• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    62
both of you have equal 'right to marriage'. so long as you follow the law when applying for a marriage license.

it seems that all you know how (or wish) to have here is the "gays should or should not have the ability to recieve marriage licenses for their relationships' argument. do you have an actual reply to the original question that i have missed?

No, I don't have an equal right to marriage, no matter how much you want to pretend I do. I can't enter the contract of marriage with the person I want, and the marriage law on books is discriminatory.

And you have yet to say why LGBT should be denied marriage rights. Why do you believe that we don't deserve that right. Our relationships are no different than yours, except for the fact that it is with the same gender.
 
both of you have equal 'right to marriage'. so long as you follow the law when applying for a marriage license.

it seems that all you know how (or wish) to have here is the "gays should or should not have the ability to recieve marriage licenses for their relationships' argument. do you have an actual reply to the original question that i have missed?

This same argument could easily be made for interracial marriage. Both parties are free to marry someone of their same race. Why did they have to marry someone of a different race? Isn't the argument from the anti-SSM side always that attraction to someone is a choice? Wouldn't that same thing hold true about attraction to members of a different race? Wouldn't those people be able to choose not to be attracted to or be with a member of a different race? So then, why did they need to get married to members of a different race? Why did the SCOTUS force every state to provide marriages to interracial couples?
 
both of you have equal 'right to marriage'. so long as you follow the law when applying for a marriage license.

it seems that all you know how (or wish) to have here is the "gays should or should not have the ability to recieve marriage licenses for their relationships' argument. do you have an actual reply to the original question that i have missed?

I dont know if you asked her anything but I know that YOU are not trying to call somebody out for QUESTION DODGING???? LMAO:laughat:
 
because nothing will have really changed (you yourself might be ecstatic, i don't know). society will feel exactly the same way it did the day before-hand; if anything there may be backlash (one of the downsides of representative government; you can't run roughshod over the expressed will of the people without them getting all uppity about it).

my (adoptive) sister, for example, lives in the world where she will be married one day. except that she also sees her mom helping her pick a dress. and her dad walking her down the aisle. and getting married by my dad (who is a methodist minister). and getting married in the church where we were children. but if her marriage is a lesbian one, then none of these things will happen, irrespective of whether or not the Supreme Court (or whomever) has altered the definition of marriage... but that's something she has no desire to face and so she chooses not to. until she has to. and that will be a series of disappointing days for her when she realizes that "gay marriage" isn't some kind of "easy" fix-all button.

Who said anything about changing society? Society can go ahead and think anything in wants. You can dislike same sex marriage as much as you want. You'd even be free to stand out in public and protest it. All well within your rights. What isn't within your rights is to use government force against another group of people to supress their exercise of their rights and liberties when they themselves have done nothing to infringe upon the rights of others.
 
This same argument could easily be made for interracial marriage. Both parties are free to marry someone of their same race. Why did they have to marry someone of a different race? Isn't the argument from the anti-SSM side always that attraction to someone is a choice? Wouldn't that same thing hold true about attraction to members of a different race? Wouldn't those people be able to choose not to be attracted to or be with a member of a different race? So then, why did they need to get married to members of a different race? Why did the SCOTUS force every state to provide marriages to interracial couples?

it seems common sense is wasted on this poster so he probably won't have any REAL or LOGICAL answers for you, reality is not a place he seems to live in. Its all dramatic spin and illogical sound bites that dont make sense in reality.
 
because nothing will have really changed (you yourself might be ecstatic, i don't know). society will feel exactly the same way it did the day before-hand; if anything there may be backlash (one of the downsides of representative government; you can't run roughshod over the expressed will of the people without them getting all uppity about it). my (adoptive) sister, for example, lives in the world where she will be married one day. except that she also sees her mom helping her pick a dress. and her dad walking her down the aisle. and getting married by my dad (who is a methodist minister). and getting married in the church where we were children. but if her marriage is a lesbian one, then none of these things will happen, irrespective of whether or not the Supreme Court (or whomever) has altered the definition of marriage... but that's something she has no desire to face. until she has to. and that will be a series of disappointing days for her when she realizes that "gay marriage" isn't some kind of "easy" fix-all button.

