You can screech in gibberish all you want. That doesn't rationalize your position. And since you can't rationalize your position or you refuse to to screech in gibberish. The only conclusion I can make is that your position is not rational. I can rationalize my position without citing stipulation that you just made up such as the principle of reproduction.
Sarcasm not your strong point? Although to be fair, it is the internet with no visual or verbal cues. However, you are conflating. I am not saying that your point is wrong simply because your arguments are the same fallacies that you are accusing others of using. Those are two separate points of mine. 1) your position is wrong and 2) you are making those fallacies you are accusing others of making.
"TM?" Can't someone self identify as a Christian who has NOT accepted Christ as their Savior? What does this have to do with self-identifying as a Christian?
Well then I ask again - how would your position on same sex marriage change if you became convinced that Christianity (and therefore the Bible) was true? And did it succeed in combating interracial marriage? I don't understand how it would have had that effect. Aren't there people in the LGBT lobby who want churches to perform same sex weddings? So then surely you have no choice but to admit that the data might not be telling the full story. You said that "approval has always been low with people claiming religious affiliation." Do you acknowledge that the most recent 'reasoning' section in the poll is 2012? Don't you think that a straight teacher posting videos of themselves half naked while drinking and sexually dancing around with members of the opposite sex would've also been fired? And given that this is a religious institution, do you think that anti-discrimination law should apply? Well the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides equality and equity under the law, doesn't it? And how would anyone have special treatment or special penalties if there was no anti-discrimination laws?
Trademark. A bit of sarcasm and humor. It could be looked at as splitting hairs, but to me there is a difference between claiming and self identifying. However, only the person making the claim would know whether or not they are actually accepting of the Christ. If you are looking to do a survey or study on Christians, or really any other deity based religious group, you can only find them by the people who self identify as part of that group.
How do you mean this? Given that there are a large number of variations on what the Bible truly mean, which version is being discovered as true? Especially since there are claims that the interpretations on same sex marriage and/or intercourse were not intended as they have been claimed to be. To a large point, especially since there were also laws, thankfully since scrapped, about cohabitating and sex outside marriage. Since it was now a legal status controlled by the state, an interracial couple could not get the state certificate. Sure they could still go to a priest, and be married religiously, bit since they could not cohabitate under the law without that legal status, what was the point? They are a minority. Plus, there is another aspect that gets conflated with this claim. If a church offers to perform weddings for those who are not members of their Church, then they are operating, for that singular purpose, as a business entity and not a religious one per se. Thus they should be, per the argument, required to follow the same laws as a business, including the inability to refuse business based upon the protected classes. It is one of the reasons that many churches went to only allowing members to have weddings in their facilities. This argument has also been applied to anything a church does with regards to financial exchanges with non members, such as renting out pavilions or other church facilities.
You are conflating "in principle" with "actuality". Men and women, in principle, are able to procreate. That doesn't mean that every single man and woman couple in actuality can always procreate at any given moment of their lifetime.
it's amazing that gymnastics engaged in. In principal infertile people cannot procreate. not if they're infertile. not in principle not in actuality no way shape form or fashion. Sorry the fact that infertile couples are allowed to marry under your rationale is a gaping logic hole
I have no idea what he's trying to say here. He seems to indicate that he's here posting for other people to read his comments but when he types in gibberish I don't think people can understand clearly.
so if a man can procreate with a gorilla then that marriage should be recognized because in principle they can procreate? A man can procreate with his sister or 46 women so you're also in favor of incestuous marriage and polygamy because in principal make in procreate a man and a female gorilla could procreate s in principal is that a legitimate marriage?
Actually, I believe that there are only claims that the interpretations on same sex intercourse were not intended as they have been claimed to be. Nobody can seriously say that The Bible doesn't define marriage as being between a man and a women, or WORSE, that it instead defines it to include two men or two women. The absolute BEST that these useless people can argue is say that Jesus never talked about marriage, which is seriously weak stuff which doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Why does a church all of a sudden become a "business entity" when they offer to perform weddings for those who are not members of their Church? That's like saying that if a private club rents out their space to non-members for a religious wedding ceremony, then they are operating, for that singular purpose, as a religious entity. You seem to think that a church marrying non-members is operating as LESS of a religious entity than if it was marrying members. Well that's not correct, just as a private club renting space to non-members is operating NO LESS of a business entity than if was renting space to members. A marriage under God between non-members is no different to a marriage under God between members. A marriage under God is a marriage under God. Are you under the impression that a church requires people to be members in order to perform a religious wedding ceremony? What did churches have to fear? Were there actually serious efforts in some states to compel churches to perform same sex weddings? (I assume that you're speaking in the content of the US.) Perhaps the US is an even BIGGER joke than I thought!
