How is this an excuse for not supporting your view? Even if it is true, can't you still support your views?
Yes as a Turkish and live in Turkey. I support the gay marriage. Gay couples have already been living together and they should become one's heir. As we have mainly muslim people we have tolerant for gays and lesbians. But fairly it is not discussed in our country.
If there were a vote for gay marriage, mine would have been no. Am I affected? No, it what way would it? I imagine some might get uptight about it. I would just expect the same respect from someone who supports gay marriage to respect my vote that I don't support the idea. I work in construction and we do/have done work for many gay clients; homosexuals and the subject doesn't bother me. People get so uptight with gays, cakes, Trump, Obama, Tony Blair, parking tickets etc.. People just need to learn to chill. We all have different beliefs and we simply vote for one or the other and as it's a democracy, we abide buy the result and thus the resulting laws. So who gets uptight? Those who can't accept Trump winning, the Brexit result and the Scottish Independence result. Bearing in mind, has any population in any country had a vote on gay marriage?
Once again you dodge, despite you claim contrary. The claim of self evident is a dodge in and of itself. If something is objectively so, then it can be proven. The fact that you fail to support this supposedly "self evident" claim and resort to ad hoc, shows that you have no facts upon which to stand. I suppose it is also self evident that the earth stands still and the sun moves. So I ask you again. Show how your next worthyness and "imbecility" are objective values not subjective. I await your next dodge.
While there are various denominations and "branches" of Christianity that allow for same sex marriages, there are also other religions. Wicca would be a good example, not to.mention many other various pagan religions.
A good rule of thumb for a pleasant society: If it does not effect you or your family it is not your business to interfere with.
A more intelligent question would have been why 1+1≠3. Assuming it's your view that it's wrong to kill a man just to watch him die, I challenge you to support it. Too bad you've never stopped to reflect on how, if the Founders had thought like you, you would have the freedom to broadcast this drivel. The problem being, of course, that the proof will rest on at least one unprovable proposition. Yeah, look how great that worked out for all those Good Germans under Hitler.
When someone decides to bring hitler into any conversation that has nothing whatsoever to do with him...they have reached a desperation level of WTF, I lost.
There are heterodox denominations that allow it, though they do so in error due to a lack of understanding of scripture or choice.
They did think like me, as I do have the freedom to broadcast this is so many formats. However, I am guessing that you intended to say that if they thought like me that I would not have the freedom to say such things. Understandable, typos happen. However, all that does is show you trying to change subjects. If it's not provable, then it is subjective. Even God is subjective, at least from our limited view. Since we do not have the ability to percieve Him directly, despite some claims, we all are subject to our own interpertations of Him and what He wants, whether we assume His word comes from the Bible or the the Holy Spirit, or whatever the source. So can you provide something objective, or are going try to peddle subjective as absolute truth again?
Some don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. Some differentiate between being homosexual and acting upon it. Some do not see civil marriage the same as religious marriage, and thus have no issues with same sex civil marriage. Still others recognize that words can have multiple meanings and applications and understand that the word marriage can apply both religiously as well civilly without contridicting. Whether you feel they are working on true teaching or not is irrelevant, because the same thought goes back to you.
I believe I have been clear on that, homosexual marriage in a religious sense within the orthodox Christian faith does not exist. If a Church chooses to perform such ceremonies they are not following sound doctrine.
That's one way of looking at it. Here's another: those who imagine there's no connection between Hitler and what I quoted are spiritual kin to Good Germans. Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding. Trust me, what I intended to say is precisely what I said. All this does is show you haven't got a clue about the subject. Prove it. And that makes it wrong because...?
Do they consider same sex marriage as true marriage in the eyes of God or are they just marrying them to keep people happy without actually believing that it is true marriage?
That's a question I've been wondering about you. Aside from the fact that all you have contributed is ad hoc, your line makes no other sense. If the founders thought like me then I would have the freedom to broadcast my "drivel", is what you said. Since I have that freedom logically, per your statement, they must have thought like me. If they didn't think like me, again logically, and again per your statement, then I would not have the freedom that I am currently exercising. Says the guy who can't tell the difference between subjective and objective. "Anything objective sticks to the facts, but anything subjective has feelings. Objective and subjective are opposites. Objective: It is raining. Subjective: I love the rain!" - vocabulary.com Since facts are provable, then if your assertions....here let me remind you of them.... ...Then if these assertions are objective, you can prove with facts, just like I did, that they are indeed objective, and not subjective. I await your next dodge.
