equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some do not want this to hit the Supreme Court, now.

I hope it does, why not let Scalia go down in history as the author of a 'Dred Scott Decision"?

Funny, seems like just yesterday we were being told this isn't a federal or constitutional issue but an issue for each state to decide.
 
I have never believed that.

Why should the Federal Tax benefits along with the Federal Social Security Benefits attached to marriage be a State issue?

That was the same argument used in Civil Rights, that it was for the States to decide.
 
The same way Abraham and King David did, thru a commandment of God until it was taken from the earth. They were called "polygamous marriages" because opposing sexes were united by God.

And they can be defined as marriages because the parties involved were 2 parties of opposing sexes, thus they were marriages - not 2 men or two women establishing a consensual sexual relationship.



Labeling it gay partnerships "marriage" which connotes the uniting of 2 people of opposing sexes, doesn't fit the definition.




<>
 
The same way Abraham and King David did, thru a commandment of God until it was taken from the earth. They were called "polygamous marriages" because opposing sexes were united by God.

And they can be defined as marriages because the parties involved were 2 parties of opposing sexes, thus they were marriages - not 2 men or two women establishing a consensual sexual relationship.



Labeling it gay partnerships "marriage" which connotes the uniting of 2 people of opposing sexes, doesn't fit the definition.




<>

So, we change the definition. Thus, the people who are so loyal to the dictionaries can be satisfied too. Done.
 
Regardless of what

"those Christians
the Mormon"

as you have referred to them here on the boards...it....doesn't circumvent what the Master said about and how He defined marriage.

:)



<>

And no law can be made respecting an establishment of religion, so that argument is automatically out the window.
 
*sigh*

lecture me here, lecture me there.

People have been predicting drug usage being legalize for the last 40 years and it still hasn't happened.

*yawn*

<>

Two different things. And I'd certainly argue that marijuana should not be illegal as long as alcohol is legal.
 
*sigh*

lecture me here, lecture me there.

People have been predicting drug usage being legalize for the last 40 years and it still hasn't happened.

*yawn*

<>

Just proves the country is stupid on both fronts. It certainly doesn't prove you correct. :shrug:
 
The same way Abraham and King David did, thru a commandment of God until it was taken from the earth. They were called "polygamous marriages" because opposing sexes were united by God.

And they can be defined as marriages because the parties involved were 2 parties of opposing sexes, thus they were marriages - not 2 men or two women establishing a consensual sexual relationship.



Labeling it gay partnerships "marriage" which connotes the uniting of 2 people of opposing sexes, doesn't fit the definition.




<>
No, it wasn't 2 people of opposite sex. It was one person and 33 people of the opposite sex.

But you said it's "as was intended", the definition was so important to you, but as you just admitted, the definition has changed.

Typical backtracking hypocritical conservative argument...:|
 
doesn't circumvent what the Master said about and how He defined marriage.

:)



<>

Master? What master? You mean "master" as in sexual role-playing? So, if one person is playing the submissive role, they can only marry according to the wishes of their dominant master?

Otherwise, I don't get the meaning of "master," and don't really feel that any sort of "master" ought to dictate my behaviour. Outside the bedroom, of course. :sexywink:
 
No, it wasn't 2 people of opposite sex. ...:|

Sure it was.
Joseph and his wives.

The opposite sexual parties only had intimate sexual relationships with their spouse who was Joseph.


That said, are there any homosexual weddings sanctioned in the Bible, Koran or Talmud?

Polygamous marriages were sanctioned by God in the Bible however.

Last question:

Did God, Christ, any Prophets, or Apostles ever attend or sanction any type of gay weddings anywhere?


Thank you,
<>
 
Master? What master? You mean "master" as in sexual role-playing? So, if one person is playing the submissive role, they can only marry according to the wishes of their dominant master?

Otherwise, I don't get the meaning of "master," and don't really feel that any sort of "master" ought to dictate my behaviour. Outside the bedroom, of course. :sexywink:

Ha ha.

Christ is considered "Master" to believers in Him.

Satan is also considered Master to those that worship him.

<>
 
Sure it was.
Joseph and his wives.

The opposite sexual parties only had intimate sexual relationships with their spouse who was Joseph.