That is not what we are arguing here. It is about being treated equally under the law, and the push for SSM has nothing to do social acceptance. It is a legal argument through, and through. And the social acceptance will come when the older generation dies out, and my generation, and the next generation take over things.

And I could care less if people are mad about it, our government was designed to make sure that the majority can't take away the rights of the minority. That is more important than the expressed will of the people.
 
This same argument could easily be made for interracial marriage. Both parties are free to marry someone of their same race. Why did they have to marry someone of a different race? Isn't the argument from the anti-SSM side always that attraction to someone is a choice? Wouldn't that same thing hold true about attraction to members of a different race? Wouldn't those people be able to choose not to be attracted to or be with a member of a different race? So then, why did they need to get married to members of a different race? Why did the SCOTUS force every state to provide marriages to interracial couples?

And sadly enough, this was the EXACT reason as to why the Marriage License was created in the first place. It was invented after the Civil War and meant to prevent inter-racial marriage because some people thought it was icky and an affront to "traditional marriage".
 
This same argument could easily be made for interracial marriage. Both parties are free to marry someone of their same race. Why did they have to marry someone of a different race? Isn't the argument from the anti-SSM side always that attraction to someone is a choice? Wouldn't that same thing hold true about attraction to members of a different race? Wouldn't those people be able to choose not to be attracted to or be with a member of a different race? So then, why did they need to get married to members of a different race? Why did the SCOTUS force every state to provide marriages to interracial couples?

The parallels are so similar it's both funny, and quite sad.
 
No, I don't have an equal right to marriage, no matter how much you want to pretend I do. I can't enter the contract of marriage with the person I want, and the marriage law on books is discriminatory.

1. the law, in order to define marriage, must discriminate. that is a tautology.
2. you are just as free to enter into a contract of marriage with the person you want to as the prisoner is. that he wants to marry someone who qualifies and you do not is not inequality before the law.

both of you are equally restrained and freed in the regulation; it's just that you don't like the regulation. but not liking something is not the same as having a right to alter it.

And you have yet to say why LGBT should be denied marriage rights.

as i said, that's not why i entered this debate, and it's not what i've tried to address. nor will you find my answer in any way satisfactory. i wish you would address the point about society v government here.
 
that is correct. adultery, for example, remains rather publicly taboo despite the fact that it is legal. and it's why I think - should they ever succeed - that homosexual marriage advocates are in for some disappointment.

I doubt they would really care whether they are then accepted or not. I know I wouldn't care. I'd just be happy that I got to enter into a marriage contract with someone I loved and wanted to make a legal part of my family. That is what is important.

Now, there might be a few gay people and/or SSM advocates who are disappointed if, once they get SSM, they are not accepted by society. Those will be a minority, though. Most will absolutely just be happy to have access to the same legal contract that heterosexuals do, that provides benefits and legal protections that are very important to most committed couples.
 
because nothing will have really changed (you yourself might be ecstatic, i don't know). society will feel exactly the same way it did the day before-hand; if anything there may be backlash (one of the downsides of representative government; you can't run roughshod over the expressed will of the people without them getting all uppity about it).

my (adoptive) sister, for example, lives in the world where she will be married one day. except that she also sees her mom helping her pick a dress. and her dad walking her down the aisle. and getting married by my dad (who is a methodist minister). and getting married in the church where we were children. but if her marriage is a lesbian one, then none of these things will happen, irrespective of whether or not the Supreme Court (or whomever) has altered the definition of marriage... but that's something she has no desire to face and so she chooses not to. until she has to. and that will be a series of disappointing days for her when she realizes that "gay marriage" isn't some kind of "easy" fix-all button.

you mean like people still are chauvinistic pigs
you mean like since people are still racist

ooooooh I get so we should let the bad guys win and not fight for what is right because there will always be certain morons in society that wont change their ways.

No thanks Ill pick the american way and get rid of discrimination and fight bigotry.
Theres families right now that wouldnt show up to a wedding if their kid didnt marry the right person PERIOD. not enough money, education, race, religion, from the wrong part of town or wrong last name etc etc

GUESS WE SHOULD OUTLAW ALL MARRIAGE hahahahaha

Again, see how DUMB that is :D
 
1. the law, in order to define marriage, must discriminate. that is a tautology.
2. you are just as free to enter into a contract of marriage with the person you want to as the prisoner is. that he wants to marry someone who qualifies and you do not is not inequality before the law.

both of you are equally restrained and freed in the regulation; it's just that you don't like the regulation. but not liking something is not the same as having a right to alter it.



as i said, that's not why i entered this debate, and it's not what i've tried to address. nor will you find my answer in any way satisfactory. i wish you would address the point about society v government here.

So do you agree with the Loving v Virginia ruling? Because if you do, then your position on SSM is quite hypocritical.

Also, why are you dodging my question? Just answer it, why should the government not allow me to marry?
 
Who said anything about changing society? Society can go ahead and think anything in wants. You can dislike same sex marriage as much as you want. You'd even be free to stand out in public and protest it. All well within your rights. What isn't within your rights is to use government force against another group of people to supress their exercise of their rights and liberties when they themselves have done nothing to infringe upon the rights of others.

ah. and perhaps you could identify for me the use of government force against homosexuals here? police are interrupting public ceremonies? those ministers who choose to "wed" homosexual couples are being rounded up? if steve calls mike his "husband" will that be considered in any way criminal?

no. homosexuals are free to live, love, and grow old together. they can have marriage ceremonies, tell everyone they are married, and live their whole life long as a happy couple. the only action being constrained here is the action of the state which is being constrained by the people.
 
1. the law, in order to define marriage, must discriminate. that is a tautology.
2. you are just as free to enter into a contract of marriage with the person you want to as the prisoner is. that he wants to marry someone who qualifies and you do not is not inequality before the law.

both of you are equally restrained and freed in the regulation; it's just that you don't like the regulation. but not liking something is not the same as having a right to alter it.



as i said, that's not why i entered this debate, and it's not what i've tried to address. nor will you find my answer in any way satisfactory. i wish you would address the point about society v government here.

all you have to do is apply you random illogical example to race and or gender and a smart person quickly sees how dumb, meaningless and dishonest it is. Its very transparent.

It reminds me of a little kid getting yelled at for "laying on the floor" and the kid says im not laying on the floor im "laying on the carpet", technically there is some truth in his answer but its submersed in idiocy, arrogance and dishonesty and isnt going to get the results he hoped for.:2wave:
 
ah. and perhaps you could identify for me the use of government force against homosexuals here?

The government prevents same sex couples from entering into the marriage contract. Could you really not see that? Government force isn't just limited to the ATF setting fire to a cultist building and watching everyone burn. Government force is ANY force against the rights and liberties of the individual. In some cases, it's legitimized through showing in court that an individual has infringed upon the rights of others. In other cases, it's illegitimate such as using government force against same sex couples thus preventing them from engaging in their right to contract when they themselves have done nothing to infringe upon the rights of others.

the only action being constrained here is the action of the state which is being constrained by the people.

BTW, this is not 100% correct. We do not live in a pure democracy, hence the State cannot do everything the People at large want. They can only do that which does not infringe upon the rights of others. Majority rules within minority rights. That's why we're a democratic Republic built on the lawful purposes of upholding the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Last edited:
So do you agree with the Loving v Virginia ruling? Because if you do, then your position on SSM is quite hypocritical.

my position on Loving is similar to my position on Brown or Cooper. the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons. though with Cooper I suspect a bit of grandiosity and self-promotion, and i wonder if the potentially irreparable damage to federalism was worth it.

Also, why are you dodging my question? Just answer it, why should the government not allow me to marry?

:shrug: if we are going to get into the opinions of cpwill; then they are of two seperate levels. first, why would I vote the way I would should the matter come up on a Ballot and Second, why should the government not issue a marriage certificate for a lesbian couple.

the second is the easiest; and i believe we have discussed it before. the government shouldn't do so because the people have told it not to, and, in this nation, government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

the first is more complicated and unfortunately for you it's straight to the a priori of my religious beliefs. given the option; i would vote against no-fault divorce as well, which ought to give you a hint of just how out of the mainstream i personally am here.
 
Last edited:
ah. and perhaps you could identify for me the use of government force against homosexuals here? police are interrupting public ceremonies? those ministers who choose to "wed" homosexual couples are being rounded up? if steve calls mike his "husband" will that be considered in any way criminal?

no. homosexuals are free to live, love, and grow old together. they can have marriage ceremonies, tell everyone they are married, and live their whole life long as a happy couple. the only action being constrained here is the action of the state which is being constrained by the people.

