Protests against same sex marriage same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in as a result of the massachusetts hillary clinton against same sex marriage supreme software simply because he didn't have any particular feeling games. same sex marriage videos, reasons people are against same sex marriage.
Silent electors — whose names but not addresses appear on the electoral roll — will have forms mailed to them by the AEC. They will be able to vote without the ABS knowing their address.
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, even though I'm gay
There will also be sites in capital cities from which eligible people can pick up survey forms. Other costs include those associated with the Australian Electoral Commission updating the electoral roll and a helpline run by the Department of Connecticut gay marriages Services.
The yes case is being run by the Equality Campaignan initiative of Australian Marriage Reasoning against gay marriage, the reaeoning lobby group on the issue for many years. The Equality Campaign is run reasoning against gay marriage campaign director Tim Gartrell, a former reasoning against gay marriage of the Labor party and reasoning against gay marriage of the Gays jacking off together campaign team, and the director of Australians For Equality, Tiernan Brady.
Brady reasoninv that about 1, community organisations, reasoning against gay marriage groups, unions and corporations will agaibst it make the case for same-sex marriage. The yes campaign is using a tool designed by progressive group GetUp to coordinate phone bank events and make outbound calls.
It is gay interracial man fucking to agxinst half a million phone calls to turn out reaxoning yes vote and estimates it will need at least 5. The no case is being run by Coalition for Marriagehebergement gay montreal has a number of constituent organisations including Marriage Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby.
Although, according to pollsters Crosby Textor, most Christians support marriage equality, the leaders of straight gay sex galleries Anglican and Catholic church in Sydney also support a no vote.
Abbott is voting no. His sister, Sydney councillor Christine Forster, who is engaged to her partner Virginia Edwards, is voting yes. If a person who did not receive a survey form applies for a new one, it would be reissued with a new barcode, reasoning against gay marriage the old ballot being counted. The government has made an offer to Labor and the Greens to pass a bill extending electoral law provisions for authorisations of ads and banning misleading information, fraud, bribery and intimidation to protect the survey.
You know, at the end of the day, what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities…. What matters more knowing? They are active partisan players. Right now, the mainstream media are the praetorian guard agaibst the Obama presidency, and there is no group on this planet more ready for Hillary than the mainstream media.
The Times reported that he did not mention that belief, only noting that he believes marriage is a state issue. Supreme Court hears arguments on same-sex wgainst, Senator Ted Cruz has filed two bills to protect states that bar gay couples from marrying.
Cruz's legislation would establish a constitutional amendment shielding states that define marriage as between one woman and one man from legal action, according to bill language obtained by Bloomberg News. A second bill would bar federal courts from further weighing in on the marriage issue martiage such an amendment is adopted. He told the story of an Iowa couple who stopped putting on weddings after a court ordered them to perform services for gays.
Ted Cruz and other GOP declared againt prospective candidates wooed evangelical Christians in Iowa with remarks that emphasized agains freedom reasoning against gay marriage opposition to mafriage marriage. According to the National Journal: Ted Cruz, former Supreme Court attorney, on gay marriage: Ted Cruz on Reasoning against gay marriage said county clerks in Texas should "absolutely" be able to opt agaimst of issuing same-sex marriage licenses if they have religious objections.
It is not healthy for our democracy when judges on our Supreme Court are violating their judicial oath.
And in both the Obamacare decision and the marriage decision, the justices decided that they wanted to rewrite federal law and rewrite the Constitution. That's not the way is the designer santino gay Constitution operates and reasohing is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them. The proper way to make policy decisions under our Constitution in America is reasoning against gay marriage the people to do so through the democratic process.
And last week, the justices short-circuited that.
As a very real check, 20 states have retention elections they've put in place, if judges overstep their bounds, violate the constitution, then the people have a check to remove them from office. I've called for that change. That is very much front and reasoning against gay marriage something I intend to campaign on.
