Why aren't Christians killing gays?

[SuperShamou]

Lol, Sodom wasn't destroyed because of gays. I can't believe how completely corrupted that story has gotten over the years.

men begging like a hoarde of zombies to rape male looking angels... sounds pretty gay to me brah.

where do you think the word sodomize came from.

i know they allegedly did other things to "piss off" God, but they didn't go into so much detail.

[Fiyero]

men begging like a hoarde of zombies to rape male looking angels... sounds pretty gay to me brah.

And yet Lot offered them his daughters to be raped instead. Rape has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Most rapists, even of men are heterosexual. Read the FBI studies on it. And also read Judges 19. Same story of Sodom, where the outsiders wanted to rape and humiliate the male villagers, but they took a female concubine instead and raped her all night.

where do you think the word sodomize came from.

From Latin, based on a corruption of the story. Sodom comes from the Hebrew Cedom, meaning "to scorch", which has nothing to do with sex. Sodomy had no sexual connotation for most of history. Even in the earliest English Bibles, it didn't refer to sex.

i know they allegedly did other things to "piss off" God, but they didn't go into so much detail.

Sure they went into detail. In fact, the Bible specifically states why Sodom was destroyed.

Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Try studying the value and importance of hospitality to those cultures and you might understand why rejecting the poor and needy was deemed so vile.

[mab23]

The majority of the arguments Christians (not all Lasher, calm down with your brush comments) have about gay marriage is something along of the lines "The Bible/God says so"....

[img]http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/145-The-bible-does-not-say-stop-gay-marriage-65mg]

So why don't these Christians man up and start really obeying the orders of the Bible?

---

This thread is sponsored by pkahnman

first off the gay marriage argument of Christians you present is not the argument Christians use

I as a Catholic Christian who does not support Gay marriage have not seen the argument cause God says no or the bible says -

second - funny how you take out like a 3000 year old text of Jewish law then try to apply today , but I don't blame your ignorance for that , I guess we should blame some of the Christians that have allowed you to come to this thinking, also note the bible is not a hand book that fell from heaven to tell us how to act despite how many people run it that way


But the argument I see from Liberal media and Obama and about every body on ******** has to do with if to people love eachother they should be able to get married



this is where you take emotion and put it over Logic

1. show me where love is in the legal definition of marriage ( its not )

Love is nice and sounds good but has no legal standing between 2 married people - Marriage which America adopted the same system as England is orientated to procreation - its really to keep a biological mother and father with their spawn and help them out since they will be our future - /

The Homosexual Agenda wants you to believe it is about love but they can get married through a numerous number of Open churches without being legally married.......they want the same benefits


but instead of fighting for Federal benefits that mirror those of lets say a married couple that include stuff like federal tax breaks, and disposition of property they want to actually change the meaning of Marriage to be not about kids and the future but to be about love....

this is an emotional tactic that will actually force the Gay agenda on society forcing everyone not only to accept their sexual lifestyle but legally approve of it and it will infringe directly on already recognized religious liberties in a multitude of religious organizations that do not accept it due to their faith

[SuperShamou]

And yet Lot offered them his daughters to be raped instead. Rape has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Most rapists, even of men are heterosexual. Read the FBI studies on it. And also read Judges 19. Same story of Sodom, where the outsiders wanted to rape and humiliate the male villagers, but they took a female concubine instead and raped her all night.

From Latin, based on a corruption of the story. Sodom comes from the Hebrew Cedom, meaning "to scorch", which has nothing to do with sex. Sodomy had no sexual connotation for most of history. Even in the earliest English Bibles, it didn't refer to sex.

Sure they went into detail. In fact, the Bible specifically states why Sodom was destroyed.

Ezekiel 16:49 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Try studying the value and importance of hospitality to those cultures and you might understand why rejecting the poor and needy was deemed so vile.

well then.

i didn't listen to the don't get tattoo's or haven't burned animal fat as an offering to God, kept me turtle neck, only give a dollar to the offering plate when its passed around .

