1 - 10 Next
As is often the case, Prager is looking at the entire forest (the big picture) while his critics are hiding behind a shrub in the undergrowth on the forest floor. I'm sure "The Original King" thinks he made a truly salient and unassailable point. Rather sad, actually.
"You are essentially saying that some PEOPLE are inferior to others." Re-read my original post. David3036, I never said any such thing. I simply pointed out that, in my case, before I was married (before anyone is married) to someone of the opposite sex, every relationship they have is inferior in its importance to society, to the relationship within a traditional marriage. If gays want to maintain their gay lifestyle, it does not make them inferior. If they want to participate in our society by being involved in the only relationship that is superior to all other relationships, they should renounce their gay lifestyle and marry a person of the opposite sex (just like they have been doing since before our country was founded).
In response to:

Ted Cruz 2016?

Seventeen76 Wrote: Sep 01, 2014 4:19 PM
I will vote for Ted Cruz if he's the nominee. Of course, the Donkey Party has become so corrupt and anti-America, I will vote for a grilled cheese sandwich if it becomes the GOP nominee (no offense, Sen. Cruz).
A man and a woman, committed to each other in a traditional marriage, (ideally) producing children and raising them in a loving home, represents the most important relationship and institution in all of our society. Two gay men, two gay women, man and girlfriend, man and fiancé, all are important relationships, but when viewed in comparison and contrast as to their importance in our society, these relationships are inferior to the relationship of a husband and wife in a traditional marriage. This explains why our society, our people, and our government have historically and traditionally supported and encouraged natural, or traditional, marriage. It also explains why the majority of people in this country do not want marriage to be redefined. Tradition is only limited when it is not understood or explained.
In response to:

How We Told Our Kids About Sex

Seventeen76 Wrote: Sep 01, 2014 12:16 AM
If both people in a relationship control their sexual nature and wait until the wedding night to express their sexual drive, these are some benefits: -No STD's -No unwanted children -No uncomfortable curiosity about how you "compare" with previous lovers. Absolute Truth --- what a concept.
David3036 Wrote: "... many men (and women) who are just as wise as the founders of our country -- perhaps more so -- have since decided that it violates religious freedom to base our laws on the Bible or any other holy book." Amazing. There may well be some in our country who are equally as wise as the founders, but none are wiser. And the truly wise ones in this age do not possess the arrogance to try to "improve" on what the founders gave us.
"The bible is not the law of the land." Correct. The Bible is greater than the law of the land. The Bible is the foundation on which the laws of our land - specifically our founding documents - have their basis.
"If you mean any two people (or more) can have a marriage ceremony without legal recognition of that ceremony you are correct." What I mean is, no one in the U.S. is banned from getting married. Gay people in this country have been getting married since before the Declaration was signed. Gay men have always been able to marry, have children, and be involved in the most meaningful and helpful institution for all of society - the institution of the nuclear family (one man with one woman and - if they are lucky - the offspring of their holy union).
"The Constitution is silent on subject marriage." That's because the founders knew the Bible is NOT silent on the subject of marriage. Our founding fathers believed in allowing the Bible to be the authority on how marriage is defined.
There are no "bans on same-sex marriage." The majority simply do not want marriage redefined.
1 - 10 Next