TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Today, SCOTUS gives voting rights to non-citizens: http://www3.atr.rollcall.com/supreme-co ... ates/?dcz=.

No....... there's no agenda..... move along......

cb1000rider wrote:OK,it's just the homosexuals that behave badly... I guess I can work with that perspective.
How about we blame the un-married people? Does that fit better?

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: If heterosexual people were acting like this in public they would be arrested for indecent exposure and lewd behavior.

Mardi Gras.

mr1337 wrote:Should have exited the thread several posts ago when I mentioned it's obvious none of the nay sayers are going to open their mind.

I'll leave now and let you guys have your thread back so you can discuss this uncontested. The important thing is #lovewins

However, same-sex couples in Alabama will have to hold on and wait a few weeks before proceeding with their nuptials, thanks to an order issued by the Alabama Supreme Court.The court issued an order on Monday that essentially prohibits probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days.

This has effectively stalled the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling in Alabama, while providing time for interested parties to file motions and petitions contesting the ruling.

“Basically it states that in the court’s judgment, it (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday) is tabled effective until after the hearing (before the Alabama Supreme Court),” Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said. “It’s not in effect until after this hearing in this 25 day period.”

mr1337 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:
I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

The only thing I am pointing out is how the idea of separation of church and state came about and how it has been twisted from it's origin to fit a certain agenda. Like it or not, this country's founding was based on a moral compass which was the Bible. Our government is not intended to influence religion but be influenced by our religion and that religion is the religion of the bible, Christianity. The SCOTUS decision has it backwards.

I don't agree with blue laws. If you are saying that the US needs to base its laws off of Christianity, there's a whole lot that needs to be outlawed, as I outlined above.

This includes cursing, tattoos, dancing (in the interpretation of some churches), divorce, intoxication, and adultery.

Let's outlaw divorce because it destroys core family values. It literally rips a family apart, and divorce is not allowed in the Bible.

Let's outlaw intoxication because it's moral and right to do so.

Let's outlaw worshiping any religion except Christianity. Paganism is not moral. Neither is Islam. Or atheism.

A lot of western Europeans who migrated to North America in the time before the US did do to escape the religious oppression of Europe so they could freely live their lives.

A free nation demands a secular government. Once religion plays too much into the laws of the land, you no longer have a free state. You have the workings of many middle-eastern countries in which women must keep their entire bodies covered except for their eyes because that is the standard of ethics in their country.

Just because marriage equality is against your own morals doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. The important question is: is it unethical? I would argue that stealing is both immoral and unethical. You are trespassing against someone else when you steal. But when someone marries another of their own gender, who is trespassed? Who is damaged? Thus to you, it may be immoral, but to society as a whole, it is not unethical.

mr1337 wrote:
I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.