Posted on 09/04/2015 9:18:09 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
Hey, don’t get me wrong. I am VERY glad Kim is doing what she’s doing. I’m simply pointing out that Christian’s cannot claim they stand with Christ and then advocate for homosexuality and/or abortion, etc. It is the democrat’s platform and we’re called to turn from sin not advocate for it.
I didn’t say anything about Paul’s inspiration to write anything. You knew exactly what I meant. Paul’s writings are commonly referred to as “Paul’s letter to the (put name of people here)”. I have read enough Epistles aloud as a lay reader to know that is the proper way to announce the reading.
should I be denied a marriage license if I have no intention of procreation?
should I be denied a marriage license if I don’t believe in Christ?
the idea that marriage is for the purpose of procreation is a religious vies and is not necessary anywhere in the US as a requirement to get married.
There are no barriers to a homosexual getting married that are not based on religious viewpoint. That is the problem with a government entity refusing to issue a marriage license or refusing to allow her staff to issue a marriage license based on *her* and not their viewpoint.
Again, if she were a Muslim and would not issue a marriage license to a Christian, would you still back her?
I’m not trying to beat you up honestly
I like you actually but the noun HATER is nowadays a PC perjorative word used by progressives and the media to shut us up
You intentionally damaged your ability to procreate; you violated your own bodily integrity. I pass no moral judgment on whether that’s a right or wrong thing. I simply make an objective statement of what is. And it is irrelevant. If your damaged bodily integrity were restored, you would be able to procreate. I reiterate: The capacity to procreate may be diminished (even to zero) in certain men and women; age, illness, injury and defect combine to have this effect. Regardless, procreation is at the center of male-female sexual union. A healthy man and a healthy woman can procreate. The inability of two men to procreate with each other, or of two women to procreate with each other has NOTHING to do with their bodily integrity. It is against their nature to be able to procreate. I reiterate: There is no physical act two males can do with their bodies that will produce a baby. There no physical act two females can do with their bodies that will produce a baby. That is simple biology.
I’m curious. When the SCOTUS made their ruling, did they define it as “gay” marriage, “homosexual” marriage, or anything goes marriage?
and again, there is nothing in civil marriage licenses that says the two bodies must being willing or able to procreate.
It simply is not a civil issue that procreation must be the the end result of marriage. It is only a religious ideal that this must take place.
There is nothing in civil laws that says a person must be willing to follow a religious law in order to get married.
In a church? Yes, of course they can make their rules.
What about an 80 year old couple that wishes to get married? Can they be denied because they physically cannot reproduce? What about a person sterile from birth?
I would fully support this woman if she was a member of clergy telling people they can not get married in her church.
But that is not what this is. These are people who are applying for a marriage license under civil laws, and none of these civil laws require procreation or desire ot procreate as a prerequisite of getting a civil marriage license.
You have clearly failed to read and comprehend what I have written to you several times. Your questions have already been answered.
Please read and comprehend what I have already written.
and again, I do not have to have my ability to procreate restored in order to get a marriage license.
procreation is not a prerequisite to get a marriage license.
I would challenge you to offer up a non-religious reason why two people of the same sex cannot get married if the laws of the land say they can.
There is no civil reason to deny them of this opportunity, regardless of what your religious opinion might be.
There is no test in the USA that one has to be religious or follow any religious laws to get married. For a government official to deny them that ability on a religious ground doesn’t hold weight in a society that does not require one to be religious in order to marry.
Hey Kim Davis and Trump are in the same Party. Now i am conflicted. Democrats are evil and not to be trusted...ever accoding to some in FR?
Like democrat Trump does she not really believe what she is saying?
You have failed to address my key point.
Getting married in the USA does not require an applicant to follow any particular religion.
A religious person whose beliefs required individuals to be of the same sex in order to marry would be immediately struck down.
It’s not any different when the law says you can be same sex to get married.
Quite the contrary.
I REJECTED your “key” “point”. This has nothing to do with religion; I have based my argument on biology. Quit arguing religion; I, at least, am not talking about it.
Do you understand that? Do you understand that I made my position clear from the beginning?
Biological reproduction is not a requirement for two people to get married in the USA.
Is there part of that which confuses you?
Why don't you actually read my original post to you? You clearly haven't even done that. Then read the subsequent posts. Try to understand them, line by line. They are not difficult. You will find them quite clear and lucid, and if you are actually capable of understanding them, then you will understand this fundamental truth:
"Same sex marriage" doesn't exist. It is a nullity, an absurdity, a non-entity, an oxymoron. As such, no law ... and certainly no court ruling ... can create it. Marriage existed before these United states came to be. Marriage will exist after these United States have gone the way of all corrupt societies. And it will be, as it was in the beginning, a relationship between a man and a woman.
Yup.
And I wouldn't swerve to her cause mid-campaign if I were running for president.
As defined by religion.
There is no test in the US that one must be religious in order to get married.
You can disagree, but that doesn’t change what the Supreme Court has decided.
You don’t have to like it. It isn’t required that you like it.
But until we change the laws so that the Supreme Court can decide these sorts of things, government officials should follow what legal means have said is the current law.
Hey Kim Davis and Trump are in the same Party. Now i am conflicted. Democrats are evil and not to be trusted...ever! According to some in FR?
Like democrat Trump. Does she not believe what she is saying?
Are you saying it is possible to be a democrat and be on the right side of certain issues?
You don’t get it.
I AM TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGY.
I am addressing the meaning of “marriage” in every society since antiquity, including these United States ... and FWIW, the laws of the State of Kentucky agree with biological reality.
The Supreme Court is wrong.
YOU are wrong.
Neither you nor the Supreme Court evidence the faintest idea what “marriage” is. Neither you nor the Supreme Court evidence the faintest comprehension that “Man” and “Woman” are by nature not interchangeable; that they are by nature distinct categories of “thing”.
“Marriage” is a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN, based on their complementary biology and different nature. It is nothing else. It has never BEEN anything else. It cannot BE anything else. And that reality is NOT dependent on any particular religion.
“She looks like a gay hater “
So? Homosexuals, there is nothing “gay” about them, are attacking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.