I wont be killing gays because the bible told me to do so either. it would be sexist to kill gays & not lesbians... and i bet my life that the westboro pastor has an illegal amount of lesbo porn (maybe even some tranny) on a USB stick, despite his hate of gays

[mgftp]

first off the gay marriage argument of Christians you present is not the argument Christians use

I as a Catholic Christian who does not support Gay marriage have not seen the argument cause God says no or the bible says -

second - funny how you take out like a 3000 year old text of Jewish law then try to apply today , but I don't blame your ignorance for that , I guess we should blame some of the Christians that have allowed you to come to this thinking, also note the bible is not a hand book that fell from heaven to tell us how to act despite how many people run it that way


But the argument I see from Liberal media and Obama and about every body on ******** has to do with if to people love eachother they should be able to get married



this is where you take emotion and put it over Logic

1. show me where love is in the legal definition of marriage ( its not )

Love is nice and sounds good but has no legal standing between 2 married people - Marriage which America adopted the same system as England is orientated to procreation - its really to keep a biological mother and father with their spawn and help them out since they will be our future - /

The Homosexual Agenda wants you to believe it is about love but they can get married through a numerous number of Open churches without being legally married.......they want the same benefits


but instead of fighting for Federal benefits that mirror those of lets say a married couple that include stuff like federal tax breaks, and disposition of property they want to actually change the meaning of Marriage to be not about kids and the future but to be about love....

this is an emotional tactic that will actually force the Gay agenda on society forcing everyone not only to accept their sexual lifestyle but legally approve of it and it will infringe directly on already recognized religious liberties in a multitude of religious organizations that do not accept it due to their faith

If you want me to take the time to read your amazing wall of text on a Friday don't start with "first off the gay marriage argument of Christians you present is not the argument Christians use".... I get it's not everyone's argument but if you can't even operate enough in reality to realize that is the most common argument by the Christian population I am not wasting my time to read any further. In the US your average Christian is against gay marriage "because the Bible or God says so" - that may not be why you claim to be against it - but those are the facts for the majority, you should recognize that. Once you do, I'll read your wall of text.

[Fiyero]

But the argument I see from Liberal media and Obama and about every body on ******** has to do with if to people love eachother they should be able to get married

No, actually we discuss the legal merits of the argument, where as Conservatives only discuss the emotional/morality argument.

this is where you take emotion and put it over Logic

1. show me where love is in the legal definition of marriage ( its not )

No it isn't, but marriage was deemed a fundamental right and the State can't deny you the right to choose who you want to marry (which is usually the person you love) without a very good reason.

Love is nice and sounds good but has no legal standing between 2 married people - Marriage which America adopted the same system as England is orientated to procreation - its really to keep a biological mother and father with their spawn and help them out since they will be our future - /

You know what else isn't in the definition of marriage besides love? The requirement to procreate. Having children is not necessary for anyone to get married. Infertile and elderly couples can get a marriage license.

That's not a valid argument.

The Homosexual Agenda wants you to believe it is about love but they can get married through a numerous number of Open churches without being legally married.......they want the same benefits

There is no homosexual agenda. Typical buzzword for gay haters. The 14th Amendment requires the law to be applied equally. Currently, it is not.

but instead of fighting for Federal benefits that mirror those of lets say a married couple that include stuff like federal tax breaks, and disposition of property they want to actually change the meaning of Marriage to be not about kids and the future but to be about love....

We've already changed the meaning of marriage a dozen times in this country. Just because it's a change you don't like, doesn't mean this is anything new. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. You don't own the rights to an English word.

this is an emotional tactic that will actually force the Gay agenda on society forcing everyone not only to accept their sexual lifestyle but legally approve of it and it will infringe directly on already recognized religious liberties in a multitude of religious organizations that do not accept it due to their faith [/size]

Kinda like society was forced to accept black people and interracial marriages despite most of society opposing them. And don't worry, churches will not be required to marry gays. Churches have never been required to marry someone they don't want to. But seeing as more than half of Catholics in America support same-sex marriage, your views are in the minority.

