|
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos.
Arbitrary lines move throughout history. There's no absolute moral truth or reason inherent in keeping the line in a single place or throwing away the line completely. If the line steps to allow marriage to homosexual who cares? Consistency doesn't require accepting all behaviors and liberalism certainly isn't about accepting all behaviors and beliefs.
|
On November 07 2008 08:04 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 07:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 07 2008 06:00 LG)Sabbath wrote:On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJMThere's my argument, and btw I'm a christian, and I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The fundamental weakness of this argument is that all the "President"s laws are derived from mosaic law, of which I wrote about briefly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81426¤tpage=12 and you will read about their modern applications here according to official Catholic theology in Aquinas' Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article3All of the penalties mentioned are made obsolete by the new covenant, often directly so by Jesus' own word in the gospels, but homosexuality is not, in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul says with certainty that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore from a Christian (mainstream Catholic let's say for sake of argument) point of view, it's not expressly prohibited to work on the Sabbath, stoning and burning are outright prohibited, pork may be eaten without being defiled, yet sodomy is still a sin. Ok, if you want to play cat and mouse, let's do it. My argument being that the bible cannot be taken word for word and I as a christian only use it as a second guide, my first guide being my conscience and my own judgement of situations. Anything taken word for word from the bible will eventually suffer from: 1- different versions of the bible say things differently, 2- context is based on opinion and therefore prevents proper judgement, 3- ignoring context makes one look like a retard at best. Therefore by following my own judgement I believe that, in general, people should be allowed the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others willfully or otherwise. Example: gay people marrying each other.So let's take this sentence from the bible, supposedly said by Jesus himself: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!" 1- Does this mean that I should promptly remove my eyes for having many times in my life looked at women and desired them? How about you, will you remove your own eyes? I doubt you have never looked at women with desire, any adult non-homosexual man must have done it. 2- May I desire women without looking at them? Such as in my imagination? That certainly doesn't sound consistent, but it does pass jesus' adultery rule. 3- The Bible says that I may not kill myself, yet Jesus suggests that I remove my own eyes, which will most probably cause my death in a matter of seconds. What should I do then?
I don't see how any of this conflicts with my diagnosis of the problem. Leviticus had the historical function of being the law of the ancient Hebrews, and was read in both in its moral and legal context.
The New Law was not only different in its proclamations, it was different in its very nature, because the laws of the NT were first and foremost laws written in the heart, and not of social regulation. This includes both the gospels and the Pauline epistles referred to above.
Summa Theologica once again refutes the notion of the New Law as a Written Law: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2106.htm#article1
Written law is effective only regarding deeds and not matters of the "heart." Jesus and Paul prescribed a new law based on loyalty of conscience rather than ritual observations of holy law.
The above passage does not have Jesus say: "And if a man covets a woman, his eye shall be gouged out." There is no way for society to enforce a law when they cannot establish its occurance. The above saying evokes self-control, not social control.
As for taking the Bible literally, there is a difference between Christ, who spoke in parables in the gospels, and the Pauline letters, whose moral sermons were written in an unambiguous way as to permit the Corinthian or Roman churches to understand them in the most straight-forward manner possible.
Also appropriate would be to say that Paul advised his followers in the manner of being a good Christian and avoiding sin. At worst he prescribed casting certain sinners out of the Christian community, but had nothing to say on the theory of government.
Therefore in Christian doctrine, sodomy is definitely sinning, but doctrine and law being different things, a Christian is not prevented from making the case that not all sins must be illegal in a body politic.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
@aRod
Who cares?
Every state that has voted on this...
|
On November 07 2008 08:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:17 hozz wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. 2 deliberate and consent humans want equal treatment = a crazy person + a dog/tree/anime character ?????? Or what? Seriously... various people
... AIDS...
* a child is a serious and obvious impact on a man's life. So a man tries to prevent that. As well as the woman. AIDS/STDs are much less obvious. * I think we all agree that men show riskier sexual behavior in general. No women, more risky behavior. Plus no child problem possible between to men. * Comparing infection rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals, please DO NOT LOOK AT AFRICA! This is where the HIV problem is, not Europe and the US. People can deliberate and consent in suicide but that doesn't make it right. Before you jump on me for comparing homosexual relations to suicide that was not my point. My point is that just because two adults say "ok" doesn't mean suddenly we allow it. Not on a state level anyways.
And that's the problem that needs to change.
|
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos.
Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e.
Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:36 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:31 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 08:17 hozz wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. 2 deliberate and consent humans want equal treatment = a crazy person + a dog/tree/anime character ?????? Or what? Seriously... various people
... AIDS...
* a child is a serious and obvious impact on a man's life. So a man tries to prevent that. As well as the woman. AIDS/STDs are much less obvious. * I think we all agree that men show riskier sexual behavior in general. No women, more risky behavior. Plus no child problem possible between to men. * Comparing infection rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals, please DO NOT LOOK AT AFRICA! This is where the HIV problem is, not Europe and the US. People can deliberate and consent in suicide but that doesn't make it right. Before you jump on me for comparing homosexual relations to suicide that was not my point. My point is that just because two adults say "ok" doesn't mean suddenly we allow it. Not on a state level anyways. And that's the problem that needs to change.
I disagree. People don't gain some kind of infinite right to do whatever they like when they hit the state mandated age of adulthood.
My argument is leaving the topic however.. specifically in regard to gay marriage I am actually in support of allowing it. That however is almost positively because I have some close friends that are gay and I could never imagine restricting their rights. I honestly believe people are either born homosexual or traumatized and become homosexual. I don't think many people have chosen to be homosexual..probably has happened but in so few cases that it isn't fair to weigh it as an option.
|
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos.
Replace animal lovers with incest and I agree completely. Why should gay marriage as a right be more protected than incestuous and polygamous marriage?
Human and animal marriage does not work because you can't say whether the animal loves you back.
|
On November 07 2008 08:04 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 07:15 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 07 2008 06:00 LG)Sabbath wrote:On November 06 2008 11:44 Murk wrote:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJMThere's my argument, and btw I'm a christian, and I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The fundamental weakness of this argument is that all the "President"s laws are derived from mosaic law, of which I wrote about briefly here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81426¤tpage=12 and you will read about their modern applications here according to official Catholic theology in Aquinas' Summa Theologica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article3All of the penalties mentioned are made obsolete by the new covenant, often directly so by Jesus' own word in the gospels, but homosexuality is not, in both Romans and 1st Corinthians, Paul says with certainty that sodomy is a sin and those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore from a Christian (mainstream Catholic let's say for sake of argument) point of view, it's not expressly prohibited to work on the Sabbath, stoning and burning are outright prohibited, pork may be eaten without being defiled, yet sodomy is still a sin. Ok, if you want to play cat and mouse, let's do it. My argument being that the bible cannot be taken word for word and I as a christian only use it as a second guide, my first guide being my conscience and my own judgement of situations. Anything taken word for word from the bible will eventually suffer from: 1- different versions of the bible say things differently, 2- context is based on opinion and therefore prevents proper judgement, 3- ignoring context makes one look like a retard at best. Therefore by following my own judgement I believe that, in general, people should be allowed the right to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others willfully or otherwise. Example: gay people marrying each other.So let's take this sentence from the bible, supposedly said by Jesus himself: "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!" 1- Does this mean that I should promptly remove my eyes for having many times in my life looked at women and desired them? How about you, will you remove your own eyes? I doubt you have never looked at women with desire, any adult non-homosexual man must have done it. 2- May I desire women without looking at them? Such as in my imagination? That certainly doesn't sound consistent, but it does pass jesus' adultery rule. 3- The Bible says that I may not kill myself, yet Jesus suggests that I remove my own eyes, which will most probably cause my death in a matter of seconds. What should I do then?
Before anyone says this isn't sanction by the church, this verse is in one of the NEW testament's gospels.( I believe it's Mathews but i could be wrong on that).
On taking this as your stance on Christianity you forfeit the right to hide behind the bible in other matters, such as the existence of God or Jesus, and admit that either the bible is fictional or that Jesus was wrong in some regards though this may be fine for you it is not for many other Christians, and as such you are a heretic.
A heretic is anyone who differs from an accepted doctrine or belief.
Edit: grammatical correction
|
On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos.
You're saying we should be consistent but the drawing of the line should be based on where it is now, even though it has been changed in the past to allow interracial couples to marry, shouldn't we be fair to gays and turn that decision back? Is being consistent more important than than trying to create a world where sexual preference is not a basis of discrimination? Even if that leaves other issues like you mention, these things take time.
Also, would your arguments against gay marriage be the exact same ones as the ones against trans-species marriage? The reasoning to allow either would be so different that we should treat them differently. Homosexuality is commonly accepted, beastiality still raises a lot of questions.
I don't see the need for consistency here, it's still a step in the right direction. Being liberal I can still argue that gay marriage would make gays and heterosexuals completely equal legally, which is pretty important to avoid discrimination.
My most important question, do you believe allowing interracial couples to marry has contributed to a better society? Was this more important than being consistent? Remember, you can't say that this is different from gay marriage because that would be inconsistent.
I might be liberal but Im also realistic, things take time, things need to be done in steps. We'll cross the bridge of polygamy when we get there.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison.
It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same.
headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level.
|
On November 07 2008 08:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
@aRod
Who cares?
Every state that has voted on this...
I was more expressing my lack of passion about how the marriage label is applied than actually questioning whether people oppose gay marriage.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
whoever created the smurfs of "Murk" and "Etherone" are funny.
That is some grade A trolling my friends.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:43 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
@aRod
Who cares?
Every state that has voted on this... I was more expressing my lack of passion about how the marriage label is applied than actually questioning whether people oppose gay marriage.
Ah.. I suppose a poor choice of words then cause a LOT of people care even if you don't hehe
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Really nice post btw frits.. I hope headbangaa responds 
|
On November 07 2008 08:41 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. You're saying we should be consistent but the drawing of the line should be based on where it is now, even though it has been changed in the past to allow interracial couples to marry, shouldn't we be fair to gays and turn that decision back? Is being consistent more important than than trying to create a world where sexual preference is not a basis of discrimination? Even if that leaves other issues like you mention, these things take time. Also, would your arguments against gay marriage be the exact same ones as the ones against trans-species marriage? The reasoning to allow either would be so different that we should treat them differently. Homosexuality is commonly accepted, beastiality still raises a lot of questions. I don't see the need for consistency here, it's still a step in the right direction. Being liberal I can still argue that gay marriage would make gays and heterosexuals completely equal legally, which is pretty important to avoid discrimination. My most important question, do you believe allowing interracial couples to marry has contributed to a better society? Was this more important than being consistent? Remember, you can't say that this is different from gay marriage because that would be inconsistent. I might be liberal but I'm also realistic, things take time, things need to be done in steps. We'll cross the bridge of polygamy when we get there.
Thank you, but if I may, there will be a trans-gender, trans-sexual barriers to cross as well in the future.
P.S I love Amsterdam, beautiful city.
|
On November 07 2008 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison. It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same. headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level.
Well the way I see it Polygamy is denied not only because its immoral but having multiple wives/massive amounts of children is a way to get ez tax breaks and avoid the law. Marrying an animal is outlawed simply because how can an animal sign a marriage license? How can it make a decision to be married? Those are both viable legal reason. What I was pointing out was that these two are outlawed for viable reasons while gay marriage is outlawed because its unnatural. I totally agree that it is unnatural since obviously man was meant to impregnate woman. But I do not think that the reason given is sufficient to deny gay people the right to marry.
|
On November 07 2008 08:43 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
whoever created the smurfs of "Murk" and "Etherone" are funny.
That is some grade A trolling my friends.
