More precisely, if you compare homosexuality to pederasty, you are a bigot. Christ commanded compassion, and even praised a homosexual centurion as more deserving than his own disciples. All the antihomosexual bigots cos learn a lesson from Him.
Yeah, that’s as improbably as a contraceptive mandate being levied on Catholic institutions.
That is hardly the same thing. Use some common sense please.
The rhetoical point Jim was trying to make was that your argument can be reduced to the absurd. You’re skipping the first part of the analysis. I would agree with the pro-gay marriage side that if it can be said that marriage is simply a form of partnership, and is not intrinsically oriented towards procreation, then same sex couples are beind deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. BUT, the first step is determining that same-sex couples are similarly situated with respect to the institution of marriage. Because I believe they are NOT, because their union is not, and cannot be oriented towards procreation, the analysis concludes that there is no equal protection violation.
A number of states would disagree with you…
It is exactly the same thing. Don’t lie on the internet and pretend you don’t get it. It’s embarassing for an adult.
What does the number of states who hold a position on something mean in a discussion? That’s the number of states who hold that position now. Next week, it may change and the situation we currently have will be in the past. The other thing that’s in the past is states not allowing whites and blacks to get married. There were alot of states that agreed with that too. The number of states who agree on an issue at any given point in time does not prove anything.
Thing is, that’s a rather flawed argument in that it could be used against you in cases such as abortion…
While the Constitution generally regulates the relationship between individuals and the federal government (and through the 14th amendment the individual states), it does not follow that private businesses are free to discriminate. There are equal employment laws and antidiscrimination laws, that heavily regulate a private entity’s right to discriminate in matters of employment and doing business. Specifically, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act expressly protects individuals from discrimination in housing and employment based upon gender and sexual orientation, inter alia. While at present there is a First Amendment right preventing the State from enacting laws proscribing the free exercise of religion, those protections are growing more tenuous with each executive directive. The Constitutional right to freedom of religion is becoming the freedom to worship, a watered down right that currently exists even in the most extremist of islamic countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia.
My point was that there are numerous types of couplings that are not recognized for marriage purposes. In effect we discriminate against them all as possible marriages. And if we eliminate the marital aspect of sexual complementarity, there is no inherent reason why other couplings should not be recognized as suitable for marriage.
Your arguements are getting more and more bizarre as you go. You left logic a while back. Surely you can see that the poster was not comparing homosexuality to pederasty in regards to the harm done to the partner/victim. He was demonstrating that it is both legal and morally right to deny a marriage license to some situations. If the state is going to recognize marriage as a legal contract at all, they have to define the parameters. They are descriminating when they do this. The question isn’t whether or not they are descriminating, but whether they are descriminating justly. If we can all agree that as long as the government issues marriage licenses, they will be descriminating to some extent as to who can recieve one, this thread would move forward far more intelligently. Then we could discuss the real issue at hand; whether or not it is beneficial to society to require everyone to acknowledge homosexual relationships as the same as a traditional marriage.No kidding! Where do people get this stuff?
Quite the contrary, homosexuality was common in the Roman legions, there is nothing extraordinary about reading the Bible in its proper historical context. There can be no doubt that the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his sick boyfriend was a homosexual.
The bible!
There is something on the internet hypothesizing that when Jesus cured the servant of the centurion, that it was really the centurion’s homosexual partner; thus Jesus blessed this union by curing the partner. Of course, in 2,000 years of biblical exegesis no one has discovered this interpretation until now.
Sure. No doubt whatsoever.
This contention is Biblical fanfiction.
Homosexuality was common in Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was never called marriage. And you are reading into Scripture what it doesn’t say.
On the contrary, there had been a falsification of the translation to sanitize the passage in question for Victorian sensibilities, but, again, if you read the Bible in Greek there is no serious question as to what the word pais means.