[fat2fit21]

People pick and choose what they want to follow, because apparently they are smarter than the all wise all powerful being who supposedly wrote the book

[BruceBruce325]

not to be tasteless but i think aids is killing more gays than christians

[Fiyero]

men begging like a hoarde of zombies to rape male looking angels... sounds pretty gay to me brah.

Nope, look at the FBI statistics on rape. Rape is about power and control, not sex. Almost every male rapist who rapes another man is heterosexual. The military has tens of thousands of sexual assault cases against men. Almost all the perpetrators identify as straight. In ancient times, men would ransack towns and villages and rape the villagers, even the men to humiliate and demean them. It had nothing to do with their innate sexual orientation.

where do you think the word sodomize came from.

Latin. Sodom, however, comes from the Hebrew Cedom which means "to scorch".

i know they allegedly did other things to "piss off" God, but they didn't go into so much detail.

Sure they did.

'Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Inhospitality was the reason Sodom was destroyed. That was a huge offense in that culture.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...05-hospitality

Showing hospitality to strangers is a divine command under Jewish law.

[Fiyero]

not to be tasteless but i think aids is killing more gays than christians

AIDS kills even more heterosexuals.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection...BP/bp411-e.htm

The World Health Organization estimates that heterosexual transmission has accounted for 75% of the HIV infections in adults world-wide.(2) The remaining 25% are primarily due to the use of contaminated blood and blood products, needle sharing by intravenous drug users, and homosexual/bisexual transmission.

[mab23]

No, actually we discuss the legal merits of the argument, where as Conservatives only discuss the emotional/morality argument.

Brah I am a democrat, and morality is not what I am arguing neither is emotion , and living in California I voted no on prop 8 because until I saw the “true” argument from the conservative side I agreed with same sex marriage because at first glance it does seem to be about equality , and with this constant love argument that seems to be the buzz for so called same sex marriage movement I would say the liberal seem only to discuss the emotional argument or should I say non argument
and what legal merits do you refer too? … pray tell…

No it isn't, but marriage was deemed a fundamental right and the State can't deny you the right to choose who you want to marry (which is usually the person you love) without a very good reason.

A fundamental right towards people of the opposite sex, which are organically oriented into the ability to have children… the Government only legally recognizes marriage and dishes out benefits and tax deductions among many other things because it receives a benefit back and that is raising children with their biological parents which statistically excels compared to other cases.

You know what else isn't in the definition of marriage besides love? The requirement to procreate. Having children is not necessary for anyone to get married. Infertile and elderly couples can get a marriage license.
That's not a valid argument.

You are right the requirement to procreate is not in the definition – but there is a connection between children and marriage, therefore, you can see a connection between children and the way that marriages are sealed. That connection is obvious. Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act, by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfiled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfiled by the bearing, rearing and education of children.
It is a valid argument because marriage is only recognized federally to those of the opposite sex for a reason, its because they are all oriented towards procreation weather children are the end product or not , where as two persons of the same gender could never organically achieve that no matter how deep their love is.

There is no homosexual agenda. Typical buzzword for gay haters. The 14th Amendment requires the law to be applied equally. Currently, it is not.

The homosexual movement (which straight people participate in) has a plan (agenda) to redefine marriage to legally include unions of people within the same sex, since they cannot pro-create an overused argument is that marriage is about love and the government must adhere to them the same rights as a same sex married couple. You can not deny that this is happening – just because your not for same sex marriage doesn’t make you a gay hater. Id be gay if I could clone myself and marry me and hell ya I would want benefits too, should the government give me and my hypothetical gay self partner the benefits of married people who are biologically oriented to procreate and have children which many do which is why they get those tax breaks and stuff… which brings me to my second point, why do homosexual couples not fight for the exact same benefits of marriage but in a civil union since that is really what it is…. because its more than just benefits if they redefine marriage, its forcing the government to enforce the acceptance LEGALLY of so called same sex marriage – oh yea and gays can get married but to people of the opposite sex… so yea they are protected like everyone else under the 14th amendment

We've already changed the meaning of marriage a dozen times in this country. Just because it's a change you don't like, doesn't mean this is anything new. Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. You don't own the rights to an English word.

