So, if Frank were a Native American Apache, you would not make that statement? They banned homosexuality as did most Native Americans, and did so without a Bible.

Apparently, you were just trying to gig Frank, rather than make a valid point.

 

how did this turn into a homo thread?

 

Who knows, just roll with it.

So, if Frank were a Native American Apache, you would not make that statement? They banned homosexuality as did most Native Americans, and did so without a Bible.

Apparently, you were just trying to gig Frank, rather than make a valid point.

He used religion to justify his statement, so I used the fact that the church needs to be separated from state. That was my point. You're reading too much into this or misinterpreting something to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong.

 

This is apparently way over your head. No, YOU would not have made the statement saying that the only reason he was anti homosexual was because of the Bible, and I simply pointed out that ther are many peoples that were against it before ever hearing of a Bible. That maybe it was just an unnatural at. Forget it, you don't get it. I'm tired of trying to say it so you understand.

 

I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, even though Obama did call me one in his Labor Day speech.

 

I don't get it because it's not relevant to the discussion. You just wanted to butt in and try and prove me wrong.

Who cares if other societies have banned homo's without hearing about the bible? If he was a Muslim and was using the Koran as an excuse, I would bring up the same point that church and state should be separated, and that only 2nd and 3rd world countries would agree.

If he was an atheist and was saying that gay marriage should be banned because it is immoral, than I would say that he doesn't have the right to violate their marriage rights depending on their lifestyle.

 

So, you admit you were just trying to get to Frank, rather than make a valid point. Making an invalid statement does nothing for a debate. You could just as easily said that Frank's view was because he has green hair.

 

Aw, can't we just hug and make up?

 

I admit to making a point that neither Frank, or Green98, or you, or I have the right to deny any citizen their rights depending on their lifestyle choice, as long as it does not negatively affect anyone's rights. To do so goes against what American stands for.

 

That is your belief. There are Americans that believe the moral decay in this country that has been escalating since the mid 60s is the reason for the mess this country is in and that affects all our lives.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

I have an alibi for the mid 60s.
You ain't got nothin on me and you know it.

 

Well if you believe that way too, than that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

I feel like I'm fighting for the opposite side, because I'm debating for individual rights while conservatives are debating against them. Some are using the argument that gay marriage should not be allowed based on their religion, contradicting the entire separation of church and state system.

 

It was 50 years ago that groups argued that inter-racial marriage should be banned too. I remember no too long ago reading about a justice of the peace refused to marry an inter-racial couple because he didn't think they were socially acceptable. Are you against that too?

You see couples that are decades apart in age. Are you against that too?

Conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouth. On one side you want personal responsibility and freedom. On the other side you want to dictate how people live their lives.

This the kind of laws that exist in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you want to stone gays and those that are unfaithful. Might as well add all non-Christians to the list. Back to the Salem Witch Trials we go!

 

More hypocrisy I see...