That said, are there any homosexual weddings sanctioned in the Bible, Koran or Talmud?

Polygamous marriages were sanctioned by God in the Bible however.

Last question:

Did God, Christ, any Prophets, or Apostles ever attend or sanction any gay weddings?


Thank you,
<>

Religion has no place in the legality of gay marriage.
 
You're trying to right now with only limited success.

The majority of Americans like the current meaning of the word.

<>

James Madison and others wrote a Constitution that was intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Code:
                            ___________________________
                   /|  /|  |                          |
                   ||__||  |       Please don't       |
                  /   O O\__           feed           |
                 /          \       the trolls        |
                /      \     \                        |
               /   _    \     \ ---------------------- 
              /    |\____\     \     ||                
             /     | | | |\____/     ||                
            /       \|_|_|/   |    __||                
           /  /  \            |____| ||                
          /   |   | /|        |      --|               
          |   |   |//         |____  --|               
   * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/                
*-- _--\ _ \     //           |                        
  /  _     \\ _ //   |        /                        
*  /   \_ /- | -     |       |                         
  *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
 
Name calling usually occurs when in desparate moments one feels he is losing in a calm discussion

<>
 
Name calling usually occurs when in desparate moments one feels he is losing in a calm discussion

<>

There's no winners and losers here. There's simply you, picking and choosing which questions you want to answer. And until you address (in an intelligent manner) posts like mine about the tyranny of the majority, a very legitimate point here, you really are simply trolling this discussion.
 
Sure it was.
Joseph and his wives.
What is it, with conservatives and math? Seriously, you just embarassed a whole party.
The opposite sexual parties only had intimate sexual relationships with their spouse who was Joseph.
I guess you've never heard of "you sleep with everyone your partner has slept with...so on and so on".

That said, are there any homosexual weddings sanctioned in the Bible, Koran or Talmud?
First of all in the US, who cares we are not ran by the Bible, Koran, or Talmud.

Secondly, were there any interracial marriages? Was there any mention of birth control? Any mention of using "the word" as a model for government?


Last question:

Did God, Christ, any Prophets, or Apostles ever attend or sanction any type of gay weddings anywhere?

Did God, Christ, any Prophets, or Apostles ever attend or sanction every type of celebration, contract, or issue you support?

If you answer yes, you are a liar.
 
The majority of Americans like the current meaning of the word.

<>

Look how the story changes once some facts are brought in...

Now they just "like the current meaning"...

A lot of them liked it when a black man couldn't marry a white woman.

Will a true conservative stand up, tell this poster his arguments are a joke and then try to give me a real one? PLEASE!!!
 
There's no winners and losers here. There's simply you, picking and choosing which questions you want to answer. And until you address (in an intelligent manner) posts like mine about the tyranny of the majority, a very legitimate point here, you really are simply trolling this discussion.

Describe the tyranny in the USA re this issue.

<>
 
Did God, Christ, any Prophets, or Apostles ever attend or sanction every type of celebration, contract, or issue you support?

If you answer yes, you are a liar.
[/QUOTE]

Again calling names makes you look desperate aside from being ignorant of the scripture.



And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:


Jhn 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.


Jhn 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.


Jhn 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.


Jhn 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do [it].
 
Describe the tyranny in the USA re this issue.

<>

You've misunderstood. I'm saying that to simply state that the majority of Americans agree with something is not an argument for it. The point of this concept I allude to is that the Constitution was framed so that the majority could not simply vote away the rights of a minority. Madison argued for a stronger federal government than was originally proposed, because he believe that an overly powerful majority would be "incompatible with personal security or rights of property." In layman's terms, he means that there needs to be a federal government strong enough to make necessary and proper laws to prevent people from getting their rights simply voted away.

It is on those grounds that I disagree with the idea of a vote like Proposition 8. I think there is significant enough Constitutional theory to argue that it is unconstitutional to hold such a vote.

As it relates to what we're talking about: the majority (those who want to keep rights away from homosexuals) cannot simply keep those rights away because they're the majority.
 
I have no problem with Gay Domestic Wedded Couples having the civil rights as the same as marrieds couples.

So where's the tyranny?

<>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom