He/She/It told you this?
So you are ok with no separation of state and religion? Careful…dangerous waters those be.
akshully it’s blasphemy against the holy spirit
First, it seems to me Andrew has been totally straightforward and honest about what Christianity implies here. Outside of tossing it 
what do you want him to do?
Andrew can you see how your stance on this legal marriage issue makes Christianity a problem for everyone else? Something to be opposed on its own merits?
Actually I’m very for separation of church and state. I don’t really think the state should be in the business of marriage. That’s a values thing. That’s basically why theres an issue. If the state took it upon them to be in charge of marriage, it seems not everyone is going to be happy with the definition of it.
I posted this in the Poll thread but maybe it should be here.
ts not only the insane Christians, its all the ultra religious groups here banding against gay marriage. Most are using the other agenda of sex education in elementary school to confuse easily confused simpletons into thinking that gay marriage leads to teaching.young children about gay sex and perversion. Or the aids debate and.foreigners. though they don’t quite understand any foreigner with aids or hiv is deported and not given health insurance. Dumb people brainwashing dumber people. Its the same group in politics (kmt) that advertise their want for whipping on sign boards. You’de think its funny if it wasn’t so real how easily manipulated the population is.
Smart people: PLEASE VOTE
My reply:
Personally, I do not have a particular interest in the result. I see a gay individual as no different to someone who may have red hair or green eyes. No issue .
You are , one the one hand , condemning people who disagree with your viewpoint , as “insane”, “simpletons”,'Dumb", “manipulated”,as though a difference of opinion ( to your own ) should not be allowed ? There is freedom for you to canvas your ideas, and there should be freedom for them to express theirs. They may seem ridiculous and not reasonable to many, but you have to be tolerant if you ever expect them to be reasoned with , in the long term. To label anyone , as you do , will not work well , and may well paint
you
as being intolerant . Just my opinion.
I have no issues with anyone being with anyone else. Making a contract with anyone else to benefit them. People have every right to do that. But wouldn’t you say marriage is much more than a contract between two people?
I’m not too bothered by ssm. I’m not going to support it or actively oppose it. But it just seems to me no matter what, giving the state the say in marriage will not please everyone and their values.
But yes, but I also find what others view as marriage and making into law not all that great either.
I’ve never actually read this version myself but I know it was a fundamental text in shaping the English language.
1 Like
Where in the western world does the state not have a say in marriage ?
I been to marriages in tw, north Europe, hk and in all of these places marriage is done at some gov agency or the other
your post reminded me a thread on the word of teacher.
1 Like
Basically any synagogues, temple, church, mosque, religious house of worship. So far in most western countries, the state has no say who can be married in religious practices.
So, your previous comment did not include the qualifier religious practices, hence my comment.
But okay, I understand what you mean now.
It should be said though, correct me if I am wrong, you are not legally married in most western countries until the marriage has been registered at a government agency(at least this would be the cAse in the jurisdictions I mentioned)
Of course. But the legal aspects governed by the state are a contract pure and simple. It’s called “marriage” by the state. The state has it’s say in that in fact, and you have recognized that it can’t be left out of the equation at least. The things that are more don’t have anything to do with the state in my mind. That’s “marriage” to me as well and I’m sure you and everyone have your own feelings about it. Two separate questions, but the state is involved in “marriage” to a certain degree and it’s exactly that “marriage” that people wish to partake of.
2 Likes
The discussion alway seems to turn to marriage in general when gay marriage is mentioned. Maybe we should have a separate discussion thread for it.
FWIW I think marriage is what you make it. As far as formalities go it just seems like a convenient option - your taxes are lower, it’s easier to raise children, and you can be there for your person if they end up in the hospital. But people seek marriage and get married for so many other reasons…
I knew someone in college who married another person in our friend group just because they could. It was basically just a performative event for a party, and they filed for divorce the following day. So to them it was just a stunt. A statement about how anybody can marry anybody if they want to and it can be completely meaningless.
I thought it was kind of asinine, but I’m a notorious buzzkill, so.
Lots of money. Blood money. Money cheated and taken from the less fortunate. Blood money that pays for luxury homes and planes taken from poor people who pray for miracles as they have no access to medicine or education because the ones at the pulpit now own the law makers.
Back in Central America, they came in with this. For the good of the people, they said, preying on their homophobic fears. Once they got enough votes, they took away birth control and now they have moved into thought control, passing regulations on books and internet content. One step at a time. The fight against same sex marriage is just a stepping stone, an excuse. Once these blood suckers get in, they cannot be burned out. Dumb they are not. Dangerous, very dangerous is what they are.
1 Like
This article is more than 2 years old.
1 Like
I am as hetero as they come but have a man crush on Tom Selleck. 
1 Like
Must be all the fur. 
I dreamed of buying the Magnum car
