Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

I disagree with the FRC on their ideas about homosexuality because their views are based on opinions regarding interpretation of religious texts. Religious opinions about reality are notoriously wrong. And it's more about trying to rationalize false beliefs than spreading information.

 

So i explained why I disagree is it better?

 

Yeah, works for me.

 

You don't want to discuss?

 

What do you want to discuss, I thought you were all done.

 

I figured you wanted to discuss something and that's why you responded to me but if you don't that's fine.

 

We’ll chat again. I’ve got to sign off for the day, but another time.

 

When you return maybe you can address the questions you have been dodging on their policy positions

How does arresting people for consensual sexual activity in their own home defend “family values”?
How does preventing gay people from military service do so?

 

No. There goal is to criminalize LGBTQ

 

Oh give me a break. ANYONE that disagrees with your perversion is justifying "hate"! That is a word you use to stop discourse. I am sure sexual desires arrive about the same time in all humans. However, you avoid the question. What discoveries do so called "children born gay" experience when they first decide the anus is for input and a sexual organ. Perhaps you can relate your own experience Dairyair.

 

give me a break anyone that does anything you don't like you're justifying your kink by calling it a perversion. That is a word you use to stop discourse.

If so called "Christians" weren't such unbelievable hypocrites they wouldn't be ignored to the extent that they are. It's a great feat for this country that this twaddle is dying off.

 

Probably the same thing that heterosexual children “experience when they first decide the anus is for input and sexual organ”. I have honestly never thought about it — the question is why does this scenario fascinate you so much? Do you frequently think of children’s sexual activity or are you trying to make another point?

And yes, anyone disagreeing with another's existence is absolutely hate.

 

A Red Sox baseball player has a legal contract with the Red Sox organization and an Astros baseball player has a legal contract with the Astros organization but a Red Sox player doesn't have a legal contract with the Astros organization. The Red Sox baseball organization and the Astros baseball organization are legal separate but equal legal entitles...Just like traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are legal separate but equal legal entities.

 

Contrary to what you imply, there was never any legal battle to define unions meaning generally people were OK with same-sex couples entering into a legal union...BTW, a legal union has all the same rights and responsibilities of a legal marriage.

The people who weren't OK with same-sex couples entering into any kind of legal agreement were religious zealots...the fake conservatives.

There were many state measures commenced to define marriage, however. States wanted to preserve the meaning of marriage and said state measures weren't concerned with determining if same-sex couples could enter into legal agreements.

 

The people who attempted to block same-sex couples from any kind of legal agreement on same-sex couples' living arrangements were religious zealots and said religious zealots weren't conservative even if they claimed themselves to be conservative...There never was any legal measure instituted by any state to define unions...just marriages

 

I was a child once. Had an older child try to talk me into playing a game called "cornholing" (not the bean bag game either) He said a lot of guys I knew were doing it. The mere thought made me sick. Had I gone along with the idea, I guess the guilt and shame would have made me into a human being with a frame of reference just like yours. Point is, it is a learned behavior. It is not a person or individual. You just like to justify that behavior as something "natural" while at the same time proclaiming you follow a "God of Grace" whose precepts you ignore. It is not that I persecute you for what you do, it is the idea I detest you try to justify it to be practiced openly in the culture in which I raise my children. It is not beneficial for them to be entrapped in a learned behavior.

" For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God to look like mortal man and birds and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the the truth of God for a lie....."

 

The institutions who began marriage and the institutions who mainly have religious ceremonies to begin a marriage were religious institutions. When the state came in to use marriage to institute some of the states' laws, that was the fault of the state (so is same-sex marriage)...Let the state correct its gaffe of same-sex marriage.

 

But marriage isn't inherently religious or even invented by religion.

 

What does the Faith you represent say about it?

 

My specific faith isn't really that organized. I consider myself a Messianic Jew and how we practice our faith changes from person to person. With that being said, my faith is irrelevant on what is or isn't a marriage.

 

1) You should keep your day job as you are very poor at predicting the life experiences of others — I did notice you dodged the question why do you frequently consume yourself with the thought of children’s sexual activity

2) I use the definition of words to form arguments instead of just making up what I feel it should mean. Homosexual behavior and relationships occur in nature and thus are natural. Religion, however, isn’t natural.

3) You have no evidence that human sexuality is a purely learned behavior

4) How do you know your “god” is the correct one and the ones ancient Greeks worshiped are not? Or the one of the Koran. Or any of the thousands of variations that small minded people have invented to try and explain they do not comprehend?

How easily you dismiss those is how easily yours is dismissed.


I deleted your cherry picked religious verse as it does not fit the original translation and is missing prior context so I do not care to address it for a fifth time. I am not surprised another one of you actually have no idea about the religious scripture you regurgitate to condemn others.

 

Oh yes there was by statute and amendment across several States. Virginia's was one of the most draconian:

"State recognition had been prohibited by statute in 1975, and further restrictions were added in 1997 and 2004, which made "void and unenforceable" any arrangements between same-sex couples bestowing the "privileges or obligations of marriage"."

"On February 26, 2005, the House of Delegates voted 79-17 in favor of a constitutional amendment, known as the Marshall-Newman Amendment, that would ban same-sex marriage and any "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage." That same day, the Virginia State Senate voted 30-10 in favor of the constitutional amendment"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-...ces-,Statutes,rights created by such marriage".

I see your newly registered. I was on PF arguing in favor of same-sex marriage for 10 years between 2005 and 2015 when Obergefell was decided. I've got a pretty good memory of each legal step as it occurred. What you are saying is factually and historically incorrect.

 

The didn't just attempt. In many cases they succeeded and you just contradicted your last post without any help from me.

Well done!

 

That is an outright lie. Do any of you have a clue what you are talking about or do you just make it up as you go along and hope no one notices?

 

I'm not going to get into a big religious argument because it's something I know nothing about but how can you say something's a learned behavior when a person instinctively knows they want something before they've even tried it?