Unpopular decisions are the price of constitutional rights.

[richpo64]

>>Wrong.<<

Let's try this again.

Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights I do. Any man can marry any woman who is willing. Just as I can.

I have no special rights.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Catholic Church takes the stand that all divorces are wrong, and that marriages can only be annulled. However, they stopped making a big deal of their opposition to divorced because they recognized they had no chance of making divorce illegal.

The opposition to gay marriages is a fall-back position, but eventually they will lose that as well.

Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of a civil right.

[sirs]

Still not going to answer the question, are you?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you want to be fair to everyone, then you should support gay marriage. It harms no one if Adam marries Steve.



If you want to be against it, then you are following an antiquated religious moral code, and the part about stoning has still not been removed from the Bible. It is still there.

Maybr God will punish people for allowing Adam to marry Steve , but he would probably get you for not stoning them as well,, women not wearing a veil, wearing polyester blend clothing and a whole bunch of other wacko stuff that was once considered holy writ by all, and still is by many.


As for answering your stupid questions, no, why not just let you stay in suspense?

[richpo64]

>>... However, they stopped making a big deal of their opposition to divorced ...<<

Obviously not Catholic and talking out his ass.

>>Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of a civil right.<<

More nonsense.

I am however, sure that eventually homosexuals will be getting married just like heterosexuals. It's just another example of the liberal media and the courts pounding away until they have successfully brainwashed people into excepting it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

they have successfully brainwashed people into excepting it.

You have your words confused.

I think people will ACCEPT gay marriage, as they should.

You want them to EXCEPT it.

These words mean nearly the opposite.

[sirs]

If you want to be fair to everyone, then you should support gay marriage. It harms no one if Adam marries Steve.

I support civil unions/domestic partnerships which can allow precisely the same rights as married heterosexuals receive.  It's called a COMPROMISE, compared to the overt intolerance shared by you and like minds, on this subject

As for answering your stupid questions, no

Once again, It wasn't my stupid question.  It was Bt's stupid question.  Your lack of answering it though, speaks volumes.  Thanks

[richpo64]

Thank you spelling Nazi. Sorry, but I still can't edit posts ...

That aside, you're still wrong.

[Xavier_Onassis]

our lack of answering it though, speaks volumes

============
I enjoy speaking volumes.  I don't think  except vs. accept is a case of misspelling. Like raise and raze, it is a case of tw words that are pronounced nearly the same and mean nearly the opposite.

The only difference between a civil union and a marriage is the use of one word. I find it whimsical that you are cavalier with two words while rigidly specific about another.  Most of those who vote against gay marriage do not want either civil unions or actual marriages. I imagine that if we could resurrect some ancient Hebrew prophet and inquire as to his opinion, he would agree with a total ban on any form of cohabitation. He would almost certainly disapprove of our clothing as well, as it tends to mix different fibers, and he would find a cheeseburger obscene and a ham sandwich an abomination. A ham and cheese poorboy would probably cause him to croak all over again.

As you say, we are past all that now.

Supposedly .

Fighting about how one word is ever so important, and others are trivial.

[sirs]

our lack of answering it though, speaks volumes
============
I enjoy speaking volumes.

That explains why you avoid answering a direct question.  Who's "our" BTW?  You, yourself and ..?  Couldn't have been some typing mistake, you being all perfect in that regards

Fighting about how one word is ever so important, and others are trivial.

Who's claiming what words are trivial

[Plane]

If you want to be against it, then you are following an antiquated religious moral code, and the part about stoning has still not been removed from the Bible. It is still there.

This is embarrsing , but I can't remember that bit, could you point it out?

[Xavier_Onassis]

    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

You will have to consult your own Bible for specifics about stoning.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You, yourself and ..?  Couldn't have been some typing mistake, you being all perfect in that regards


No, the y of the word YOUR was truncated.

[Plane]

    "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

You will have to consult your own Bible for specifics about stoning.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13%20&version=31


And there it is , thank you .

[Xavier_Onassis]

But that particular passage does not specifically prescribe stoning. Just killing seems to be the essential part. I suppose if not by public stoning, then maybe with knives or maybe strangulation: crucifixion was a Roman thing. The Romans always liked to do things theatrically.

Knives would suggest a sacrifice of the religious sort.  Palestine is littered with stones. It is a very rocky place. There are so may stones there, that there are probably quite a few that have not killed anyone yet.

There are no stones in the Chaco Boreal of Paraguay. There executions were generally done with really long thorns. Also, some of the Indians preferred to tie their enemies down over anthills.