Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

[USFREEDOM911]

Nonsense and blather. I've held the same opinion on this topic for the past decade that we have known each other. Acting "shocked" at what I say now is just inane, pretending it isn't consistent is equally inane.



You did so several times and links to it was posted again about 1-2 months ago. I've explained this. I trust what you said then over what you are saying now as you had no motive to lie then, you do now.


Yes, it is. Not opinion, it is simply a rule listed in the book. A proscription on homosexual activity is part of the dogma of your religion. (The one you so eagerly professed your undying devotion to.)



Yes, it is, and so is "Homosexuality is an abomination"...



It hasn't. My argument has remained the same. You bring it up here because you now find it inconvenient to your supposed nonchalance on the issue of the dogma of the religion you so profoundly believe. You should be ashamed that you would begin to deny it now.


They wouldn't be establishing religion if they oppose it, they would be if they were attempting to establish their dogma into legislation.


While still ignoring that the solution you supposedly support would allow it.



You would if I started legislating it onto you, like you attempt to do to others with your promise of an amendment that would allow you to. (At least you recognize that previous attempts are unconstitutional.)



It isn't "support" to point out that gays are already married whether you like the definition or not, they are equally married as all the billions that were married in churches before there was licensing in order to stop the "Mormons"... I just point out reality, with as much "support" that pointing out that 2+2=4...


Right, that's why you "threaten" everybody with an Amendment "so there" as you did in the other thread. You've been caught and you're embarrassed. I understand, but it is so very obvious to the rest of us that there really is no argument.



Yes, if 3/4 of the states ratify an Amendment passed by 2/3 of the Congress then it would be entirely legal for you to press your dogma onto us in legislation.


Again, I don't care about Gay Marriage, I simply point out that this solution allows it, and you continue to ignore that because you can't stand that your dogma would no longer be protected by the government in legislation. I'm sure you will threaten again a constitutional amendment. You are entirely wrong that people would support it.

You might as well give it up, Damo; because Dixie is nothing more then a lying hypocrite and he will never admit he was wrong or that he's a liar.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nonsense and blather. I've held the same opinion on this topic for the past decade that we have known each other. Acting "shocked" at what I say now is just inane, pretending it isn't consistent is equally inane.

I said it was consistent, Dumo! Can't you read?

You did so several times and links to it was posted again about 1-2 months ago. I've explained this. I trust what you said then over what you are saying now as you had no motive to lie then, you do now.

What does it have to do with my viewpoint, opinion, or right to petition government for redress of my grievance? Let's assume I am Jerry Freakin Fallwell.... Are you trying to argue that I am not entitled to have a political voice in America? If my opinion were directly related to specific dogmatic viewpoints which are a part of my religious spiritual foundation, what the fuck makes you think you have the right to silence my voice? Now I have made my arguments against Gay Marriage on several grounds unrelated to religious beliefs, totally on the legal precedent issues and constitutionality issues regarding a redefinition of marriage. But you wish to ignore those points and arguments to cling to your assertion that I am a Christian, speaking from a dogmatic Christian viewpoint... to which I say, SO WHAT IF I WERE? I can base my opinion on Gay Marriage on anything I so desire, and I don't have to get permission from you to justify my rationale! We simply don't control WHY people believe what they believe! And we sure as hell don't outright try to deny them the individual liberty to express their views, regardless of how they came about them!!!!!

Yes, it is. Not opinion, it is simply a rule listed in the book. A proscription on homosexual activity is part of the dogma of your religion. (The one you so eagerly professed your undying devotion to.)

Yes, it is, and so is "Homosexuality is an abomination"...

But Homosexuality is not A "rule listed in the book" at all, you discussed this in great detail with ID in another thread. It is spoken of quite infrequently, mostly in the Old Testament, and Jesus never spoke of it specifically or denounced it as a sin.... It's not part of the 10 Commandments, and some Christian churches marry homosexuals and allow them to be ministers in the church. It simply does not fit the criteria of "dogma" in any sense of the word.

Dogma is something specific and solid, it can't be ignored and not followed by followers of the religion. The fact that some Christian churches condone gay marriage, destroys your assertion on that basis alone. But you prattled on for several pages with ID about this, you made a helluva convincing argument that homosexuality wasn't necessarily against the religion or contradictory of the dogma. It's just amazing how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth on this.

And (this is a biggy), I don't see any suggestion or initiative to outlaw "homosexuality" here. That is not what is being debated, is it? So there is yet another illogical leap you are taking with this absurdity that opposition to gay marriage amounts to "legislation of dogma!"

It hasn't. My argument has remained the same. You bring it up here because you now find it inconvenient to your supposed nonchalance on the issue of the dogma of the religion you so profoundly believe. You should be ashamed that you would begin to deny it now.

Your argument is in direct contradiction to another argument! In one instance, you argue that homosexuality is not forbidden by Christianity, because it isn't condemned specifically by Jesus, and you point out the Churches who sanction gay marriages and have gay ministries, but then... here you want to claim "religious dogma" is being forced upon you!

They wouldn't be establishing religion if they oppose it, they would be if they were attempting to establish their dogma into legislation.

We've already established it is not their "dogma" attempting to be legislated. You can stubbornly act like that was not established, but you haven't established it, and in fact, contradicted it in another thread. So we can't argue that some people are trying to legislate "dogma" and if you want to continue to make that argument, you have to provide evidence to establish it, and you can't. Now, you can be like some trolls here, and just keep repeating your little hyperbolic lie, but I will be ignoring that aspect of your argument henceforth, because it lacks establishment.

Here... Let me throw you a lifeline, Dumo.... Some Christian believers (and other religions) do believe that homosexuality is wrong, as part of their religious beliefs, and based on their personal understanding of Christian (or other) dogma. But you are attempting to tie their understanding of dogma and the actual legislation of homosexual marriage together, and it doesn't wash. You are making too many illogical leaps and forming a bigoted, broad-brushed opinion as to what motivates those opposed to Gay Marriage. MAaaaybe some of them oppose it because of their understanding of their personal religious dogma... but so what if they are? What are they supposed to do here? It is what their religious faith commands them to support or not to support, and we don't really have much of a say in that, as far as denying them the right to their opinion or ability to express that opinion in legislation.

