The homosexual threat to marriage

Well, except every state and nation with "gay marriage" still enforces the religious prohibitions against closely related marriages. Gay marriage isnt about rights of privacy or equality, its about winning points for gays.

 

No one claimed otherwise. And it is the only side effect that gives rise to a legitimate governmental interest in government even being involved. Love and orgasms just dont warrant the need for such governmental intrusion.

 

Exactly!!! I could not have expressed it any better!

 

Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.
Marriage as a state regulation of relationship between man and woman make logical sense.
There is no need to regulate mutual masturbation between people of the same sex.

 

Marriage is not equal to Love.
Scam attempt has been noticed.

 

It does not matter, homosexuality still has nothing to do with marriage.
And even divorced couples still regulated by the government but homosexual couples do not need to be regulated.

 

Heterosexual sin is silence.
The Gays and Feminist got out in gangs and sit in demonstrations and won, while church people did zero,... except for Westboro, who at least turned over the tables for national media attention, and alone, stood against Gayness out-of-the-closet.

The kids are the losers here, as more will be raised fatherless and suffer every type of Child Abuse imaginable.

 

No Fault Divorce is another Feminist folly which increases fatherless kids too.
Step fathers fair even worse for kids than just fatherlessness, itself.

 

Yes, and if you feel that is a violation of the rights of Americans, I encourage you to promote your cause. Consanguinity is not germane in the cases of celibate couples, same-sex couples, or those beyond their reproductive phase, so you may well have a valid argument to make.

 

Some duties continue, others do not. The duty to "be there" is one of those that doesn't continue. The fact remains that a 50% divorce rate is not real strong support for the marriage concept.

 

A legal marriage is a contract... That's domestic law 101.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank God.. women shouldn't ever be trapped.. Marriage isn't ownership.........

 

Your rationale is like saying that because the windows are dirty, it's okay to trash the house. That's an immature and self serving excuse. If the windows are dirty, you're should clean them.

 

A marriage is a covenant; that's theology 101.

Attaching "legal" to anything and declaring it "law" is tautological.

 

You equivocation of the current condition of marriage with "dirty windows" says nothing good about your perspicacity.

The one who to kicks through the ashes of a burnt down house is not the one trashing the house or dirtying the windows.

 

Part of the responsibility of a parent is to teach the child, by example, how to properly relate to the opposite sex; and of course if either homosexual partner even had such knowledge to impart, he or she wouldn't be in a homosexual relationship in the first place. Furthermore, there is a natural expectation of gratitude by the parent from the child for the gift of life; but the first time the child spends enough time around a decent traditional family to become aware of what it's missing, it finds itself in the awkward position of being an ingrate with just cause.

So you think an activity has to cause obvious harm to children to be perverse?

That's nothing like what we're talking about...

...so this is the wrong question. Here's the right question: why should a minuscule percentage of the population be allowed to intimidate everyone else into pretending two men or two women can be married?

Who the hell cares?

Unfortunately, the relevance of any of this to anything I said is a complete mystery.

So were the American revolutionaries, in case you've forgotten.

What does that even mean?

Why would that be the bar when they reared at least two other children who were not murderers?

I don't understand the question.

 

Like I said, Gay marriage isnt about rights of privacy or equality, its about winning points for gays. No one is concerned with winning points for those who could benefit from a marriage with a closely related adult.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1367267801

Revealing bit of candor amongst all the BS.

 

No, it is about rights of privacy and equality.

As amply demonstrated by the established record of states not discriminating based upon gender for the past decade, eliminating gender discrimination in marriage contracts has no adverse impact upon others.

If you believe in your cause, I am sure their are like-minded folks who will support you.

 

There isn't any duty to "be there" in marriage. And like I said, a divorced father is preferable to an absent or unknown father which is frequently the alternative when children are born to single mothers.

 

Nope. From the California case. Its all about winning respect and dignity for gays. Based upon the BS claim that marriages limitation to men and women has nothing to do with procreation and is instead all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" gays.

 

Again. Adam and Eve's first born son was a murderer. How many hundreds of thousands of children raised by single parents do not become murders.

 

You seem incorrigibly opposed to the progress in equality that has been achieved over the past decade in most states.

We'll just have to wait to see if the Supreme Court finds it commensurate with the US Constitution.

 

And who gets to decide for all what is the proper way to relate with the opposite sex? You? Me? Someone else? And by what authority?

And who gets to decide for all what is a traditional family? You? Me? Someone else? And by what authority?

From my perspective you view what constitutes a "traditional family" and "how to properly relate to the opposite sex" as one dimensional when IMO humanity is anything but one dimensional. My issue with one dimensional thinking when applied to society is that it is the bane of the freedom that we espouse. Freedom is not limited to the singular. There is no one proper way to relate with the opposite sex as men and women are complex as they are diverse and no single way will be a fit for all.

Perhaps where you argue absolutes I argue a thousand shades of grey. Often there are many paths to positive action. What is the best way to raise a child? It really depends upon the child as all are different and what works for one will not for another. I have know kids that grew up in strict Christian conservative families that went off the rails for a while, and I have known kids who grew up in horrible homes who used the experience to be a better parent than their own.

I know that we will not agree here and I make no effort to change your mind. But I have enjoyed your perspective and thank you for it.

 

That's what they are trying to destroy. Not only the influence of religion that teaches that a man should be with a woman, and vice versa, but also the influence of the biological family that teaches the same thing by example.

"Oral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education. The only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity is comprehensive sex education. Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum and those opposed to homosexuality are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create" NEA spokeswoman Diane Schneider.

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

Biology does that. Only women give birth and only a man is responsible for her doing so. All the local birds are beginning to pair off into couples made up of one male and one female, to build their nest. Not because some bigoted birds decided couples of the same sex was immoral or some government of birds dictated it from above. Its biology.