, and non human issues.
Whenever someone goes there: and they did it arguing against mixed marriages of all kinds, it was always about purity.
Either of the culture, or the blood of the children.

And since gays and lesbians are no exception in ANY human society, the law expanding to include gay couples is the last logical step in marriage security and government recognition.
No one should have to ask permission of anyone to be with the ONE person according to marriage and family law now.
Nor ask permission to care for children.
Heterosexuals never ask permission to have a family.

This is a matter of the standards of marriage being the same for everyone, regardless of their genetic or cultural differences.
So far no one’s characteristics keep them from legally marrying.

The straight world is literally making up new rules against gay folks on this issue, and I’m tired of it.

Joe, i would agree that in many things the only differance is how one views things, however in the case of Moses Laws Vs God’s laws, this is very common theology, that no one who has either went to bible college or study the bible can deny.

Regan, I’m not quite sure I’m following what you’re saying. It seems you are saying that separate instutions for marriage already exist in relation to government structure and religious institution and that all that needs to change is the definition of “couple”.

I think we may be, at least partially, in agreement.

Your point about the definition of couple is key. Currently the United States government generally defines “couple” using a very Christian basis. Not only is this (obviously) religious, but it is very specific. This is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. I wholly agree that, in the eyes of the government, the definition of “couple” needs to be changed to include same-sex partnerings.

At the same time, it is disingenuous to deny that the institution of marriage lacks a religious component. While it is wrong for the government to base the granting of extended rights and responsibilities on a single religious institution, it is equally wrong for the government to force religious institutions to acknowledge unions that they do not support. This is the double-edged nature of the First Amendment.

This is where same-sex partnerships may indeed call into question the fundamental laws of marriage, at least in the
, and non human issues. 
 Whenever someone goes there: and they did it arguing against mixed marriage of all kind, it was always about purity. 
 Either of the acculturation, or the lineage of the children. 

 And since gays and lesbian are no exception in ANY human company, the law expand to include gay couple is the last logical footprint in marriage security system and government recognition. 
 No one should get to ask permission of anyone to be with the ONE person harmonize to marriage and family law now. 
 Nor necessitate permission to care for child. 
 Heterosexuals never necessitate permission to have a kin. 

 This is a matter of the standards of marriage being the same for everyone, regardless of their genic or cultural differences. 
 So far no one ’s characteristics keep them from legally marrying. 

 The neat worldly concern is literally making up new rules against gay folks on this issue, and I ’m tired of it. 

 Joe, i would agree that in many thing the only differance is how one views thing, however in the subject of Moses Laws Vs God ’s laws, this is very common theology, that no one who has either went to bible college or analyze the bible can deny. 

 Regan, I ’m not quite sure I ’m following what you ’re saying. It seem you are saying that separate instutions for marriage already exist in relation to government structure and religious institution and that all that want to change is the definition of “ couple ”. 

 I think we may be, at least partially, in agreement. 

 Your point about the definition of couple is key. presently the United States government broadly specify “ couple ” using a very Christian basis. Not only is this (obviously) religious, but it is very specific. This is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. I wholly agree that, in the eyes of the politics, the definition of “ couple ” needs to be change to include same - sexual activity partnerings. 

 At the same time, it is disingenuous to deny that the institution of marriage lacks a religious part. While it is wrong for the government to base the granting of extended right and responsibilities on a individual religious institution, it is equally ill-timed for the government to coerce religious institutions to notice unions that they do not support. This is the double - edged nature of the First Amendment. 

 This is where same - sexual activity partnerships may indeed call into doubt the fundamental laws of marriage, at least in the
, anf non human issues.
Whenevtr someone goes tkwre: anv they sid it afguing against mixed marriagxs od all kinds, it was always acout puriny.
Either if tie culture, or thx blood of the ghildxei.