Yo brah I aint arguing a religious standpoint my thoughts on the morality portion have nothing to do with this. The state has changed the meaning of marriage depending on which state you are in obviously since we have gay marriage in some states which is really a “novelty” since its not federally recognized nor by legally mandated to be recognized by other states – can you point out the dozens of times (federally) , especially pertaining to the gender part… and if you find love somewhere share that too

Kinda like society was forced to accept black people and interracial marriages despite most of society opposing them. And don't worry, churches will not be required to marry gays. Churches have never been required to marry someone they don't want to. But seeing as more than half of Catholics in America support same-sex marriage, your views are in the minority.

Lulz you really comparing homosexual’s to blacks… brah really… back when we had jim crow laws, and they couldn’t vote equally like whites.. that’s how gays are treated today. With their own water fountains and bathrooms too right..

A gay person can legally marry any person that is not the same gender…

and as for the Catholics you be talking about, they are apart of the uneducated Catholics, you know those Catholics you can ask them anything about what they believe in and cant really answer... the ones that use the word Catholic like its a political party instead of a religion , as if the Catholic church were a secular democracy ... which it aint....its the product of secular america... just so damn inviting .... but us educated Catholics are working on it

[mab23]

If you want me to take the time to read your amazing wall of text on a Friday don't start with "first off the gay marriage argument of Christians you present is not the argument Christians use".... I get it's not everyone's argument but if you can't even operate enough in reality to realize that is the most common argument by the Christian population I am not wasting my time to read any further. In the US your average Christian is against gay marriage "because the Bible or God says so" - that may not be why you claim to be against it - but those are the facts for the majority, you should recognize that. Once you do, I'll read your wall of text.

dude I forget its Friday, i aint working so to me everday is saturday, i know i know you gotta get down on friday





you claimed your statement as fact... can you provide evidence supporting this alleged fact I mean I am Christian and I live with and converse with many Christians and I have people in my family who are gay and there have been some debates but we usually never go to the bible or God said..

I do recognize that people have and do use that but this is a secular government it don't matter what the bible says.. and having a gay family member believe me Ive heard the arguments, and maybe if I was at a church they would touch on this bible and stuff but outside that i havent seen a majority argument that is the "the bible says so"

although you live in New York you might get your info from the New York times which has an anti-religious slant, some of there titles to their articles make me lol

[Fiyero]

Brah I am a democrat, and morality is not what I am arguing neither is emotion , and living in California I voted no on prop 8 because until I saw the “true” argument from the conservative side I agreed with same sex marriage because at first glance it does seem to be about equality , and with this constant love argument that seems to be the buzz for so called same sex marriage movement I would say the liberal seem only to discuss the emotional argument or should I say non argument
and what legal merits do you refer too? … pray tell…

The 14th Amendment requires all laws to be applied equally. The state cannot discriminate unless there is a compelling interest. According to Loving v. Virginia, the Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right and the state cannot deny a person the right to marry who they choose to on the basis of a protected class (in that specific case, race). Currently, a man may marry a women, but he may not marry a man for no other reason than his biological sex. That is sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

A fundamental right towards people of the opposite sex, which are organically oriented into the ability to have children…

The Supreme Court didn't say of the opposite sex, they said "Marriage is a fundamental civil right". To exclude it only to members of the opposite sex is sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

the Government only legally recognizes marriage and dishes out benefits and tax deductions among many other things because it receives a benefit back and that is raising children with their biological parents which statistically excels compared to other cases.

Factually incorrect. Elderly couples, infertile couples, and people who never intend to have children can all obtain a marriage license endorsed by the government. There is no legal requirement for children in order to obtain a marriage license.

You are right the requirement to procreate is not in the definition – but there is a connection between children and marriage, therefore, you can see a connection between children and the way that marriages are sealed. That connection is obvious. Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act, by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfiled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfiled by the bearing, rearing and education of children.

For many people it is. For all people, no it's not. There are lots of couples who have no intention whatsoever of having children. They are not banned from obtaining a marriage license.

It is a valid argument because marriage is only recognized federally to those of the opposite sex for a reason, its because they are all oriented towards procreation weather children are the end product or not , where as two persons of the same gender could never organically achieve that no matter how deep their love is.