And what about the person self-identifying? Who other than themselves knows whether or not they are actually accepting of Christ? Hence why polling can be WAY off!
That is my point. Any religious identity can only come from self identifying. Membership in a specific denomination is objective, as they are organizations. However there is a difference between the saying, "I am a Methodist" and "I belong to the United Methodist Church." While an implication, intended or not, of the latter is in the former statement, it is not an absolute. But one does not need to be a member of the formal organization to follow its tenents. True enough. However, we, collectively as humans, have been at this quite a long time, and we have learned that more often than not, people are honest with regards to certain aspects of their lives, even more so when part of an anonymous survey or such. We purposely account for margins of error when reporting such findings because of the relatively few who would purposefully lie on such studies. It is also the reason we do multiple studies on the same thing repeatedly, so as to weed out the outlier studies that have a higher number of liers, and to track changing trends over long periods of time.
His argument seems to be that simple because it requires a man and a woman in order to procreate, regardless of if it is done physically with sex or even via IVF, that the combo is the principle, and that the actual possibility of any given specific pair is irrelevant to that principle.
A lack of Jesus mentioning marriage can be a key point since there are two basic camp (on the following aspect only) with regards to the law (not civil law). On one hand there are people who say that most, or all, of the laws set forth in the OT are still applicable. Which is where we get a lot of the argument of people doing cherry picking of Leviticus and other passages. On the other side, there is the claim that all that went out with Christ and the new covenant. Thus same sex marriage is not legit under Christianity since Christ didn't specify it wasn't. Not claiming these as my arguments, either way. Simply pointing out that there are a variety of claims on Christianity, and so it's important to know which you are referring to when setting a premise that we find out that Christianity is true. In many areas, a private club renting out to those outside their club is considered doing business. They are providing a service outside of their club membership, thus making the transaction "public". And at this point I want to point out that the whole public, private, business, not business thing is another thread in and of itself. One I would be glad to discuss, just not here. The same goes for churches in many areas, although not necessarily in the same areas. Use of their facilities for members, paid or not, are within the private organization. Use of the facilities by non members are outside the private organization, and thus make it a public transaction subject to taxes and laws. And yet fund raisers are not considered public transactions, so go figure. I am not claiming law is consistent and clear. Only noting that certain transactions are not considered part of the church's religious status. I'm pretty sure some of it is intended to prevent a business from establishing itself as a religion ran organization in order to avoid taxes. That's part of the point. A private club isn't a business entity. So a private club or even a non profit group, engaging in certain activities, have to run those activities separate as a business, complete with taxes and all. I believe frequency as something to do with it. Again, I don't pretend to understand why the law does it as such, and it can vary depending on state and county and even municipality. I am not under the impression, I know this for fact, from personal experience. I have encountered some churches that say if you are not baptized in their Church, then you are not truly baptized. Those types aside, many churches (individual congregations as opposed to the overall organizations) have indeed gone to that practice, especially if they are in an area where they have to treat outside transactions as if a business. It might be more of a CYA before someone tries to sue them for discrimination. While most of the LBGT community would not want to impose such on religious entities, there are drama makers in every group. Yes I am speaking in terms of the US, so all the above is based upon that. By that question, I am guessing you are European of some variety. And while I am unaware of any actual efforts to force this issue, there certainly has been quite a bit of talk from some of the more vocal drama driven minority of the LBGT community.
Yes, it is detrimental to the concept of government protection of man+woman relationship Only relationship between man and woman needs to be protected. Artificial equality of gay relationship with relationship between man and woman is an insult on human intelligence and special right. That is actually why gay politics is so aggressive, they understand that they are fooling people, so they have no choice but to further promote their stupidity and propaganda.
Same sex marriage has exactly zero effect on opposite sex marriage. It’s in no way detrimental to it. equality is never an insult. And no, same sex couples do not have special rights. They have equal rights. Same sex marriage is here to stay, and will only be banned if you can pass a constitutional amendment. Good luck.
I said it is detrimental to the concept of government protection of relationship between man and woman. Gay sex has nothing to do with that type of relationship. Why you are trying change the meaning of my message? I know why, because subconsciously you know that whole thing about benefits for gay sex is illegitimate. The SC benefits for gay sex can be reverted by new SC (Trump's second term).