Posted on 01/23/2002 8:43:27 AM PST by tdadams
Marriage of hetrosexuals is legal, homosexual marriage is not in 99% of America.
The issue is college scholarships, and that is related to your statement how? I can find thousands of quotes by our founding fathers to support laws based on morals, not on "concenting adults". Which I have already done a few. Homosexuals are not the majority, they are not moral, they do not deserve legal or special protection. Especially if they only want to be consenting adults behind closed doors.
I never said anything even remotely like that. Are you deliberately bearing false witness against me?
Now let us return to the question. You seem to want to change the subject at every turn. The question was, do you think that Jesus admonished us to use violence and imprison people who are guilty of sins which do not involve violation of other's rights?
I am not a doctor, so I don't have any advice as to what to do with two men who want to marry each other. I do believe in concrete truths, and one of them is that the behavior shouldn't be encouraged because it brings no benefit to society--just the opposite.
I'm sorry, but I think you are so entrenched in a self-serving set of values that you can't even understand where someone who's not just like you is coming from.
Again, where have I been self-serving? And I see exactly where you are coming from. You're a relativist.
We've already seen from your previous posts that you have no problem inventing new meanings for words (morality in this case). Morality is one of the most nebulous words you could find.
To Hitler, exterminating Jews was moral. To you morality would be imprisoning homosexuals for life. That is not moral in my opinion, nor do I think Thomas Jefferson would agree.
Rational, intelligent people detest people like you who stand behind their religion and morality as some kind of absolute, and use it to defend the indefensible.
And thus is the disparity that I see is a violation of equal protection laws.
I'm so not a relativist that I'm laughing at reading that. I have firm convictions, many of which are not rooted in a vested interest but merely as a matter of principle.
You may disagree with me, but that doesn't make me relativist.
Government has no business being involved in marriage in any case whatsoever. No benefits should inure to anyone from government concerning anything other than the "benefit" of government defending our rights.
It's their country too.
I may tolerate someone's indulgence in smoking, skydiving, or mountain climbing, but I'll tell them to go to h**l if they try to send me their hospital bill when they get sick or injured.
Excuse me? Why is he considered a model of courage? I know he endured a lot of pain before his death and that is inexcusable, but don't call him a model of courage. To be in the position to be beaten to death, I believe he had been drinking with the two guys and had 'hit on' one or both of them. Sounds like he wasn't acting very smart to me. Don't get me wrong, he didn't deserve to be beaten to death, but I think its disgusting the way these folks are trying to lionize this guy.
Not at all. I merly stated that christian morals are a large part of our heritage. I did not quote you specifically. Sorry if it seemed that I did.
Up to now, I've really tried to give you every benefit of the doubt.... but the fact of the matter is, that you are a complete and utter dolt.
You richly deserve the fate you're creating for yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.