By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

Lol wow. It's a bit late to say "I don't think marriage should be a state issue", it has been for hundreds of years. Laws don't simply go away because you are opposed to them.

Marriage is not a religious term. At one time it was, but since being recognized by law clearly it is not simply a religious matter.

It's pretty clear you are avoiding discussing your position rationally and are instead proposing hypotheticals which are impossible.


My position is hypothetic, yes. I honestly don't have a position for the "realistic" scenario at hand.  

And you're right in that marriage is now a state issue instead of a religious one. I'm rather upset by that. With that, I guess with that people can change the definition of marriage to whatever they want because it's at a state level.

I may have read too much into your response, but your belitling and assumptions show me that this debate is going to be fruitless for both of us, so I'll leave my comments as it is.