How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

It's a book of mostly fiction written by hundreds of different authhors and gathered into a collection, out of thousands of other documents by a bunch of preists hundreds of years after the documents were originally written. Some of the preists ended up leaving the catholic church and starting their own religion because they did not like the end result.

 

Who created man and woman then?

 

I could say that about all our laws and our constitution for they were also written by many diffrent authours so does that make our constitution or laws fiction?

 

Well the bible also says they should allow sin, so that's a strong religious argument for equal homosexual rights,

 

we're getting off topic, this isn't about whether or not this religion is true, it's about whether or not that religion is against homosexual rights and whether or not we should apply that religion to our laws

 

No one is claiming our laws or constitution is divinely inspired, that's the difference.

 

Is the Quran fiction? How about the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavd Gita, and Puranas? Are the writings of Confucius fiction? What about the Buddhavacana?

My point is that my opinion as to whether or not these works are fiction or non-fiction doesn't matter. Neither does yours. People believe in them, and they're welcome to make up their own minds on the matter.

 

My position is that we can theorize about how humans came to be, but no one can say that they know, religious works that claim otherwise notwithstanding.

 

The number of authors does not determine whether or not a work is fictional. If you think the constitution and our laws are a fiction, then you're welcome to ignore them and see where it gets you.

 

evolution

 

I used to be against gay marriage because of the simple thing that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. However, I wasn't actually sure that was the definition though. So I don't know, support civil unions though. I mean, if marriage is between a man and a woman do you really have to have yours called marriage too, even though you know it isn't? now that's just annoying.

 

What's annoying is people telling me my marriage isn't a marriage and saying that I "know it isn't". I don't "know" any such thing.

In the USA, civil recognition of a marital union is called 'marriage'. Whether the definition encompasses same-sex couples or not depends on which state you're in. If I lived in a state where I could legally marry the man I consider to be my husband already, I would do so. No amount of anyone yelling "marriage is only between a man and a woman" would deter me from calling that legally recognized marriage exactly that - a marriage. If I were religious and married in a church that blesses same-sex unions as marriages, I would still call it a marriage. Being as I'm not religious and don't live in a state where I can legally marry, I still call it a marriage because in my view, it is. You aren't obligated to share that view, but complaining about what I choose to call my committed, monogamous relationship of nearly 12 years is just an attempt to bully me into submission to your will. Which isn't going to happen.

Civil unions is basically "I don't want to seem mean, so I'll say I support 'civil unions', which allows me to still view myself as separate and superior since I can have a marriage and they can't". I can't even have a civil unions, because my state has an amendment with wording that effectively bans giving legal status under any name, for any purpose, to same-sex couples. Moving isn't an option, and I shouldn't have to move to be counted as an equal citizen with equal access to the government my taxes support.

 

Yep, in order for procreation and a perpetuation of the species to occur.

 

Evolution has also produced homosexuals

 

For sexual gratification, as opposed to the perpetuation of the human species.

 

You claim heterosexuals are given the right to marry because they procreate. Yet in the same breath you attest that they need not have the potential or willingness to procreate in order to marry.

So you contradict yourself in the same breath.

But you will never admit that. The most glaring form of hypocrisy.

 

Sin is sin, whether it is sexual in nature or a failing due to another human area of temptation. But any man can marry any woman if both agree to it. Anyone can leave their property to another interest. One woman famously left a fortune to her pet!

 

Religion has no place in this argument.

As for inheritance, that's just one small piece of the debate. One small issues that legal marriage takes care of without the need for complex and costly legal contract drawn up by lawyers.

 

The American Dec. of Ind. USA's founding document does reference the Creator/God.

 

Not everybody believes this. "Sin" is a religious construct and not everybody is religious. If you wish to refrain from doing something because you believe it is sinful, by all means do so. Nobody is forcing you.

Except gay men marrying straight women or vice versa is usually a recipe for disaster. I wouldn't want my straight son to marry a lesbian just so I could feel better about myself.

True but with a marital spouse that happens by default unless there is a will which stipulates otherwise.

Married couples can pass on their estates without excise. Anyone else is liable to pay duty depending on the size of the estate. Learn something about law.

 

Sin is part of our fallen nature.

 

Religion has no place, in modern society. Religion always was a haven, for oppressors, including for closet homosexuals and witch-hunters and inquisitors and flat-earthers. Benedict has said anti-AGW deniers also deny God, or words to that effect, which is TLTL.

Religion has to go, away from its leverage, at controversy and subversion or all modern media. The states are playing God, anyway. If they are to become benevolent, we need to read page 1, of the Qu'ran, and move on, to constitutions and statutes, which are wisely devised and evenly enforced, for and upon all subjects, regardless of all human qualtifications.

If we are to be ruled by laws, we need equality, to be guaranteed. We need religion to become distanced, from all public policy, including from marriage. This is not the case, in the US, where our separation clause is routinely attacked, by religious creeps.

When homosexuals are less narcissistic, homosexuals will help devise an ERA, or they will come out, in strength, for an ERA, in the US and anywhere else, with constitutional rule. Religionists have no place, in a society, ruled by laws, which wil endure.

A society which wil endure has no place, for lawyers, continuing cases, based on media, ratified for adult, white MEN, only.

When homosexuals aren't into intrigue, which is fatal, they will quit proseletyzing and get into equality. But they are like religionists, who preseletyze. And so, the closet culture persists.

 

Some religious people believe this, others don't.

 

still produced by evolution, perhaps as a means to STOP overpopulation.

 

which is not a legal document.