Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships, 1989-2010

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree. This is VERY entertaining. Kudos on being unapologetic and unabashed.

I just wish I could sell him a used car.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, so far our good evangelical "Dr" has managed to insult homosexuals (unsurprising), Muslims (again, unsurprising), Native Americans and the descendants of some of the largest civilizations in the pre-Columbus Americas (evidence of historical ignorance) and Americans of African descent.

I would like to thank the "Dr" for providing such a good witness of the message of Jesus Christ to the members of this forum. [insert sarcasm here]

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Well, so far our good evangelical "Dr" has managed to insult homosexuals (unsurprising), Muslims (again, unsurprising), Native Americans and the descendants of some of the largest civilizations in the pre-Columbus Americas (evidence of historical ignorance) and Americans of African descent.

So what you're saying is, the Doc has something for everybody.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So what you're saying is, the Doc has something for everybody.

And everyone has something for him.

 

[Duck]

First of all, the United States government is very different from Canada's, so "federal gay marriage" is not legally possible. There is no enumerated constitutional power for the federal government to regulate marriage.

Which of course explains the 1000+ FEDERAL benefits that appertain to the institution of marriage. All of which are granted after being issued a marriage license by a jurisdiction such as say, the State of Maryland. As a church leader, one could "marry" people all day long, but unless they have the paper from the government they aren't really "married" in the eyes of the law and the government.

I bet that the numbers of people getting married that are getting married to 'put themselves right with Jesus' and not 'live in sin' anymore are relatively small when compared to those that are wanting to have the fiscal stability associated with a legally recognized relationship. Regardless of whether or not they are strictly having missionary position sex or not.

 

[Duck]

Accept their children, or accept deviant sexual behaviour? If you mean the latter, I would say, hopefully, none of them.



Why do we need anti-bullying legislation for homosexuals? All they have to do is not engage in that behaviour and they will be fine. As to "orientation", which we in the church refer to as "temptation", no one knows, or cares, what goes through a person's mind. It is only the behaviour that is a problem.

For the same reasons that the anti-bullying legislation exists for christians.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

He's not here? Aw, shucks. I was gonna have some fun with the doctor.