Should churches be required to perform same sex weddings buy the State?

Posted by: SegBeg

AND WHY?????

  • Yes

  • No.

13% 6 votes
87% 41 votes
  • Unpopular opinion, but this is my current thoughts on it (my mind is subject to change): The Church currently gets tax breaks from the government. In fact, it is a non-profit that doesn't even have to follow the regulations and rules of other non-profits (they technically are supposed to, but it isn't enforced). Because of this, since marriages performed in the Church are legal marriages, the Church must perform all forms of legal marriage. If they payed taxes, then that would change my mind. If they actually followed all the rules and regulations non-profits are supposed to, then it might change my mind. If they didn't actually perform legal marriages but marriages under the church, then I would change my mind. There are probably other things that could make me change my mind, this isn't a position I am solid in at the moment, but this is my current position and thoughts about it.

    Posted by: SNP1
  • If churches want to keep their tax exempt status, they must offer services to all equally or be deemed a private club and taxed according.

  • They shouldn't because they would be going against what the Bible says and their beliefs what the point of being a Christian if you ain't going to follow your belief and what the Bible says just because the government made gay marriage acceptable doesn't means that chruch so go against their beliefs and what the Bible say

  • Separation of church and state and freedom of religion. If it goes against the religious values of a church, then they shouldn't be forced to do a thing. If you are gay and want to get married, marry in a secular location or find a church that will willingly take you.

  • No. Homosexual marriage is against the principles of religion.

  • Separation of church and state is a two way street.

  • Absolutely not. So-called same-sex "marriage" defies God's intentions for marriage, which is to be between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–6).

  • Churches shouldn't be required to perform weddings they don't want to.

  • You can't force your morals on them. They don't have to participate in something they disagree with.

    Posted by: Dilara
  • Marriage is the sacred union between a man, woman and God. Forcing a same sex marriage service goes against what God is for, which simply doesn't make sense.

  • What ever happened to separation of church and state?

  • No separation of Chruch and state was a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson and is protected under the 1st amendment therefore, no one can force the church to do anything

  • SEPARATION of church and state. The government shouldn't have been involved in the first place.

