lolz. First, one word, HYPOCRITE. Don't want to hear reasoning, you've ignored EVERY SINGLE post I've directed at you. EVERY SINGLE post.

We are trying to silence people who disagree? Um, no, I engaged with you in discussion, you ignored me. Since when has conversativism ever tried to consider conflicting views? Conservative is far more narrow the liberalism. Liberalism is after allowing laws to bring as much freedom to everyone (not just the majority or rich), as possible without infringing on the rights of other. Therefore the idea of gay marriage, without forcing churches to marry gays, but at least having the option, and court marriages maintains the anti-gay churches' rights to not marry gays, yet allows gays to get married if they want. This would be freedom.


lolz again. Our agenda? Infiltrating the church? Um, no... for example, a few weeks ago, I went to the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign conference, which is the biggest student LGBTQ movement in the UK. The conference is to decide policy on campaigns are such to focus on in the year. Guess what? The church didn't even come up. Not once. So you go find some evidence that the movement is infiltrating the church, and maybe you can make that point.

Whereas, as I pointing out, there is very little actual knowledge of the church's teachings on gay marriage in much of the early church, and middle ages. As I pointed out, as homosexuality wasnt a real concept till the lasdt few hundred years, there was little discussion on gays, and when there was, it was from specific individuals, mostly from the view that every one is straight, so gay sex is explicitly a rebellion to human nature. There is a lot of academic research on the 'clobber' passage against gays to suggest its really not all that straight forward. Go watch a documentary called 'So The Bible Tells Me So' (no, this wasnt my only source of information, they just made an easily understandable documentary, and its more interesting then all the reading I've done).



No, thats not second class citizens, that would be non-human status. Second class citizens are anyone who are not being given equal rights by law.

And again, secular marriages exist, the Church is not the only place of Marriage in the Western world... plus, for those churches not against gay marriage, they should be allowed freedom of religion too.


Lack of marriage, at least in America does mean in many places the partners of gays can't get the same benefits the spouses of employees can get from jobs, like health insurance, etc. It also makes adoption harder, even if it's of the partner's own genetic children. It also means they don't get family rights in relation to their partner in the health system in some places... so for example, they can't find out the status of their partner's health, if their partner has had to go into hospital. As they aren't considered family.

Also, it continues this idea that if gays don't deserve marriage, that they are different, and indirectly reinforces prejudice. Prejudice leads to discrimination.

Since when was this thread explicitly, exclusively American, this is discussion on a concept. In fact, there are more non-Americans in this thread then Americans. If you Americans want us to give a shit about your constitution, you better damn well respect the laws of other countries in the same way.

I love you.

Um... Leviticus doesn't state that. Like, really, even if you interperate it that way, it does not actually say those words. The word homosexual should never appear in the Bible, because it did not exist in the days the Bible was written. Also.... the term they use for abomination (which I asusme you've translated as enormous sin?), is a term for some that isn't inheritantly evil, but was made so to the people of Isreal.

I still don't understand where your understanding of marriage comes from either? Throughout history, its not been about love... it's been about contracts, money, protection, providing, etc. Also, why is the conservative Christian definition of marriage the only correct one? Marriage can be secular, marriage can be religious of people with different views, etc, etc.

Ok, here's the thing, you are missing the point, and even though it's been explained to you clearly, you are missing the point. There is a difference to a right to believe something, and what laws shoud prevent people from doing. The law should be objective.

Well then, shut up, the only points you made reflected your view on America. If anyone is expected to listen to your views, based on your country, respect others based on their's.

Amendants were made because people were trying to loop hole your constitution to deny women and blacks equal rights.




And theoretically, you think this is exceptable, that equal rights aren't there? Nice.

And please, explain where you get the idea that marriage isn't applicable to the same sex? Divorce is against Christianity. Still legal in the US. Not to mention, the meaning of things can change with society. Otherwise you wouldnt be going to school, or having a chance for a career.

Quote:

Simply because I believe that marriage should be kept simply for men and women does not mean that I am a discriminatory person. Have I stated that I am against same sex relationships? No, I haven't. I am aware that Christianity does not make the laws, I am aware of that. But if they do not make the laws, why are so many gays so damn worried that Christians are going to somehow abolish gay marriage?

You are the one who is obsessing most about the Christians? But Christianity in the US does make laws, even though in a country claiming to be the land of the free (which for the record, it really really isnt), it shouldnt.

And it kinda is discriminatory, as you, as of yet, haven't given a logical, rational reason to hold your view against this group.

You are denying freedom of religion to other people...

Also, just out of curiousity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'