti-Christ be far behind?

If you only care about marriage as a religious sacrament, and not marriage as a legal relationship, then you have abdicated any complaint about same-sex couples having the legal right to enter the legal relationship of marriage.

[_LittleNipper]

40 years ago, if I told the district attorney that I wanted to marry a man, I would have been taken to a sanitarium.

And likewise if 60 years ago you told the DA that you wanted to marry a black person.

40 years from now (the way things are proceeding) the district attorney may try to hook me up with his own child...

Yes, because every single gay person is a pedophile. Every one. Much like how every single Christian murders doctors at abortion clinics.

Actually, I can now imagine human with pet marriages. That should follow not long after polygamy is sanctioned.

I'm sure you can imagine that, because you are an idiot. It would be right around this point that a person whose I.Q. is greater than his shoe size would recognize that human/animal marriages are a non sequitur in the equal protection of law issue.

The issue is that the Federal Government didn't establish marriage. The Federal Government has no right to define marriage

Nobody argues otherwise, except the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act, who keep losing in court.

(a religions rite) to suit opinion polls.

Courts are not purporting to define marriage as a religious right, but as a legal relationship. Court also do not base their decisions on opinion polls (unless of course they reach a conclusion you don't like, in which case they a priori were doing things based on opinion polls). Striking down a ballot initiative because it is unconstitutional---like Prop 8 in California---is the opposite of suiting opinion polls.

What the Federal Government should do is set up a legal bond (called a partnership).

You bet they should! The hell with the 10th Amendment, I say! (It is at this point that I should mention that state governments have set up the type of partnership you suggest. It's called "marriage.")

What the Federal Government has now done is to define what constitues religious criteria.

No. What federal courts have done is follow the Constitution, which says that religious criteria cannot define legal relationships.

And it is beginning to interfer with want people may publically believe and how they are to believe it.

Clearly, if two gay people get married, you can no longer believe that homosexuality is a sin. Some people are atheists. This interferes with your right to believe in God. Some people practice Judaism. This interferes with your right to believe in the New Testament. People in Nevada can gamble. This interferes with your right to believe that gambling is a sin.

The Federal Government is in a real sense establishing State Religion.

I think it's just self-evident that if people have the right to do things contrary to your cherished beliefs, the government is making a mockery of your First Amendment rights.

I am obviously not in favor of "State" marriage or its CONTROL of what constitues what marrige represents or how it is to be administered. Could the command of the Anti-Christ be far behind?

If you only care about marriage as a religious sacrament, and not marriage as a legal relationship, then you have abdicated any complaint about same-sex couples having the legal right to enter the legal relationship of marriage.

It doesn't matter what is right or what the majority wants anymore. The government presently does what it wishes and establishes it as freedom. Of course the Democrats want to keep the "gay" vote among other things. Nothing has been abdicated. GOD's LAW overrides what a government decides --- when those laws run counter to GOD's LAW. If that were not the case, then what the Nazi government did was TOTALLY legal --------------- they most certainly designed laws to back it all up and made the obscene murder of innocent people totally legal on paper. Of couse they lost the war. One can only imagine what would have happened if they won it. As for you assumption that one's I.Q. matters when it comes to marriage, I would say that a lot of very stupid people marry for all the wrong reasons and no one says a thing about it... In fact, it would seem to be even more encouraged than ever

[_ludwigm]

facts

It doesn't matter what is right or what the majority wants anymore.

I understand. Only it does matter what you want.

GOD's LAW overrides what a government decides

I've heard something about the relation of state and religion in US. Was it a hearsay?

[_Shulem]

I think it's obvious that little nipper-boy has an IQ of about 5 1/2, maybe 6.

And Darth, I get the feeling that 60 years ago nipper-boy would have loved to have married a black girl because he's so progressive and he knows that the god of the Bible loves everyone -- even black people.

What to do with poor nipper-boy? Hold him down, tie him up, and tickle his toes with a feather until he confesses with his tongue that not all gays are bad people. Tickle that Christian hate right out of him!

Paul O

[_LittleNipper]

I think it's obvious that little nipper-boy has an IQ of about 5 1/2, maybe 6.

And Darth, I get the feeling that 60 years ago nipper-boy would have loved to have married a black girl because he's so progressive and he knows that the god of the Bible loves everyone -- even black people.

What to do with poor nipper-boy? Hold him down, tie him up, and tickle his toes with a feather until he confesses with his tongue that not all gays are bad people. Tickle that Christian hate right out of him!

Paul O

Moses married an Ethiopean (his choice). Both color of skin and one's IQ are not chosen but a matter of one's birth. Who one has sex with and how one speaks to and about others is a matter of personal choices, coupled with one's own attitude ---- also a matter of choice (learned or not). Paul, I do not hate you. I don't even know you. I do not like everything my friends do. I enjoy being with them in spite of some things I disagree with. I do not judge them; however, they are aware of my firm Christian beliefs. They have come to regard my views as my desire for their good, and not a matter of insulting them. The line, one needs to love the sinner but not the sin, might sound cheap. It isn't meant to be. I feel homosexuals have qualities that are very special; however, the fact of their sexual behavior choices, underminds/overshadows these qualities --- much like drugs undermind one's talents. There is nothing wrong with guys liking to pal with other guys. However, looking at those guys as sex objects ruins the quality of relationship and destroys the desire to be a leader, husband, father, friend.

[_Drifting]

There is nothing wrong with guys liking to pal with other guys. However, looking at those guys as sex objects ruins the quality of relationship and destroys the desire to be a leader, husband, father, friend.

You seem to be asserting that gay men (I assume you also mean gay women) cannot be good leaders; parents; spouses; and friends because of their sexual orientation. I think that's hogwash. You only have to pick up the newspaper on any given day to see heterosexual parents abusing their children or spouses. I have found that gay non Mormon friends have tended to be far more genuine; more caring; more thoughtful and considerate; more loyal; less judgemental etc than heterosexual Mormons. That's either because of their sexuality or their religious persuasion, you choose...