"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c249om$ilr$0@pita.alt.net>...
> DAVEY
> Quite frankly, I don't understand why they need marriage.
>
> Many heterosexual couples are opting not to formalise their unions in the
> eyes of the state, and of course they are married in the sight of God as
> soon as they become one flesh anyway.
JERRY
At least they have the choice, am I correct?
> DAVEY
> They are married even though they are not married in the eyes of the state.
>
> Homosexuals, even if they become married in the eyes of the state, are not
> able to become married in the eyes of God, because God has only made
> marriage possible between a man and a woman. All a man can become with
> another man is a worse sinner than he was before.
JERRY
Please go back and re-read my statement about marriage being a civil
rite versus a religous rite. If it's a civil rite, with benefits from
the state (visitation rights in hospitals, better tax breaks,
inheritance rights, etc) then by our Constitution it should be
available to all citizens. If there are no civil benefits from
marriage and it's a religious rite, then each church can marry or
refuse to marry anyone they wish based upon their belief system.
Your "eyes of god" nonsense is simply that. While gays do not have
the same rights under the Constitution as straight people, they are
relegated to Second Class Citizen status based upon religious
prejudice.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 |
|