That's actually not a technically correct statement. Many states allowed women to vote in municipal, state, and county elections long before the 19th amendment in 1919. All the 19th amendment did was to guarantee the right to vote in federal (and otherwise) elections.
Good point. You seemed to have hit the whole solution on the head! If church and state are to be separate, then the state must not give legal benefits to married couples. They should be able to say "Yeah, you wanna be monogamous, but we aren't gonna give you rights over it" and that way marriage can remain in the hands of religious institutions.
Who on earth is teaching you about gay people? Hello! A great many have entered into monogamous unions, which is what this whole issue is about--they want recognition legally. Just because you may know a few gay folks who are "players" doesn't mean crap. I know a whole hell of a lot of straight people who are "players" as well. It is a youth culture thing, and not a gay thing.
In case anybody is confused over this--as I see it all the time--Catholics ARE Christians. In fact, they are the original Christians. It is all the Protestant sects that broke off from having problems with Catholicism.
It shouldn't matter whether I'm a Christian or not, but nominally I am.
I hate to break it to you, but even if it is for the "tax breaks" (which I really doubt, there's a heck of "better" benefits to being married than that), hetero couple do it for the same reasons. Heck, you have immigrants getting married to citizens just so THEY can get their green card or be legalized or whatever.
I am equally against marriages of convience. And yes I am against those people who don't hold their marital vows. As for homosexuality in the new testament, Check out what Paul says in Romans. It's Jesus doesn't explicitly address the issue because no one brought it up. It's like this would you bring up a fundemental truth with everyone else is asking deeper questions like forgiveness and the nature of God? It would be like stepping into a college level math class and asking the teacher what is 3+4.
Thanks for clarifying that.
I'll check out what Paul says in Romans, but my gut question is: Is this Paul[/b]'s reaction or stance or is it Jesus/Gods? Yes, Paul could be filled with the Holy Spirit and be speaking for Jesus/God, but we all know people claim to be "speaking for God" to justify their view.
Uh oh! It looks like Catholics are the big bad boogie man! Though, like most of your arguments, the thing about the Pope, which is apparently something that you use to hold Catholics in contempt, is wrong. The correct belief is not that the Pope is equal to God, but that the Pope is the represenative of God and is infallible on matters of church doctrine.
I know he isn't equal but he claims to be. For example, to claim that one is infallible no matter what is a load of garbage. Secondly, he claims to be an intercessor between man and God like all catholic priests do. Lastly, the popes official title is Vicar, Son of God. Ever wonder why you refer to the clergy as holy fathers?Originally posted by chocobo_cid
Uh oh! It looks like Catholics are the big bad boogie man! Though, like most of your arguments, the thing about the Pope, which is apparently something that you use to hold Catholics in contempt, is wrong. The correct belief is not that the Pope is equal to God, but that the Pope is the represenative of God and is infallible on matters of church doctrine.
The Pope is not equal to God. Sorry, that's just a little pet peeve of mine.