Yep again jut like interracial marriage, minority and women rights. lol Nobody is buying your dishonesty.
 
my position on Loving is similar to my position on Brown or Cooper. the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons. though with Cooper I suspect a bit of grandiosity and self-promotion, and i wonder if the potentially irreparable damage to federalism was worth it.



:shrug: if we are going to get into the opinions of cpwill; then they are of two seperate levels. first, why would I vote the way I would should the matter come up on a Ballot and Second, why should the government not issue a marriage certificate for a lesbian couple.

the second is the easiest; and i believe we have discussed it before. the government shouldn't do so because the people have told it not to, and in this nation government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. the first is more complicated and unfortunately for you it's straight to the a priori of my religious beliefs. given the option; i would vote against no-fault divorce as well, which ought to give you a hint of just how out of the mainstream i personally am here.

So basically you are for a pure democracy. You are against the Bill of Rights, and support the ability of 51% of the population to tell 49% of the population that they have no rights.
Just because the majority of the people are for it, doesn't mean the government should endorse it. That is not how this government was set up, you're opinions should not take away my rights, and the government should protect the rights of minorities.
 
my position on Loving is similar to my position on Brown or Cooper. the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons. though with Cooper I suspect a bit of grandiosity and self-promotion, and i wonder if the potentially irreparable damage to federalism was worth it.



:shrug: if we are going to get into the opinions of cpwill; then they are of two seperate levels. first, why would I vote the way I would should the matter come up on a Ballot and Second, why should the government not issue a marriage certificate for a lesbian couple.

the second is the easiest; and i believe we have discussed it before. the government shouldn't do so because the people have told it not to, and in this nation government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. the first is more complicated and unfortunately for you it's straight to the a priori of my religious beliefs. given the option; i would vote against no-fault divorce as well, which ought to give you a hint of just how out of the mainstream i personally am here.

again just like the people didnt want womens rights, minority rights and interracial marriage.
Im so glad that MY country luckily doesnt listen to you because it would have never become AMERICA.
As a matter a fact you and your hypocrisy are also lucky because with out our constitution and what we consider rights you may not be able to practice that religion of yours LMAO

Oh but Im sure if YOUR rights were discriminated against THAT would be different LMAO
 
The government prevents same sex couples from entering into the marriage contract.

the government does not take the positive action of issuing them a marriage certificate. surely you are not coming out in favor of positive rights?

BTW, this is not 100% correct. We do not live in a pure democracy, hence the State cannot do everything the People at large want. They can only do that which does not infringe upon the rights of others. Majority rules within minority rights. That's why we're a democratic Republic built on the lawful purposes of upholding the rights and liberties of the individual.

the Constitutional protections of which you speak do not lend themselves easily to your argument for two reasons:

1. it is explicitely within the provision of the State Governments to define marriage and to set the preconditions for recieving a license, just as they set preconditions for recieving any other license that they grant.
2. that Constitution IS the People; specifically it is a supermajority of them.
3. Powers not reserved for the Federal government are reserved first to the State and then to the people. only powers of the Federal Government are few and enumerated; powers left to the State are of the General Police variety.
 
So basically you are for a pure democracy. You are against the Bill of Rights, and support the ability of 51% of the population to tell 49% of the population that they have no rights.
Just because the majority of the people are for it, doesn't mean the government should endorse it. That is not how this government was set up, you're opinions should not take away my rights, and the government should protect the rights of minorities.

The problem You Star is when people believe in their bible MORE than any country laws/rights etc. Their bible trumps the constitution or bill of rights etc etc

Now look I have NO problem with religion at all, or the belief that god is bigger than AMerica, I believe in god, but once the people want to force theirs on me I have to laugh at them because as Americans it makes them an instant hypocrite.
 
the government does not take the positive action of issuing them a marriage certificate. surely you are not coming out in favor of positive rights?



the Constitutional protections of which you speak do not lend themselves easily to your argument for two reasons:

1. it is explicitely within the provision of the State Governments to define marriage and to set the preconditions for recieving a license, just as they set preconditions for recieving any other license that they grant.
2. that Constitution IS the People; specifically it is a supermajority of them.
3. Powers not reserved for the Federal government are reserved first to the State and then to the people. only powers of the Federal Government are few and enumerated; powers left to the State are of the General Police variety.


run cpwill ruuuun but you cant hide lmao
yes that same constitution of the PEOPLE that ruled over the MAJORITY in minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. oooooooops huge flaw in you uhm ah logic?

