Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

I repeat....
I doubt you really don't understand the point- you just don't want to recognize it.
It's a lot like saying that if you put a duck in a chicken coop, it becomes a chicken. Great logic there.

 

What you don't understand is while there is a difference it changes nothing.

 

ONLY if you ignore the very nature of the relationship. Then, what you don't want to acknowledge means nothing, and you are free to transgress upon the time-honored tradition of others.
I do understand your position. You want people to acknowledge what you want, but everything else is irrelevant. Been hearing that kind of argument about a lot of things in recent years.
Why not just say so? Quit pretending? If you don't care, you don't care. You have plenty of company these days.

 

And the nature of the relationship is that two people who love each other affirm their a hopefully lifelong commitment to each other. All else is window dressing.

 

Matthew 6:5 is clear. It has everything to do with praying in public which is why He says, ""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." The fact is anyone can pray any time anywhere. Every public school pupil can say a prayer each day whenever he or she wants. What pro-public school prayer people want is organized, pro-public prayer which is precisely the type of prayer the plain meaning of Christ's pronouncement decries.

Where did Christ teach against gay marriage?

Is all taxation theft? I mean, if it is theft to force taxpayers to feed hungry children, is it theft for the government to force people to pay for our military?

 

It is untrue that "by definition" taxation is theft. Check your dictionary. That is your interpretation of the levying of tax. So, you do not support taxation in any form? How should the government pay for the roads? Police? Military?

BTW, I think you know that Jesus' use of the term "Eunuchs" is hotly debated, and if he had meant eunuch to include homosexual, he could have just been clear about it.

 

And? Paul wrote Romans and he lived a long time after Jesus was crucified. We can't attribute Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings.

 

It has nothing to do with everyone having the same rights. It has to do with forcing everyone to change the definition of words. It is not a matter of who is sleeping with whom, it is a matter of who is in charge of defining language and, thus, thought.

 

We know who is in charge of defining words for legal or governmental purposes. Its the government. That is why so often a statute will have a list of definitions for specific terms used in a bill. Now when it defines its terms in this country, a govt entity may not discriminate against suspect classes such as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, without establishing a compelling state interest justifying that discriminatory treatment. It failed to do so when defining same sex couples out of marriage and its benefits, to the satisfaction of a majority of the 9 justices of our highest courts and that is why we have that Obergefell v Hodges.

In broader terms we often look to lexographers to write definitions in well respected dictionaries that reflect common usage, and of course that means those definitions will change as common usage patterns change. here are three such definitions.

Oxford
"1.
the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).
"a happy marriage"

Merriam- Webster

1a : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
b: the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK
c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

Cambridge
B1 [ C or U ]
a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this.

Of these three, only one makes any reference at all to gender, and it self restricts that reference to 'in some jurisdictions.

Clearly changes in society and the law over the last couple of decades are being reflected in these definitions. That is how this is supposed to work.

 

they are entitled to their opinion, who cares, or I suppose in a dem controlled world the only opinions allowed are those sanctioned by the left. That is the dangerous direction we are heading.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong it may be. No one here is saying otherwise.

 

It is strange that you make a statement like this — showing you understand why gay people fought to be able to wed their partner and are now fighting for adoption rights — yet then turn around and say just their inclusion diminishes it... Which doesn’t make much sense

Gay couples first fought for civil unions, it too was deemed illegal and laws were passed to ban civil unions and even marriage like contracts in dozens of states. Please stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by acting like this was about what term was used.

 

So your argument is that straight people receive benefits because they care for the next generation but are against gay people that are also caring for the next generation shouldn’t receive the same benefits even if we moved them to child care credits detached from marriage.

This is why you keep loosing in the courts, your logic doesn’t hold up to even basic scrutiny

 

You have no issues with stealing others money to fund your religious institutions (there is a cost for their tax exempt status) or your union — why should we care you are upset about having to pay for those things for others?

Do you feel you are special?

 

There is no universal common belief on anything. There are always going to be people who are prejudiced in one way or another, who tilt the way they see things to suit themselves. Thus, resolving these things isn't easy and takes both work and time- but that's not what I'm addressing here; I have no bone to pick with gays having committed and recognized relationships. They are entitled to do so- and I would hope come up with a name for that which is original and definitive, and which they can determine, by they way they honor those commitments, the meaning and respectability of that name. But they are NOT the same as traditional marriage. Being Non-traditional- they should be identified as such. It's simply not right to dilute other peoples traditions when you aren't willing or able to support them. You don't steal a symbol and say you are what it represents- if that worked, we could all be pilots by putting on a hat. A gay "marriage" is unique and fundamentally incompatible by comparison to traditional marriage; and using the label does not change that for them- but it weakens the very definition of the term for traditional marriages.

Kind of like a person declaring they wish to be identified as a different sex because they feel that way today, and therefore should be able to go into the restrooms and locker rooms of that sex. That dilutes, even destroys the privacy of people- and the entire reason we have separate locker rooms and restrooms in the first place. It's NOT a neutral thing, it's an invasive one.

Point is, IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. It will never be made the same by pretending it's not.

 

The only thing that is absolutely fundamentally different is the sex of the participants, you can not give someone lesser rights because of their sex.

 

Didn't say lesser rights. I said- don't use identical labels for things not identical. A bolt is not a screw, and screws don't use nuts- but they are both fasteners. We don't call horses mules, or mules horses because they are not the identical thing, even though both share almost all of the same general appearances and functions- Because they ARE different in important, not insignificant ways. Doesn't make either one more or less than the other- it simply recognizes they aren't the same thing.

You seem to be having a hard time grasping that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the relationships here, and that it is and will always remain a fundamental difference.

I will always look at a gay "marriage" as a kind of facsimile rather than a genuine thing. Stolen identity. It does not create respect in the eyes of others- it diminishes it, and that is unfortunate.

 

In my county it has led to more divorces being filed which led the county to hire more clerks which they pay for out of the construction budget which means many of the roads I take to work still have potholes that aren't fixed which means I spill my coffee on my shirt.
Those homosexuals owe me for some shirts.

 

And that is YOUR issue.

Your argument is weak, very weak.

 

What is the difference between an infertile or elderly heterosexual couple — of the many couples that just do not want children and have taken permanent methods to prevent them — from a homosexual couple?

If the “institution” with a 50% divorce rate was the only issue why is it that civil unions were also struck down as illegal in many states?

 

All those people do have the ability to provide a mother and a father to a home. NO gay marriage has that option- because regardless of what a gay person, even with a complete transgender gender sex change, has not and cannot change their true sexual identity. They are pretending to be something they are not, and no matter how well they pull that off, the reality is the same. Now there are all kinds of unfortunate things we have to accommodate in life- I know of several grandparents raising their grandchildren for example, because their own children have proven so irresponsible they aren't capable of it. This is usually hard on the elderly, but they are stepping up to the plate for the best interests of the children, and their may be no other options. But WHY would we set out to create conditions that made it harder for kids to grow up in an abstract situation when it's not necessary? Especially when it primarily serves what amounts to a desire by those adults to serve their own interests first; to think of their gay relationship as a normal family because they have the same label, or have children?

You mention the 50% divorce rate. Obviously a great many people approach marriage poorly and are unprepared to be partners, let alone parents. Most don't realize that, nor choose that intentionally. And I'm not a person unfamiliar with gays and the issues they face- I've had to rescue a gay family member from bad relationships more than once. Gay relationships are more tumultuous and unstable than straight ones, and the majority of gays know that well. Again- WHY make matters worse?

I have no problem saying a lot of kids grow up in poor environments, usually such a situation is the best parents who were not raised well themselves can manage. But the first question to anyone who is responsible for a child should be if they are fully prepared to provide a healthy environment, provide the sacrifices necessary and the stability to do the job right. A gay "marriage" is a make-believe world that is denying fundamental truth, and that is not a place kids should grow up in.

Now I don't make the laws anymore than you do. This is my opinion. You are entitled to your own... but I don't think any of us are entitled to mess up kids view of the world with pretended sexual identities.

 

No, YOU can't attribute Paul's teachings to Jesus' teachings.

 

You know the argument is lost when posters resort to quoting scripture.

In case anyone has forgotten, we are a secular government. Religious arguments over how people conduct their lives have no bearing on the validity of this issue. We are not a theocracy!!!

 

I would argue a same sex couple would provide a better home than a married heterosexual couple where the husband is away for work or estranged.
The system has already been set up as a civil contract, it is not some holy union of perfection and trying to argue a mother / father is statically better for children than a homosexual couple of similar stature is not supported by evidence.

Your statement that homosexuals are looking to put “their own interests” over that of their children is sheer bigotry.

So gay relationships are more tumultuous — an assumption on your end — so you want to prevent them from a union that has shown to increase stability, reduce infidelity, improve mental and financial health... and that is logical to you?

False, it exists in virtually every first world nation and is on track to exist in all of them within the next decade. Your definition is the only thing that is make believe.

We are speaking of homosexual unions, not transsexuals.
Homosexuality isn’t a pretend sexual identity anymore than Christianity is — less of one actually

 

WHY is it necessary to devalue the tradition of marriage for a gay union to be satisfied? That is personal and at the expense of others. Fundamentally unfair.

Perhaps I didn't mention that I'm an ordained minister. I acquired that title as part of a discussion, to point out that a title has to have requirements that are met and honored to mean anything- and when we fail to do so, it's meaning has been destroyed or usurped.

I've never believed in conventional religion or gods; Mother nature is my higher power. Great teacher, but not one who answers prayers, does favors, smites your enemies or burns people in hell. So how did I become a legally registered, ordained minister? Seems like society failed to mandate that you must be- qualified. So you go online to the Universal Life Church, get ordained legally, fast and free for everyone. There are now 20 million Universal life ordained ministers- legally marrying people, doing the things ministers do. Sort of. You could be a serial killer in prison, and become such a minister without question. Fact is that you too can be an ordained minister by tomorrow. But- in reality, that would be meaningless, wouldn't it? Somewhat of an insult to the real ones. A major insult.

SO why should we respect the guy who went to the seminary for years, and invested himself in the calling? Now that you know this, you will always wonder if those who call themselves reverend or present themselves as a minister are any more qualified than the homeless guy begging on the corner. He's equally qualified because the documented title is free for the asking. Wall certificate and all.

I understand that gay is not a choice, but a genetic variable; I don't blame people for being gay. That is not the point at all.
I think you understand what I'm saying, or should- just as you should easily understand the point.

If you want to be something but aren't and can't, that's something we allow- but to demand the label you aren't qualified for, like one of those people who feel female today and want to switch genders like changing clothes and expect everybody to pretend they are now different..... No, that's BS. Doesn't really happen in the real world- only in the make believe. Not fact, but fantasy and self-delusion. We have far too many screwed up people now, it makes no sense to accommodate those fantasies and make things worse by falsely identifying things. Think up a new name for gay unions. Make it as glamorous as you wish- but make it represent those it belongs to, so it's their title, something they own, not something stolen they wish to pretend they are.