Then you haven't been paying attention. Much of today's societal ills are due to the breakdown of the family unit and traditional values. Government legitimization of gay marriage only takes us further down that road.
Social ills? Which are you referring to?
Our biggest social problems come from economically deprived areas, my opinion
Once again, the point is we are already seeing the so called "rights" of gays intruding upon the rights of others. The kinds of things gay marriage supporters said would never happen. And it's only going to get worse.
They are not what you call "gay" rights but equal rights of American citizens and they shouldn't be changed or be called into question because you are "different." I don't see how the right to be gay or the right to marry someone you love is infringing on the rights of straight people.
The subject at hand has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. And it certainly has nothing to do with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You say you're not a liberal but only a liberal would even attempt to bring something like that up. This issue has to do with the U.S. Constitution alone and what powers it gives to the federal government and those retains by the states. Period.
The subject at hand is freedom. How all people are equal and no one should be restricted to live life to the fullest because of religious qualms. The federal government needs to step in (I hate myself for saying that) when a state government allows a religious opinion to influence the government's decision making.
I really don't see a valid political argument without religious overtones. Forcing people to live life the way you (not you exactly just the word I am using) want to define how it should be lived is what the actual issue is.
You define it how you do I define it how I do, who is wrong? Neither of us, because we live in a country where difference of opinion and different ideas are tolerated. Making something unlawful because it is in conflict with you personal views is just not right.
Well that's another untenable position many secular liberals take. They like Jesus' teachings but don't believe He was divine. Christ's central teaching was that He was the Son of God and Savior of the world. He was either what He professed to be or else a mad man. You can't have it both ways.
Since
being liberal is a political ideology it has nothing to do with religion.
I can have it anyway I want since I can interpret what the bible says, what history says and what reason tells me.
Well I don't consider him a mad man, but no I do not think he was son of god. Before and after his death many people who were defying the Romans and the Jewish leaders claimed to be the messiah it was not an uncommon thing. Since the gospels were written by man 40 years after Jesus died, I have to say yes I am skeptical. That being said I don't deny the greatness of who Jesus was historically.
While Jesus certainly condemned all the vain additions the Jewish leaders made to the Law of Moses, this situation didn't pertain to that. Those who brought the woman to Jesus were correct in that she was guilty of adultery and, under the Law of Moses, should be stoned. However, Christ (as the One who originally gave the Law of Moses) had come to once again offer the fulness of the Higher Law or the Gospel, which fulfilled, transcended, and superseded the lower Law of Moses (which was simply full of types and shadows pointing to the eventual Atonement of Christ). Contrary to what many secular liberals would like to think, this did not mean He condoned or excused her adultery in any way. Forgiveness was available to her, if she repented and "sinned no more," but the latter part of that exchange liberals seem to prefer to overlook when they simply quote the first part about "casting a stone."
I will just say your views on the Bible and mine differ greatly.
