1.) sorry but this may be the biggest stretch of the imagination i have every heard, its pure propaganda. You would not be forced to accept it by any stretch of the imgination. If that silliness was true I guess people are "forced" to accept cussing, premartial sex, nudity, masturbation, tattoos, etc etc etc LMAO
gues people are forced to accept meat can be consumed at any time because McDoalds always sells it, right? LMAO hahahahahahahahah sorry thats pure nonsense. You and your church could still teach, preach and believe what ever you want. Nice try but I live in reality
Obviously you would not be forced to accept it in your own mind. But
as you yourself stated, one would be forced to accept it
legally. Which I find at least somewhat unacceptable.
And your example comparisons are not valid.
And again with the "you, your, etc." I am not a member of any church. I believe the best description of my stance is Agnostic.
2.) well didnt you imply this would change? it wouldnt and if you didnt it was meaningless to talk about
I should hope I didn't imply any such thing.
And, yes, it was meaningless to talk about, which is why I responded with “Isn’t that what I just said?”
3.) wrong a different name is easily discrimination its that simple. You are picking and choosing when you want to go by the law and religion but i wont let you. If you agree religion is different than law the then LAW name has NO impact on religion so pick one, i wont let you have it both ways LMAO
No.
If all
legal marriages are called the same thing, it is
obviously not a "different name", and quite the opposite of discrimination.
As to the legal name usage having no effect…That is obviously BS. If the legal usage of the term “marriage” had no effect, no one would care about gay marriage.
It is partially because people consider the very term “marriage” to be sacred that there IS such debate over it.
4.) more BS, the LAW is already doing that NOW and religion hasnt changed so unless the real world becomes your fantasy land this point is meaningless. The law already defines TONS of things different LMAO next.
The "LAW" is doing
what now?
And what are you ranting about?
5.) but you will stop others from having equal rights, see thats called a hypocrite.
WTF??? I thought I had specifically stated that I would NOT stop others from having equal rights. In fact my suggestion was one of
equal rights.
6.) its actually NOT an unfair comparison at all, i said it was for humor and extreme but changing the name of something based on YOUR religion but ignoring everybody else;s religions or beliefs is in fact discrimination.
Did you not say you dont want it called marriage? if you did yes you do want it called something different
First, this is not based on my religion, as I don't really have one.
Second, I
never suggested naming gay marriage something different, which is what you seem to
think I suggested.
7/) like i said there is only ONE type of marriage in this debate because the other kind is in fact SECONDARY to the debate and NOT impact by the debate LMAO not my fault you just dont get that LOL
There are currently two types of marriage.
Both are intertwined to an extent, and even if you renamed the legal part, they would still be intertwined.
8.) eventhough people marry that never want to have kids? whooops nice try more empty propaganda
and you religious right to marry wouldnt get impacted one bit, thats a FACT you keep repeating it like it will be but it wont be in reality LMAO
I never suggested that any religious right to marry would be effected.
Any law doing so would quickly be struck down as unconstitutional.
I was simply stating fact.
9.) actually its the forcing of matter that you are making up because religion doesnt have to change you keep debating a fallacy
I never said religion would change. Did I?
Please point out where.