Pastors forced to perform same-sex marriages

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

No. You are saying its ok. Not me.

Okay let's start from a different point and maybe you won't be so obtuse. Is it fair just and everything else to those under 21 to have the legal drinking age be 21 instead of 18?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Okay let's start from a different point and maybe you won't be so obtuse. Is it fair just and everything else to those under 21 to have the legal drinking age be 21 instead of 18?

Dude this isnt relevant at all! Your comparing apples to baseballs.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

So whats the privilege? Straight white people? Beer age is criminal law. Not civil.

What does race have to do with conversation?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Dude this isnt relevant at all! Your comparing apples to baseballs.

The concept that we can make laws that give one subset of people rights an privleges that another subset lacks is very relevant. Some of those laws are based on age like drinking beer. others are based on sexual orientation like marriage. You can't argue for equal treatment of homos in relation to marriage without destroying the grounds for countless other laws like the drinking age law.

[anon5]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The concept that we can make laws that give one subset of people rights an privleges that another subset lacks is very relevant. Some of those laws are based on age like drinking beer. others are based on sexual orientation like marriage. You can't argue for equal treatment of homos in relation to marriage without destroying the grounds for countless other laws like the drinking age law.

Okay, if you want to get down to it, I can't think of a single constitutional reason for
banning ANY perversion or sexual deviancy, including the marriage of two of them. My only real arguments are based in moral and religous reasoning. Both of which aren't at all biological, but cultural in nature. That means they change at a much faster rate over time then biology.
Biological reasons WOULD hold up if our planet weren't so overpopulated. Though, I notice things like sex, fears, hunger all tend to have roots in biology. Homosexuality is a bit of an anomoly because homos CLAIM it is totally biological, yet it serves NO biological purpose.

If folks could only get together and learn to discuss the subject from a scientific and rational way, instead of it becoming a tangled up emotional mess, then we could get somewhere in understanding the whole issue.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Luke

What does race have to do with conversation?

He said it was a privilege. Well at one time you werent allowed to marry outside your race.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

He said it was a privilege. Well at one time you werent allowed to marry outside your race.

Isnt that different than sexual preference. The one (ethnicty) you are born, the other you choose.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by anon5

Okay, if you want to get down to it, I can't think of a single constitutional reason for
banning ANY perversion or sexual deviancy, including the marriage of two of them. My only real arguments are based in moral and religous reasoning. Both of which aren't at all biological, but cultural in nature. That means they change at a much faster rate over time then biology.
Biological reasons WOULD hold up if our planet weren't so overpopulated. Though, I notice things like sex, fears, hunger all tend to have roots in biology. Homosexuality is a bit of an anomoly because homos CLAIM it is totally biological, yet it serves NO biological purpose.

If folks could only get together and learn to discuss the subject from a scientific and rational way, instead of it becoming a tangled up emotional mess, then we could get somewhere in understanding the whole issue.

Biology is often not concerned with purpose... That being said most of our laws are based on societal norms and concerns. I'm fine with that and with society changing but I am also aware the sometimes equal treatment is immoral as well

[anon5]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Biology is often not concerned with purpose... That being said most of our laws are based on societal norms and concerns. I'm fine with that and with society changing but I am also aware the sometimes equal treatment is immoral as well

You know, issues about freedoms and liberty didn't used to be so complicated back when (for the most part) we actually had alot of it. Now that REAL liberty is just a memory, we the "enlightened" generation are preoccupied squabbling over the scraps.

Also I think we are slowing learning that the concep of America and freedom just won't ever work unless it involves a religous and moral society.
Rr

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by anon5

You know, issues about freedoms and liberty didn't used to be so complicated back when (for the most part) we actually had alot of it. Now that REAL liberty is just a memory, we the "enlightened" generation are preoccupied squabbling over the scraps.

Also I think we are slowing learning that the concep of America and freedom just won't ever work unless it involves a religous and moral society.
Rr

Nah, most all the major world religions have committed far greater atrocities than any of the nations in the world have even dreamed of. A religious based government is far more scary to me.