Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

Marrying anybody other than heterosexuals changes the entire concept of marriage.

Maybe for religions, but from a legal standpoint it is still just two people entering a social contract.Remember, nobody care what your religion thinks of marriage, they just want the legal rights.All this religious stuff you keep mentioning is really beside the point.

None of this is based on religion, marriage is a universal crosscultural practice of uniting heterosexuals.I already answered you about the contract. You don't have to marry people for them to engage in any kind of contract they want. Marriage is NOT just ANY contract.

Too funny. Yes Faith, marriage is just another contract unless you can provide evidence that it is not just another contract.

Outside of the participants being male and female, there are all kinds of differences between different cultures' rules and laws regarding marriage.As far as just uniting heterosexuals, well, not any more. Its changing. And I agreed that you don't have to, but it is a way to get there.Just because you don't have to doesn't mean you shouldn't. From a legal standpoint, it is just another contract.How is it different, legally, from other contracts?

So what if it does?Will the sky fall in?

In case you hadn't noticed, this discussion is about how this is coming about only recently and is a drastic undermining of the whole history of the meaning of marriage, as it is obvious that homosexuals do not qualify, it's all a huge sham and pretense and recipe for cognitive dissonance and an entrenched attitude of cynicism, not healthy attitudes.

Oh probably not the sky, but the tottering culture may.

It doesn't change anything that should matter to government or to the courts.

Except, well, it doesn't undermine the meaning of marriage.You can still have your traditional marriage. You can still reject that gay marriages count. Nothing has been undermined. You keep saying this stuff... really Faith, they just want equal rights.Cognitive dissonance and cynicism truly have nothing to do with it.

Well they qualify now, so your task is to explain why your personal religious objection matters a damn to anyone else and why it should matter. Well, that's a confusion of words and concepts that doesn't make much sense, but we all get your dislike of it. The thing is, I have several married gay friends and they don't seem to see it the way you do. Instead of being a 'sham' they think it's an important public expression of their love for each other and intention to look after each other 'until death do they part'.What's not to like? I'm sure Jesus would have been on their side, he seemed like a decent enough bloke.

Here's part of what he said:

quote:

---

8 Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

​

10 The disciples said to him, If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.

​

11 Jesus replied, Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

---

That last line always made me wonder...Those who can accept it should. Doesn't that imply that there are those that cannot accept it? And therefore they don't have to accept it?Sounds to me like Jesus left some leeway in there.And I still think that he was using "eunuchs that were born that way" to refer to gay people.If they are unable to accept marrying the opposite sex, then they don't have to accept that.I think Jesus would realize that there's really nothing wrong with two people of the same sex getting married, per se. But especially in the legal sense. His, seemingly, stance against it looks like it was based on the Law of Moses, and we just don't follow that any more.Of course if there is a religious argument against it, then that's fine and dandy if you don't want to enter a gay marriage. But that shouldn't stand in the way of what the laws say.

Jesus is Jehovah. He's the author of the Law that condemns homosexual acts as sin. What He did in the Sermon on the Mount was show that the Law sin operates in the human heart and not just in outward behavior.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.