Homosexuality is a SIN...accept it, get over it and REPENT! (Mormons, atheists)

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by jjrose

It is a legal justification. You know, the type of thing that the LAWS look at.

Before it becomes a law how do you draw the conclusion that it needs to be a law? Where does that come from?

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Laws change as civilization changes. Deal with it.
Voter in the law used to mean white male landowner. That changed to include women, blacks, native Americans, and people who didn't own land. I don't see you complaining about that change.

There is a difference in redefining law and redefining a word.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by justtitans

Before it becomes a law how do you draw the conclusion that it needs to be a law? Where does that come from?

People being denied the same rights as others.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by justtitans

There is a difference in redefining law and redefining a word.

So you are not a "voter" or a "citizen". Right?

Both of those words were redefined to allow you to be consider as such.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by jjrose

No one can marry if they are already married.

No one can marry close relatives.

No one can marry under a certain age.

Everyone is treated equal.

YOU can marry a woman, but I can't. That is discrimination based on gender.

Polygamy was allowed at one point in our nation but then the restriction was added.

Some states allow you to marry your first cousin.

So if I can't have a break to breastfeed my child since I am not a woman, is that gender discrimination too?

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Probably because they are not actively engaging in a sinful lifestyle. Sin can be forgiven and person move on with their life. Gay marriage is the opposite. It is making a commit to continue living a sinful lifestyle.

...snip...

If someone divorces for non biblical reasons and remarried they are in a continuing state of adultery according to your bible. Yet, they are allowed to get married repeatedly.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

Your question is bizarre. I have no idea why you are asking it at all, or asking it of me in particular. Can you please cut and paste where I have suggested that it ought to be legal for parents to marry their children? Thank you.

I asked you to answer the question, not analyze the question. I will give jjrose credit, in spite of her disagreement she is at least attempting a dialogue.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by jjrose

People being denied the same rights as others.

So if parents are denied the right to marry their children, then based on what you are saying, they should have the legal right to, so that they have the same rights as everyone else?

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by justtitans

Polygamy was allowed at one point in our nation but then the restriction was added.

Some states allow you to marry your first cousin.

So if I can't have a break to breastfeed my child since I am not a woman, is that gender discrimination too?

A break to breast feed when you are not physically able to is not discrimination. I could not physically breast feed my first child, I didn't get breaks to do so.

The polygamy restriction applies to everyone, not just men, or just whites, or just women. Law applies equally.

Marriage to first cousins is applied equally in those states. Men can marry their first cousins, so can women, so can whites, blacks, Christians, Republicans, atheists. Law applied equally.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by justtitans

So if parents are denied the right to marry their children, then based on what you are saying, they should have the legal right to, so that they have the same rights as everyone else?

No one has the right to marry their children. Men can not marry their children, women can't, whites can't Christians can't Deomcrats, can't blacks can't, Muslims can't. Law applied equally.