There are any number of legitimate arguments made against Gay Marriage, that do not pertain or comport with ANY condemnation of homosexuality by religious believers. I have raised several of these myself, so I know that is the case. There are a VARIETY of viewpoints in opposition to Gay Marriage, it is NOT even 'specifically' religious, much less DOGMA!

While still ignoring that the solution you supposedly support would allow it.

That fact should be all the proof needed to show it is certainly NOT DOGMA of the Christian religion!

Again... for the umpteenth time... I am not, nor ever have been, opposed to gay people getting married! My point of contention is in the Government condoning homosexuality and homosexual marriages, or establishing them into law on the basis of civil rights. It's a road I don't wish to travel down, and one with many consequences and pitfalls that do not need to be... that we shouldn't have to deal with in the future... should we decide to embark on such short-sighted stupidity as to "redefine" traditional marriage!

I'm not ignoring a solution that I proposed! LMFAO! That's original Dumo! Solution is still on the table... it's right there for anyone who wants to accept it! I'm not sure why you keep trying to claim that I am not sincere, or don't want to do this... It was MY suggestion! The problem seems to be, you think being Pro-Gay-Marriage will somehow bring about MY SOLUTION! I haven't figured out your rationalization there, to be honest. I guess you think we should legalize Gay Marriage and redefine marriage by law, and do so on the basis of Civil Rights, and once we've done that, we can "move toward" MY SOLUTION! I mean, really.... it's kind of stupid to do it that way, isn't it? Before MY solution can be implemented, you have to get people to stop the ridiculous clamoring for "Gay Marriage" OR "Constitutional Amendments!" You can't sit here and make an argument FOR Gay Marriage, and claim you are interested in the solution I proposed, it is a contradiction of logic to do so, but then... you are becoming known for that lately, Dumo!

You would if I started legislating it onto you, like you attempt to do to others with your promise of an amendment that would allow you to. (At least you recognize that previous attempts are unconstitutional.)

No, I realize how our government works, and how legislation and amendments are made into law of the land. I understand that we are dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to express their political viewpoint with their vote. You apparently think we live in a Libertarian Oligarchy, where Dumo gets to decide who deserves a voice, based on whether or not it might be influenced by their religious thoughts.

Yes, if 3/4 of the states ratify an Amendment passed by 2/3 of the Congress then it would be entirely legal for you to press your dogma onto us in legislation.

And it looks like that may be what's going to happen, unless people stop this silly rhetorical hyperbole to drum up support for Gay Marriage! I'm glad you came to your senses and realized how the Constitution works, and who has the ultimate say in what it stipulates. I strongly urge you to not forget that very salient point.

Again, I don't care about Gay Marriage, I simply point out that this solution allows it, and you continue to ignore that because you can't stand that your dogma would no longer be protected by the government in legislation. I'm sure you will threaten again a constitutional amendment. You are entirely wrong that people would support it.

Huh? MY solution was to pass a comprehensive Civil Unions Act, making 'marriage' become a CU as far as government is concerned, and allowing government sanctioning of CU contracts between any two adults who sought such a contract. That is MY solution... the one you are arguing for here, is legalization of homosexual marriage, which is not the same thing. Sorry!

I sure wish I could find where my solution is outlined in Christian dogma.... is that the part where Jesus befriended the prostitute? You may be right, my solution seeks to find peace and harmony with all sides, and resolve the issue... it may indeed be based on my personal spiritual philosophy, I guess it is my dogma! Again, sorry you don't feel I have the right to express my views in legislation.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You might as well give it up, Damo; because Dixie is nothing more then a lying hypocrite and he will never admit he was wrong or that he's a liar.

DAMN zippy!!

That negative rep you gave me, you know what you said you don't care about, really hurt!!

OH-WAIT, no it didn't. LOL

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

My position is that those who are born gay are due to a birth defect. Other gays, probably most, turn gay due to their environment.

so people with birth defects shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

[Damocles]

I said it was consistent, Dumo! Can't you read?

Excellent.

What does it have to do with my viewpoint, opinion, or right to petition government for redress of my grievance? Let's assume I am Jerry Freakin Fallwell.... Are you trying to argue that I am not entitled to have a political voice in America? If my opinion were directly related to specific dogmatic viewpoints which are a part of my religious spiritual foundation, what the fuck makes you think you have the right to silence my voice? Now I have made my arguments against Gay Marriage on several grounds unrelated to religious beliefs, totally on the legal precedent issues and constitutionality issues regarding a redefinition of marriage. But you wish to ignore those points and arguments to cling to your assertion that I am a Christian, speaking from a dogmatic Christian viewpoint... to which I say, SO WHAT IF I WERE? I can base my opinion on Gay Marriage on anything I so desire, and I don't have to get permission from you to justify my rationale! We simply don't control WHY people believe what they believe! And we sure as hell don't outright try to deny them the individual liberty to express their views, regardless of how they came about them!!!!!

If your grievance is that the laws are not more like your dogma, it cannot be addressed.

But Homosexuality is not A "rule listed in the book" at all, you discussed this in great detail with ID in another thread. It is spoken of quite infrequently, mostly in the Old Testament, and Jesus never spoke of it specifically or denounced it as a sin.... It's not part of the 10 Commandments, and some Christian churches marry homosexuals and allow them to be ministers in the church. It simply does not fit the criteria of "dogma" in any sense of the word.

It is one of the 'don't' rules. It's hard to miss that.

Dogma is something specific and solid, it can't be ignored and not followed by followers of the religion. The fact that some Christian churches condone gay marriage, destroys your assertion on that basis alone. But you prattled on for several pages with ID about this, you made a helluva convincing argument that homosexuality wasn't necessarily against the religion or contradictory of the dogma. It's just amazing how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth on this.

Incorrect, many people pick and choose portions of religions, again this is why you'll often hear people say they are not "real Christians"...

And (this is a biggy), I don't see any suggestion or initiative to outlaw "homosexuality" here. That is not what is being debated, is it? So there is yet another illogical leap you are taking with this absurdity that opposition to gay marriage amounts to "legislation of dogma!"

No, but the only reason you give is that it is deviant, and the basis for it is your religion.

Your argument is in direct contradiction to another argument! In one instance, you argue that homosexuality is not forbidden by Christianity, because it isn't condemned specifically by Jesus, and you point out the Churches who sanction gay marriages and have gay ministries, but then... here you want to claim "religious dogma" is being forced upon you!