    Posted by: AJR
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Black-Jesus says2016-08-16T21:38:16.8548234Z
I don't even know why you would want to get married in a church as a homosexual anyway. Least of all a church that doesn't even want to marry you.
Heterodox says2016-08-16T22:45:44.7248300Z
@Black-Jesus, You mean other than to stir up controversy?
karlmarx59 says2016-08-16T22:48:07.0174960Z
Wow Black Jesus how un-Christian of you. There is nothing in the bible that says gays should not marry.You know a few years ago, they said the same thing about inter racial marriage? Hypocrite much? If a particular Church is unChristian and won't marry a same sex couple, I guess that is between the couple and the church. If it were me, I wouldn't set foot in a damn church for anything. This is a great example of WHY. The bias, hypocrisy, judgmental, holier than thou attitude of so called followers of Christ teachings and the bible. It is all mythological bull shit you people cannot even agree on amongst your selves. While the Bible in Genesis tells us that God made “male and female,” does this really mean that all males and all females need to end up with opposite sex partners? When talking about "what's natural," in the beginning, the first humans did not wear prescription glasses to see, use wheelchairs to get around, or attach prosthetic limbs to enhance mobility. Are all of those aspects of humanity "unnatural"? Historians and sociologists tell us that gang rape was a very common form of brutal humiliation of the subjects, in the ancient Western world. The Sodomite men did not come to Lot’s house to have monogamous, committed, loving relationships with the male angels residing there. They came to rape these angels. Also, MULTIPLE parts of the Bible (Luke 10: 10-13; Isaiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11) tell us that God despised the greed and their wickedness toward outsiders as their sin, not that fact that men wanted to “have sex” with men.Rules in the Bible were always tied to some sort of reasoning. In the case of this gay sex prohibition, a consistent thread in early Judeo-Christian understanding was that semen alone was considered unclean, because sex was ONLY meant to be procreative. Check out what God does to Onan when he ejaculates outside of a woman in Genesis 38. In the same passages where gay sex is condemned and punished, so is eating shrimp, crop co-mingling, eating rabbit, wearing linen and wool at the same time, and eating raw meat. So if you’re gonna be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian.So Black Jesus are you cherry picking what the bible means to fit what YOU believe is right and wrong?Looks that way along with some of some of your other so called Christian cohorts. No, you all are just simple homophobes hiding behind the bible. For SHAME on all of you.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-16T23:06:00.8485462Z
Heterodox: Yes he did. And was most successful.
Wolfram says2016-08-16T23:42:56.4816283Z
@karlmarx59 The stance against homosexual marriage was developed by verses of Leviticus, so it's a matter of moral selection for the purpose of guidance. You can cherry-picking the bible all you want and accomplish nothing. Religion aside, homosexuality do not benefit humanity, not the slightest. Homosexual marriage is nothing more than cheap attack at old values of marriage.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-16T23:45:35.5402479Z
@karlmarx59, I'm... Not a Christian. Now, I'm not sure what about my profile that says I'm an atheist, or my reputation for being an atheist with a vaguely Christian sounding name or my posts insulting religion makes you think I'm a Christian, but I'm not. And there may not be anything in the Bible that says gays should not get married, but it does say they are an abomination that are to be stoned to death if they have sex with one another. It is a part of the beliefs of most churches regardless of whether or not it explicitly says so in the Bible. So you just kinda wasted your time writing that huge essay to someone who doesn't even exist.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-16T23:47:03.7927096Z
@Wolfram, No, gay marriage is an acknowledgement of freedom. Christianity doesn't monopolize marriage.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-16T23:50:33.1643359Z
And homosexuality "benefits" humanity just as much as heterosexuality... Or any other sexuality. Maybe heterosexuality was necessary back when people were too dumb to load semen into a turkey baster and make babies that way, but if every human on Earth turned asexual tomorrow, we'd be just as well off. Probably better since sex won't be distracting us.
Wolfram says2016-08-17T00:11:01.1419504Z
@Black-jesus No. Homosexual marriage is degeneracy, nothing more or less. Old values of humanity monopolize marriage, not types of religion.
Wolfram says2016-08-17T00:12:46.4371023Z
@Black-jesus "homosexuality "benefits" humanity just as much as heterosexuality... Or any other sexuality. " Yeah? Please do name few of "benefits" for example.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-17T00:17:32.5117361Z
@Wolfram, homosexuality is not degeneracy and you can't just argue back by restating your premise. You have to prove your religion to me, which I doubt is possible. And "old values of humanity" don't monopolize marriage, because that makes no sense. Old values of humanity contradict several times, especially regarding marriage. Should we or should we not allow people to marry their brothers and sisters? Should we or should we not allow interracial marriage? Should we or should we not allow people to marry their slaves? Should we marry who we want or should we have our marriages arranged? Who cares about old values of humanity? Old values of humanity are stupid: that's why they are old. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy and not a real argument. And there are no benefits to homosexuality outside of the feelings of love between homosexual individuals: that's my point. You failed to even address the point of my second post to you being that there is no benefit to heterosexuality that homosexuality doesn't have, which is nothing.
Wolfram says2016-08-17T01:13:07.2827127Z
@Black-Jesus My religious beliefs have nothing do with my stance against homosexual marriage. It's a matter of biology and common sense. There is the line between right and wrong on the grounds of biology and common sense. Incest? We know an answer to that, do we? Interracial couples? There are problems with the offspring of interracial couples. Slaves? Financial and status reasons. Marriage arrangement was created to reap the greater benefits. Your card of "argument from tradition" is invalid and irrelevant to my argument because I am not arguing old values of humanity is better because it's old or religious whatever. I was saying old values of humanity benefits marriage the most, even more than homosexuality possibly can offer. After all, old values of humanity are not a thing of past. Your advocacy for homosexual marriage is nothing more than freedom encouragement deprived of responsibilities , moral values and conscience. Something like that won't benefit humanity but the prosperity of degeneracy. "there is no benefit to heterosexuality that homosexuality doesn't have, which is nothing." Wrong. Homosexuality has nothing, unlike heterosexuality.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-17T04:59:57.1096884Z
Wolfram:; heterosexuals do not benefit marriage. That isn't what it is about. I was married 30 years and I would tell anybody gay or straight to never get married, it sucks your life right out of you, the best part of you. Marriage is nothing but a piece of paper. It is not meant to benefit anyone or anything but the two people involved. And I quoted Leviticus and you obviously did not read it. So , either read the bible completely or go home.
karlmarx59 says2016-08-17T05:04:42.5587622Z
Black Jesus well I apologize then if you don't feel that way. But I did not waste my writing because Wolfram seems to be dazed and confused about the lives of homosexuals as if he somehow is "better" than? I sincerely do not get where any people think they are better than someone else just because they don't share the same views sexually or any other way. I am asexual....I guess I deserve to die.
SegBeg says2016-08-17T09:03:47.7368775Z
@Karlmax, here we go, another atheist thinking they know more about the Bible they don't even read than the person who reads it everyday. True, there is no verse in the Bible that says anything about gay marriage, but it has a lot to say about homosexuality. "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.…" Romans 1:26. Just one verse but it clearly states that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. Second, if you believe the bible is "bullshit," why are you using it to back up your argument. Oh yes right, your self righteous and hateful attitude towards Christians denouncing their holy book but are more than happy to use it to suit your own selfish agendas. Your comment on people in the beginning did not use glasses, wheelchairs and prostetics, that is all because of SIN. We need these things because our sin has corrupted this world. If there was no sin, then these things would not exist. Please do YOUR research when trying to use the Bible you don't even believe in to back up your argument. And your ridiculous reason why why God ACTUALLY destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah can be debunked by reading this: http://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html And you argument about Onan, God did not punish him because he simply threw away his semen, he punished him because of the MOTIVES behind it. He did not want to produce an heir for his dead brother because he wanted all his brother's riches for himself. God punished him because of greed- not trying to have sex for pleasure. And I've heard these ludacris arguments by atheist HUNDREDS of times "if homosexuality should be banned then so should eating shellfish, eating raw meat, back talking parents, etc" as well as the ones you listed. All I have to say is... RUBBISH! Those things are all in the OLD TESTAMENT which no longer applies to today. We do not need to follow the OT law anymore. We are under a New Covenant and that New Covenant does not condemn eating shellfish, etc. You might say "well homosexuality is only in the Old Testament so that means it's okay now" but I'm afraid you'd be wrong. Homosexuality is still condemned in the New Testament as show by the verse I gave you above so sorry, you don't get a free pass. PLEASE stop trying to use the Bible you don't even believe in to back up you stupid, self righteous and false claims. It is not unChristian to not marry a Same sex couple. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality and they are following God's Law. In fact, it would be unChristians to MARRY a same sex couple because you are encouraging their sinful lifestyle. Don't you want "Separation of Church and State?"
foxxhajti says2016-08-17T10:14:05.8843998Z
@Wolfram " Interracial couples? There are problems with the offspring of interracial couples" What type of problems?
Throwback says2016-08-17T14:05:14.8828200Z
@Wolfram: I am opposed to homosexual marriage, and even more strongly against churches being required to perform their ceremonies. When it was compared by a comment to the prohibition against mixed race marriages, I don't think you helped yourself be claiming mixed race marriages are bad. You shouldn't use false arguments to defend your position. If your position is right there will be sufficient true arguments. If the woman I fell in love with had happened to not be white, I would be in a mixed race marriage myself.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-17T16:06:42.7573802Z
@Wolfram, just like every other person against homosexuality, you have no argument all you did was write an empty paragraph devoid of meaning. Biological and common sense reasons homosexuality is wrong? Could you be bothered to name them? What? They can't have kids? Last time I checked, that was a good thing. Less people, less problems. "Your advocacy for homosexual marriage is nothing more than freedom encouragement deprived of responsibilities , moral values and conscience." Deprived of what responsibilities? What "moral values"? What conscience? "Wrong. Homosexuality has nothing, unlike heterosexuality." Again, you are just making vague, declarative statements and not bothering to back them up with an actual argument.
Black-Jesus says2016-08-17T16:13:10.2792813Z
And you totally missed the point of my attack on old values: they contradict and a lot of the time they are stupid. If we relied on how we've always done things in the area of marriage to tell us what to do, we couldn't come to a consensus because, believe it or not, modern times aren't the first times gay marriage was allowed.
Wolfram says2016-08-18T01:51:47.2021786Z
@karlmarx59 "Marriage is nothing but a piece of paper." No, karlmarx59. Marriage is more than just "a piece of paper". It's obligation based on the love in which leads to the creation of family unit. Traditional marriage was designed for normal people to marry, not intended for homosexuals, pedosexuals or fluid-gender type of degenerates. With all due respect, you shouldn't blame or dissent against marriage because of your own choice you made. If you want to blame somebody then blame yourself. Besides, you're the only one who is responsible for your own choices you made. The choice comes with responsibility and accountability. So you had difficulties with your sexuality in the past, sorry to hear that. "I sincerely do not get where any people think they are better than someone else just because they don't share the same views sexually or any other way. I am asexual....I guess I deserve to die." No need to pull the card of victimhood, karlmarx59. Heterosexuality is the only natural sex orientation for many biological reasons. "And I quoted Leviticus and you obviously did not read it. So , either read the bible completely or go home." It's not about the verse of Leviticus, because I said: "The stance against homosexual marriage was developed by verses of Leviticus, so it's a matter of moral selection for the purpose of guidance." The point is how morals were developed or "inspired" so Christians' morals weren't entirely based on the bible in the beginning with. The morals were established to keep humanity stay on the right path, although they may be wrong or right. However, my stance is not based on my religious beliefs or based on the verses of Leviticus.
Wolfram says2016-08-18T01:54:06.0924058Z
@foxxhajti It is documented that there is plenty biological differences between caucasoids, mongoloids and negroids. I'll settle with the differences between caucasoids and negroids for now. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/49594/1000050402_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=D759E0716D51ADB6FA2A1470AE5CDBCF?sequence=1 http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180686/ Now for the problems of miscegenation couples: http://conservative-headlines.Com/2012/04/miscegenation-single-most-dangerous-activity-a-young-white-female-can-engage-in/ http://ajph.Aphapublications.Org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 Problems of offspring of miscegenation: http://www.Unc.Edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.Html http://psychology.Uwo.Ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.Pdf http://erectuswalksamongst.Us/Chap29.Html If you read those links I posted then you will see the biological differences of race is the significant connection to the health problems of mixed race. So, it's obvious that interracial breeding is not the improvement but degradation.
Wolfram says2016-08-18T01:56:32.6720683Z
@Throwback "When it was compared by a comment to the prohibition against mixed race marriages, I don't think you helped yourself be claiming mixed race marriages are bad. You shouldn't use false arguments to defend your position. If your position is right there will be sufficient true arguments. If the woman I fell in love with had happened to not be white, I would be in a mixed race marriage myself." My stance against miscegenation isn't groundless, so you shouldn't dismiss people's argument as a false argument without asking them to explain why. As for your potential love interest is your own choice, but it also means you're not concerned with health consequences of interracial breeding in the generations.
Wolfram says2016-08-18T02:02:10.8343131Z
@Black-Jesus "Again, you are just making vague, declarative statements and not bothering to back them up with an actual argument." Do I make an argument like how you made the statement that I must explain my religion? Old values of humanity being worthless? Like how you pull the card of "Argument from tradition" fallacy? Like how you said old values of humanity are stupid because it's old? I don't think so. An argument without explanation doesn't make a good argument. You'll need to explain why old values of humanity are stupid. "Deprived of what responsibilities? What "moral values"? What conscience?" We weight our responsibilities on our choice-making. Your advocacy for homosexual marriage doesn't have the weight of responsibilities because you didn't explain why it's fine. Or even explain why homosexual marriage is an acknowledgment of freedom despite the inconsistencies like the marriages of bestiality, necrosexuality, incest and pedosexuality. It's an acknowledge of freedom, right? No, it's bad way of thinking. Too irresponsible. No offense, black-jesus. Moral values are a set of principles to help people how to evaluate between right and wrong. In my opinion, any kind of activity that led to various heath problems is morally wrong. For example, self-harming behavior, raping, violence and killing are morally wrong. Homosexuality has a lot of health problems: - http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/ - http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2016/07/02/study-higher-health-risks-for-homosexuals Homosexual marriage is morally wrong because it's normalizing homosexuals' unhealthy behavior. Here's my vague, declarative statement if you don't mind - An acknowledgment of freedom? Heh. More like a bad kind of entitlement. A special treatment for spoiled, naughty little children who refuse to acknowledge the health impacts of choice they made for themselves. "And you totally missed the point of my attack on old values: they contradict and a lot of the time they are stupid." Could you please write down the list of contradictions for an example?
Black-Jesus says2016-08-18T16:17:41.5097987Z
“Do I make an argument like how you made the statement that I must explain my religion?” No, because I actually made that statement. I said you must prove your religion because there is no secular reason that homosexuality is immoral. The reason you cited that it is immoral is because it can be dangerous because of several preventable health risks that aren’t inherent in the homosexual community. And, somehow, to you, something that is potentially dangerous is immoral. That makes no sense because, therefore, smoking, drinking, eating fast food, working in high temperatures are all morally bad. The reason these things aren’t considered bad, along with homosexuality, is because it is what people want to do with their own bodies. YOU CANNOT TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. That is part of that freedom I’m talking about. “Your advocacy for homosexual marriage doesn't have the weight of responsibilities because you didn't explain why it's fine.” That made no sense, homosexuality has no responsibility because the homosexual “community” has a higher rate of STD’s and mental illness? “Or even explain why homosexual marriage is an acknowledgment of freedom despite the inconsistencies like the marriages of bestiality, necrosexuality, incest and pedosexuality.” I’m guessing that you mean that I’m inconsistent because I probably don’t advocate for these other types of marriage. Not even touching on the fact that this is the third logical fallacy you’ve used (slippery slope), bestiality, necrosexuality, and pedosexuality all have one unifying difference to homosexuality: consent. Animals cannot consent, dead bodies cannot consent and children cannot consent, and while there is nothing inherently immoral about incest, other than the fact that everyone including I think it is utterly disgusting, they still ought not to be married because most children that are produced from incest are born with some sort of defect, therefore it is in the best interests of everyone if it remained outlawed. “ An acknowledgment of freedom? Heh. More like a bad kind of entitlement. A special treatment for spoiled, naughty little children who refuse to acknowledge the health impacts of choice they made for themselves.” So people wanting to do with their bodies as they wish because they are attracted to the same sex is bad because reasons? They know the health risks of sleeping with members of their own gender. Even if they don’t that doesn’t make it IMMORAL: that’s utterly ridiculous. And it’s not a choice; saying it’s a choice is to fly in the face of over century of research and scientific inquiry, you know, facts. Write down a list of contradictions from history? Okay. Slavery is bad/slavery is not bad, marriage is a choice/marriage is arranged, duels are okay/duels are not okay, monarchs are chosen by god/no they are not, it’s okay to murder someone/it’s not okay to murder someone, rape is fine/rape is bad, incest is fine/incest is bad, bestiality is fine/bestiality is bad, let’s execute people for petty crimes/let’s not do that, my race is better than all others/no it’s not, I’m going to kill this baby because I wanted a boy/girls are just as good, my wife is my property/my wife is her own person, the list goes on and on and on and on. “Old values” encompasses every single value that mankind has ever had, for almost all values that have been had, there has been another culture somewhere else in history that said otherwise: why choose a select few we want, just so we can call them “old values.” Like I said, slavery, racism, sexism, violence, rape these are all things that are no big deal in a lot of “old values”? So why listen to the old values of people who didn’t know any better because no only were they stupid enough to believe in magic, but they were so stupid, the smart ones, the scientists, were often accused of witchcraft.
Wolfram says2016-08-18T19:15:09.6309613Z
"I said you must prove your religion because there is no secular reason that homosexuality is immoral. ((omitted)) aren’t inherent in the homosexual community." Again, that's groundless statement because my stance against homosexuality is not based on religion. After all, I weight my stance towards to biology with responsibilities, not religion. --- "Several preventable health risks that aren’t inherent in the homosexual community." Yes, but the differences are too big. The problem is homosexuals refuse to acknowledge despite the obviousness. --- "That makes no sense because, therefore, smoking, drinking, eating fast food, working in high temperatures are all morally bad." Yes, they are all morally wrong but the point is how we do it responsibly. Like sex responsibly, drink responsibly and many things. --- "The reason these things aren’t considered bad, ((omitted)) YOU CANNOT TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES." That's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that you people should acknowledge the health impacts of homosexual lifestyle. It is proven that health issues between heterosexuality and homosexuality are too big to dismiss. I'm not here to tell homosexuals what to do like the dickbag king with the glorious crown. Yes, I understand the importance of people' rights to make the choice but they should weight their choice with responsibility. After all, responsibility is very, very important. --- "That is part of that freedom I’m talking about." Yes. I do understand the importance of freedom. --- "That made no sense, homosexuality has no responsibility because the homosexual “community” has a higher rate of STD’s and mental illness?" It made a sense because homosexuals chose to ignore the health issues in favoring their own lifestyle, consequences be damned. That is the case of irresponsibility. I'm trying to say that health issues shouldn't be dismissed as "you're oppressing me, so shut up!". This is why APA changed their diagnosis of Mental Illness of homosexuality for the sake of PC. It is an entitlement, nothing more or less. Freedom comes with responsibilities. --- I’m guessing that you mean that I’m inconsistent because ((omitted)) if it remained outlawed. " The point isn't about inconsistency, but the nature of hypocrisy in your advocacy. You should advocate the rights weights toward to responsibility. I do understand that comparing sexualities with homosexuality is a bad analogy. Your card of slippery slope is misplaced, because the issue was about marriage we choose to support or not to support. I agree with you on the grounds of bestiality, necrosexuality and pedosexuality being disgusting. However, incest is morally wrong because of the high risk of birth deflective. In my opinion, incest couple shouldn't be allowed to have the offspring, but it's another story. Consent alone is not good enough without the weight of responsibilities and morals. If it was the subject about the possible of heterosexuality being irresponsible and immoral, I'd agree with you because of unwanted pregnancy, STDs, AIDs and etc. Hence, the consent without the weight of responsibilities ain't good enough. --- "So people wanting to do with their bodies as they wish ((omitted)) doesn’t make it IMMORAL" No. My point was homosexuals chose to dismiss the health impacts are irresponsible and morally wrong. They need to address the problem for their sake of health. That's common sense of responsibility. --- "it’s not a choice; saying it’s a choice is to fly in the face of over century of research and scientific inquiry, you know, facts. Write down a list of contradictions from history?" There are no scientific findings to justify the existence of homosexuals, so I'd say homosexuality is a result of choice. Look at APA for an example, they removed homosexuality from the diagnostic list of mental illnesses for the sake of political correctness like social politics, which is unscientific and entitlement. My goal wasn't to "cure" homosexuals but push homosexuals to acknowledge of its health impacts, so they can address that problem what they can. If they do, Homosexuals would be in their best health condition. --- "Slavery is bad/slavery is not bad, marriage is a choice/marriage is arranged, duels are okay/duels are not okay, monarchs are chosen by god/no they are not, it’s okay to murder someone/it’s not okay to murder someone, rape is fine/rape is bad, incest is fine/incest is bad, bestiality is fine/bestiality is bad, let’s execute people for petty crimes/let’s not do that, ((omitted)) So why listen to the old values of people who didn’t know any better because no only were they stupid enough to believe in magic, but they were so stupid, the smart ones, the scientists, were often accused of witchcraft." Oh, I was referring to the traditional marriage, Black-Jesus. It's build on the grounds of old values of humanity. It just means that obligations, responsibilities and accountability are a part of its foundations. Painting old values of humanity in the negative color is somewhat preposterous and not related to the subject of traditional marriage, not to mention the fallacy of slippery slope. The problem is homosexual marriage don't have obligations, responsibilities and accountability like traditional marriage have, so they really need to establish some. If they do, they'll have my support. I value obligations, responsibilities and accountability, not entitlement in which is why I have my disagreements with you on the issue of advocacy for homosexual marriage.
Anonymous says2016-08-20T18:31:04.0446977Z
It would appear you blackguards are at it again... A flame war ensued because of this post. Albeit, i doubt that anyone is going to learn anything here.
dsjpk5 says2016-08-21T07:35:45.9216092Z
I believe in the freedom of religion.
Wolfram says2016-08-22T06:58:54.6323386Z
@karlmarx59 You don't have the means to justify homosexuals' irresponsible behavior, save the health issues. You can take your petty antireligious prejudices to somewhere else, you silly Marxist.
DiEgO123100 says2016-09-18T21:05:17.8994848Z
No required same sex weddings, separation of church and state.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.