Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Dante Alucard
Recent Activity
-
Dante commented on the article |"Dante -- the Constitution of the United States also says that Blacks count as 4/5 of a person. Do you support that?"
What you are talking about is the 3/5 Compromise, and you are taking it out of context. This was a compromise between the north and the south. The south wanted slaves to be counted as a full person, so that they would be able to have more representatives. The north did not want a slave to count as aperson, only because they did not want to allow the south to prosper from slavery.
But that aside, you are not sticking to the discussion. This was not about what I do or don't support in the Constitution. It is a matter of whether or not gay marriage is constitutional.
And to the shellfish...although we are under a new covenant under Christ today the definition of marriage has remained consistent throughout the entire Word of God.
"Re-read the stories of Jonathan and David and you'll see that same gender sexual/romantic relationships are mentioned positively in the Bible."
Why would God annoint someone King of Israel who practices what He calls an abomination? The "relationship" you are talking about between David and Jonathan was NOT romantic or sexual in any way shape or form. Have you never heard of agape love? It basically means brotherly love. David called Johnathan his brother and you cannot name a single verse in the Bible that would say otherwise.
"You can rail against it and twist Christianity to support your position, but you're losing ground as each day passes."
"I don’t see Scripture as an unchanging entity, but as the living Word, most clearly revealed to us through Jesus." And you say I'm twisting Christianity to support my position? How about you who said that you don't see the Bible as God's unchanging Word, but a "living Word" with which you actually mean that it changes with the people around it. Now if God's Word is perfect then why does it need to change with the people around it?
-
Dante commented on the article |
There were and are times in history when people (and that means everyone not just "religious supremists") had it wrong. However, what we are talking about here is the "marriage" of same sex. Us "white supremists" believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God and according to Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." God obviously did not design us to be together like that. This doesn't mean that fornication (sex before marriage) with a woman is right either. And by the way this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. If the founding father's knew what was happening today they would be appalled. And if gay marriage is Constitutional why isn't recognized as such in our founding documents? And even if they screwed up on the same race marriage thing, why should the whole definition of marriage be changed, (one man and one woman not some property we own, but a partnership) after all, it was still a man and woman not a man and man.
-
Dante commented on the article |
And 60 years ago the people never would have even considered the "marriage" of anything except a man and woman. How quickly did that change? Mark my words, pretty soon marrying anything and everything will be considered the norm. And where did this "their literacy rate is not very high because it has to first pass through a filter of religious superiority." come from? I don't know where you get your information, but you could not be more wrong.
-
Dante commented on the article |
And 60 years ago the people never would have even considered the "marriage" of anything except a man and woman. How quickly did that change? Mark my words, pretty soon marrying anything and everything will be considered the norm. And where did this "their literacy rate is not very high because it has to first pass through a filter of religious superiority." come from? I don't know where you get your information, but you could not be more wrong.
-
Dante commented on the article |
The reason fundamentalists want to prevent gay "marriage" is that it changes the definition of marriage. If It isn't "one man and one woman" then it could be anything! If I want to marry my car which makes me happy, who's to stop me? Would you prevent someone from marrying a child? Do you consider this a violation of their pursuit of happiness?
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits