I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Extend the rights. Call it something different. JMO
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Hamer found a general idea that they might be in a certain area. There is no actual genetic code proof, or even close to it. They have not even got to the methylation above the DNA, which is influenced by external forces such as diet and environment. It is like trying to find waldo in a football stadium where everyone is wearing white and red, and they keep changing seats based off a unlimited amount of environmental forces. Brain studies wont work. Your brain is developed based off environmental factors. Using someones feeling that they are gay doesn't hold any validity. You have not given any reason it cannot be a choice.
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Hamer found a general idea that they might be in a certain area. There is no actual genetic code proof, or even close to it. They have not even got to the methylation above the DNA, which is influenced by external forces such as diet and environment. It is like trying to find waldo in a football stadium where everyone is wearing white and red, and they keep changing seats based off a unlimited amount of environmental forces. Brain studies wont work. Your brain is developed based off environmental factors. Using someones feeling that they are gay doesn't hold any validity. You have not given any reason it cannot be a choice.
You have given no evidence or reason or proof that it is a choice, except that you believe it is a choice. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others and force them to conform to your beliefs, unless you believe that we are just free to conform to your beliefs.
In other words, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, but do believe in individual freedom, then don't marry somebody who is of the same sex as yourself, and leave everyone else alone.
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Hamer found a general idea that they might be in a certain area. There is no actual genetic code proof, or even close to it. They have not even got to the methylation above the DNA, which is influenced by external forces such as diet and environment. It is like trying to find waldo in a football stadium where everyone is wearing white and red, and they keep changing seats based off a unlimited amount of environmental forces. Brain studies wont work. Your brain is developed based off environmental factors. Using someones feeling that they are gay doesn't hold any validity. You have not given any reason it cannot be a choice.
You have given no evidence or reason or proof that it is a choice, except that you believe it is a choice. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others and force them to conform to your beliefs, unless you believe that we are just free to conform to your beliefs.
In other words, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex, and leave everyone else alone.
To prove it is a choice you have to disprove it is not a choice. I didn't say I had proof. I said I have a belief. I did not push them on anyone. Didn't tell anyone here they are forced to my way of thinking. It is called an opinion. You have one I see. You are welcome to keep it.
If you don't believe in opposite gender marriage, don't marry someone of the opposite gender, and leave everyone else alone.
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Hamer found a general idea that they might be in a certain area. There is no actual genetic code proof, or even close to it. They have not even got to the methylation above the DNA, which is influenced by external forces such as diet and environment. It is like trying to find waldo in a football stadium where everyone is wearing white and red, and they keep changing seats based off a unlimited amount of environmental forces. Brain studies wont work. Your brain is developed based off environmental factors. Using someones feeling that they are gay doesn't hold any validity. You have not given any reason it cannot be a choice.
You have given no evidence or reason or proof that it is a choice, except that you believe it is a choice. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others and force them to conform to your beliefs, unless you believe that we are just free to conform to your beliefs.
In other words, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex, and leave everyone else alone.
To prove it is a choice you have to disprove it is not a choice. I didn't say I had proof. I said I have a belief. I did not push them on anyone. Didn't tell anyone here they are forced to my way of thinking. It is called an opinion. You have one I see. You are welcome to keep it.
If you don't believe in opposite gender marriage, don't marry someone of the opposite gender, and leave everyone else alone.
To someone who claims to be bi-sexual, it is a choice. I'm just saying.
I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals nor do I believe people are born that way. It is a choice.
So the genetic markers we have begun to find, as well as brain studies of homosexuals, as well as stories of people who feel one way "as long as they can remember" are all a part of choice? Either way----why should marriage rights not be extended?
Hamer found a general idea that they might be in a certain area. There is no actual genetic code proof, or even close to it. They have not even got to the methylation above the DNA, which is influenced by external forces such as diet and environment. It is like trying to find waldo in a football stadium where everyone is wearing white and red, and they keep changing seats based off a unlimited amount of environmental forces. Brain studies wont work. Your brain is developed based off environmental factors. Using someones feeling that they are gay doesn't hold any validity. You have not given any reason it cannot be a choice.
You have given no evidence or reason or proof that it is a choice, except that you believe it is a choice. Believe what you want, but don't force your beliefs on others and force them to conform to your beliefs, unless you believe that we are just free to conform to your beliefs.
In other words, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex, and leave everyone else alone.
To prove it is a choice you have to disprove it is not a choice. I didn't say I had proof. I said I have a belief. I did not push them on anyone. Didn't tell anyone here they are forced to my way of thinking. It is called an opinion. You have one I see. You are welcome to keep it.
If you don't believe in opposite gender marriage, don't marry someone of the opposite gender, and leave everyone else alone.
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
i am in favor of religious freedom, therefore i am in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
As strange as this may sound coming from someone who grew up and still lives in the Bible-belt of America, I must agree. Granted, religion tells us that marriage is to be the union of one man and one woman but I feel that everyone should have the right to do whatever the He!! they want. Typically I don't get involved in topics of this nature, but this one strikes close to home for me. As an ordained non-denominational, and nondiscriminatory, minister I will be performing a "commitment ceremony" for my oldest daughter and her girlfriend next summer.
What gives anyone else the right to determine if what their neighbor does is wrong? Nothing, absolutely nothing gives us that authority. If Bobby wants to bugger Ralph and then stick his pecker up Betty's nose, then so be it! That's what floats their boat. Does it make it wrong? Weird yes, wrong... meh. Do what you think is right and let everyone else do their own thing...
i am in favor of religious freedom, therefore i am in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
I am in favor of individual freedom, therefore I am in favor of legalizing same sex marriage. I am in favor of religious freedom, therefore I do not want the law to prevent or require any religious institution or church to perform same-sex marriages. That decision should be up to the individual church or institution, not Congress or other religious groups.
My thought has always been this. I am against same sex marriage. I am also against any Government control of marraige. It is stupid that we have one word with two meanings. I can be married in the eyes of God, but not in Government and vice versa. Marriage should be left up churches and individuals, as it is a religous institution. Governments should only be concerned with earthly things.
Humans were not meant to be alone and it is a sh!tty thing to tell a man or woman you can't decide to share your life possesions with another because their dangly bits match yours. Give all equal rights under the law, but get the law out of marriage entirely.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.?
To someone who claims to be bi-sexual, it is a choice. I'm just saying.
Where did this enter the conversation?
The question was are you born with a particular orientation? Or is it a lifestyle choice? If someone claims to be bi, I pose the same question. Were they born that way? Or did they chose to be? Seems fair enough. And maybe a little tongue-in-cheek about their "choice". Tongue-in-cheek? LMAO How can you have a serious conversation about this stuff without word play. LOL
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
I didn't say I was going to force anyone to do anything. You fail to see that.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
I didn't say I was going to force anyone to do anything. You fail to see that.
"...I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals ..."
By advocating the prevention of same-sex marriage, you are requiring others to conform to your beliefs, especially couples who are of the same sex and who wish to marry. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
I didn't say I was going to force anyone to do anything. You fail to see that.
"...I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals ..."
By advocating the prevention of same-sex marriage, you are requiring others to conform to your beliefs, especially couples who are of the same sex and who wish to marry. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
You don't have the ability to understand. I am sorry.
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
I didn't say I was going to force anyone to do anything. You fail to see that.
"...I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals ..."
By advocating the prevention of same-sex marriage, you are requiring others to conform to your beliefs, especially couples who are of the same sex and who wish to marry. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
You don't have the ability to understand. I am sorry.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "not legally sanctioning" an activity. Are you saying that the State should not allow it? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
Why? You know, it really wasn't that long ago in this country it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. In fact, many people used exactly the same argument against interracial marriage to prevent people who loved each other from getting marrried because they believed it was immoral, and they did not want to be "forced" to accept such a horrible, evil, wicked, mean and nasty practice in the USA.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
The militant gay movement??!?!?! Is that a bunch of guys in pink shorts and fish net tops with bazookas and grenades? Bit of a strong or at least odd (at least to me) statement there.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
Perhaps this is for another topic----or to risque to discuss.....but is butt sex with a man and a woman ok? Just not when two men do it?
You are barkin up the wrong tree with that one, my man. Can't speak for anybody else, but I got no experience. I don't know nothing, I don't see nothing, and I don't hear nothing.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
I really don't have a problem with this thinking, as long as same sex couples who mary, or have civil unions, or whatever it's called have all the same legal rights regarding property, money, insurance, next of kin, etc. Seems like a fair compromise to me. Those who feel strongly about the word and ceremony of "marriage" in a religious context should be respected, but those who wish to enjoy al the same legal rights of married couples who are not heterosexual should be respected too. However, those churches that choose to sanctify the marriage of same sex couples should be allowed to do so; in a free country, where Congress shall make no laws regarding religion. If a Church or a specific religion chooses this practice, and wants to call it marriage, it should be allowed.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.
Comments
In other words, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, but do believe in individual freedom, then don't marry somebody who is of the same sex as yourself, and leave everyone else alone.
If you don't believe in opposite gender marriage, don't marry someone of the opposite gender, and leave everyone else alone.
As strange as this may sound coming from someone who grew up and still lives in the Bible-belt of America, I must agree. Granted, religion tells us that marriage is to be the union of one man and one woman but I feel that everyone should have the right to do whatever the He!! they want. Typically I don't get involved in topics of this nature, but this one strikes close to home for me. As an ordained non-denominational, and nondiscriminatory, minister I will be performing a "commitment ceremony" for my oldest daughter and her girlfriend next summer.
What gives anyone else the right to determine if what their neighbor does is wrong? Nothing, absolutely nothing gives us that authority. If Bobby wants to bugger Ralph and then stick his pecker up Betty's nose, then so be it! That's what floats their boat. Does it make it wrong? Weird yes, wrong... meh. Do what you think is right and let everyone else do their own thing...
"...I don't believe marriage rights should be extended to homosexuals ..."
By advocating the prevention of same-sex marriage, you are requiring others to conform to your beliefs, especially couples who are of the same sex and who wish to marry. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
Then explain what I am not understading.
As I see it, the only legal way to prevent a Church or religion from practicing freely in the US is by way of a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.