I was simply comparing their thoughts in their own rules, with some bit of sarcasm, I believe in gay marriage, I agree that here should exist educated Christians, the fact that the Church disagrees with LG) Sabbath is not because he is wrong or behind in fact I believe that he way he has chosen to believe is extremely educated and reveals intellect, but the church disagrees, this isn't a testament to his ignorance but to their need to evolve and accompany these new takes on the bible (not very new)
|
On November 07 2008 08:45 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:43 aRod wrote:On November 07 2008 08:36 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
@aRod
Who cares?
Every state that has voted on this... I was more expressing my lack of passion about how the marriage label is applied than actually questioning whether people oppose gay marriage. Ah.. I suppose a poor choice of words then cause a LOT of people care even if you don't hehe
Well I don't intend on avoid expressions all together. Who cares is commonly used to express feelings of disintrest. Here's a quote from urban dictionary
Who Cares: (Expression) A response to something of no concern or interest whatsoever.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 07 2008 08:55 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 08:42 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On November 07 2008 08:38 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 07 2008 07:17 HeadBangaa wrote:
GIve marriage to gays if you also give it to animal lovers, polygamists, etc. Absolutely no discretion as to what another person can marry. That is consistent. Else, respect the arbitrary line where it is.
To say, "Gay people should be able to marry, but not polygamists and animal lovers" is exercising your bigotry, and is half-ass liberalism. In future generations, you will be seen as the bigot. People in this thread seemed to be trapped in the moral intuition they grew up with, not concerned with its consistency.
You can't with one hand say, "all people inherently have the right" and with the other say, "except all these people, who I arbitrarily decided have no rights." Don't be dogmatic, or else you're just as bad as the religiosos. Are you serious? Polygamy is not permitted for completely different reasons which actually make sense legally. As for the case of marrying an animal that is totally immoral on any level because that animal cannot make a conscious decision of whether or not they want to marry you or w/e. Homosexuals are asking for the same legal rights which Heterosexuals are guaranteed. Comparing them to people that love animals and Polygamy is not even a reasonable comparison. It's a reasonable comparison because like it or not homosexual sex is not natural, is abnormal and is in many ways a damaging endeavor (physically). The comparison is often made to beastiality or polygamy because like homosexual sex it is something people swear they are born with/a part of them that can not be changed. Polygamists in a different way (more of a moral, religious or familial set up kind of necessity) but similar all the same. headbangaa is far from the first to make that comparison and people always play the bleeding heart liberal card and say "sex with animals is not the same!" No shit. But functionally on a policy level they can be evaluated on a similar level. Well the way I see it Polygamy is denied not only because its immoral but having multiple wives/massive amounts of children is a way to get ez tax breaks and avoid the law. Marrying an animal is outlawed simply because how can an animal sign a marriage license? How can it make a decision to be married? Those are both viable legal reason. What I was pointing out was that these two are outlawed for viable reasons while gay marriage is outlawed because its unnatural. I totally agree that it is unnatural since obviously man was meant to impregnate woman. But I do not think that the reason given is sufficient to deny gay people the right to marry.
Homosexual behavior is damaging.. this is supported in overwhelming numbers. Homosexual sex is physically unnatural and damaging. It creates a tremendously greater aptitude for contracting HIV and the lifestyle affiliated with homosexual sex/relationships has overwhelmingly been sporadic and fast leading to greater STD transfers. The book I got these arguments/figures from is in my car.. please don't ask me to fact check cause I am lazy as shit but if someone presses me on it I can go outside and get the book.
Point is these are viable reasons for why homosexual marriage should not be condoned on a state level. Nevermind the astronomically higher levels of depression, drug use and alcoholism. Which can be partly associated with (and are) social pressures/prejudices. This argument can get turned on its head as people would say "well allowing gay marriage would move away from the public prejudice which creates alcoholism, drug use etc.." but the other end of that angle has already been nominated as the "official" approach and that is to discourage homosexuallity in its entirety.
I can understand if people start to get confused with my posts.. I support gay marriage but I am playing devil's advocate here since most people argue symphonically against anything that might be religiously related.
|
I don't think you can view marriage as an extension of religion as you say, because you incorporate it into the law.
You have laws about divorce, adultery, etc, and thus it needs to be a right. It's not about religion when you have laws about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