I never argued that, I said that Christ didn't mention it and pointed out that it didn't make it "not a sin" that he didn't.

We've already established it is not their "dogma" attempting to be legislated. You can stubbornly act like that was not established, but you haven't established it, and in fact, contradicted it in another thread. So we can't argue that some people are trying to legislate "dogma" and if you want to continue to make that argument, you have to provide evidence to establish it, and you can't. Now, you can be like some trolls here, and just keep repeating your little hyperbolic lie, but I will be ignoring that aspect of your argument henceforth, because it lacks establishment.

We've established nothing of the sort, you have simply attempted to ignore a portion of the dogma for the instance of this argument, even though you reject the "lifestyle" as a deviance based on your dogma.

Here... Let me throw you a lifeline, Dumo.... Some Christian believers (and other religions) do believe that homosexuality is wrong, as part of their religious beliefs, and based on their personal understanding of Christian (or other) dogma. But you are attempting to tie their understanding of dogma and the actual legislation of homosexual marriage together, and it doesn't wash. You are making too many illogical leaps and forming a bigoted, broad-brushed opinion as to what motivates those opposed to Gay Marriage. MAaaaybe some of them oppose it because of their understanding of their personal religious dogma... but so what if they are? What are they supposed to do here? It is what their religious faith commands them to support or not to support, and we don't really have much of a say in that, as far as denying them the right to their opinion or ability to express that opinion in legislation.

Rubbish. Homosexual acts are specifically outlawed by Christian dogma.

There are any number of legitimate arguments made against Gay Marriage, that do not pertain or comport with ANY condemnation of homosexuality by religious believers. I have raised several of these myself, so I know that is the case. There are a VARIETY of viewpoints in opposition to Gay Marriage, it is NOT even 'specifically' religious, much less DOGMA!

However almost all of them, and especially yours, are attempts to work around the 1st Amendment and to legislate your dogma onto others.

That fact should be all the proof needed to show it is certainly NOT DOGMA of the Christian religion!

Incorrect. It is dogma, I can even list chapter and verse where it tells you specifically it is an "abomination" (and if you knew your religion you'd know that "abomination" merits the death penalty).

Again... for the umpteenth time... I am not, nor ever have been, opposed to gay people getting married! My point of contention is in the Government condoning homosexuality and homosexual marriages, or establishing them into law on the basis of civil rights. It's a road I don't wish to travel down, and one with many consequences and pitfalls that do not need to be... that we shouldn't have to deal with in the future... should we decide to embark on such short-sighted stupidity as to "redefine" traditional marriage!

Good, then again I'll point out that if you actually work towards this rather than making stupid arguments "against" what already happens then we'll be able to get some where. Instead you "threaten" constitutional amendments with false schadenfruede rejoicing in how everybody else will "feel" when it suddenly becomes legal for you to legislate your dogma onto us.

I'm not ignoring a solution that I proposed! LMFAO! That's original Dumo! Solution is still on the table... it's right there for anyone who wants to accept it! I'm not sure why you keep trying to claim that I am not sincere, or don't want to do this... It was MY suggestion! The problem seems to be, you think being Pro-Gay-Marriage will somehow bring about MY SOLUTION! I haven't figured out your rationalization there, to be honest. I guess you think we should legalize Gay Marriage and redefine marriage by law, and do so on the basis of Civil Rights, and once we've done that, we can "move toward" MY SOLUTION! I mean, really.... it's kind of stupid to do it that way, isn't it? Before MY solution can be implemented, you have to get people to stop the ridiculous clamoring for "Gay Marriage" OR "Constitutional Amendments!" You can't sit here and make an argument FOR Gay Marriage, and claim you are interested in the solution I proposed, it is a contradiction of logic to do so, but then... you are becoming known for that lately, Dumo!

Yet you are, and rejoicing in the non-existent Amendment that will allow you to say "so there"...

No, I realize how our government works, and how legislation and amendments are made into law of the land. I understand that we are dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to express their political viewpoint with their vote. You apparently think we live in a Libertarian Oligarchy, where Dumo gets to decide who deserves a voice, based on whether or not it might be influenced by their religious thoughts.

Yet you realize that the only way to make it illegal is for an Amendment to be passed. I'm glad you realize the unconstitutionality of attempting to legislate your dogma onto others, how it would violate their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of their own religion.

And it looks like that may be what's going to happen, unless people stop this silly rhetorical hyperbole to drum up support for Gay Marriage! I'm glad you came to your senses and realized how the Constitution works, and who has the ultimate say in what it stipulates. I strongly urge you to not forget that very salient point.

Rubbish. People are not going to pass any Amendment for this. We can't even get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed and both parties say they are for that.

Huh? MY solution was to pass a comprehensive Civil Unions Act, making 'marriage' become a CU as far as government is concerned, and allowing government sanctioning of CU contracts between any two adults who sought such a contract. That is MY solution... the one you are arguing for here, is legalization of homosexual marriage, which is not the same thing. Sorry!

However, reality is that marriages in the churches would be equally recognized to those who were of the heterosexual variety. This solution allows such marriages.

I sure wish I could find where my solution is outlined in Christian dogma.... is that the part where Jesus befriended the prostitute? You may be right, my solution seeks to find peace and harmony with all sides, and resolve the issue... it may indeed be based on my personal spiritual philosophy, I guess it is my dogma! Again, sorry you don't feel I have the right to express my views in legislation.

Your "solution" isn't, however your fondest wish (The Amendment) is. Theocracy will never be accepted here.

 

[DamnYankee]

so people with birth defects shouldn't be allowed to marry?

It depends on the defect.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It depends on the defect.

why should that matter...it is not their fault they were born with a defect...do you believe in eugenics?

 

[DamnYankee]

why should that matter...it is not their fault they were born with a defect...do you believe in eugenics?

If the defect presents a harm to some aspect of society then the defectives should be banned from activities that could harm that aspect of the society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If your grievance is that the laws are not more like your dogma, it cannot be addressed.

Uhm, yes it most certainly CAN be addressed, and it WILL be addressed.

It is one of the 'don't' rules. It's hard to miss that.

It's also hard to miss your multi-page argument on how homosexuality isn't specifically spoken against by Jesus Christ, the man who Christianity is named for. It's hard to miss that as well, and it's also hard to miss your contradictions. Gee, Dumo... I'm still looking through the 10 Commandments, you know, those Christian rules of "do and don't" ...and I am not seeing anything about homosexuality or gay marriage in there... You'd think they would put something so vital to the dogma in the rules, wouldn't ya?