But same-sex couples can and do raise children and those benefits aid them in child rearing as well. This isn't a valid argument. The procreation argument has already been struck down in Federal court.

why do homosexual couples not fight for the exact same benefits of marriage but in a civil union since that is really what it is…. because its more than just benefits if they redefine marriage,

Because separate but equal never is. And no one is going to say, "We're civilly unionized", they will say "We're married", meaning the colloquial use of "marriage" will always exist regardless of what the actual document is called. And nobody owns English words. You don't have the authority to say "Marriage is our word, you can't use it!"

its forcing the government to enforce the acceptance LEGALLY of so called same sex marriage – oh yea and gays can get married but to people of the opposite sex… so yea they are protected like everyone else under the 14th amendment

This argument is so patently stupid it's not even used by lawyers arguing against same-sex marriage. 50 years ago, blacks and whites could marry people of the same race, but not outside their race. By your logic, it was perfectly acceptable for blacks to only be able to marry blacks and whites to only be able to marry whites because that was equal. The Supreme Court rejected that nonsense argument.

Yo brah I aint arguing a religious standpoint my thoughts on the morality portion have nothing to do with this. The state has changed the meaning of marriage depending on which state you are in obviously since we have gay marriage in some states which is really a “novelty” since its not federally recognized nor by legally mandated to be recognized by other states – can you point out the dozens of times (federally) , especially pertaining to the gender part… and if you find love somewhere share that too

It will likely be federally recognized by this summer since I can't see anyway DOMA will be upheld by the SCOTUS. You need to stop being so fixated on gender when it comes to definitions. Legally, banning interracial marriage is no different than banning same-sex marriage. You see it as a bigger deal because you're fixated on the procreation argument. But the courts already ruled that's not a valid defense. Marriage used to be defined as only between a white man and white woman. Blacks couldn't even get a marriage license as that wasn't a valid legal definition. Polygamous marriage used to be legal. A husband used to be able to legally rape his wife. Women used to be forbidden from owning property in a marriage. Numerous concepts related to the meaning of marriage have changed over the years.

Lulz you really comparing homosexual’s to blacks… brah really… back when we had jim crow laws, and they couldn’t vote equally like whites.. that’s how gays are treated today. With their own water fountains and bathrooms too right..

You don't know much about the history of gay persecution do you? Martin Luther King Jr's wife compared gay rights to black rights. It's an applicable comparison, even if there are differences. Any form of persecution is wrong, regardless of why.

A gay person can legally marry any person that is not the same gender…

Not a valid legal argument. Already shot down in the Courts. A gay person cannot marry a person of their choice, solely because of their gender. 14th Amendment violation.

and as for the Catholics you be talking about, they are apart of the uneducated Catholics, you know those Catholics you can ask them anything about what they believe in and cant really answer... the ones that use the word Catholic like its a political party instead of a religion , as if the Catholic church were a secular democracy ... which it aint....its the product of secular america... just so damn inviting .... but us educated Catholics are working on it

Most religious people in this country aren't very educated. The most uneducated ones are those who discriminate against gays.

[mab23]

The 14th Amendment requires all laws to be applied equally. The state cannot discriminate unless there is a compelling interest. According to Loving v. Virginia, the Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right and the state cannot deny a person the right to marry who they choose to on the basis of a protected class (in that specific case, race). Currently, a man may marry a women, but he may not marry a man for no other reason than his biological sex. That is sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I disagree,. Loving v Virginia was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites. If the Loving analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Since super racists went in and added race to marriage laws which were already defined to members of the opposite sex
The 14th argument you propose is flawed, this equal-protection argument implies that any two, single, adults must be permitted to marry, because any two, single, adults can make the same appeal for equal protection. Yet, in no place is this the case. Even in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, two men will be denied a marriage license if they are first cousins or brothers, even though no state interest is served by the denial. There is no coherent way to employ the principle of equal-protection to justify this state affairs for the simple reason that equal-protection is not achieved by this state of affairs, you are aware of the rational basis test…

The Supreme Court didn't say of the opposite sex, they said "Marriage is a fundamental civil right". To exclude it only to members of the opposite sex is sex discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

See above on your 14th amendment thingy..

