Isn't there a distinction between a law that says all priests must marry any that desire it and no law that prevents mutually consenting adults from marrying? In the first case, which no one is arguing for, there *might* be a case that it's forcing beliefs. But in the second case, the 'burden' of who is putting up with who's beliefs is distributed evenly.
No. There is a verse that says
if a priest marries it may be to only one wife. As far as marriage laws, the Bible condemns homosexual partnership through and through.
Against gay marriage? Don't have one!!
Right. "Against pedophilia? Don't do it!"
or how about
"Against corporations adopting? Don't do it!"
"Against rape? Don't commit one!"
We are not denying you the right to treat gay marriage as wrong as per your beliefs, but you are denying us the right to treat gay marriage as right per our beliefs by trying to make your beliefs dictate the law of the land.
And if same sex "marriage" were legal, it would be your beliefs dictating the law of the land, so don't try and spini it off as if we're doing something wrong here.
Virtually every society has condemned homosexuality. So to try and spin it off as if we are some kind of abnormal religious weirdos is just plain dishonest. However, that does not stop you guys.
Umm, you brought up frequency. See, here:
Well, Nitz brought up the use of the term, and I just pointed out why we are using it. Then you came in and started splitting hairs about "Well normal couples do it sometimes too blah blah". So that's why I brought up the difference in frequency --because you kept going on about it.
That is just dishonest, because nobody is trying to deny you any right. Nobody has said you don't have the right to stand up for that (or any other) belief. You, on the other hand, are all for denying homosexuals the right to marry. One group is being tolerant here; it ain't you.
Pure bull. People with same sex attractions
do have a right to marry, just as people who are attracted to little boys, or people who are attracted to their siblings, or normal people. So don't start saying they don't have the right to marry
that is an outright lie. They just have attractions that stand outside of what
everyone is allowed to do. So the question is not a matter of equal rights. They have the same rights as I.
Here is an elementary concept that some just don't get: SAME mean EQUAL. Say it again: SAME is EQUAL. Once people can understand that we have a start. S
o the real question is: should EVERYONE be able to marry ANYONE they are attracted to. The answer, I believe, is no. That is because having studied anthropology I have looked at marriage through the ages and have seen that marrying for love is not the greatest common denominator. Just look at Japan. Japan is the most Westernized of the Oriental countries, and even today about 1/3 of marriages are arranged marriages. So, we do not need an institution recognized by the government to affirm our tingly feelings. However we do need a way of managing the natural union of a man and woman in the formation of a biological, natural family where the result is biological offspring. That is what we call 'marriage'.
As for being tolerant: you're not fooling me. And if you were tolerant of my beliefs you would not be on a Christian site telling us how our beliefs are all wrong, because you'd just live and let live and leave us be. Instead you are actively fighting our beliefs, trying to change them or invalidate them. That is anything but tolerant.