Incorrect, many people pick and choose portions of religions, again this is why you'll often hear people say they are not "real Christians"...

Uhm, no, I am sorry... People don't get to "pick and choose" the dogma of a religion, those are solid core principles that MUST be adhered to by the members of a religion. You said yourself, dogma is NOT subjective. Here again, you are caught in an outright contradiction with something you've said previously... you should just shut up.

No, but the only reason you give is that it is deviant, and the basis for it is your religion.

Nope... MY reason for saying homosexual behavior is deviant, is because biology tells me the behavior deviates from normal sexual behavior in the species. It has nothing to do with religion or dogma.

I never argued that, I said that Christ didn't mention it and pointed out that it didn't make it "not a sin" that he didn't.

Christ didn't mention it specifically, it's not listed in the 10 Commandments, and outside of the Old Testament, there is very little scripture about it.... yet, you deduce that it's somehow Christian dogma? I think you are prejudiced against Christianity, and this is an example of your bigoted stubborn bias toward Christian beliefs. It's not Christian "dogma" and I don't give a fuck how many times you want to repeat that lie.

We've established nothing of the sort, you have simply attempted to ignore a portion of the dogma for the instance of this argument, even though you reject the "lifestyle" as a deviance based on your dogma.

No, I did establish it, you haven't refuted my establishment with anything yet. I am waiting! Dumo, you don't get to just "proclaim" something into actuality, I don't give a damn if it is YOUR board! Make your case, prove that what you are saying is true, show me something in Christian writing that specifies homosexuality is a sin and opposition to Gay Marriage is in the dogma. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't claim it, because that is a lie, Dumo. I hate to think you've fallen so low, you once were a respectable poster, now you want to lie and manipulate the conversation with hyperbole and overblown rhetoric you can't support. You're getting to be on about the level of Maineman.

Rubbish. Homosexual acts are specifically outlawed by Christian dogma.

Show me where! Also, show me where anyone has advocated outlawing homosexuality! That would have to be the case, for something to be "legislation of dogma" as you claimed.

However almost all of them, and especially yours, are attempts to work around the 1st Amendment and to legislate your dogma onto others.

I think you are confused, it is Gay Activists who seek to usurp the 1st Amendment and have their judicial activist judges render Gay Marriage into law from the bench. None of my reasons for opposing gay marriage has anything to do with the 1st Amendment, other than denying the "free exercise" of people's religious viewpoints, which you seem to be eager to do.

Incorrect. It is dogma, I can even list chapter and verse where it tells you specifically it is an "abomination" (and if you knew your religion you'd know that "abomination" merits the death penalty).

I know where it says it's an abomination, now show me where it says it's a sin and show me where someone is proposing we ban homosexuality! You've taken yet another illogical leap back to the issue of homosexuality itself, as if religious fanatics are trying to burn gay people at the stake or something! How about sticking with the subject of Gay Marriage, and show me where Christian Dogma forbids it... better yet, show the Unitarians and Episcopalians!

Good, then again I'll point out that if you actually work towards this rather than making stupid arguments "against" what already happens then we'll be able to get some where. Instead you "threaten" constitutional amendments with false schadenfruede rejoicing in how everybody else will "feel" when it suddenly becomes legal for you to legislate your dogma onto us.

Dumo, I am willing to work toward my solution, but I can't accept Gay Marriage to get there, sorry. I don't see very many people from your side willing to embrace my solution at this point, we keep hearing the same argument FOR GAY MARRIAGE! Tell ya what, Dumo... Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, and THEN we'll work toward YOUR solution!

Yet you are, and rejoicing in the non-existent Amendment that will allow you to say "so there"...

I'm not rejoicing in anything, you nitwit. I am telling you, if judges and courts "rule" gay marriage into existence, you will get a Constitutional Amendment rammed down your throat by the 70% (or more) of America who OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE! IF that's not something you think you might like, I would suggest you start trying to talk some sense into people, rather than taking up their battle banner! Cuz, I promise you, that is what will ultimately transpire as a result of this.

Yet you realize that the only way to make it illegal is for an Amendment to be passed. I'm glad you realize the unconstitutionality of attempting to legislate your dogma onto others, how it would violate their 1st Amendment right to free exercise of their own religion.

Stop LYING you worthless sack of shit! You have now gotten worse than USF about LYING and REPEATING THE LIE! You've not established that homosexuality is against Christian dogma, you can't even show where it's forbidden by Christian belief! You've cited examples of Christian churches who marry homosexuals and welcome them into the ministries! But this is not about HOMOSEXUALITY, it's about Gay Marriage, a completely different thing altogether! No one is advocating banning homosexual behavior, DUMO!

Rubbish. People are not going to pass any Amendment for this. We can't even get a Balanced Budget Amendment passed and both parties say they are for that.

You can "rubbish" all you like... keep pushing this insanity of Gay Marriage, and we'll fucking see what happens, you goofy bitch!

However, reality is that marriages in the churches would be equally recognized to those who were of the heterosexual variety. This solution allows such marriages.

GOOD! So what is the fucking problem then???

Your "solution" isn't, however your fondest wish (The Amendment) is. Theocracy will never be accepted here.

FUCK YOU, MORON! All you want to do is LIE and DISTORT, and MISLEAD, and MISUSE terminology, and repeat your unfounded and unsupportable viewpoint over and over again. You don't give a shit what anyone else has to say, you are a hard-headed bigot know-it-all, and I'm fucking glad I don't know you in real life, I think I would probably not like you very much at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

If the defect presents a harm to some aspect of society then the defectives should be banned from activities that could harm that aspect of the society.

Sacrifice the individual for the greater good of society? The individual is the ultimate minority in a free society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sacrifice the individual for the greater good of society? The individual is the ultimate minority in a free society.

Especially if the individual happens to believe in God.

 

[WinterBorn]

Especially if the individual happens to believe in God.

Trying to make religious people into martyrs is a waste of time, Dixie.

No one is trying to sacrifice those who believe in God. We simply do not want to allow them to use religious dogma to rule the land.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Trying to make religious people into martyrs is a waste of time, Dixie.

No one is trying to sacrifice those who believe in God. We simply do not want to allow them to use religious dogma to rule the land.