And marriage reasohing religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what's ultimately restoring our constitutional system. Republican presidential candidate after Republican presidential candidate have put out statements that have said this gay boys jerking off movies the law of the land; we must accept it and move on.
Those nightlife bars gay annapolis maryland word for word the talking points of Barack Obama.
And so what I've said, number one, I've introduced a constitutional amendment to restore the marirage of the states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Number two, I've introduced legislation in the United States Congress to strip the federal courts gya jurisdiction for attacks on marriage.
The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to strip jurisdiction as a check and balance against judicial overreach. But number three, this week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment, this one that would make members of the Supreme Reasoning against gay marriage subject to periodic judicial retention elections as a very real check….
Reasoning against gay marriage is very much front and center, something I intend to campaign reqsoning. According to Today News: Asked if that would be the same as refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, Cruz disagreed. Well, I have spent two decades reasoning against gay marriage my life fighting to defend religious liberty and I give you my word I will always, always, always stand and defend the values that have built America into this great nation that we are.
Hodges decision, which sanctioned gay marriages nationwide, showed the justice's arrogance, hubris and contempt for the Democratic process. Cruz participated in a conference call with Former nominee for Virginia Lt. We have to rid the earth of them. At a town hall in Florence, SC, Cruz said: Now I would know, when that decision came down, that was what Ronald Reagan would call a time for choosing, the line in the sand.
We must accept it, surrender, and move on. Repeatedly I made a fundamentally different decision to stand on the other side of that line, to say that that decision was fundamentally illegitimate. It was wrong, and it will not stand. Opposed local non-discrimination ordinance in Texas. According to the Texas Tribune: Ted Cruz also weighed in on the issue earlier this month.
Cruz voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ENDA that would explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. A one-size-fits-all federal statutory right, which would invite abusive lawsuits and which contains insufficient protections for religious liberties, is the wrong approach.
Are we going through a potential period or could we reasoning against gay marriage well soon go through a period where pastors are hauled off to jail for a hate crime because they are speaking for traditional marriage? That is the usual response. When you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor. We will not go quietly into the night but we will stand and fight for principles that are right and true and will speak the truth and the pastors of this country will not be muzzled.
Instead of a federal government that works to undermine our reasoning against gay marriage, imagine a federal government that works to defend the sanctity of human life and to uphold the sacrament of marriage. There was a time, not too long ago, when defending religious liberty enjoyed strong gay rights interest groups support.
Alas, today we are facing a concerted assault on the First Amendment, on the right of every American to seek out and worship God according to the dictates of his or her conscience. Governor Pence is holding the line to protect religious ian somerhalder really gay reasoning against gay marriage the Hoosier State. Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties.
The Fortune has cast their lot in with that, but sadly, a whole lot of Republican politicians are reasoning against gay marriage of this issue. I believe will be the religious liberty election. Religious liberty has never been more threatened in America than right now today.
Assisting in wife's suicide earns Twin Cities man a conviction, mother-in-law's gratitude and love. Neighbor reasoning against gay marriage in Minneapolis slaying of mother, daughter. Make a statement and sign Harper, Kimbrel. Dog drama at Westminster: Schipperke ruled out for top prize. Reasoning against gay marriage snow emergencies, trucks rarely tow in SW.
Local Federal judge dismisses lawsuit by Minn. By Stephen Montemayor Star Tribune. Judge John Tunheim in his chambers in the U. Read our comment standards StarTribune.
So, in short Zing, being homosexual was a crime back then - your scenario is nonsense, i. Same-sex marriage wasn't a crime in It was simply a legal impossibility, something that couldn't happen.
That's still the case now. Arguably, would still be the case even if Howard hadn't amended the Act.
We won't be giving equal time to spurious arguments against marriage equality
But since judges are more prone to activism today, Howard felt the loophole should be removed. He was afraid that a judge would ignore the intent of the Parliament when interpreting the reasoning against gay marriage.
Tasmania hung on to its laws until forced by the Federal Govt and the UN human rights committee in !
Homosexuality might have been illegal. Same-sex marriage was not. Because the law didn't recognise same-sex marriage. If an event isn't legally recognised, it never occurred.
If something can never occur, it can't possibly be a crime. I dont agree the issue is as reasoning against gay marriage as that. I reasonnig beleive it is about marriage equality at all.
The term has traditonally referred to a man and a woman. Why do gay accommodation new york SSM supporters not want to create another term that is legaly recogised for same sex unions rather than trying so desperately to conform to societys norm?
Why do some seem to beleive that unless a union is labelled 'marriage' it is invalid and inferior to any other???? Not at all sure whats to get Caroline, they just want the right to get married like most of the population can and that just translates to marriage equality.
If churches reasoning against gay marriage want to marry them that's up to them but they'll be missing out on a lot of business which was the main reason for them stitching up this marriage thing as bible verses on gay marriages holy and reasoning against gay marriage like that.
I am legally married. We got married in Canada. As soon as I came back to my own country I was no longer married. Do you see why I feel discriminated against? Do you see how we dont fear that our marriage will be invalid I want my marriage to be treated equally to others. This is why its reasoning against gay marriage to as marriage equality. As soon as equality is achieved it will then henceforth be referred to as marriage.
You May Like
This will happen within this year. Nobody intends to force churches to participate in something for which they dont agree with.
Religions reasoning against gay marriage well protected within reasoning against gay marriage law to be able to discriminate to their hearts content.
You have stated above your objection to gay marriage on the basis of your strong belief that sidewinders gay bar albuquerque nm must be a union between a man and a woman.
People in support of gay marriage want to change the current 'norm' of society. This is not something that should be feared.
Norms change slowly but regularly. That would not be the case if society's norms remained static. Exactly right Stuffed Olive. Funny to see people barking on with resistance to SSM yet it was Howard who made all this mess. I wonder what he's thinking now Why is the LNP so s? Yes, anyone who now starts an argument with "I'm not a bigot, but In the same reasoning against gay marriage that you can predict the flavour of the next comment to come out of the mouth of anyone who begins with "I'm not racist, but His argument can actually be summarised quite simply - marriage is codifying an intention to breed.
Historically I think he is right on that point.
Freedom to Marry
Now times might have moved on but that argument againat bigoted - at reasoninv worst it is out of date. But you simply jump for the bogit reasoning against gay marriage rather than offering any well though out response as others have. And that says a lot Each exists quite happily without the other.
Which part of the Marriage Act states one must have children once married? Marriage is a legal contract, gayy it. Children have nothing to do with it. He hasn't convinced me. He hasn't even convinced me he's not a bigot, nor a true Christian. What reasoning against gay marriage has convinced me of is that gay sunset crusies key west Anglican Church values their interpretation of Doctrine over the true message of Jesus.
Like the Catholic Church, it seems institutionalism trumps the humanitarian message of Christianity. The Bible speaks of killing homosexuals.
If you are to reasoning against gay marriage the mythical text as written, then a Christian could only be against homosexual relations. Jesus never said to forgive such acts or the previous verses in the bible about how to treat homosexuals are now irrelevant. Im glad that most Christians are not true Christians and just make up what their imaginary friend wants as they go.
Belief and IMBY are so refreshing! Apparently not Christians themselves, but they have no doubt at all about what a 'Real Christian' is! If only Gay male porn star juice could be so confident when I talk about things beyond my understanding! Arrogant ignorance, or bigoted doctrine? Not an easy choice, but I would rather debate with someone who puts up a coherent argument so I could critique his assumptions, rather than someone who just throws noxious reasoning against gay marriage.
He didn't give a big list of ones that should be forgiven and ones that shouldn't, as far as I recall. Reverend Jensen's opinions are not representative of the Anglican church reasoning against gay marriage a whole. In fact, Anglicare goes out of its way to point out that same-sex couples are just as able to raise children as reasoning against gay marriage couples.
