R
rick43235
Guest
The right to file a federal tax return and claim the status “Married Filing Jointly.”
- Status
B
bargio
Guest
Pursuit of happiness is a touchy subject, same with the idea of freedom. If killing a neighbor makes us happy, is it alright? If having sex with our children makes us happy, is it alright? If killing our own children makes us happy, is it alright? The answer to all of these is obviously not. We have the freedom too choose some things, yet other things tend to diminish the quality and functionality of society. Deciding what is beneficial to society is entirely subjective, therefore, we must look at our own history and what has worked and not worked. Gay-marriage would not have worked ages ago, so why would it work now? We have freedom here in America, but the idea of “Natural Rights” instilled upon us by our founding fathers need to stay *NATURAL! *
E
edwest2
Guest
The Church allows people to do whatever they want. In this case, because it’s on the ballot, it represents a fundamental change in the social order.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Hope this helps,
Ed
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Hope this helps,
Ed
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Yes, transfer of personal property and designation of it, is a right you have. Many families have challenged wills and won. It makes me sick that a person can not have the ability to ensure their wills be respected by their golddigging families who end up enraged that Jill left her possesions to Jeane, challenge Jill’s will and end up winning.None of those have anything to do with rights.
Yours in Christ
Joe
Or you could go ahead and tell any divorced man or woman that their legal battle to divide the personal property is not their “right”.
A
AJTheMan
Guest
The Tipitaka does not specifically condemn homosexuality except in the case of monks. Do not be confused, though, monks are not to have any sexuality whatsoever. They are meant to be celibate.
Buddhists are split on the issue. The east, from what I understand, is disdainful of homosexuality while the Buddhists in the west are more willing to accept their lifestyle.
Compassion is one of the main ethics in Buddhism. I try to be compassionate for their plight and their lifestyle.
Buddhists are split on the issue. The east, from what I understand, is disdainful of homosexuality while the Buddhists in the west are more willing to accept their lifestyle.
Compassion is one of the main ethics in Buddhism. I try to be compassionate for their plight and their lifestyle.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
LOL! Let’s look at the history and the logical pathway to it.
Just like the “benefits” we saw in giving blacks less legal rights than whites?
Just like the benefits we saw in letting women vote?
Christian beliefs evolve!
T
Tyuiop411
Guest
To me this argument doesn’t hold it’s water. It makes some people happy to be married to multiple people at the same time (polygamy) and other people are happy to marry close relatives (incest), but we still ban both.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
A gay man has a right to file a tax return as “married filing jointly” just as I do. What’s stopping him from doing that?
Yours in Christ
Joe
B
bargio
Guest
Yes, i knew someone would bring this up. lol.
Both those things you mention were entirely Biblical. The use of slaves and not allowing women the rights to vote or have the same rights as men were definitely a common norm. Lets look at those two things. There was a special place for slaves back in biblical times and they showed a relationship between servants and masters, similar to the relationship between man and God. The servant does the will of the master, and the master grants the servant room, board, and a carefree life. Of course over time the masters abused their authority and servants were taken advantage of. As America came along, they saw the injustice involved, realized they were not being treated fairly, and granted them rights, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In regards to women’s rights, it was biblically the norm to put authority in the male because that was how God created man, above female. And of course women had their own incredibly significant role in society as well that men could never achieve. So why would we want to change this too? If society was run as God intended, and people looked at the pieces and didn’t try to jam the wrong pieces together, we would live in a nicer society. The thing is, when one thing is abused, other things don’t function how it was meant to be. To return to biblical evidence, the practice of homosexual acts is condemned, plain and simple.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
So does a gay man.
Totally irrelevant to the question of gay marriage.
I agree, but yet again this is not relevant to the question of gay marriage.
Huh?
Yours in Christ
Joe
B
bargio
Guest
not sure if this is going on a tangent, but i’m curious.
Where does homosexuality fit into the whole evolution theory? I agree with most of what Darwin says, however, i strongly disagree with what “brights” like Dawkins and Hitchens proclaim. But the idea of survival of the fittest would have no room for homosexuals, and their kind would dwindle away. Except now in modern society where we have a steady population, it is becoming more and more common. So why would it even be practical to allow homosexuals the right to marry when it has absolutely no benefit to society? A society that functioned better prior to gay right activists…
Where does homosexuality fit into the whole evolution theory? I agree with most of what Darwin says, however, i strongly disagree with what “brights” like Dawkins and Hitchens proclaim. But the idea of survival of the fittest would have no room for homosexuals, and their kind would dwindle away. Except now in modern society where we have a steady population, it is becoming more and more common. So why would it even be practical to allow homosexuals the right to marry when it has absolutely no benefit to society? A society that functioned better prior to gay right activists…
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Sorry I am pressed for time, but 1) Hitchens is not a supporter of the word “brights”
What specifically do you agree and strongly disagree with?
I can try to dig up commentary regarding your question, but quite frankly- you are causing me to ask a lot of questions about how you arrive at conclusions without, well- any kind of support for your view.
R
rick43235
Guest
Not unless he’s married to a woman, he can’t.A gay man has a right to file a tax return as “married filing jointly” just as I do. What’s stopping him from doing that?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Neither can I unless I’m married to a woman. No difference.Not unless he’s married to a woman, he can’t.
Yours in Christ
Joe
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Joe, do you need me to spell this out for you? If they are allowed full legal status in a civil union then we don’t have to worry about Jill’s family taking the property she wished to leave Jean to end up going to her bigoted family that hated Jean’s very existance.So does a gay man.
Totally irrelevant to the question of gay marriage.
I agree, but yet again this is not relevant to the question of gay marriage.
Huh?
Yours in Christ
Joe
Imagine if your wife was disliked from day one by your family. You die. Your family can’t play games and get away with it.
Imagine you are Jill. You die. Jean could end up in a very dire situation, and your family that hated her /could/will end up with everything.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Why are you so flippant about things that affect real people’s lives, I realize you don’t agree with their choices, but their right to have a choice is not for your religion to dictate.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
You still haven’t named one right I have that a gay man does not have. A gay man may not marry another man. I can’t marry another man. We have the exact same rights. I can marry a woman, A gay man can marry a woman. Exactly the same.
Yours in Christ
Joe
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Semantics. Who cares how many are hurt by this archaric and creul prohibition to equal legal rights and protections that come with it. Christians want all the unborn to have equal legal rights, but once they are born… look out!
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Argument from emotion my friend. You still have not showed me a single right I have a gay man does not.Semantics. Who cares how many are hurt by this archaric and creul prohibition to equal legal rights and protections that come with it. Christians want all the unborn to have equal legal rights, but once they are born… look out!
Yours in Christ
Joe
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You have not shown me a right that a gay man or woman has in any of the above exchanges I have posted. In the situations I posted about, and could post more situations, the gay party would not have the same legal protection against frivilous litigation and suffer loss in comparison to the God fearing or not God fearing heterosexual couple. Just imagine, athiests that are married as husband and wife have more legal protections than a gay couple has in most states.
If you are saying it is an argument from emotion to state plainly that christians use the “unborn have equal rights” card, then you are wrong. It is a fact. I am a pro-life agnostic and resent christians who fight for life unborn while ignoring born life rights. It’s hypocritical.
- Status