Gay Marriage

[signals]

Again lets put it to a popular vote or referendum so we can literally go Adam Lambert on their @$$!

nuf sed!

 

[xUT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2hxNuaju78
😛

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Yet, you're the one looking in a mirror. Bwhahaha!

Saved By The Bell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't everybody in the closet back then?Besides Hollywood is notorious for having gays ACT straight.

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

Since I'm guessing you completely missed my point, let me say it again. TV shows have underage kissing all the time. Is that pornography? Some idiots on here say yes, are you among them?

 

[Ms Tree]

Sounds like he was drunk posting.

It's only porn when you disagree with it and have no rational argument to support your POV.

 

[signals]

Sounds like he was drunk posting.

It's only porn when you disagree with it and have no rational argument to support your POV.

Unlike you, no I was not under any influence.

Again you speak nonsense.

 

[signals]

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

Since I'm guessing you completely missed my point, let me say it again. TV shows have underage kissing all the time. Is that pornography? Some idiots on here say yes, are you among them?

I was only answering your statements.

I couldn't care less what ones view of porn is, but NO underage kissing is not porn.

 

[delldude]

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. Nothing you say makes any sense at all.

Since I'm guessing you completely missed my point, let me say it again. TV shows have underage kissing all the time. Is that pornography? Some idiots on here say yes, are you among them?

 
Your avatar, Dude.....
 
Duh, how about the recent new show that got all wrapped up in kiddee porn law due to its explicit sexual content relating to 'children'?

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Context, please, for your unhinged statements, would be nice

Particularly if you expect a reply

 

[delldude]

Who?

 

[delldude]

Now here's a progressive I could like, maybe........
 

 
Jimmy Carter doesn’t think marriage laws should be decided at the federal level.
“I’m kind of inclined to let the states decide individually,” the former president told WFAA, an ABC affiliate, in an interview that aired Sunday.
“As you see, more and more states are deciding on gay marriage every year,” Carter said. “If Texas doesn’t want to have gay marriage, then I think that’s a right for Texas people to decide.”
He also spoke out in support for the religious liberty of church leaders who do not support same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think that the government ought ever to have the right to tell a church to marry people if the church doesn’t want to,” he said.
“I’m a Baptist, and the congregation of our church will decide … whether we’ll marry gay people or not.”

 

[delldude]

My God, A dem I think I could love too...
 

 
On Tuesday, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménez upheld Puerto Rico’s law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage.
Notably, Pérez-Giménez becomes the first Democrat-appointee to the federal bench to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage Act case.
 
Just so. And if state marriage laws ever make it back to the Supreme Court, this is precisely what the Court should rule. Indeed, Pérez-Giménez highlights what other courts have frequently forgotten about the rationale underlying marriage laws:

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship.” Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.
Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/22/democrat-appointed-federal-judge-right-sex-marriage/

 

[signals]

Since we refuse to separate church and state...which Jesus did not the atheists...I really couldn't care less what goes on in Caesar's house. BUT the religious fanatics are allowing the gay marriage theme to enter the churches.

F%C^ Caesar! Let the state dictate it's own rules and laws. Who gives a crap if Frank and Hank or Eve and June want to marry. Let Fido and Frank marry for all I care...in Caesar's house.

But continued interference in Caesar's world is why eventually the true attack will come at the church. And you have nobody to blame but yourselves for tilting the scales of justice.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Since we refuse to separate church and state...which Jesus did not the atheists...I really couldn't care less what goes on in Caesar's house. BUT the religious fanatics are allowing the gay marriage theme to enter the churches.

F%C^ Caesar! Let the state dictate it's own rules and laws. Who gives a crap if Frank and Hank or Eve and June want to marry. Let Fido and Frank marry for all I care...in Caesar's house.
But continued interference in Caesar's world is why eventually the true attack will come at the church. And you have nobody to blame but yourselves for tilting the scales of justice.

I think you are discounting the tradition and culture of marriage. It is not all about religion.
 
I also think you are not considering that EVERY major religion has marriage practices, not just Christianity. Of course the libtards don't want to look at it from that perspective because it derails their propaganda that Christian fundamentalism is robbing them of their "civil rights".

 

[Dog Wonder]

It is not all about religion.
 
I also think you are not considering that EVERY major religion has marriage practices.

It is not all about religion, unless it is.

 

[Ms Tree]

 

I think you are discounting the tradition and culture of marriage. It is not all about religion.
 
I also think you are not considering that EVERY major religion has marriage practices, not just Christianity. Of course the libtards don't want to look at it from that perspective because it derails their propaganda that Christian fundamentalism is robbing them of their "civil rights".

We are talking about laws here, not tradition or culture.  It was tradition and culture to own slave.  It was tradition and culture to treat women as property "Who give this woman ..."  It was tradition and culture to not allow interracial marriage.  All of these traditions were eventually overturned by law. 
 
Not sure why you keep bringing up religion.  None of the legal cases pending will have any affect on religious institutions.  The only thing being contested is equal access to civil marriage.  It is a simple contract.  There is no state interest in preventing such contracts.  The 14th is very clear on the issue as the SCOTUS and several Federal courts have already stated.
 
You can try to frame this how ever you choose but no one is buying what you're selling.  It is all about religion.  How many atheists are arguing against marriage equality?  Can you point to an argument against marriage equality that is not religious based?