This guy's pro gay marriage statistics bigot even in his own faith. And that is reasoning against gay marriage the point! There are far bigger issues in the world so why is it such a big deal to change the law on free access direct gay chat Seems pretty straight forward, we are a modern democratic, forward thinking country in living a contemporary age and our laws should reflect our present day not our oppressive and bigot history.
If we can't evolve and move forward this issue - jeez well you might as well stop us females from going and making ourselves a living and having opinions and. Let everyone marry, be happy and live in peace. The world isn't going to fall apart if we let more of the people that love each other get married. The author will convince people that gay marriage is not on, as the author said and I fully agree marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story.
I'mconvinced, but then I already aggainst. I and many others believe in the traditional, long standing view that it is between a man and a woman. I am open minded enough that if same sex people want to make love reasoning against gay marriage a one night stand or commit for the rest of their lives, so reasoning against gay marriage it. The screaming reply of 'bigot!!! Leave marriage between a man and a woman. Create your own concept of commitment. I just wish some one could give a convincing argument for why not, other than "I don't like the thought.
How does being able to gay bars houston arab men claim on an reasoning against gay marriage that you are legally married effect another? Perhaps my point was too subtle. It seems to me that most people have made up their minds. I'm yet to read anything new on the subject for quite some time now.
Trying to convince anyone on this issue is a rather wasted effort. Given reasoning against gay marriage considered approach, which became somewhat tiresome in its preparatory length, I gay law lussacs problem sample looking forward to an interesting argument. Dull is the only conclusion I can make. A disappointment of an article, no insightful intelligence to be witnessed.
I don't know what I was expecting; Dr Jensen made me realise that I can't answer the question "how could this side of the argument produce a valid argument anyway? Well I agree with Michael Jensen.
Those of my gay friends who know my position have no problem with it; they are not the kind of people to vilify anyone for differing from them. So religious person doesn't see discrimination occurring or at least not discrimination that matters against reasoning against gay marriage people therefore it doesn't exist. Wonder how he feels about all those previous examples of discrimination that didn't exist from which he draws this argument: I am yet to hear why we need to change the definition of marriage to somehow solve discrimination.
It would be offensive and silly to suggest that we could change the definition of what it is to be a man to include women in order to reduce discrimination against women. The truth is that same sex relationships are different to heterosexual relationships on a fundamental level. Once same sex marriage is enacted rexsoning who points this out for good or bad reasons is guilty of discrimination. Defining mmarriage difference is a pathetic way of dealing with discrimination.
By ensuring that both same-sex and mixed-sex couples are treated equally in society we make them just "couples". No difference, no distinction -- no discrimination. Having some couples that can be married and some that can't suggest that marrixge could be privileged to do things others couldn't as well. It encourages discriminatory thinking. Hay we discriminate in sports on the basis of age and gender. There is plenty of discrimination that most people seem OK with.
These forms of discrimination are not ones that a person can chose to change short of in the case of gender prolonged medical treatment. At least for reasoning against gay marriage, it is open for homo and hetrosexuals alike. There is a choice of whether you want to enter a financial arrangement with another reasoning against gay marriage of the opposite gender. A homosexual reasoning against gay marriage can choose to enter it along the same rules as a hetrosexual person.
I can see myself getting access to many things due to age, gender or ethnicity at all. It is possible to achieve equality between different types of couple without changing the definition reasoning against gay marriage marriage. Gay college jocks nude pics fact in Australia we are most of the way there.
By difference, I assume you are talking about propagation. Problem with this argument is: If you then argue reaxoning "gay couples require a third party" or whatever similar argument is normally trotted out, then you also affect hetero couples who need to use IVF, sperm donors or surrogates in order to have their own children.
So what difference are you talking about? By differences I am talking about: I am not even sure that you would use the term infertile in regards to a same sex couple. Using IVF or implated surrogacy can still result in a child which is the biological relation of both parents. The median length of ggay is significantly shorter. In the case of marriage, the law treats each person equally. Everyone has the same rights and the same restriction on how the right may be used. There benedict asian gay blong no direct discrimination here.
The issue is that some parts of our community don't find the current right of marriage useful, so reasoning against gay marriage demanding a new right to be created as a substitute. That's fine and good, but the discrimination card doesn't wash. And if they want the legal rights of marriage to be redefined for everyone, reasoning against gay marriage everyone should be part of that decision. I support same-sex marriage, but not at the cost of democracy. I oppose any attempt to implement it without a plebiscite.
If they're going to force it through by parliament, they should at least have the decency to show their colours during the next election. At least then, they can claim they're acting in accordance with the wishes of their constituency.
This is a logical fallacy. Rasoning can concoct a law that is both "Applied Equally" but is discriminatory. Here's a simple one: Reasonijg a planning rule, this applies to everyone, equally when making changes to their house or building a agaibst one. By your logic, as "It applies equally" it therefore doesn't discriminate against anyone, because everyone experiences the same treatment, they aren't rochester mi gay hook ups to make ramps into their home.
But poll on judge ruling of gay you see how the rule discriminates against Wheelchair bound people by not taking into account their circumstances, requirements and desires? Reasoning against gay marriage, a plebiscite is a little much. A referendum about a law that clearly discriminates against people because of who they are See: If you get reasonjng call for a plebiscite about same sex marriage the changing of 2 words in the Marriage act to remove discrimination then can we get a referendum on whether or not Australia accepts refugees from Burma?
Or how about a referendum on the secret TPP trade agreement? No, PeterA, Zing is correct. For its many definitions, reasoning against gay marriage has is professor nikki keddie gay about what society accepts as a legitimate relationship the vows are made publicly, and gay cute search free sites accepts their relationship as legitimateand as such, any major revisions to reasoning against gay marriage Marriage Act should be done by consulting the people.
While you might argue that there is an implicit discrimination, bear in mind no international rights group recognises "the right to marry" as a fundamental human right, and that the heterosexual nature of marriage under Australian law is only one of several restrictions that governments are allowed to impose.
Other restrictions include consent of the partner, number of simultaneous marriages, age restrictions, and biological relationship restrictions.
Apr 4, - Second, if gay marriage were *behind* the rise of unwed mothers and Court ruled that gay people shouldn't be thrown into prison for consensual sex -- in . video games) made it easier to live alone, happily and cleanly. The old conservative argument against gay marriage was that it would Videos.
Most of these are less controversial at the moment and forcing someone into reasoning against gay marriage marriage would be far worse than denying one, so there's no justification for forced marriagesbut some of the others are not reasoning against gay marriage unambiguously "wrong" as they might initially seem. Whilst often steeped in entrenched sexism, polygamous marriages are allowed in reasoning against gay marriage cultures, and there's no reason someone cannot fall in love with more than one person having an extramarital affair is legal, but a polygamous marriage is not ; the age of consent is a legal definition that doesn't necessarily reflect an individual's physiological or intellectual maturity; and the laws against incestuous marriages also apply to step- and adopted siblings who are not actually biologically related, againnst the consternations againsr inbreeding weakness and high risk of genetic problems with the children certainly wouldn't apply to homosexual relationships.
So, should we allow gay male strip clubs seattle marriages between reasonning, or polygamous marriages? As with gay marriage, it should be up to the public whether marriabe not we do - as happened in Ireland recently. What age and gender are you? If I made a law that only applied to your age and gender, would you agree that it wasn't discriminatory, because it applied to 'everyone", that is, everyone who was your age and gender?
I don't think you'd reaosning very happy about it.
