Gay Marriage: For or Against?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

Having a group not believe it is wrong doesn't give us a reason to change the law. Muslims in Sudan don't see anything wrong with killing parents and taking kids for sex slaves.
Do any liberals vote against abortion?

Yes, there are plenty of liberals who vote against abortion.

Your argument is not valid for this discussion. We are talking about one group having the same legal rights as another group, not killing people.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

They do not have the right to marry who they want to. Thus, they do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

So laws should be changed to help people satisfy desires? Do you want the right to drive your neighbors car? And do you want the right for the neighbor to say NO to be taken away?

We also have the constitutional right to create amendments to our state constitutions.
You have issues with a civil society.
Christians have a duty to speak against unrighteousness.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Sam

I believe sex between two persons of the same gender is wrong. We call that homosexuality or the gay or lesbian lifestyle in today's terms. The Bible calls it a man lying with mankind in Leviticus 20:13

However, I don't see how we can legislate that in this country. If we deny marriage to persons of the same sex it is discriminating against certain people.

Now you sound like me arguing for the mosque.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

So laws should be changed to help people satisfy desires? Do you want the right to drive your neighbors car? And do you want the right for the neighbor to say NO to be taken away?

We also have the constitutional right to create amendments to our state constitutions.
You have issues with a civil society.
Christians have a duty to speak against unrighteousness.

This is not about changing the law simply to satisfy one group's desire.

This is about changing the law to not discriminate against one group of people.

I have no issue with a civil society. Doing away with discrimination will make us more civil.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Twisp

They do not have the right to marry who they want to. Thus, they do not have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.

Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.

Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Now you sound like me arguing for the mosque.

lol, it does sound vaguely similar, doesn't it?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, there are plenty of liberals who vote against abortion.

Your argument is not valid for this discussion. We are talking about one group having the same legal rights as another group, not killing people.

Your arguments backfired. You said gays should have rights to ordinary marriage if they don't think it is wrong. Using your lack of moral foundation in an argument, if a mom doesn't see anything wrong with an abortin, it should be legal or as in the case of Obama, toddlers are included. If a toddler is inconvenient, they are history. Bury them in a timeout box.
Your warped logic tells us the daddy also should have the right to abort his son or daughter. remember, males and females are equal for the libs.
The irrational libs can't tell us why a 13 year old girl can't be asked to stay overnight by a 30 year old male. They don't see it as wrong.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.

Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.

Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.

The biggest sin for a lib is political incorrectness.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

Your arguments backfired. You said gays should have rights to ordinary marriage if they don't think it is wrong. Using your lack of moral foundation in an argument, if a mom doesn't see anything wrong with an abortin, it should be legal or as in the case of Obama, toddlers are included. If a toddler is inconvenient, they are history. Bury them in a timeout box.
Your warped logic tells us the daddy also should have the right to abort his son or daughter. remember, males and females are equal for the libs.
The irrational libs can't tell us why a 13 year old girl can't be asked to stay overnight by a 30 year old male. They don't see it as wrong.

My argument is not to satisfy the individual need of one person.

My argument is not to discriminate towards one group that which is equally allowed to other groups.

I would say non-discrimination is a very moral foundation for this argument.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Heterosexuals do not have the right to marry who ever they may want. They may only marry the opposite sex. This is the foundation of society, the family, and has been for all known history. This is the manner that society perpetuates itself, and is without dispute the best for children to have a mother and a father. Are all families good, of course not, but that does not change the larger facts, and the good of mankind.

Gays can have civil unions and they can have the benefits that are common between husbands and wives, from a legal stand point. The culture has made accommodations for the dysfunctions of homosexuality, without changing the age old, accepted in every nation and every culture of people, marriage between the opposite sex for the best for mankind. We should not accept the dilution of this foundational unit.

Now the case has been made without using scripture or condemnation of gays. Even though for most humans it is clear that homosexuality is unacceptable.

Times, they are-a changin'.

Whether we like it or not, gay marriage is coming. We may as learn to deal with it because trying to stop it isn't going to work.