Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

Evangelicals. LOL

Most support public school prayer despite Jesus preaching against public prayer, most support capital punishment despite the commandment against killing, most oppose gay marriage despite Jesus never giving a damn about such things, and they oppose helping refugees, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick (i.e. views directly at odds with what Jesus taught).

Yet for some ridiculous reason, we aren't supposed to attack their fake "Christianity."

 

Jesus’ teaching on public prayer was in reference to saying a prayer so that you receive the public praises from people. Has nothing to do with allowing people to pray in public lol

By the way, Jesus DID teach against gay marriage along with the OT and NT

And no one is against helping the needy. People are against FORCING people to help others. That’s not charity, that’s theft and forcing people to do the right thing. Something Jesus never taught was acceptable.

 

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

Please direct me to the part where Jesus teaches on gay marriage.

Forcing people to pay taxes, some of which goes to feeding the poor is theft. Ok. Is forcing people to pay taxes, some of which goes to bombing brown people theft also? Is all taxation theft? Is forcing people to pay taxes, some of which goes to libraries theft? Just trying to understand your views.

 

Yes. By definition taxation is theft.

as you quoted and as I stated: “TO BE SEEN BY OTHERS”. His point was not that praying in public is wrong; Jesus prayed in public multiple times. He was addressing the Pharisees who prayed not for god but prayed in public to appear to be righteous before men.

Matthew 19:4-12. Jesus explicitly defines marriage as between male and female. But he goes further and references three different types of eunuchs. Without going into too much detail (tho I will if needed but I’m driving) his point was that none of these three types of eunuchs should marry. One of which was in reference to homosexuals.

 

That some are negates that premise.

 

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

 

I don't argue the value of any relationship, the people in it determine that. But if you do a little research you would see that the argument that gays needed "marriage" for legal equivalency in their relationships was widespread and the primary argument. Things like spousal benefits, survivors choosing which social security they would use, joint filings, etc. That was the case they made.

Validity of the bond is not a function of the legal state, and a gay marriage is not the equivalent of a traditional marriage and family. People who are insecure do often see the legality as giving them a lock on the relationship, but that is an illusion, and not a healthy one.

If you redefine the term marriage you dilute it and diminish it's meaning and sanctity. A flying fish is not a bird, a swimming bird is not a fish. That doesn't invalidate either of them- but they are different, and calling either of them what the other is does not make them into it. If we decide swimming birds and flying fish have some common capacities, why don't we identify them as the same thing?

 

Only to people who think that it does.

 

Rome was not built in a day. It also was not destroyed in a day....or 5 years.

 

So it hasn't.

 

Well, I am not married to a gay so I cannot answer that. I have seen quite a social decline over the past 5 years.....so, yes it has.

 

The same concept applies to anyone who lacks identity and clear values. That's been the excuse for everything from shoplifting to political fraud to dictatorship and murder since time began.
When we dilute the meaning of anything, including words- we lose all values, and then we lose all morality. If one thinks life doesn't matter, then why should anyone respect yours?
You have to respect the values as they apply to others- or there is no reason for them to respect yours. It's called civilization.

 

Then respect same-sex marriage.

 

We do not get to approve of every tax dollar we spend. You know this.

I despise the fact that my tax dollars help subsidize churches.

I despise that since 2000, US tax payers have spent over 10 million dollars on subsidized prayer. It costs the tax payers $66,000 an hour to fund christian prayer.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progr...t-congress-pays-clergy-66000-an-hour-to-pray/

Why should I have to subsidize behavior that I also find obscene?

 

Same sex marriage is not a marriage in the sense marriage has been established and defined for thousands of years. It is a civil union, and entitled to the legal rights, but it is not a "marriage" unless you decide to call the flying fish a swimming bird. You have to DISCARD the definition that has been established and honored all over the world for thousands of years to call a homosexual relationship a marriage. I realize that the traditions of the world mean little or nothing to a great many people- I also realize those people generally lack respect for many values, and often have little for themselves. That's what allows you do discard values- having none, respecting none.

If they respected the institution of marriage in the first place, they wouldn't distort it to claim a right to it. Kind of like you want to be a General, but the discipline and conduct required to get there is inconvenient, so lets just give the title to anyone who wants it. Get the badge, pretend you are what it used to stand for....... but of course, it never will again.

I don't object to the union- I object to the abuse of the tradition and destruction of the standard value that has been the same forever.

 

I'm sorry, but a heterosexual couple's reproductive potential is not benefitting me tax wise. If they don't have kids, they are stealing money from taxpayers right? You don't have to test everyone. A simple solution would be to attach the marriage benefit to actually having a child vs. potential of having a child.

 

Like when wives were considered property and blacks couldn't marry whites, that kind of tradition?

 

And yet our president is trying his level best to get in their pants. Go figure.

 

Religious reasons are your core reasons for disapproving of gay marriage. Your more rational "reasons" are just weak rationalizations.

How does gay marriage hurt the economy? If anything it builds are legal structure for two gay people to be partners which sounds good to society.

Even if it was true that gay people molest at a higher rate, people should be judged on an individual basis on by their group. For example black people are more likely to commit crime, but that doesn't mean we give less rights to black believe. The higher rate of molestation may not be a natural attribute of gayness and may be the result of the environment and culture. Maybe gay people have to suppress and hide their desires more which causes problems that leads to abuse.

Even if gays are more likely to abuse children, I don't see how not having gay marriage fixed that problem. If this is really such a big issue then adoption services should look at gay male households more critically and give preference to straight households.

 

But women having such births post menopause or after 45 years does not represent the group ( your argument) and our public policy is based on groups. .
It is absolutely feasible to require fertility tests in every person who is not actively raising a child. and it would save tax dollars to do so. Matter of fact, why allow the marriage if the woman is not currently pregnant with the first born? the state should not have to pay a dime. We could annul marriages after every five years ( an automatic 'sunset' provision in the license.) pending a successful fertility retest certified by a fertility expert, and evidence submitted to the county clerk. Even if it were more expensive and obstacle ridden, in order to prevent immoral or counter-value marriages, it would be worth every dollar. Marriages are not marriages if there are no children being raised in that marriage. Stop justifying. Annul Grandma and Grandpa Walton's marriage forthwith and every marriage without a strong likelihood of producing offspring. Make it their job to prove their union fulfills the public policy goals and regulate against abuse of the institution.

 

I have no doubt you understand what I said and you read, but you obviously want to pretend you mis-understand and turn it into something else so you can argue.
That should win you a lot of respect.

 

I would be fine with that but that would still leave homosexuals out

 

Again that’s not feasible. Just because they are fertile this month doesn’t mean they will be next month. We would have to test everyone every month. Don’t be obtuse. Obviously those types of things are prohibitively expensive and highly invasive. You’re just trying to make excuses for why homosexuals should qualify while providing absolutely ZERO justification for the amount of benefits they receive.

 

The thread is about tangible ways in which homosexual marriage harms the individual not engaging in it.

Regardless, the only thing you demonstrated is a gross lack of understanding of the constitution and freedom of religion clause.

 

As I said I don’t believe ANYONE should receive marriage benefits. With that being said, it’s the same reason we give green energy companies subsidies in the hopes they’ll come up with a sustainable solution. We don’t wait until after they’ve done so to reward them.