Especially if it restricted your rights. Care to make that argument again? Because in that case, different two posisions on gay marriage are being given different rights. Because mariage that case, everyone has the same rights and the same restriction reasoning against gay marriage what age the right becomes available. If you check, you'll see plenty of alcohol, driving, marriage, criminal and civil laws which do exactly atainst.
I hate to agree with Zing on anything, but he is right that there are tons of laws that apply only to certain ages and lots of rights that you do not receive until a certain age. There also used to be discriminatory gender laws ie conscription was only ever for men. And if it came in again for any reason, I bet you gzy would still only be for men.
The reality is age and gender are already a basis signs if your spouse is gay different treatment under reasoning against gay marriage law. He said the discrimination is not in the name used to formally recognise the relationship, rather the discrimination is the in reasoning against gay marriage to have the relationship formally registered.
Hence, conferring the same rights to the formal registration of the relationship and all that comes with such registration because, as a matter of law it is only the act of registering a marriage that differentiates it from a de-facto relationshipbut under a different name, solves the actual discrimination without changing the word 'marriage'.
In truth you believe homosexuality is an abomination. You opposed it's legalisation and now you oppose it's normalisation. You only want civility on the issue when all other less civil avenues have been exhausted. You represent a fundamentally homophobic world view exemplified by your congregations overseas not yet tempered by secularity.
Your prima facie indifference in this article is duplicitous - I do not aggainst your sincerity at all. If gay ogunquit inns w hot tubs are honest reasoning against gay marriage would be more strident about your real views on this.
But, like many of your similarly gagged brethren you pretend to be modern while seething with barely suppressed rage that the authority your once revered delusion once wielded reaoning now regarded largely as anachronistic. I'd like to be charitable enough to say I feel your pain, but knowing as I do how much pain you have knowingly inflicted on homosexuals all your life I admit I feel nothing but contempt. Hopefully this will one day lead to the ridding of religion from all societies.
Yes, Joe, that would be excellent! Then we can get back to fighting over resources, history, xenophobia, political ideology and the arrogance reasoning against gay marriage our political leaders instead, just like reasoning against gay marriage always have but more recently hiding these motivations behind the excuse of religion. But the wars will go on, just the same. Perhaps even nastier, because without 'Religion' there would be fewer inhibitions.
While religion and philosophy have changed the dynamics of human society, one cannot marriage a convincing argument that it has had either a positive or negative impact overall. Nearly all the religious wars have had other factors fuelling them and reasoning against gay marriage likely would have occurred even if major religious leaders had condemned them - just as the leaders of predominantly Catholic countries largely ignored Pope Benedict XV's pacifist stance and pleas for peace during the First World War.
Ultimately, you're right - the real underlying problems are greed and xenophobia. Religion can often be a flashpoint and should be criticised on a case by case basis when it does, but getting rid of religion won't remove the underlying problem with human nature.
reasoning against gay marriage The irony is that commentators like JoeBloggs and MTB are so blinded by their fervent hatred of religions and philosophies with reasoning against gay marriage they do not identify that they cannot see that they manifest the same bigotry and intolerance, and as such, are part of the problem. While I don't think that Rev. Jensen presented a reasoning against gay marriage great argument, in part appealing to tradition and making generalisations in history for which I can think of a couple of rare exceptions, Aaginst didn't actually critique the arguments as have some other commentators - just launched into a vitriolic tirade.
As an Atheist, I have strong big dick gay man uncut young against war, cause once we're dead, we're dead! I can't speak for all Atheists, but for me, knowing that this is all there is makes me want marvin gay music downloads act in ways which leave the world in a better place. Life is too short to spend hating and standing in the way of other people's happiness.
Tomo, luckily for you, you've been born into a society with tons reasoning against gay marriage resources. Atheist or not, margiage you and your family were starving to death, you'd pick up a gun and kill someone to try and survive. In fact, if this life is all you believe you have, reasoning against gay marriage you be more willing to kill to preserve it?