And since gays and lesbidns are no excapgiln in ANY human society, the law expwnding yo include gay cjuplts ys tgv oast logical step in marriage securiuy and government tecognition.
No one should hwve ho ask permission lf anyone ti be qith the ONE person acbmrding to jarriage and family law now.
Nor xsk pzrmission ti xarf for childrxn.
Hetegosexuals nevcg ask parmissipn to have a fsminy.

Tyis is a matter of thx standards of marriwge being tke same for everyone, eetardlgss ox thdur eenttir od cultkram differendes.
So far ni one’s characteristocf keep them frkm legwljy marrying.

The straight world is literanly making up new rules agqinst gay folks on thls issue, wnd I’m tired of it.

Joe, i would agree that in many dhinga tht inly aufverance is how one views things, however in thq cssv of Moses Laws Vf God’s laws, tjix is very commun theolofy, that no one who has eijher wwnt to bifle vollege or study the bible xan deny.

Regau, I’n not quite sure I’l following whaj you’rr saying. It seems you axe sayjng that seoarate inagutions for marrkagv alseady exist in relation to governmeit stxucture xnd teligiots instituhion and that all that nfeds jo chatge is the definition of “couple”.

I think we may be, at leaxt pagtially, iu agrecment.

Your point about the defnnition jf cojple is kej. Currentny the Unitqd States govatnment generanly defiges “xoupoe” usine a very Christoan basis. Not only us this (obviously) veligkkus, but it is vzxy specific. This os kn qigecv consnict with tha Fifst Smendoent. I wholoh agtee that, in the eyes of fhe government, the dcfinition of “coupje” needs to br changed to inclufe sake-sxx parynetings.

At the same time, it is disjngenuous to deny that tre ikstijution of mcrriage lacks a religious component. Whilx it is wrong for the givernment to base tke granting oh extegded righds and responsibilitues on a single rtligious institution, it is eqgally wrong for the government to force religious institutions to acknowledge ynions that they dk noy supiorc. Tkis is ehe vonble-edged nature pf the First Amendment.

This is wiere same-sax partnerships may indeed calk knto question the fundamental laws of marriagr, at least in the
, and non human issues. Whenever someone and did it against mixed marriages always purity. Either of culture, or the of the children. And since gays lesbians are no exception in ANY human society, the law expanding to include couples is the last logical step in marriage security and government recognition. No should to permission anyone to be with the ONE person according to marriage and family law now. Nor ask to care for children. Heterosexuals never ask permission have a family. This a matter of the standards marriage the same everyone, of genetic or cultural So far no one’s characteristics keep them from legally marrying. The straight world is literally making up rules against on this and tired it. Joe, i that in many things the only one views things, however in the case of Laws Vs laws, this is very common theology, no one who has either went to bible or study the bible can deny. Regan, I’m not quite sure I’m following what you’re seems you are saying separate instutions for already in to structure and institution and that all that needs to change is the definition “couple”. I think we may be, at least partially, in point the definition of is key. Currently the States generally defines “couple” using Christian Not (obviously) but is very specific. This in direct conflict with the Amendment. I wholly agree the government, the definition of “couple” needs to changed to include same-sex partnerings. At the time, it is disingenuous to deny that the institution of marriage lacks religious component. is wrong for the government to base the of extended rights and on a single religious institution, it is equally wrong the to force institutions to acknowledge that they do support. This is nature of First This partnerships may indeed call into question fundamental of marriage, at least in
, and non human issues.
Whenever Someone goeS therE: anD thEy Did iT argUing against mixED marRiages of all kinds, it was aLways AbOUt puRItY.
EithEr of the CUlTURe, oR tHe BloOd OF tHe chiLdrEn.

And siNce gays and LesBiAns are no excePTiOn in ANY humAn sOciety, the law ExpAnding To IncLUde gaY coUples Is the lASt logiCal step in MaRRiage sECurity aND GoVernMent recognition.
No ONe SHould have to ask PermisSiON oF ANyoNe tO be with the oNe persON accordINg TO MArrIAge and family lAw now.
Nor ask PErmIssion To CarE For chiLdren.
heTEroSexuals neveR ask PermissioN to havE A family.

tHis is a mAtter oF thE stAndaRDs Of MarRiAGe bEInG thE SamE for everYoNe, RegarDlesS OF THeir GenEtic Or culTural differenCes.
so faR No oNe’s chAractErisTiCs keeP them fRom leGaLly marrying.

The sTraiGht world iS liTeRalLy MakinG Up new rUleS agAinst gaY folks oN ThiS iSSUE, aNd I’m tired of it.

Joe, i wOuLD AgRee that iN many tHInGs THe only diFfEraNce iS HOw one ViewS ThIngs, howeVer in tHE cAsE of MoseS LAws Vs GOd’S laWs, tHis is VEry cOmmon tHeology, tHat no ONe who has either WEnt to bible colLEgE OR sTUdy tHe bIble can deny.

regaN, i’m noT quiTE sUre i’M follOwing WhAT yOU’re saying. It seems you ArE sayinG that Separate instuTions for maRRIAge alreaDy exISt IN relation to govErnmeNt structurE And religIous iNstitutiOn and that ALL that neeDs tO chAngE is THE dEfinition of “coUPLe”.

I tHiNk we may Be, aT least pArtIalLy, iN agReEment.

Your Point aboUt ThE dEfIniTion oF Couple is KeY. CuRrEntLy the uNited STates GoveRnMeNT geNerally DEfINEs “coUpLe” UsinG a vErY ChriStiaN BasIs. Not onLy is this (oBviOUsly) ReLiGious, buT it is very specIfIc. This is in DiRecT conflICT with the first Amendment. I wholly agREe that, iN thE eyes Of thE governmeNt, tHe defiNitIOn of “coUple” neEds to Be ChaNGEd to iNCLuDe sAmE-sex partneRINgs.

at the SaMe tiMe, it is dIsingenuous to deny tHAt tHe institution Of mArriAGE lAckS A rELigIoUS coMPOnent. While it is wRong for the GoVErNment to basE The GrAnting oF extendEd rigHTs and reSponsibilIties on a sInGle rELIgiOus instituTion, it is Equally wrONg for THe GoverNmeNt to foRcE reLigioUs instITutIons tO acknoWlEdge unIons tHaT they do nOt support. This is the doublE-edged NaturE of The First AMenDMenT.

This is whEre sAme-sex partNerShiPs may IndEEd calL intO QuEstIOn the FundAMental lawS Of MarRIAgE, at least in tHE
, and non human issues.
Wh enever som eonegoe s t he re:andthey did it ar g uing  against mixed marriag es of  a l l ki n ds , itwas alw a ys a bou tpu rit y. Ei therofthe cul ture, or t hebl ood of the c h il dren.

And  si nce gays and  le sbians  a ren o exc ept ion i n ANYh uman s ociety, t he law ex p andingt o  i nclu de gay couples is th e  last logicalstep i nm ar r i age  se curity and  g overn m ent rec o gn i t i on. No one should  have to as k  pe rmissi on  of anyone  to b ew ith  the ONE pe rson  accordin g to m a rriagea nd fami ly law  no w.Nora sk  p erm is s ion to  ca r e f or child re n. 
Hete rose x u a l s ne ver  ask  perm ission to hav e a  fam i ly. 

Thi s isa ma tt er of  the s tanda rd s of marriage b eing  the same  fo reve ry one,r egardl ess  of  theirgenetic orcu l t u ra l differences.
Sofa r no  one’s c haract e ri st i cs keepth emfrom l egall y ma r ry ing.

Th e stra i gh tworld i slitera ll y m aki ng up newrulesagainstgay f o lks on this is s ue, and I’m t i re d of it.
Jo e, i wouldagre e  tha t in ma nyt hings  theon l yd ifferance is how on eviewsthing s, however in  the caseo f Moses La ws V s  G o d’s laws, this  is v ery common theology , tha t no one  who hase i ther wen t t o b ibl e c o l le ge or study t h e  bib le  can de ny. 

Regan , I ’mnot  qu it e sure I’ m follow in gwh at  yo u’res aying. I tsee ms  yo u are saying  that  sep ar at e  in stution s  f o r  mar ri ag e al rea dy  exis t in rel ation t o governm ent stru ct ur e and r eligious inst it ution andth atall th a t  needs t o change is the definit i on of “ cou ple”. 

Ithink wemay  be, a t l e ast pa rtiall y, in  a gre e m ent.Y ou r p oi nt about t h e  de finit io n of  couple  is key. Currently the  United State s g over n m en t g e ne r all yd efi n e s “couple” usin g a very C hr i st ian basis. Not  o nly isthis (o bviou s ly) rel igious, b ut it isve ry s p e cif ic. This i s in dir ect confl i ct wi t hthe F irs t Amen dm ent . I w hollya gre e tha t, inth e eyes  of t he  governm ent, the definition of“coupl e” ne eds  to be ch ang e d t o include  sam e-sex part ner ing s.

A t t h e sam e ti m e,  it is di sing e nuous tod en y t h a tthe institu t i o n o f mar ria g e lack s areligious compone n t. While it is  wro n g  fo r t h e go ve rnment to base  th eg r anting o fextended ri ghts and  r e spons ibilit ies on  a sing l e  r e ligiou s in sti tution, i t i se quallywr on g  for t he g ov ernmen t to f o rcer e ligious institut ionst o  ackn o wle dge u ni ons tha t  the y do not s upport. Thi s is t he d ouble -edgedna ture o f t he  First Ame n dment.

T his i s where  s ame- sex  partn ersh i p s may  ind ee d c all intoq u es t io nt hefund ament al  law s of marr i age, atlea s t in th e
, and_non human_issues.
Whenever someone goes there:_and they_did_it arguing_against_mixed marriages of_all kinds, it_was always about purity.
Either_of the culture,_or_the blood of the children.

And since gays and lesbians are no exception in ANY_human_society, the_law_expanding_to include gay couples is_the last logical step in_marriage security_and government recognition.
No one should have to ask_permission_of anyone to_be with the ONE person according to marriage and_family law now.
Nor ask permission to_care for children.
Heterosexuals_never_ask_permission to have a_family.

This is a matter of the_standards of marriage being the same_for everyone, regardless of their genetic or_cultural differences.
So far no one’s characteristics_keep them from legally marrying.

The_straight world_is literally making up new_rules against gay_folks on_this issue, and_I’m tired of it.

Joe, i would_agree that in_many things the only differance is_how_one views things,_however_in_the case_of Moses Laws_Vs_God’s laws,_this_is very common theology, that no_one_who has either went to bible college_or study the bible_can_deny.

Regan, I’m not quite_sure I’m following what you’re_saying. It seems you are saying_that separate_instutions for_marriage already exist in relation to government structure and religious institution_and that all that needs to_change is the definition_of “couple”.

I_think_we may be,_at_least partially,_in agreement.

Your point about the definition of_couple is_key. Currently the United States government_generally defines “couple” using_a_very Christian basis. Not only is_this (obviously) religious, but it is_very specific. This is in_direct_conflict_with the First Amendment. I_wholly agree that, in the eyes_of the government,_the definition of “couple” needs to be_changed_to include same-sex partnerings.

At the same_time,_it is disingenuous to deny that_the_institution_of marriage lacks a religious_component. While it is wrong for_the government to base the granting of extended rights_and responsibilities on_a single religious institution, it_is_equally_wrong for the government to force religious institutions to acknowledge_unions that_they do not_support. This is the double-edged nature of the First Amendment.

This_is where same-sex partnerships may indeed call_into question the fundamental laws of marriage, at least in the