McGentrix wrote:I gave your statement the most appropriate answer.
Peoples fear of other peoples religion is ridiculous. What's the worse thing that could possibly happen? What is it about people of faith that have the liberals in such an uproar? Is it the insecurity in knowing others have a belief system?
We live in a free country, which means people are free to practice their religion as they see fit. 70% of this country are practicing Christians and no matter what us non-christians believe or don't believe we must live with that.
We could end up with a bunch of bull headed leaders who start never ending crusade wars that claim the lives and resources of untold numbers of people and societies for centuries on end for starters......
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:McGentrix wrote:au1929 wrote:The religious folks are only trying to save all the sinners from ending up in hell.evil: Morals, morals IMO they should stick their morals where the sun don't shine.
Throughout history religion has been the catalyst for divisiveness with their holier than thou attitude. The American Taliban [Evangelists] is as much a danger to this nation as fundamental Islam is.
That's a load of bull.
You know McGentrix I spent some time in the corner for this kind of posting....perhaps you need a time out.....
If you don't like my post, feel free to report it. That's why it's there.
don't want to elbow in to anyone elses area....
McGentrix wrote:I gave your statement the most appropriate answer.
Peoples fear of other peoples religion is ridiculous. What's the worse thing that could possibly happen?
How about being beaten up or even murdered by one of these hateful wackos?
listen harper you rabble rousing pervert...fears smears queers pretzels and beers rhymes perfectly....wanna fight about it? :wink:
Harper wrote:McGentrix wrote:I gave your statement the most appropriate answer.
Peoples fear of other peoples religion is ridiculous. What's the worse thing that could possibly happen?
How about being beaten up or even murdered by one of these hateful wackos?
That's already against the law and hate crime legislation passed quite easily to add extra time to the verdicts.
against the law or not, the result is the same....and the law does not deter it anymore than it deters any other crime of ignorance or "passion"....
McG
Yes it is a free country and people should be able to practice or not practice religion as they see fit. And indeed the law of the land calls for separation of church and state. Unfortunately, the evangelists do not believe in that concept. They would have everyone through legislation be forced to adhere to what they deem to be moral.
McGentrix wrote:Kristie wrote:So then by your statement you agree that heterosexuals must live with homosexuals, correct? And if we are free to practice our own religion, then we must all be free to practice our own sexuality. And our own life style. So, what's with the ban?
Is this directed at me?
sure. and to anyone else who approves the ban. just being curious, not nasty.
You are right about the seperation of church and state. Marriage is a religious institution. Thus, the government should keeps it's nose out of it and enact a civil union available to all couples.
That's the reality of the situation. Gay marriage will not be legal in the US. If I were a homosexual, I would be aiming for the civil union that grants the same rights as marriage. It's a losing fight to try to legalize gay marriage, but most people will support the civil union.
I agree with you McGen. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Leave it in the church. Make civil unions available. You can be legally married without being married in a church now so why not just make the split and make it official?
McG, it may take awhile but gays will eventually be bestowed the same rights as everyone.
I must be missing something here. I am under the impression that gays have the exact same rights as everyone else in this country. What they want is to change the law to give them additional rights.
Like McG, I think more support will be given to gay unions if provisions are made to differentiate between marriages (a religious rite) and civil unions (a secular rite).
CoastalRat wrote:I must be missing something here. I am under the impression that gays have the exact same rights as everyone else in this country. What they want is to change the law to give them additional rights.
Like McG, I think more support will be given to gay unions if provisions are made to differentiate between marriages (a religious rite) and civil unions (a secular rite).
I have been married 5 times....twice in a church...twice by a JP...once by a magistrate......all the marriages save one ended in divorce....like 50% of every marriage...I am not unusual.....where does the sacred religious rite part come in?
before anyone chimes in ...yes, five marriages may be unusual but marriage ended in divorce is not, which is what I was getting at....
McG
In this nation and in most nations marriage can be a religious or a civil function. In reality marriage is simply a legal contract between to people and nothing more. The sanctity of marriage is a fraud. As I have noted previously 50% of marriages end up in divorce and more than likely 25% of the reaming are chasing around breaking the contract.
BPB
Married five times. You must be a glutton for punishment. :wink:
No, the sanctity of marriage is a fraud to some people. To others it is very real and very important. Why should we make their beliefs less important than anyone elses?
