To someone who claims to be bi-sexual, it is a choice. I'm just saying.
Where did this enter the conversation?
The question was are you born with a particular orientation? Or is it a lifestyle choice? If someone claims to be bi, I pose the same question. Were they born that way? Or did they chose to be? Seems fair enough. And maybe a little tongue-in-cheek about their "choice". Tongue-in-cheek? LMAO How can you have a serious conversation about this stuff without word play. LOL
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
But that's exactly what I did in 1975, and I'm still married to the same good woman, mother of my children, and I would never claim to love individual liberty, but force everyone else to see the world as I do, and live as I have lived my life. Freedom means you have to let other people be free to live their life as they see fit, not necessairly as how you see fit.
I didn't say I was going to force anyone to do anything. You fail to see that.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "not legally sanctioning" an activity. Are you saying that the State should not allow it? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
Why? You know, it really wasn't that long ago in this country it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. In fact, many people used exactly the same argument against interracial marriage to prevent people who loved each other from getting marrried because they believed it was immoral, and they did not want to be "forced" to accept such a horrible, evil, wicked, mean and nasty practice in the USA.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If the Govt is not in the marriage business, they can neither promote it or prevent it. There is no law today that exists that prevents a group of people to incorporate themselves into a "church" of any kind they choose and issue papers they call marriage certificates and participate in any deviant behavior they choose. What the militant gay movement wants is for everyone else to be FORCED to recognize it as acceptable by law. That is unacceptable.
The militant gay movement??!?!?! Is that a bunch of guys in pink shorts and fish net tops with bazookas and grenades? Bit of a strong or at least odd (at least to me) statement there.
What two people do to themselves or each other short of violence is between them. Marriage is a religious invention and institution. Equal protection, no problem, but I'm with Beatnic, call it something else.
Then you would approve of marriages sanctified by the church, and civil unions made legal by the law, and both would have equal legal definitions regarding property rights, shared money, and "next of kin" legality, etc.? What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
While I find the practice of homosexuality inconceivable, in a nation that cherishes liberty it should not be legally sanctioned, nor should it be promoted. The Govt should only license civil unions, not marriage, it is a religious institution defined as a union between one man and one woman and that tradition is sacred in most religions.
You have a very interesting concept of liberty. What if a Church was willing to conduct same sex marriages? Should the State prevent it?
Leave the church.
Leave the Church? Should someone leave the Church?
If they don't believe in its' teachings, yes.
Yes, but there are many Churches that are willing to perform these marriages. If they are willing, and they have congregations who agree, in a free country, why should it be prevented? The operative words here are "in a free country", you know, life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, or should that just be reserved for those who are free to conform to your idea of liberty?
If a "church" wants to marry same sex couples, let them. If the government wants to extend legal rights to them, fine with me. But, I would rather my government call it something else. I'm both married by the government's definition and legal contract, and joined with my wife by Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church. And I don't think they'll be changing their definition of marriage anytime soon. If you want to change the government's definition, by all means, do so. It doesn't change the meaning, and governments come and go.
Perhaps this is for another topic----or to risque to discuss.....but is butt sex with a man and a woman ok? Just not when two men do it?
You are barkin up the wrong tree with that one, my man. Can't speak for anybody else, but I got no experience. I don't know nothing, I don't see nothing, and I don't hear nothing.
Comments