They can "use" whatever the fuck they want to "use" and they can have an equal voice to YOU in the political debate and legislation regarding this issue or any other. You show me where the Constitution denies them this right, and I will concede your point.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This thing about "dogma" is really amazing. Dumo is running around arguing that gayness isn't condemned by Christ, but gayness is against the "dogma of Christianity!" And then making the illogical leap to the issue of same-sex marriage and claiming the opposition amounts to "dogma being imposed!" It's just STUNNING!!

Then WB chimes in with his "religious dogma" comments... neither of you nitwits have shown that opposition to gay marriage is found in the dogma of Christianity, or any other religion. In fact, Christian dogma doesn't even mention 'gay marriage', such an idiotic notion had never been considered. It's a difficult argument to make, that homosexuality conflicts with Christian belief, obviously, some Christians condone or accept homosexual relationships, and even have homosexual ministers, and perform gay marriages. But it is fundamentally impossible to establish that opposition to gay marriage is "forcing religious dogma" by any stretch of the word.

Again... Dumo, WB, and USF, among others, will continue to use hyperbole and overblown rhetoric, because they lack tentative substance to their arguments. Citizens have the Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, and they have an equal right to petition for redress of their grievances. The Constitution does not ban someone's viewpoint because it happens to follow their religious convictions. In fact, one could argue, the Constitution PROTECTS their right TO voice their opinions, without fear of reprisal.

What bothers you godless dunderheads, is that SOME PEOPLE make their decisions based on morals taught in their religions, and you feel that infringes on your freedom and liberty, so you've concocted this bigoted and insupportable lie about "religious dogma" and all the rest. What you are apparently too stupid to realize is, honest and educated people can see that you are using hyperbolic rhetoric, and it's a real turn off. You actually begin to do more harm to your "cause" than good, if your "cause" is legitimately seeking marital rights for homosexual couples. The people who's minds you have to change, are not convinced, they are somewhat nauseated by your spewage.

 

[WinterBorn]

This thing about "dogma" is really amazing. Dumo is running around arguing that gayness isn't condemned by Christ, but gayness is against the "dogma of Christianity!" And then making the illogical leap to the issue of same-sex marriage and claiming the opposition amounts to "dogma being imposed!" It's just STUNNING!!

Then WB chimes in with his "religious dogma" comments... neither of you nitwits have shown that opposition to gay marriage is found in the dogma of Christianity, or any other religion. In fact, Christian dogma doesn't even mention 'gay marriage', such an idiotic notion had never been considered. It's a difficult argument to make, that homosexuality conflicts with Christian belief, obviously, some Christians condone or accept homosexual relationships, and even have homosexual ministers, and perform gay marriages. But it is fundamentally impossible to establish that opposition to gay marriage is "forcing religious dogma" by any stretch of the word.

Again... Dumo, WB, and USF, among others, will continue to use hyperbole and overblown rhetoric, because they lack tentative substance to their arguments. Citizens have the Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, and they have an equal right to petition for redress of their grievances. The Constitution does not ban someone's viewpoint because it happens to follow their religious convictions. In fact, one could argue, the Constitution PROTECTS their right TO voice their opinions, without fear of reprisal.

What bothers you godless dunderheads, is that SOME PEOPLE make their decisions based on morals taught in their religions, and you feel that infringes on your freedom and liberty, so you've concocted this bigoted and insupportable lie about "religious dogma" and all the rest. What you are apparently too stupid to realize is, honest and educated people can see that you are using hyperbolic rhetoric, and it's a real turn off. You actually begin to do more harm to your "cause" than good, if your "cause" is legitimately seeking marital rights for homosexual couples. The people who's minds you have to change, are not convinced, they are somewhat nauseated by your spewage.

Hey numbnuts, not every topic is about gay marriage. Mine was concerning individuals and a free society. And what I said stands.

 

[WinterBorn]

They can "use" whatever the fuck they want to "use" and they can have an equal voice to YOU in the political debate and legislation regarding this issue or any other. You show me where the Constitution denies them this right, and I will concede your point.

Yes, they have an equal voice in a political debate. But then, you are one who screams "STFU" quite often, while I do not. So if someone is scared of actual debate it is you, and not me.

Yes, the US Constitution does not allow a single religion to be the law of the land. You are can whine and argue all you want, but the SCOTUS has consistently ruled in favor of my side of the argument.

 

[apple0154]

(Damocles) Your "solution" isn't, however your fondest wish (The Amendment) is. Theocracy will never be accepted here.

FUCK YOU, MORON! All you want to do is LIE and DISTORT, and MISLEAD, and MISUSE terminology, and repeat your unfounded and unsupportable viewpoint over and over again. You don't give a shit what anyone else has to say, you are a hard-headed bigot know-it-all, and I'm fucking glad I don't know you in real life, I think I would probably not like you very much at all.

That's why they made beer. I'm sure everything would be straightened out with a conversation over a few pints.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Uhm, yes it most certainly CAN be addressed, and it WILL be addressed.

It's also hard to miss your multi-page argument on how homosexuality isn't specifically spoken against by Jesus Christ, the man who Christianity is named for. It's hard to miss that as well, and it's also hard to miss your contradictions. Gee, Dumo... I'm still looking through the 10 Commandments, you know, those Christian rules of "do and don't" ...and I am not seeing anything about homosexuality or gay marriage in there... You'd think they would put something so vital to the dogma in the rules, wouldn't ya?

Uhm, no, I am sorry... People don't get to "pick and choose" the dogma of a religion, those are solid core principles that MUST be adhered to by the members of a religion. You said yourself, dogma is NOT subjective. Here again, you are caught in an outright contradiction with something you've said previously... you should just shut up.

Nope... MY reason for saying homosexual behavior is deviant, is because biology tells me the behavior deviates from normal sexual behavior in the species. It has nothing to do with religion or dogma.

Christ didn't mention it specifically, it's not listed in the 10 Commandments, and outside of the Old Testament, there is very little scripture about it.... yet, you deduce that it's somehow Christian dogma? I think you are prejudiced against Christianity, and this is an example of your bigoted stubborn bias toward Christian beliefs. It's not Christian "dogma" and I don't give a fuck how many times you want to repeat that lie.

