I wonder if he thinks that the framers of the constitution (or of at least the 14th Amendment) would have forseen the advent of black women marrying white men?
I wonder if he thinks that the framers of the constitution (or of at least the 14th Amendment) would have forseen the advent of black women marrying white men?
You missed the point, entirely. You keep bringing up your gay frienRAB to I guess back up your arguments. I was saying that I doubt these frienRAB as you describe them really exist. They seem to be in the closet and scared to come out because of the possible negative reaction, yet confide in someone with your prejudices.
It's not about "blame", it's about stemming the spread of infection. And the TWO biggest routes for HIV spreading are gay men and intravenous drug use. Intravenous drug use is already illegal. The other avenue to explore is to discourage homosexual activity. And THAT isn't done by rewarding homosexuality as a lifestyle.
Why would it be better if her son had a father figure who was straight?
Er . . . perhaps you should read it again.
It just means, do not judge others, nothing about judging falsely.
Government should have no part in marriage, as it is totally a religious/traditional institution. The governemnt should only be allows to give extra rights to common law marriages, whether sanctified in a church or a temple, between a man or a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
I never said anything about an XYY gene or buying anything.
If the shoe fits put it one..........
So you abide by the law of man over God then........
Still, there is no reason that the State has to subsidize these "immoral" marriages.
There is a way to have equal protection without subsidizing oddball marriages. It's called GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE, and it's very easy to understand.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks