Originally Posted by Guest

Then it was based on a man and a woman. The closet door was not even ajar at that time!

And this is all that needs to be said - thank you! Too many posters on here trying to veer this train off its tracks.......typical tactics.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm sorry but your analysis and concerns are completely contrary to the gay rights movements goals. Marriage is not a civil union. There are specific laws both Federal and state which clearly differentiate the benefits of marriage vs a civil union. Married people can file a joint tax return, civil union cannot. Married people can inherit without tax or probate, civil union cannot. Married can have pensions, hospital visits, protection of privileged communications etc etc. What the gay rights movement has been fighting to achieve for decades it that all the civil rights afforded to married couples apply fully to married gay couples. Not a single gay rights organization has ever insisted that a religious ceremony must be made available although they have wished it would be and many denominations that read the same holy book you do have agreed that they will perform those ceremonies. Marriage is a legal contract. A religious marriage that does not include a legal contract (a government issued marriage license signed and returned to the state) is just a religious service. Your religion is not under attack. Your attempt to force your religion's definition of a proper legal contract is under attack as it denies equal protection to gay persons.

Your errant belief that the rights of gay persons to adopt is established shows your lack of awareness of the thrust of the GOP to thwart gay adoption. Today
Florida House Approves Bill To Let Adoption Agencies Refuse Gay Parents

I object to the continual use of the term "gay" when the term homosexual is more accurate. That is, it's not "gay marriage" but "homosexual marriage." It clarifies the topic, and is honest as well as descriptive.

Seems as if the Left always tends to use language manipulation aka propaganda-type terminology to sell it's ideology.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with our communication seems to be the difference between your definition of marriage and mine. Many couples (straight and gay) have civil ceremonies at a court house. Although by law, that is a legal union No by law that is a marriage, it is not considered a marriage by many people of faith.Your faith based opinion should not control the law, see the first amendment about establishing a faith To those of faith, marriage is a holy sacrament performed in a church where one is making a commitment before God and asking for His blessing. The latter is what I am opposed to for gay couples - not sure if that clears up the intent of my comments or not. As far as any other legal rights that gays are able to obtain through our legislature, I have no control over that, so it is what it is. I am just not convinced that it is a good thing for society as a whole and that is JMHO.

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

Several points ...

1. nice job at slipping the "cling" descriptor in there

2. the term "CHURCH" seems to be a hot button for you. How about if you substitute the phrase "Judeo Christian principles" or "Judeo Christian morality" instead?

3. Out of curiously, other than the fierce warriors of Ancient Thebes, can you cite any other examples in Western history where homosexual marriage was legalized and sanctioned by any previous civilization? If not, why not?

Does the AMAT support this witchcraft?

American Medical Association

Originally Posted by Guest

The problem with our communication is that you believe that your understanding of what is a marriage has some basis in your religion. You believe that a marriage is a sacrament and your definition of holy or God should be the governmental definition of marriage. It is a false argument and I believe you are smart enough to know it. Marriage is a legal contract that does not require the blessing of any deity nor need it be done in a temple of the high priest or by a representative of your deity. On your tax return it does not nor has it ever asked who married you or in the name of what deity. Your particular church can insist that to be called married by YOUR CHURCH you must follow its doctrines or be tossed out of its loving arms but YOUR CHURCH has no right to impose its doctrine on the rest of us. Your church does not own the word marriage although you cling to it as if it is yours. My country is not obliged to adopt your church's definitions even if it accepted it in the past. My country may recognize the damage and suffering your church's definition has imposed on the rest of us and instead move to a more egalitarian and legal understanding that all of us have a right to enter into the legal contract of marriage. You may keep your church based belief within your church and within your heart. You may even have your own new term. Why not call what I seek to be marriage and you can now have religious union. Those not in a religious union may not participate in the rites of your church. All married people can be full citizens with all the privileges and responsibilities of marriage under Federal and local law.

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Originally Posted by Guest

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Because it will be the law of the land after the Supreme Court rules, just like Roe vs Wade is the law of the land.

Originally Posted by Guest

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Usually because the majority is silent.
You have the younger generations coming up that either know no difference or don't care.
Plus the current generation permissive anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings or affect them personally...much like the don't care crowd.
Plus the dying off of those of us that have been around a while.
And finally the silent that seem to care but are content as long as it does not affect them directly.

Therefore: ............the majority loses another one.

I know before too long we won't be the majority. By then it won't matter to most of us.

Originally Posted by Guest

Usually because the majority is silent.
You have the younger generations coming up that either know no difference or don't care.
Plus the current generation permissive anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings or affect them personally...much like the don't care crowd.
Plus the dying off of those of us that have been around a while.
And finally the silent that seem to care but are content as long as it does not affect them directly.

Therefore: ............the majority loses another one.

Sadly, I think you are correct.

Originally Posted by Guest

And why must the majority change the definition of marriage for a minority? (see highlighted statement above in your post).

Because the activist minority that pushes this is addicted to the use of central power to force the rest of us to declare them "normal"

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina.

Your demented, and often inane, replies are always entertaining to read ...

Originally Posted by Guest

Yeah, the minorities should be put in their places. Us old white men got no use for them. Shush, Fox News is just coming out with another reason the white cop should not be charged with killing the black man in South Carolina.

I no longer think they are entertaining.
Just a disrespectful fool who takes pride in being an antagonist no matter how stupid their posta are.
And are a shameful representation that I would not give the benfit of calling the opposition.
The person obviously does not car as they lurk and are only emboldened by their anonymity.

I cannot imagine they are welcome in any legitimate entity in the thinking USA regardless party affiliation, race, religion or anything else. A self annointed embarassment.