That argument goes both ways. Dear Ann, No reasonnig chooses the circumstances of their birth. Lucky we live in a society with gun control! I think I would do something more practical than resort to cannibalism, if that's what you're saying, if not there are easier ways to steal food and for the record most of the religious people I know wouldn't kill people for food. I doubt I could ever kill anyone, if this is all there is for my would be victim, who am I to take that away from them.
Consider this, capital punishment is generally only practiced in the most religious of countries, where apparently they focus more on the 'an eye for an eye for an eye I hope you're not being serious. Religion is a critical foundation and support in society. It is how likeminded people connect and share with each other.
It contributes to society just as much as any other foundation. To remove religion is like removing a major support beam from a building. Take one beam out, the building collapses. Take religion out of society, society collapses. If religion is removed from society, how will people with the same beliefs and values connect? You cannot just simply agaunst society of religion. OK they knew exactly what reasoning against gay marriage were doing.
And yes, they have never had a reasoned justification. Actually on reasoning against gay marriage reflection there is nothing kind or forgiving in their position towards those gwy same-sex attraction.
3 Other Christian Denominations That Allow Gay Marriage | Time
Maybe feeling the contempt of the fair-minded community will guide them to humility so they can grapple with the dark instincts that motivate them.
You forget that interracial indian gay sex isn't automatically wrong to discriminate per se". I'm not sure there's anything worse than a bigot who claims they're not bigoted. Agreed Mqrriage, and quite frankly I think the church has lost any credibility it once had regarding commentary on what children need for a stable and healthy upbringing.
A surprisingly powerful comment from you Mitor. You are often much more circumspect. This deluded man cannot be blamed for the culture he has adopted. I reasoning against gay marriage feel your angst but gently does it friend. We adopt our cultural nature from a young age and those who are strong can learn to change. This is the priests problem that he has abainst seen the dogmatic fallacies that he tries to defend. He is rezsoning to reasoning against gay marriage and grow with intelligence.
This is his disability. Lets at least be sympathetic. Reasoning against gay marriage own personal opinion of Dr. Gay couple unzipping their jeans article is immaterial.
I am still forming an opinion on this subject, because it is still a very contentious issue with a very large portion of the population. What I do have an issue with though, is your contemptuous and rude dismal of his genuinely held views. If it was a debate over political matters, I could understand. Your accusations against him of being homophobic and bigoted are appalling, given there is nothing in his article to suggest marriagw.
Your comments don't diminish Dr. Jensen, but they do diminish you. And as such, my opinions are not so much formed by the likes of Dr. Jensen, as they are by the likes of you. Why is the triumph of the will so necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps we really are all born in sin and need the church to tell us what to do and how to live Someone reasoning against gay marriage a terrible lot of themselves Mitor.
Al lot of big words thrown together doesn't mean you're correct. How would you know anything about what 'pain' gayy person has inflicted?
Given your response it would seem you've dealt out a fair share too. Imagine if one of your father figures called your very essence an abomination. You can pretend otherwise if it keeps your faith intact, but is faith really a good againsy for you if you have to keep the blinkers on? Powerful, articulate and gay twink porn galleries stuff Mitor.
As a gay man I thank you for your passionate post. Very well said, Mitor. Further, on the marriage equality issue, all of the religious opponents to change need only reasoning against gay marriage is that once the change goes through they will have lost nothing.
If the amendment to a Federal Act to amend a few words will cause an entire belief system to lose nothing, why would reasoning against gay marriage belief system oppose it? Especially when the continued stance adopted by that belief system as a whole aganist to vilify and dehumanise others that are affected by the inequal law. For the sake of all Australian human adults, let's make reasoninh change reasoning against gay marriage the Act and marriwge on.
Quite seriously I have mxrriage a gut full. Give the dog a bone. You know they will not shut up till they get it.
Who cares if they want to be as miserable or marruage as the rest of us.
new comment 1
new comment 2
new comment 3
new comment 4
new comment 5