Gay Marriage

[eolesen]

Uh, seems you're really reaching on this one...

When's the last time Gingrich was running for office, and when did Palin get accused of having sex out of wedlock or committing adultery?

I get the fact you can't stand Christians, but if you're going to make these grand pronouncements, at least try to use someone actually in or running for office who is guilty of the offenses you're listing...

 

[Ms Tree]

Uh, seems you're really reaching on this one...When's the last time Gingrich was running for office, and when did Palin get accused of having sex out of wedlock or committing adultery?I get the fact you can't stand Christians, but if you're going to make these grand pronouncements, at least try to use someone actually in or running for office who is guilty of the offenses you're listing...

Gingrich ran for office in 2012. Do the math with Plains child and her marriage date. Unless it was a preme the math does not add up. Then ther is the fact that both of her kids have kids and are not married.

Please try and keep up.

I get the fact that you cant stand equality for homosexuals but at least admit the hypocrisy in your position.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I get the fact you can't stand Christians

Exactly.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Exactly.

You should be fine then.

 

[delldude]

Iseewhatyoudidthere.

 
Liberal subliminal homophobic insertion.....Oops...did it again.

 

[Ms Tree]

Michigan same sex marriage ban just bit the dust.

 

[SparrowHawk]

People have a right to live as they choose. This is well established under Natural Law and in the COTUS and Declaration of Independence.
 
When it comes to "marriage" and the definition thereof we find ourselves immersed in a cesspool of differing opinions. Most of these opinions are fueled by our governments and an individuals spiritual beliefs. We've been told for centuries of the separation of church and state yet we have state defined and sanctioned marriages.
 
Throughout history, marriages were conducted through the church. (Church defined as the local religious institution). The concept of marriage is a religious construct. Not a construct of law. Ergo, in the USA their should not be government regulation of a religious construct.
 
The underlying contract or Tort law regarding marriage is valid. The notion that they are or should be entwined is where the problem starts
 
If Government got out of the marriage business and replaced the current system to a dual system where any two people can enter into a civil union agreement or contract that is binding. This would allow those who value the religious covenant of marriage to have the blessings of their church and those who don't to peacefully live life on their terms free from government interference.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

People have a right to live as they choose. This is well established under Natural Law and in the COTUS and Declaration of Independence.
 
When it comes to "marriage" and the definition thereof we find ourselves immersed in a cesspool of differing opinions. Most of these opinions are fueled by our governments and an individuals spiritual beliefs. We've been told for centuries of the separation of church and state yet we have state defined and sanctioned marriages.
 
Throughout history, marriages were conducted through the church. (Church defined as the local religious institution). The concept of marriage is a religious construct. Not a construct of law. Ergo, in the USA their should not be government regulation of a religious construct.
 
The underlying contract or Tort law regarding marriage is valid. The notion that they are or should be entwined is where the problem starts
 
If Government got out of the marriage business and replaced the current system to a dual system where any two people can enter into a civil union agreement or contract that is binding. This would allow those who value the religious covenant of marriage to have the blessings of their church and those who don't to peacefully live life on their terms free from government interference.

There is nothing natural about homosexual relationships. They are in no way established in Natural Law.
 
Your idea of allowing civil unions as a government version of marriage is nothing new. You are not presenting any ground breaking idea.  
 
What you say, in my opinion, would be an acceptable compromise however; the libtards are not happy with that compromise. It is as I stated before, this has nothing to do with marriage and rights. It is nothing more than a way to try to force the government to legitimize homosexual relationships and a PR campaign to normalize them. Wake up.

 

[Dog Wonder]

How was Reverend Phelps' funeral?

 

[delldude]

There is nothing natural about homosexual relationships. They are in no way established in Natural Law.
 
Your idea of allowing civil unions as a government version of marriage is nothing new. You are not presenting any ground breaking idea.  
 
What you say, in my opinion, would be an acceptable compromise however; the libtards are not happy with that compromise. It is as I stated before, this has nothing to do with marriage and rights. It is nothing more than a way to try to force the government to legitimize homosexual relationships and a PR campaign to normalize them. Wake up.

 
A child conceived by same sex parents would disprove your out on a limb statement.

 

[xUT]

 
A child conceived by same sex parents would disprove your out on a limb statement.

 

[Ms Tree]

There is nothing natural about homosexual relationships. They are in no way established in Natural Law.
 
Your idea of allowing civil unions as a government version of marriage is nothing new. You are not presenting any ground breaking idea.  
 
What you say, in my opinion, would be an acceptable compromise however; the libtards are not happy with that compromise. It is as I stated before, this has nothing to do with marriage and rights. It is nothing more than a way to try to force the government to legitimize homosexual relationships and a PR campaign to normalize them. Wake up.

Sparrow was referring to the right of people to conduct their lives as they see fit with out legal obstacles. His post had nothing to do with whether or not you or anyone else think it is moral or not.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Natural Law makes no sexual preference distinction in any publication. It seems if anything to be assumed by some. Founding Fathers made no such distinction either.
 
While one can certainly question the motives of certain political groups, it still doesn't alter the fact the Government has no place in the personal private decisions of consenting adults.
 
The appropriate roll for government in this case is to enforce contracts. NOTHING more, NOTHING Less. People have the Creator given right to live as they choose. Even if you don't believe in a Creator..

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I am pretty sure SparrowHawk can speak for himself Ms Tree. 

 

[PullUp]

What is 'natural law' but a man-made construct?
Cheers.