Keep trying your false angle over and over again it will never be right.
 
Really, SSM is only a matter of time, if only my generation woke up and voted.
 
the government does not take the positive action of issuing them a marriage certificate. surely you are not coming out in favor of positive rights?

Whether or not I agree with "positive rights", the fact remains that the government ISSUES and RECOGNIZES the Marriage Certificate as proper contract.

the Constitutional protections of which you speak do not lend themselves easily to your argument for two reasons:

1. it is explicitely within the provision of the State Governments to define marriage and to set the preconditions for recieving a license, just as they set preconditions for recieving any other license that they grant.
2. that Constitution IS the People; specifically it is a supermajority of them.
3. Powers not reserved for the Federal government are reserved first to the State and then to the people. only powers of the Federal Government are few and enumerated; powers left to the State are of the General Police variety.

The States are now held to the federal Constitution bill of rights. While they are to have more power than the federal government, they cannot rightfully infringe upon the rights of others who did not first infringe upon the rights of someone else first. Powers not reserved for the federal government are reserved for the State or the people. And while the State has more "rights" (it's not proper use of the term as only individuals have rights) than the federal government, they are still beholden to the rights and liberties of the individual. The Constitution was constructed by forward thinking men of the time. While it wasn't perfect, they understood the proper question to ask. In short, people like you ask "What do I think is right?" and the question the founders asked was "Is it right for the government to act in this manner?". There is a HUGE difference between the two questions. The latter you can have something you don't like, you don't think is right; but to understand that it is not proper use of government to forbid it. The former is tyranny.
 
again just like the people didnt want womens rights, minority rights and interracial marriage.

:shrug: actually Christians were at the forefront of all these things. particularly Civil Rights. which makes sense; as the notion of the fundamental equality of man is a Christian concept.

Im so glad that MY country luckily does'nt listen to you because it would have never become AMERICA.

odd, isn't it, that that is precisely what the "anti" homosexual movement people also say. what wonderful Founding Ideals we have that everyone seeks to claim them while denying them to their opponents.

mind you, that's also part and parcel of the Fundamental Assumption fallacy....but hey :), it's common enough.

you might get a kick out of reading something posted elsewhere (i entitled it my resignation from the Religious Right)
Nations in the Old World were founded upon Blood and Land. This was my dirt, we were the people with the foreheads and eyes that looked just so, and we had always been here, so shove off. The United States of America was - uniquely in her time - founded upon a set of ideals. This marks a fundamental difference in our social DNA. You can tell by how we go about hating each other. Nobody in England (so far as I am aware) wins elections by subtly hinting that their opponent is “anti-British”; nor do French politicians bicker over who is betraying the belief system of Louis XVI. In America, however, anti-war protestors are “anti-American”. Also, those who call anti-war Protestors “anti-American” are themselves, apparently, “anti-American.” Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism except when it’s not: Tea Party protestors are anti-American, as are those who try to intimidate or silence them. Republicans who oppose healthcare reform as put forth by Democrats are the “enemies of America,” while Democrats who put forth the reform “want to be like Europe” (ie: not ‘like’ America). We all are on agreement that we have a set of ideals; that these ideals define Who We Are as a Nation; and that it is such a good set of ideals that everyone wishes to claim them while denying their nobility to whomever they wish to tarnish in the public eye.

It IS a good and noble set of ideals. They are very Christian and (c)atholic in nature. All men are created equal, and are imbued with certain dignities and rights by their Creator. Governments that oppress their people are not just inefficient but fundamentally wrong. They deserve to be overthrown and replaced with a better way. The best government is that which most protects the rights and liberties of it’s people; the kind of government most likely to do that is one which is limited; the kind of government most likely to remain limited is a representative one marked by the free competition of idea(l)s. In one sense this agreed-upon common ground for “America’s Founding Ideals” seems the most basic starting point to create a decent society, but to us it is the highest set of governing ideals yet attained in mans’ many, painful centuries.

It is also universalistic. Americans do not simply believe that freedom, dignity, and liberty are for them; we believe that it is intended for all humanity. We have since the beginning; it’s in our founding document. That’s why we so easily get pulled into actions much of the rest of the world deems arrogantly unilateralist; their foundations don’t demand universal application. It’s why we were the threat to Communism in the 20th Century, it’s why we are the threat today to Islamist Fundamentalism: both of them recognize another universalistic creed when they see it. In fights between such paradigms, one of us must survive to ultimately take over the entire world, and one of us must die.

And this is a great danger for modern Christian Americans, particularly conservative ones. It is all too easy for us to mistake which universalistic creed founded upon noble ideals we are supporting. We confuse them, blend them; ideologically we are prone to build an American Identity that is Conservative Christian and a Christian Identity that is fundamentally American. For my fellow conservatives to whom that last sentence doesn’t fully click, consider: One sect of us, the Catholics, are now dealing with a painful scandal involving pedophile priests because some of its leadership confused serving the Church with serving God. They made the institution their god, and served it instead. The Catholic Church has done incredible good around the world, engaged in brave and dangerous sacrifice to bring God’s Truth to all peoples’, it is a noble institution… which is why it was easier for Satan to trick some of its’ members into making that confused identification. The United States of America, too, is a noble nation founded on a noble set of ideals, which has engaged in brave and dangerous sacrifice to bring freedom to peoples around the world… which is why it is easy for Satan to convince us that it is only “Christian” to honor and serve it in ways that are meant only for God. “Americanism” becomes our a priori argument; we hang American flags in our worship services, the identity of our faith group (Christians) and our political group (Republicans) becomes in some places fused. Even the logic of sanctification can get co-opted. The first thing we reach for when under ideological attack is our identity: You Can’t Attack Me, I’m A Proud American / Patriot / Veteran/ and so forth. When did our service to a country or ideological inclination pick up even a hint of purifying our deeds and persons? The Christian Coalition for America tells me that the major goal for Christians in this country is (using our incredible wealth to bring medical aid to Africa?) (using our world-dominating military to stop genocide?) (using our unique blend of many denominations to lead the way in Ecumenical efforts?)… preserving a series of tax cuts from the last Republican Administration.

Now, I’m not against tax cuts. But I’m against Believing in tax cuts. I’m not against my country nor it’s founding ideals. But I’m against putting my Faith in my nation and its’ founding ideals. All things built by man crumble to dust; only those things we build explicitly on and in Gods’ will have any chance of survival (and depending on how you look at Revelations; even those are doomed). If we put our faith, if we believe, in that which we design by man for man… then we have built our house on sand, and however well we have built it, it will be swept away and we shall perish.

This is perhaps a point of fine distinction, but I think it is a critical one. I know I’m accusing many Christians who are far stronger and wiser in the faith than I of setting up idols, and I apologize in advance if it turns out in the end that I’m an idiot and just wasted however much of your time it took you to read this far.

But bear with me; though I warn, if you have a vindictive streak (like I do), you will have to fight its temptation where I’m going (like I will). In airing our dirty laundry I begin with a self-conviction (I know the problem with worshiping at the Christian Church of Americanism because I’m a deacon there) as my introduction into warning our brethren on the Left against a similar mistake. In our (Christian) drive to bring dignity and freedom to man, we have surrendered part of our worship to a nation, to a political ideology, and, to a lesser extent, to militarism; we have mistaken our tools for our desired end. Our Liberal Christian brethren have done something similar; except where Conservatives “believe” in tax cuts (and being something called ‘red-blooded’), Liberals “believe” in ‘progressive’ social programs. I begin by admitting to the log in my own eye so that I can move to warn them that the condition is contagious (this is the first in what is going to be a series). Satan loves little better than to corrupt us via our most noble intentions.

As a matter a fact you and your hypocrisy are also lucky because with out our constitution and what we consider rights you may not be able to practice that religion of yours LMAO

indeed i might not; as many Christians around the world are not. i wouldn't even say that we are lucky, I would say that we are blessed and that with that comes responsibility to A) use those freedoms wisely and B) see to it that others come to gain the freedoms that we have been given.

Oh but Im sure if YOUR rights were discriminated against THAT would be different LMAO

if either of our rights were being attacked that would indeed be very different from the homosexal marriage debate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom