Muslim Fantics and Christian Hypocrites.

Two thoughts Scott. First, not everyone who is against gay marriage being legalized is a Christian. Secondly, how are Christians being hypocritical in opposing gay marriage. Christians believe homosexuality is immoral and a sin against God who created us. Believing this, would they not be hypocrites if they supported gay marriage, not oppose it?

One other thought. You state that Christians are forcing their views on society. But let's turn things around a bit. Are not gays forcing their beliefs on a society that has never recognized gay marriage? Are not they the ones trying to force society to accept a new definition of marriage?

I find it funny for people to believe some group, just by supporting a particular point of view, are accused of "trying to force beliefs" on everyone else. After all, every law that is passed is in effect one group "forcing their belief" on all of society. Is it not? I don't particularly agree that 18 year olds should not be allowed to legally drink alcoholic beverages. But a portion of this country has "forced this belief" on the rest of us.

Hope you see the point I'm trying to make here. Have a good day.

Hi Scott. Not everyone does agree with my viewpoint. I don't know why since I know I'm always right. But that's another discussion. Seriously, I do understand what you're saying. My response to you would be simply that gays currently do have the right to marry. They just cannot marry anyone of the same sex. Why not? Well, because marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is marriage.

They wish to change that definition, thus forcing their view on our society. I wish for the definition to remain the same, thus forcing society to maintain the historic definition (and my view). I have repeatedly stated on threads concerning this that the gay community can gain what they claim they seek (the same rights as married couples) simply by agreeing to some type of civil union not called marriage. While many Christians will still fight this, many others will see it as a fair compromise to give gay couples the same secular rights as married couples.

CoastalRat wrote:

Hi Scott. Not everyone does agree with my viewpoint. I don't know why since I know I'm always right. But that's another discussion. Seriously, I do understand what you're saying. My response to you would be simply that gays currently do have the right to marry. They just cannot marry anyone of the same sex. Why not? Well, because marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is marriage.

This is not TRUE at all, sorry to say.
Take for example Polygamy marriage to multiple partners, are not they all in a sense married to each other. Wether or not its 1 man and 10 women, or 1 woman and 10 men, they are all married together.

My whole point is it should be a person's CHOICE who they marry or not marry and NO ONE should be allowed to deny them of that.

They wish to change that definition, thus forcing their view on our society. I wish for the definition to remain the same, thus forcing society to maintain the historic definition (and my view). I have repeatedly stated on threads concerning this that the gay community can gain what they claim they seek (the same rights as married couples) simply by agreeing to some type of civil union not called marriage. While many Christians will still fight this, many others will see it as a fair compromise to give gay couples the same secular rights as married couples.

Hi Scott. Not everyone does agree with my viewpoint. I don't know why since I know I'm always right. But that's another discussion. Seriously, I do understand what you're saying. My response to you would be simply that gays currently do have the right to marry. They just cannot marry anyone of the same sex. Why not? Well, because marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is marriage. They wish to change that definition, thus forcing their view on our society. I wish for the definition to remain the same, thus forcing society to maintain the historic definition (and my view).

I have repeatedly stated on threads concerning this that the gay community can gain what they claim they seek (the same rights as married couples) simply by agreeing to some type of civil union not called marriage. While many Christians will still fight this, many others will see it as a fair compromise to give gay couples the same secular rights as married couples.

Huh? Are you trying to say that if a man has ten wives those wives are married to the other wives? Sorry but that dog don't hunt at all!

Scott777ab wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Hi Scott. Not everyone does agree with my viewpoint. I don't know why since I know I'm always right. But that's another discussion. Seriously, I do understand what you're saying. My response to you would be simply that gays currently do have the right to marry. They just cannot marry anyone of the same sex. Why not? Well, because marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is marriage.

This is not TRUE at all, sorry to say.
Take for example Polygamy marriage to multiple partners, are not they all in a sense married to each other. Wether or not its 1 man and 10 women, or 1 woman and 10 men, they are all married together.

Arella Mae wrote:

Huh? Are you trying to say that if a man has ten wives those wives are married to the other wives? Sorry but that dog don't hunt at all!

Can you prove that wrong?

Quote:

My whole point is it should be a person's CHOICE who they marry or not marry and NO ONE should be allowed to deny them of that.

Arella Mae wrote:

Why give them special rights? They already have the same rights the rest of us have. We are all bound by the same law, marrying someone of the opposite sex. Why should this be made special?