No, I did establish it, you haven't refuted my establishment with anything yet. I am waiting! Dumo, you don't get to just "proclaim" something into actuality, I don't give a damn if it is YOUR board! Make your case, prove that what you are saying is true, show me something in Christian writing that specifies homosexuality is a sin and opposition to Gay Marriage is in the dogma. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't claim it, because that is a lie, Dumo. I hate to think you've fallen so low, you once were a respectable poster, now you want to lie and manipulate the conversation with hyperbole and overblown rhetoric you can't support. You're getting to be on about the level of Maineman.

Show me where! Also, show me where anyone has advocated outlawing homosexuality! That would have to be the case, for something to be "legislation of dogma" as you claimed.

I think you are confused, it is Gay Activists who seek to usurp the 1st Amendment and have their judicial activist judges render Gay Marriage into law from the bench. None of my reasons for opposing gay marriage has anything to do with the 1st Amendment, other than denying the "free exercise" of people's religious viewpoints, which you seem to be eager to do.

I know where it says it's an abomination, now show me where it says it's a sin and show me where someone is proposing we ban homosexuality! You've taken yet another illogical leap back to the issue of homosexuality itself, as if religious fanatics are trying to burn gay people at the stake or something! How about sticking with the subject of Gay Marriage, and show me where Christian Dogma forbids it... better yet, show the Unitarians and Episcopalians!

Dumo, I am willing to work toward my solution, but I can't accept Gay Marriage to get there, sorry. I don't see very many people from your side willing to embrace my solution at this point, we keep hearing the same argument FOR GAY MARRIAGE! Tell ya what, Dumo... Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, and THEN we'll work toward YOUR solution!

I'm not rejoicing in anything, you nitwit. I am telling you, if judges and courts "rule" gay marriage into existence, you will get a Constitutional Amendment rammed down your throat by the 70% (or more) of America who OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE! IF that's not something you think you might like, I would suggest you start trying to talk some sense into people, rather than taking up their battle banner! Cuz, I promise you, that is what will ultimately transpire as a result of this.

Stop LYING you worthless sack of shit! You have now gotten worse than USF about LYING and REPEATING THE LIE! You've not established that homosexuality is against Christian dogma, you can't even show where it's forbidden by Christian belief! You've cited examples of Christian churches who marry homosexuals and welcome them into the ministries! But this is not about HOMOSEXUALITY, it's about Gay Marriage, a completely different thing altogether! No one is advocating banning homosexual behavior, DUMO!

You can "rubbish" all you like... keep pushing this insanity of Gay Marriage, and we'll fucking see what happens, you goofy bitch!

GOOD! So what is the fucking problem then???

FUCK YOU, MORON! All you want to do is LIE and DISTORT, and MISLEAD, and MISUSE terminology, and repeat your unfounded and unsupportable viewpoint over and over again. You don't give a shit what anyone else has to say, you are a hard-headed bigot know-it-all, and I'm fucking glad I don't know you in real life, I think I would probably not like you very much at all.

 

[Damocles]

Uhm, yes it most certainly CAN be addressed, and it WILL be addressed.

Not through Legislation, because Congress shall make no laws... It could be addressed through an unlikely Amendment, but it won't.

It's also hard to miss your multi-page argument on how homosexuality isn't specifically spoken against by Jesus Christ, the man who Christianity is named for. It's hard to miss that as well, and it's also hard to miss your contradictions. Gee, Dumo... I'm still looking through the 10 Commandments, you know, those Christian rules of "do and don't" ...and I am not seeing anything about homosexuality or gay marriage in there... You'd think they would put something so vital to the dogma in the rules, wouldn't ya?

That's pretty lame, Dix. Especially when during the multi-page argument I specifically stated that it didn't make it "not a sin" and that the dogma specifically stated it was an abomination. It's like you don't even think before you type.

Uhm, no, I am sorry... People don't get to "pick and choose" the dogma of a religion, those are solid core principles that MUST be adhered to by the members of a religion. You said yourself, dogma is NOT subjective. Here again, you are caught in an outright contradiction with something you've said previously... you should just shut up.

Again, individuals and churches do pick and choose which dogma they like. Even if you pretend that you don't witness it in some churches (like the Unitarians).

Nope... MY reason for saying homosexual behavior is deviant, is because biology tells me the behavior deviates from normal sexual behavior in the species. It has nothing to do with religion or dogma.

Like I said, excuses. Many other "deviant" behaviors are acceptable, this one specifically isn't because of the dogma of your expressed religion.

Christ didn't mention it specifically, it's not listed in the 10 Commandments, and outside of the Old Testament, there is very little scripture about it.... yet, you deduce that it's somehow Christian dogma? I think you are prejudiced against Christianity, and this is an example of your bigoted stubborn bias toward Christian beliefs. It's not Christian "dogma" and I don't give a fuck how many times you want to repeat that lie.

LOL. The New Testament also notes it as an Abomination. This attempt to define away dogmatic rules of your religion is humorous.

No, I did establish it, you haven't refuted my establishment with anything yet. I am waiting! Dumo, you don't get to just "proclaim" something into actuality, I don't give a damn if it is YOUR board! Make your case, prove that what you are saying is true, show me something in Christian writing that specifies homosexuality is a sin and opposition to Gay Marriage is in the dogma. If you can't prove it, you shouldn't claim it, because that is a lie, Dumo. I hate to think you've fallen so low, you once were a respectable poster, now you want to lie and manipulate the conversation with hyperbole and overblown rhetoric you can't support. You're getting to be on about the level of Maineman.

So, you expect me to teach you what you have expressed to be your own religion. It's idiotic to pretend that homosexual acts were not specifically forbidden at the penalty of death in the Bible.

Show me where! Also, show me where anyone has advocated outlawing homosexuality! That would have to be the case, for something to be "legislation of dogma" as you claimed.

I have never suggested that you are advocating making "homosexuality" illegal, I have stated that you are attempting to legislate the Judeo-Christian definition of "marriage" onto others.

However, whole court fights have been held arguing the laws that didn't just "advocate" it, they specifically made such acts illegal. And as I have stated they would be those laws were struck down. It's ignorant to pretend history doesn't exist, or that you do not argue against "marriage" of homosexuals. You do, we've spent pages and two threads, you've even hijacked your own thread to talk about it here.

I think you are confused, it is Gay Activists who seek to usurp the 1st Amendment and have their judicial activist judges render Gay Marriage into law from the bench. None of my reasons for opposing gay marriage has anything to do with the 1st Amendment, other than denying the "free exercise" of people's religious viewpoints, which you seem to be eager to do.

