In response to:

Churches: Time to Fight!

God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:00 PM
The laws governing children, inheritance, and family were specially designed for this relationship. That marriage has been defined for thousands of years, and in almost all cultures around the world, as between a man and a woman is no accident. The evolution of these laws contained no ulterior motives in attempting to deny the rights of same sex couples. From the sense of nature or creation, a man and woman were designed to fit together. From this union, which we call marriage, comes life and the continuation of our species. The same cannot be said for same sex unions. Same sex unions are fundamentally different from marriage and as such there needs to be a body of law written specially for that relationship, just like the body a law gov
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Apr 03, 2013 4:24 PM
No, before it was so designated.
Paul453 Wrote: Mar 30, 2013 11:03 AM
Are you talking about the Roman catholic church?
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:34 AM
"The union between same sex couples is NOT a marriage. The union between man and woman IS marriage. "

Do you suppose that if you repeat your unsupported assumption enough times, that you won't need to back it up to get respect?

I hope not, because that would be very stupid of you.
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:33 AM
"Call it anything you want but don’t call it a “marriage”."

Not up to you, bigot, obviously.

Your impotent demands don't impress me.
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 1:33 AM
"That marriage has been defined for thousands of years,"

"Has been defined" is horse doots. Anyone can "define" something, so you are chasing a semantic issue to avoid admitting the truth about the moral issue; there is no legal or moral basis for restricting government enforcement and adjudication of contracts only to those forms or parties that you prefer. None. Zero. Nada.

Early Roman Christian priests regularly married same-sex couples, so your claim, even if relevant, was false; no, it hasn't been so designated for 'thousands' of years. Mormons were polygamous LAST CENTURY, for that matter.

Learn what you're talking about; the effort would show.
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:34 PM
The union between same sex couples is NOT a marriage. The union between man and woman IS marriage.
James2517 Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:24 PM
It is all civil marriage. We have the concept of equality in this great land of ours.
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:06 PM
there be a body of law specially written, designed, and intended for that kind of relationship. And while the legislators are doing that, they should come up with a special word which describes that relationship. I’m not sure what to call it. Maybe a “Civil Union”, “Sunion” for same sex union, or maybe Glunion for gay and lesbian Union…..

Call it anything you want but don’t call it a “marriage”.
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:06 PM
If same sex couples want the same rights as married couples then let legislators sit down and write law governing that special relationship. I suggest that same sex proponents do not try to co-opt law designed for the relationship between a man and woman and try to make those laws fit a relationship that is fundamentally different!

I hope the justices on the Supreme court can see this fundamental difference. I hope they can see past the media hype and understand the current body of law governing marriage was not designed nor ever intended to apply to same sex unions and as such there was no intent to deny same sex unions the same rights as married couples.

If same sex union activists want the same rights as married couples then let there
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:06 PM
You can argue that Venus and Mars are both planets but you can’t argue they are the same. Our description of Venus is much different from our description of Mars. And so it is with marriage and same sex unions.

No one can argue against creation and say that a man's parts and another man's parts were designed to fit together. No one can argue with creation and say that a woman's parts and a another woman's parts were designed to fit together. And no one can deny that a man's part and a woman's part were indeed designed to fit together.
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:01 PM
rights to same sex couples, it simply defined "marriage" as between a man and woman. If proponents of same sex unions want the same rights as what has been defined for marriage between a man and a woman, then legislators need to sit down and write a body of law governing that relationship.

The laws governing marriage between a man and a woman, and the laws governing same sex unions, need to be different because the relationship is different. For example, the creation of life cannot occur, and was not designed to occur, between same sex couples. This makes same sex unions fundamentally different from marriage and as such there needs to be a set of laws applicable to that different relationship.

You can argue that Venus and Mars are both p
God_Of_War Wrote: Mar 28, 2013 11:01 PM
governing marriage between a man and woman was written specially for that relationship.

From both a legal and a natural sense, the current laws governing marriage were not designed to fit with same sex unions. Same sex unions need to have a special body of law written for that special relationship just like marriage has a special body of laws written to govern that relationship.

With Proposition 8 in California, the people decided that the definition of “marriage” is between a man and a woman. As same sex union activists would like us to believe, the law defining “marriage” between a man and a woman was not to define the word from a legal perspective, but an attempt to deny same sex union rights.

Proposition 8 made no mention of denying

You can’t win the fight if you don’t put on the gloves.

A punch-drunk, old heavyweight boxer knows that’s a truism, but not the churches of America.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state by a 52 to 47 margin in 2008 but has since been declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Fox TV, Rush Limbaugh and other talk-show pundits have weighed in, arguing the conservative -- and moral -- position that sanctifying gay marriage with the grace of the U.S. Constitution is not...