And what I am saying is there should be NO LAWS about marriage, at all. Marriage in history is a reglious instituion, not a governmental one. The government should have no say at all on the matter. If someone can find any religion that will marry them well then they are married.

And on top of that people don't just marry someone of the opposite sex, they usually NOW DAYS marry for LOVE, or for STATE, (aka King and Queen they are not always in love when married). To me that is kind of MESSED up, (wanted to use the F word instead but didn't) marrying for state and not love.

And if LOVE is the only GOOD and TRUE reason a person SHOULD get married then gays who LOVE their partner SHOULD be allowed to marry if they kind find a religious instituion that will marry them.

CoastalRat wrote:

They wish to change that definition, thus forcing their view on our society. I wish for the definition to remain the same, thus forcing society to maintain the historic definition (and my view). I have repeatedly stated on threads concerning this that the gay community can gain what they claim they seek (the same rights as married couples) simply by agreeing to some type of civil union not called marriage. While many Christians will still fight this, many others will see it as a fair compromise to give gay couples the same secular rights as married couples.

Arella Mae wrote:

Personally, I don't think it shouild be allowed but like I said, if they lobby within the law and make it legal, well, then it's legal and I won't have a thing to say about it other than I don't like it and don't condone it.

And that was another one of my points.
Christians, most of them any how would THROUGH A HISSY FIT if it became legal, and that is WHERE THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.

Can you prove that wrong?

And that was another one of my points.
Christians, most of them any how would THROUGH A HISSY FIT if it became legal, and that is WHERE THEY ARE HYPOCRITES

Yeah, but Scott, since there are legal issues involving marriage, spousal insurance, child custody, etc., the government must establish criteria in order to manage those issues.

And throwing a hissy fit would accomplish what? Nothing, nada, zip. So, we are all left with the same thing. We vote for the things we want and we vote against the things we don't want. Whatever the outcome, that is what the law becomes.

And what makes you think you should have the RIGHT to vote on someones LIFE LIBERITY or PROPERITY.

This nation is founded on LIFE LIBERITY and the PURSUTE OF HAPPINESS.

So if gay marriage makes on happy, then according to The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America IT IS ALREADY LEGAL.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

AND WHEN A GOVERNMENT GOES AGAINST THIS WHAT DOES The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America SAY TO DO.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

IT SAYS TO THROW OFF SUCH A GOVERNMENT.
DESTORY IT.
GET RID OF IT.
That which would deny someone of their RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERITY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

I have more of a LEG to STAND on than you THINK.
I AM STANDING ON WHAT The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America says.

It is you CHRISTIAN FANATICS who HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON.
NOR DOES THE CON OR THE DEC GIVE ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
READ IT.

Only the ELECTORS have the RIGHT TO VOTE.
EAT THAT.

Only the ELECTORS have the RIGHT TO VOTE.
EAT THAT.

Scott777ab wrote:

Only the ELECTORS have the RIGHT TO VOTE.
EAT THAT.

The only time that electors are involved is in a presidential election. In all other elections, the people vote directly.

Your off handed remark does not add much to your credibility!

Quote:

And what makes you think you should have the RIGHT to vote on someones LIFE LIBERITY or PROPERITY.

That would be the same right you have Scott. You vote your conscience, don't you? Well, so do I and so does everyone else.

Quote:

This nation is founded on LIFE LIBERITY and the PURSUTE OF HAPPINESS.

You forgot something here Scott, WITHIN THE LAWS OF THE LAND!

Quote:

So if gay marriage makes on happy, then according to The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America IT IS ALREADY LEGAL.

Uh, no it's not. If it was there wouldn't be states trying to make it legal.

Quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

AND WHEN A GOVERNMENT GOES AGAINST THIS WHAT DOES The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America SAY TO DO.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

IT SAYS TO THROW OFF SUCH A GOVERNMENT.
DESTORY IT.
GET RID OF IT.
That which would deny someone of their RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERITY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

I have more of a LEG to STAND on than you THINK.
I AM STANDING ON WHAT The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America says.

It is you CHRISTIAN FANATICS who HAVE NO LEG TO STAND ON.
NOR DOES THE CON OR THE DEC GIVE ANY ONE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
READ IT.

Only the ELECTORS have the RIGHT TO VOTE.
EAT THAT.

Excuse me? I have no right to vote? Where do you live? I live in the United States and I do have a right to vote and I do vote and I vote MY CONSCIENCE whether you or anyone else likes it or not. You have the same option!