Not even close, the only one who works to restrict the beliefs of another group are the Christian Activists who attempt to legislate their dogma on this particular subject. If gay activists were able to get such restrictive laws struck down it wouldn't change your religion even one iota.

I know where it says it's an abomination, now show me where it says it's a sin and show me where someone is proposing we ban homosexuality! You've taken yet another illogical leap back to the issue of homosexuality itself, as if religious fanatics are trying to burn gay people at the stake or something! How about sticking with the subject of Gay Marriage, and show me where Christian Dogma forbids it... better yet, show the Unitarians and Episcopalians!

This is inane, an "abomination" is a sin that merits the death penalty. It's just flat stupid to try to argue that it wouldn't therefore be a "sin"...

Dumo, I am willing to work toward my solution, but I can't accept Gay Marriage to get there, sorry. I don't see very many people from your side willing to embrace my solution at this point, we keep hearing the same argument FOR GAY MARRIAGE! Tell ya what, Dumo... Let's pass a Constitutional Amendment recognizing marriage as being between a man and a woman, and THEN we'll work toward YOUR solution!

You don't have to "accept" anything, you moron, they already happen. It's like saying you "won't accept" that 2+2=4, it just is.

Realize this, if our solution is implemented gay marriages that have already taken place in churches across the nation that don't agree with your "definition" would still exist and still be very real. They are as married as you were before.

I'm not rejoicing in anything, you nitwit. I am telling you, if judges and courts "rule" gay marriage into existence, you will get a Constitutional Amendment rammed down your throat by the 70% (or more) of America who OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE! IF that's not something you think you might like, I would suggest you start trying to talk some sense into people, rather than taking up their battle banner! Cuz, I promise you, that is what will ultimately transpire as a result of this.

You aren't rejoicing? Rubbish. You even stated you'd be laughing and participating in schadenfruede as you gloated that they (paraphrasing here) "should have done what you said" to begin with.

Stop LYING you worthless sack of shit! You have now gotten worse than USF about LYING and REPEATING THE LIE! You've not established that homosexuality is against Christian dogma, you can't even show where it's forbidden by Christian belief! You've cited examples of Christian churches who marry homosexuals and welcome them into the ministries! But this is not about HOMOSEXUALITY, it's about Gay Marriage, a completely different thing altogether! No one is advocating banning homosexual behavior, DUMO!

Yes, I have.

You can "rubbish" all you like... keep pushing this insanity of Gay Marriage, and we'll fucking see what happens, you goofy bitch!

I'm not "pushing" anything.

GOOD! So what is the fucking problem then???

I don't know, you are the one that continues this stupidity.

FUCK YOU, MORON! All you want to do is LIE and DISTORT, and MISLEAD, and MISUSE terminology, and repeat your unfounded and unsupportable viewpoint over and over again. You don't give a shit what anyone else has to say, you are a hard-headed bigot know-it-all, and I'm fucking glad I don't know you in real life, I think I would probably not like you very much at all.

Dix, I do not promote Gay Marriage, I only point out that your own solution would make it so that it happened in churches across the land that disagree with your definition and ignore that portion of the dogma. That finally getting the government out of defining religious ceremonies and allowing all consenting adults to enter "unions", the only marriages will be those that take place in churches, and some of them marry homosexuals to each other. It's just a fricking fact.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bump #3

Can someone ask my bitch, Dixie, why she's ignoring my proof of her hypocrisy??

No, you totally lied and misled, because you are a dishonest little fucktard, and that's how you roll.

You want to take bits and pieces of other things I have said, and things you may have even heard from others, and tie them with something else I stated from my personal life, to paint an abstract picture. I called you a liar and a dishonest fucktard for doing so, and now you want to act incredulous.

Lets revisit this, shall we!!

Back on Post # 653, I made the following comment to Damo:

But he'll tell you how he calls his homosexual friends deviants, to their faces, and how he attended one of their immoral and heathen weddings.

In Post #656, you made the following statement:

STFU you dishonest piece of shit! I never said anything remotely close to that.

In Post #658, I asked you for clarification:

Where in my post am I misleading?

In Post #661, you made the accusation of:

Where in your post are you NOT misleading? I didn't say what you claim I said! That's about as fucking straightforward as it gets, you are an outright LIAR!

So I decided to go back and review past posts, just to make sure I hadn't confused someone else's comments and attributated them to you.
The following is only regarding you assertion that you didn't say your gay friends were deviants.
I've only brought forward the parts that pertain to this; but if you feel that I've left off something of importance, please show where.

Post #543

I'll also take the opportunity to add, if we ever change the criteria for marriage, based on the fact that homosexuals wish to call same-sex unions "marriage" then we will establish that "marriage" is definable according to your sexual lifestyle, and the government will have a responsibility to ensure equality for all sexual deviants who wish to call their fetish "marriage" for as long as marriage is so defined in law. We have to apply whatever law we have equally, so if you change the parameters, expect the consequences.

Post #545

Do you call your gay friends "deviants" and that the marriage you attended, a fetish??

Post #598

You seem to be avoiding my question of; do you refer to your homosexual friends as deviants, to their face??

Post #600

Yes, I tell them they are sick twisted freaks all the time, they laugh.

You said "Yes" and it was to the question of deviancy.
Are you now going to try and spin this and say you meant something else?
That is probably a rhetorical question; because of course you are.

So now, can you show where I lied; or are you going to pussy out and run away like you do 2/3 of the time?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Not through Legislation, because Congress shall make no laws... It could be addressed through an unlikely Amendment, but it won't.

And no one is advocating a law to establish Christianity as the national religion, Dumo! It's never been suggested, it is not in the works, no one is lobbying for that. You've made several illogical leaps to "infer" that is what this is about, and you are full of shit. Congress can most certainly make laws based on people's religious and moral viewpoints, they do so all the time.

That's pretty lame, Dix. Especially when during the multi-page argument I specifically stated that it didn't make it "not a sin" and that the dogma specifically stated it was an abomination. It's like you don't even think before you type.

