How can America be free if gays can marry? what kind of example it sets?

I think Obamba destroyed the last beacon of freedom that ever existed in this great land by endorsing gay marriage - gays don't produce children, and if this world needs more intelligent people, the only way to go about it is to have families who can produce. All Christians on this forum we need to start a movement right now against the liberal gay types. I'm not getting a job until Obama is out and Mitt Romney is in.

 

Yes. He definitely destroyed freedom by trying to extend freedoms to deserving Americans. That makes complete sense.

 

LGBTQ people are intelligent and can raise children. There are plenty of children who need homes who can be adopted by gay couples.

 

Gays will not have children whether you let them marry or not. Marriage of heterosexual couples is not for the purpose of child bearing. This argument has NO MERIT. All families who will marry and reproduce will do so even if gays can be married. I am a Christian. and As an REAL Christian I decide to "act" like one and not discriminate or show hatred to anyone. Jesus made not ONE mention of homosexuals. All he demanded was that we love everyone and be kind to everyone. Not to mention our government is a secular entity that should have no influence on or from any one religion. Why don't you open up that Bible you pretend to follow and realize how wrong you are.

 

Seriously?

1: Overpopulation is already a problem in many places in the world.

2: Gay people can adopt orphaned kids who need a home.

Your argument is created out of hate not fact.

 

You know that gays aren't going to produce children even if they can't marry, right? What they will do if they're allowed to is adopt children who don't have parents, and people who were raised in a loving home do tend to be more 'intelligent' adults.

That's quite an attitude to show to people who are considering hiring you.

 

As a Christian you should know better…at least he scriptures. Did you know that Jesus did not talk about rape. But do you think he condones it? He did not talk about child porn. Do you think he condones it? Because Jesus did not talk about something directly does that mean he condones it? Jesus backs up the OT….He is one with the FAther. So whatever the Father says….He says. "I and the Father are ONE."

Do you think it is funny that not one example of same sex unions are in the Bible. Not one. Whenever same sex relationships are talked about it is sin…and it is a deviant act. Do you wonder why God in Genesis said….that a man should leave his parents….ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN….leave and cleave to His wife ONE WOMAN? It is amazing that God does not include gays or lesbians in any way…when talking about the institution of marriage. NOT ONE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE…AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT MARRIAGE IS.

Jesus was about love no doubt…but He was way more than just this. He came to warn people and He talked about hell more than anything heavenly. He said….that unless one believes in Him…they will die in their sin. This is scriptural and something he said. Sin separates one from God. And sex sin does just that.

 

Call us when the shuttle lands.

 

Despite your no doubt sincere beliefs to the contrary , you are a very poor specimen of supposed Christianity .Read Churchmouse's post again and consider it deeply , before sharing what many others consider very non Christian views and a complete misunderstanding of the real nature of your Faith .
You have been very badly brain washed and your preset attitude is one to be deplored . Nobody likes a Gender and true happiness bigot .

 

Aw, yes letting people live there lives as they please, with out hurting anyone is destorying freedom. To keep the freedom of having kids american should make a law forcing people to have kids!. Yeah freedom!

 

Mmm. I would have thought that the decision to not have children was a rational choice and the essence of what you are pleased to call "freedom".

But "freedom" could be construed as coercion to produce more people the world doesn't actually need, I suppose.

 

1) Why is religion involved with law? It is clearly not supposed to be.

2) I said it before and I will say it again. Gay marriage cannot be compared to rape or pedophilia, etc. These acts hurt someone or their rights. Gay marriage hurts nobody's rights.

 

What are you talking about? I support happiness for everyone.

 

Danboy, I'm right there with you I feel the government, though, in all its forms should not bestow any special treatment tax or otherwise on the married. I am, however, against government legalisation of gay "marriage". Redefining marriage will open a pandora's box. Today, our law is defined by the language. If we allow our law makers to redefine our language then our laws will be bound by nothing other than the will of our lawmakers.
Molchan

 

Your entire post is nothing but an incoherent rant.

How about Christians let people decide what their 'sins' will be? I don't want you or anyone else telling me I am sinning, if I want to sin, I (*)(*)(*)(*) well will and I am not going to Hell because there is no such thing.

Yes, Jesus said nothing about child porn or rape, and of course he wouldn't condone those things. But as Dan said, Jesus said that we should love each other and show respect and that is what he is doing, by supporting the rights of homosexuals. It is a shame that other Christians can't do that same.

 

I don't know if this has been pointed out but true freedom would be to marry whom ever you wanted. To not let gays marry is the opposite of freedom.

That is logic even Corky could understand.

 

It has nothing to do with freedom. It has to do with continuing the systematic destruction of the core pillars that have held up this country since its inception. To be fair, most of the people pushing for same sex marriage honestly do believe they are involved in some kind of great moral civil rights crusade. This is why many of them are hard to reason with. Because they have difficulty understanding that there is another side to the argument. And it isn't simply a case of "hating the gays" or wanting to "deny people equal rights."

 

If the gay marriage issued has taught us anything it is that conservatives are all in favor of having the government tell you what you can and can not do.

There is nothing conservative about that.

 

If the 'core pillar' you refer to is marriage, then haven't heterosexuals done enough to destroy it? No one can deny that heterosexuals are the biggest problem with marriage. Gays haven't been able to get married for long enough to know if they cause a problem within society - however, heterosexuals have been marrying for years, and how many divorces and custody disputes have their been?

 

No, we're not going to play that game. When you guys drop all the ridiculous restrictions and regulations you impose on society, then you will have a leg to stand on in accusing anyone of using the government to tell people what they can and can't do. Thanks to liberals, private businesses in many big cities cannot even set their own smoking policies anymore.

You guys act like unless we are total anarchists, then we are iron-fisted authoritarians. Talk about all or nothing. Sorry to break it to you, but we are not anarchists. We are not even libertarians. We are conservatives. Which means we believe in....... say it with me...... limited government........ notice how that didn't say "no government." And pound for pound, we prove time and again that we support considerably less governmental intrusion into people's personal lives than you guys do. But because you don't like the specific issues we use government for, you try to make this absurd claim that we're trying to control people's lives and tell them what to do. And it is thoroughly dishonest.

Oh, absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. The divorce rate in this country is appalling. It is the primary factor in the erosion of the family unit (the glue that holds society together). Our culture glorifies the degenerates of Hollywood and their 24 hour marriages and encourages us all to be selfish, petty, and childish and discourages commitment to family and personal responsibility. And I am really sick of this getting ignored. Especially by people on my side who claim to care about protecting marriage and the family unit. Why aren't they doing anything about it? Why aren't they making this a bigger priority?

This is one of the biggest gripes I have about my own party, and it really makes me angry. It makes me wonder how much they really care about marriage and family and how much of it is just an empty political talking point. Honestly, I can see why people accuse them of just trying to discriminate against homosexuals. Because they're not really doing a whole hell of a lot to address the tremendous divorce problem.

 

So how would allowing homosexuals make marriage even less sacred than it already is? Wouldn't allowing loving, homosexual couples to marry actually benefit society? What if homosexuals can do a better job of marriage? Because if you ask me, straight people have demonstrated that they don't deserve the privilege of marriage, and I think homosexuals have earned the right to give it a go, and share in it. There are many homosexual relationships that have lasted decades, yet these people are unable to marry, yet a straight couple can get married after knowing each other for a few weeks! I don't understand how this is even remotely fair, when the least deserving couple can marry and the most deserving cannot.

 

I'm an anarchist so that doesn't work on me. Conservatives are the same as liberals. Using the excuse that liberals do it too doesn't change the fact you are the same.

You want the government to tell people what they can and can not do just like liberals. There is no difference.

 

I think the problem is that you're looking at it in terms of "deserving." That's always entirely subjective. Look at all the disagreements it causes in class and wealth discussions.

I'll give it to you as straight as I can (no pun intended). I don't think homosexuality is normal, I don't think it's natural, and until science can conclusively prove what causes it, I don't see that there is any logical reason to treat it as an inborn trait like race. If science conclusively proves that it is a naturally occurring phenomenon and can pinpoint exactly what causes it, then this changes the whole argument. And then many of the concerns people have about equal rights become much more valid. But for the time being, the same sex marriage crusade is more fueled by emotion than reason. I can't support changing a law based on public pressure in favor of something that no one fully understands. That's just the epitome of irresponsible to me. It shows that people are in a much bigger hurry to embrace it than they are to understand it. And that's not healthy.

As for those relationships, like you guys always say; it's none of my business. What they do is what they do and I'm not interested in it. They have the freedom to do whatever among consenting adults. The difference between me and the same sex marriage supporters is that I realize that just because people are free to do something, that does not mean the law is automatically obligated to recognize it with a title.

 

I suppose that's probably true by your standards if you're an anarchist. Although I doubt you're truly an anarchist since you seem more interested in recognizing gay marriage than abolishing the institution of marriage altogether. Anarchists aren't supposed to believe in governmental institutions.

I don't believe anyone is really an anarchist. Because the minute someone bigger than you puts a gun to your head, hurts your family, and takes all your stuff, most people aren't prepared to just spring into action and handle it like a boss. Especially since this threat will exist every single day of your life until you die. Anything you cannot defend, you lose. This is the price of anarchist freedom.

 

I have said many times I am against marriage all together. That is besides the point. Conservative like to use the government to tell people what they can and can not do. That make conservatives equal to liberals in yhat regard. That can not be disputed.