As you well lnow mikey, if they followed the churches rules then there would be no aids in the first place, as there would be no gays
You see as much as we can argue many other points, I'm absolutely certain that people would still be gay even if they followed church rules on not actually giving in to their true selves.
i think there is more to it than that too. however i dont think the gay of today necessarily conforms to your argument. eg is george michael gay because he is gay or is it in his nature to seek excitement and women became too easy so no fun? however its like anything else generally, *****s giving into their true selves are punished
Seriously, I don't know what the difference is. I heard O'Bama's speech where revised his position saying that civil partnerships were not enough, but I don't understand what the difference is.
The Bill of Rights enshrines the right that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion" for Americans. Surely Obama is compromising that. If he isn't, how isn't he?
dont know about that what I do know is that one of the 'hold ups' here is that there would need to be 'protection' for the church/mosque/synagogue if gay marriage was allowed I understand that this is one of the biggest hold ups Basically gay rights groups (and it is not all gay people wanting this) would simply take churches to court for saying no once thelaw was passed THAT is what this is about
I'm sure when two consenting gay adults decide to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, the first thing that crosses their mind is "haha, this will really piss off that church I never visit - who thinks I'm evil for being me"
I think I'm pretty sure I've gathered you're not gay, so gay people getting married doesn't really affect you - in other words despite what your religion says, you still need to mind your own.
I don't know what gay marriage means. I don't know what is different to civil partnerships. I am pretty sure you are not gay, why do you feel the need to tell me to mind my own?
