In article ,
says...

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:25:28 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:26:21 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:08:45 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 2/2/2013 8:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 11:58:33 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

On 2/2/2013 11:52 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/2/2013 10:30 AM, ESAD wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=r0Be8LnuG3U#!

Be careful.. While you are burying your head in the sand pro choice, pro
gay rights conservatives are popping up all around you, we are more
libertarian than right. We are everywhere, democrats are fuked...

Oh, cool, I didn't know you were were pro gay rights. Let the marriages
begin!



You didn't know, because you just assume and argue.. Next time try
listening... But just to **** you off I will tell you that I support gay
rights, BECAUSE I am a Christian, not because I personally approve.

How can you adopt such a position, when the Mormon church has clearly
stated that acting upon same-sex attraction is a sin.

How can you be so stupid? I told you my position, I do not speak for the
Mormon Church.


?What we do know is that the doctrine of the church ? that sexual
activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married ?
has not changed and is not changing,? (Elder Quentin Cook)




C'mon, name calling?

You've made it clear that you are Mormon, yet you don't believe that
you should follow the Mormon teachings. That is about as confusing as
an atheist that believes in God.

And your response is name calling.

Why try to interject your feelings for religion into whether or not gays should have equal rights as
non-gays. Civil rights are civil rights. The Constitution doesn't distinguish between gays and
non-gays, both are entitled to the same protection under the law. That is not a religious issue.

However, gays who are 'unionized' are *not* living a 'marriage'. Meriam-Webster has it correct in
their primary definition:

Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual
and contractual relationship recognized by law

...all rest is designed to appease the liberals.


Salmonbait

The "unionized" stuff (whatever that is) is probably about civil
unions, which was the only thing available to gays and lesbians, since
the conservatives, pushed along by the religious right, effectively
blocked any concept permitting other than "one man and one woman" to
wed.

That is historical in nature, unless you are (again) trying to rewrite
history.

MY feelings pertaining to religion have nothing to do with it.
Conservative Christian dogma has EVREYTHING to do with it. I said
nothing about what *I* believed, I merely pointed to an inconsistency
in the OP's wearing of HIS religion on his sleeve vs. the official
position of that religion's governing body.

Why do you always try to attack the messenger rather than make a
logical argument. Of course, as I suspect, you don't HAVE a logical
argument and the only thing left is an argumentum ad hominem.

You were not attacked. The dictionary made the argument. I simply agree. The rest of the definition
was simply added to appease liberals.

Oh, and please pardon my misspelling of 'Merriam'.


Salmonbait

Please do tell, narrow minded racist, where do you get the notion that
the "rest" of the definition was to appease liberals?