Feingold Storms Out of Meeting Over Gay Marriage Ban

Well, that's an inane response to valid objections. When you have no arguments you attack the poster; sad tactic, carpro.

 

Yeah, menopause is the natural end of fertility in women - it is not a "health problem". Should older women not be allowed to marry seeing as they are generally infertile past a certain age? Fertility was one of your criteria.

I don't think menopause is all that funny, but then I don't have your raucous sense of humor.

 

Post-menopausal women are actually NOT capable of creating a child through copulation and that is your criterion, not mine. You came up with that one, not I. You are frustrated because I've shown the weakness of that argument, so you attack me rather than concede the point.

I haven't dodged the issue at all which is "not all families look alike". You are the one who is struggling vainly to come up with restrictions that apply only to gay head of household families and no others.

Show where I have said that I was not OK with same sex civil marriage, before you accuse me of dodging.

 

Love and tolerance for my neighbors (Romans 13:10). As far as civil marriage goes, they are doing me no harm. The US is not a theocracy (yet).

 

At no point does the Bible suggest we should tolerate or accommodate sin. In fact, Romans 1 specifically says we should not. This does not mean that we use force of government to stop them... but it sure means that we don't advocate the force of gov't to support them.

 

Like I said, we do not live in a theocracy. If you want to keep sinners from marrying, getting student loans or mortgage insurance or receiving any support no one will qualify. That may warm the cockles of your libertarian heart, but it should be all or none in a country which proclaims "liberty and justice for all".

 

And at no point did I say we did nor did I imply it. Christians nonetheless have an obligation to obey God first.

Oranges and apples. I don't want sinners to have gov't endorse their sinful behavior by instituting such benefits premised on their sin... though I don't support gov't aid programs in part because it puts them in this moral predicament.

No it shouldn't. Gov't has no vested interest in endorsing homosexual relationships.

 

We need separation of marriage and State as it has been for most of human existence.

 

I'd agree ideally. However, issues of child custody, inheritance, divorce, etc. seem to make it impractical. I would agree that clearly the Federal gov't has no business in it. The Constitution did not forbid states from dealing with it though.

 

Agreed!

And, I'll go a step further...

I firmly believe it is our Christian Duty to influence opur government to the best of our ability to do things as right as possible in light of God's Preeminent Word.

I do not believe any one denomination should be the priory cause for Government...

But, I strongly believe there are in fact Moral Absolutes that need to be enforced even if they happen to be a part of the Jewish and/or Christian Bibles...

And, in the case of homosexuality, giving any ground will lead to the camels nose under the tent syndrome. As we are already seeing in our schools.

Doing no harm?

I had a friend forced out of a job (rather than be fired) because he called a guy a fag for climbing up in the stall next to his to look at him using the throne...

Creepy!

Or what about the students who are being indoctrinated that homosexuality is OK...

And, then are ignored when preyed upon by the domineering homosexuals...

WE are to make "NO PROVISION" for the Flesh... When we allow Government to "enable" them without protest, we take part in the same sins...

because we are in effect taking pleasure in them that do such things...

SMM

 

Oh, I agree. Those are matters for the courts. But the licensing of marriage by the government needs to go.

 

Creepy indeed, by the guy who peered over, but just totally wrong by your friend as well. There is no excuse to call people by any type of slur, especially at work. The employer was right, because he is setting them up to be sued for sexual harrasment by creating a hostile work environment.

 

No they weren't. He should sue them for wrongful termination if he is so inclined. The guy had no business looking at him which is far more egregious than calling him a "fag".

In fact, the guy who looked should have been fired for actually committing sexual harassment.

 

Oh, I agree. Those are matters for the courts. But the licensing of marriage by the government needs to go. </font>[/QUOTE]States as well? I doubt we'd be willing to go back to the system where the children and property automatically belonged to the man... or where only men could own property in a marriage.

 

You are right about the looker. However, your friend is at fault too. Under employment law, the company is responsible if they know about offensive slurs being used and take no action. Hopefully both people were disciplined.