You're back to proving a negative again to support your argument... The Old Testament refers to homosexuality as an abomination, the Bible does not specify it is a sin, Jesus didn't personally condemn it, and many Christians don't recognize it as a sin.... but why are we talking about "homosexuality" here, when the discussion is about same-sex marriage? If we were trying to outlaw homosexuality, you might be touching on some validity with you point, but you are on the other side of the fence from logic, you have to make that leap from 'homosexual' to 'gay marriage' and Christian dogma doesn't even mention gay marriage.

Again, individuals and churches do pick and choose which dogma they like. Even if you pretend that you don't witness it in some churches (like the Unitarians).

YOUR WORDS: "Dogma is never subjective!"

Like I said, excuses. Many other "deviant" behaviors are acceptable, this one specifically isn't because of the dogma of your expressed religion.

No one is trying to ban homosexuality! If you know of some place this is happening, please let me know! Until then, can you please stay on topic?

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior, and you are correct, there are other acceptable deviant behaviors, but we aren't trying to legitimize them into law through the government, are we?

LOL. The New Testament also notes it as an Abomination. This attempt to define away dogmatic rules of your religion is humorous.

Whether Christian religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage, Dumo! Whether someone opposes same-sex marriage because their religious beliefs teach them to, is not something you or I can control, and we certainly can't deny their right to a political voice because of their religious faith... Go read your 1st Amendment again, Dumo!

So, you expect me to teach you what you have expressed to be your own religion. It's idiotic to pretend that homosexual acts were not specifically forbidden at the penalty of death in the Bible.

So now we're back to pointing a finger at Dixie and calling him a Christian? It doesn't matter what the religious belief taught followers about homosexual behavior, no one is advocating a ban on homosexuality!

I have never suggested that you are advocating making "homosexuality" illegal, I have stated that you are attempting to legislate the Judeo-Christian definition of "marriage" onto others.

Judeo-Christian, and every other organized religion's definition. But as you've pointed out, some Christian churches perform gay marriages, so are they not Judeo-Christian followers? They certainly follow the Bible.

And ya know what Dumo, if WE THE PEOPLE want to define everything in our society based on Judeo-Christian definitions and beliefs, the Constitution gives us the liberty to do so, as long as we don't establish a national religion.

However, whole court fights have been held arguing the laws that didn't just "advocate" it, they specifically made such acts illegal. And as I have stated they would be those laws were struck down. It's ignorant to pretend history doesn't exist, or that you do not argue against "marriage" of homosexuals. You do, we've spent pages and two threads, you've even hijacked your own thread to talk about it here.

I didn't turn this into a discussion on gay marriage, Dumo... that was some of your gay boyfriends! Yes, I make it very clear I am opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage based on sexuality lifestyles. I've stated why I oppose it without using a single reference to Biblical teachings or religious beliefs. Still, you seek to tie my viewpoint to an Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality itself, when 'homosexuality' is not the topic of debate. It makes for really good HYPERBOLE, but other than that, it shows a devout willful ignorance and bigotry on your part, not to acknowledge the validity of my many legal and constitutional points, which are NOT based on any religious dogma.

Not even close, the only one who works to restrict the beliefs of another group are the Christian Activists who attempt to legislate their dogma on this particular subject. If gay activists were able to get such restrictive laws struck down it wouldn't change your religion even one iota.

Opposing Gay Marriage is NOT religious dogma, Dumo. I don't know if you think you can repeat that lie enough times it will come true, but you've presented NOTHING to establish this point. You just keep repeating it over and over, as if this is established as fact, when that is not the case at all.

This is inane, an "abomination" is a sin that merits the death penalty. It's just flat stupid to try to argue that it wouldn't therefore be a "sin"...

And if someone is trying to legislate the death penalty for homosexuals, THEN it would be trying to "force their dogma" upon you! That's NOT happening!

You don't have to "accept" anything, you moron, they already happen. It's like saying you "won't accept" that 2+2=4, it just is.

Realize this, if our solution is implemented gay marriages that have already taken place in churches across the nation that don't agree with your "definition" would still exist and still be very real. They are as married as you were before.

And for the fourth time (since you keep repeating the same nonsense)... This in itself proves that gay marriage is not in conflict with the Christian dogma! It's usually only the extremely retarded pinheads who will refute their own stupidity, it's kind of unexpected from you... pardon me while I'm taken aback!

You aren't rejoicing? Rubbish. You even stated you'd be laughing and participating in schadenfruede as you gloated that they (paraphrasing here) "should have done what you said" to begin with.

Well I know I didn't state that, I don't even know what 'schadenfruede' means! I'm not "rejoicing" with any of this, I have friends who are suffering because of it, and I want to see some resolution to the problem they have. I can't support Gay Marriage, it is out of the question, and my mind will never be changed on that. I would support comprehensive Civil Unions legislation, as I've laid out, because that solves the problem while respecting all sides.

What I said was, IF you nitwits manage to stack the SCOTUS with enough Elana Kegan's to get Gay Marriage passed into law, the result would be to make DOMA a Constitutional Amendment, and I would support it.

Yes, I have.

No, you haven't! ...(CONGRATS! YOU'VE TURNED INTO ASSHAT!)

I'm not "pushing" anything. I don't know, you are the one that continues this stupidity. ....Dix, I do not promote Gay Marriage, I only point out that your own solution would make it so that it happened in churches across the land that disagree with your definition and ignore that portion of the dogma. That finally getting the government out of defining religious ceremonies and allowing all consenting adults to enter "unions", the only marriages will be those that take place in churches, and some of them marry homosexuals to each other. It's just a fricking fact.

Oh, I'm sorry Dumo, it sure as hell appears you are pushing for and advocating homosexual marriage here! I'm sorry I was mistaken, but you should make yourself more clear.

Again, you raise the point that gay marriage would take place in churches with the CU solution, but you are apparently to stupid to understand that very point totally destroys your argument about "religious dogma!" Christian churches certainly would not be doing this if it were against Christian dogma! So, while you've completely torched your own foundational argument, I guess you thought you were hitting my homophobic nerve or something... *gasp* you mean gay people will be gettin hitched in a church? Really? Well, maybe I ought to change my mind about CU's then, since it's an abomination and we need to burn gays at the stake and all!

You fucking dishonest piece of misleading trash. I am not opposed to gay people, I am not opposed to gay people having wedding ceremonies, or even getting 'married' if they want to call it that! I AM OPPOSED TO LEGALIZING SAME-SEX UNIONS AS MARRIAGE UNDER THE LAW!