Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, once again, for the sake of the conversation, we'll ignore the obvious fact that the penis and the vagina are the only human sex organs created by nature and that these sex organs function together as intended regardless of what some people do with other orifices and appendages.
Is marriage really reduced to some sort of genital arrangement in your eyes?
Quote:
"The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
Two problems here.
The first is that if God intended to keep the races unmixed by placing them on seperate continents, this obviously wasn't intended to be a permanent arrangement.
Next, in nature we have examples of creatures not intended to mix and those that may.
A donkey stallion and a horse mare will produce female mules that are sometimes fertile or male mules that are always sterile.
A reasonable person could conclude from this that rules and limitations apply to the breeding of equines, that these rules were put in place by their creator and that this was done deliberately.
A less reasonable person would assume similar rules apply to the mating of homo sapiens without evidence of the sort we see in equines.
That humans of any two races produce healthy and fertile offspring of mixed heritage should end the argument that mixing of the races was never intended.
Are you saying that an argument based on "Jayzus has arrenged marriage thusly!" was wrong? Perhaps we should pay less heed to those who claim to speak on their Lord's behalf, like for instance - pastors? There's a long, long chain of pastors being on the wrong side of this sort of issue.
Quote:
Now that we again wasted time on a misrepresentation of Loving and the real reason it was found in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, what does someone's half-baked thought process have to do with altering marriage laws intended to provide protection from sexual infidelity to faithful marriage partners, define the family and the relationship between parents and their biological children?
Question predicated on unproven assumptions... Anyway, the half-baked thought process was the defense put forth when trying to alter marriage laws not that long ago - "It would make the baby Jesus cry".
Quote:
Is the state needed to protect a same-sex marriage partner from sexual infidelity when the sort of sex they practice cannot create a child outside of the marriage?
Oh, we're back on the "marriage for procreation" track? Should we ban marriage among infertile couples or couples beyond fertile age?
Quote:
If the benefits intended for married heterosexuals were not intended for anyone except married heterosexuals at the time the laws were created, shouldn't any change in the law that changes who can be married also, at the very least, reexamine the benefits provided so they actually make sense?
Examine away. Nobody is stopping you. What it has to do with gay marriage is anybody's guess.
Quote:
Is marriage the most practical legal accommodation available to same-sex couples who want to play house together with real babies?
Practical? Who cares? If the gay couple in question wishes to form a family and raise children, and if they wish to get married, who the heck are you to judge whether it's "practical"?
It's not just black pastors. The entire democratic party is at odds with one another. Most of the minorities that make up the party are conservatives. The differing beliefs and attitudes among the many different groups are bound to collide. Democrats have done a great job of blinding the minorities to their true agenda. The only thing that brings so many different groups to that party is their collective victim mentality and generational voting patterns.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Who knows more about this guy's experience, him or a leftist hack parroting the party line?
Exactly!
In other words, you believe unsubstantiated videos featuring rightist hacks parroting party lines, eh?
Exactly!
In any event the video is irrelevant.
As I've asked several times, show us exactly WHERE in the Bible Jesus addresses the issue of homosexuality, otherwise a bunch of pastors hiding behind the robes of Christ and pretending to act in his name is a load of crap.
labeling something a fact just because you believe in it doesnt make it so.
It's not something you want to believe.
Simple research shows that most african americans are opposed to Gay Marriage..
The "gay thing" is by far more of an interest to the white liberal demographic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
