The point I keep making is that there are both religious and non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yes, Frank (instead of “you”) may argue against it on religious grounds. But that doesn’t mean that the only argument is religious. When I’ve argued against it, immediately I get accused of religious bias even if I haven’t used a religious argument. The entire crux of the argument from the left is that the only reason to be against it is religious (similar to the left screaming “racism” anytime someone disagrees with the President).Of course there is never a good reason why being opposed to something based on one’s religion is a weaker argument than being supportive of something based on one’s emotions. Why is Frank’s opposition which is based on “God said so” a weaker argument then Jim’s support which is based on “it’s not fair.”? They may both be weak but an argument based on absolutism will always beat one based on relativism.<quoted text>
That gays should not marry because of religious reasons is not MY bias. It is the entire crux of the argument given by the right-wing protagonists.
If I want you to stay out of my private life then keep it private? So you have the "right" to delve into the sex lives of married men and women? You have the "right" to dictate what they do in the bedroom? You don't have a darn good idea of what married men and women do?
What????? I have no problem with a church placing a spiritual framework around people's behavior that understand and voluntarily agree with it. You of all people are going to tell me that those "frameworks" being law wouldn't be an entirely different situation?
Oh, and do tell me why Pelosi and Biden shouldn't take communion.
Catholics using birth control is against Catholic doctrine. They can be banned by the church if discovered.
So tell me. To what religious affiliation did Jesus to? There were after all established religious orders then.
As I said, I don’t have a right to delve into the sex lives of married or unmarried men and women. Apparently you missed the line “If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex, or six people or two people and a goat, that's fine. I'm staying out of their life.” When someone wants to marry another person of the same sex, or six people want to get married or two people and a goat want to get married then it becomes a social statement giving approval. Just as if we legalize heroin or euthanasia we as a society are putting our stamp of approval on it. As I’ve shown before, by focusing on marriage instead of civil unions, the homosexual community is starting with the assumption that homosexuality is acceptable and forcing the opposition to start their argument with a given that homosexuality is fine. The opposition wants to first have that discussion but the gay community doesn’t want to. So, taking a lesson from the gay community, let’s start with the assumption that homosexuality is both scientifically and morally wrong.
Would the framework laws be an entirely different situation? I don’t know. I asked for an example of something of what you were thinking of. We’ve had blue laws and laws regarding alcohol but those laws had both religious and non-religious reasons for being. I can't think of a time when the government tried to force say water baptism on one group or tried to get another group to accept the authority of the Pope.
Re: Pelosi and Biden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/bide...
Jesus was Jewish. Haven’t you seen the bumper sticker?