Factually incorrect. Elderly couples, infertile couples, and people who never intend to have children can all obtain a marriage license endorsed by the government. There is no legal requirement for children in order to obtain a marriage license.

Never stated nor implied a legal requirement to have children, but they are all awarded to people who are naturally oriented to have children (a man and a woman) Factually correct it is in society’s interest to recognize marrage, and that is why societies all over the world, throughout history, have done so. The reason is obvious: in order to prosper, societies need new member. They constantly lose members through illness, accident, war, crime and old age. We all die and if these deaths are not offset by births, then society its will die. Marriage by its very nature is the institution that brings new humans into the world and raises them to be productive members of society. When marriages and families are strong the society is strong.

For many people it is. For all people, no it's not. There are lots of couples who have no intention whatsoever of having children. They are not banned from obtaining a marriage license.

They are not banned because they are despite their current thoughts or abilities on producing children has nothing to do with them being oriented by nature to do so.

But same-sex couples can and do raise children and those benefits aid them in child rearing as well. This isn't a valid argument. The procreation argument has already been struck down in Federal court.

I never stated they didn’t and they receive benefits and tax breaks for it. Never the less to people of the same sex can never organically have children. Can you provide me a source to this being struck down in federal court? I am curious to see

Because separate but equal never is. And no one is going to say, "We're civilly unionized", they will say "We're married", meaning the colloquial use of "marriage" will always exist regardless of what the actual document is called. And nobody owns English words. You don't have the authority to say "Marriage is our word, you can't use it!"

They can say whatever they want they can say they are married, this is my husband / wife while being in a civil union – whats your point?. Marriage is already legally defined between 1man and 1 women . I am not saying I have the authority a word I am saying that the Government has already defined marriage to have 2 adults that can naturally produce children. 2 same sex humans are no productively capable as 2 opposite sex humans they can be equal without changing the institution of marriage.

This argument is so patently stupid it's not even used by lawyers arguing against same-sex marriage. 50 years ago, blacks and whites could marry people of the same race, but not outside their race. By your logic, it was perfectly acceptable for blacks to only be able to marry blacks and whites to only be able to marry whites because that was equal. The Supreme Court rejected that nonsense argument.

You are comparing apples to oranges , any race can produce children not any genders it has to be opposite. Your comparing racism to the ability to reproduce.

It will likely be federally recognized by this summer since I can't see anyway DOMA will be upheld by the SCOTUS. You need to stop being so fixated on gender when it comes to definitions. Legally, banning interracial marriage is no different than banning same-sex marriage. You see it as a bigger deal because you're fixated on the procreation argument.

They are different , I like this argument it makes sense, if it passes it passes what can I do

But the courts already ruled that's not a valid defense.

You keep saying but you are not showing proof of this thrown out argument by a federal court.

Marriage used to be defined as only between a white man and white woman. Blacks couldn't even get a marriage license as that wasn't a valid legal definition. Polygamous marriage used to be legal. A husband used to be able to legally rape his wife. Women used to be forbidden from owning property in a marriage. Numerous concepts related to the meaning of marriage have changed over the years.

Concepts that never dealt with changing the ability to produce children and continue society

You don't know much about the history of gay persecution do you? Martin Luther King Jr's wife compared gay rights to black rights. It's an applicable comparison, even if there are differences. Any form of persecution is wrong, regardless of why.

Oh I don’t thanks for that ad hominem, Gay people have been discriminated against, that is wrong , but not changing the institution of marriage is not discrimination. Forcing the gay culture on society is wrong. Persecution is wrong, and already recognized religious liberties will be infringed if gay marriage passes , its already happened

Not a valid legal argument. Already shot down in the Courts. A gay person cannot marry a person of their choice, solely because of their gender. 14th Amendment violation.
Already answered above..

Most religious people in this country aren't very educated. The most uneducated ones are those who discriminate against gays.

This is your personal opinion , I am talking about Catholics educated in their own religion.