Obama's Gay Marriage Evolution is Offensive to God and America

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that we tolerate lots of abnormal behavior in our society, so that in itself doesn't seem like a valid argument.

 

Do I really need to list the legal advantages for you? I am glad you agree that you marry someone because you love them, that is one more argument for gay marriage. Below are the legal advantages and rights you asked about:

Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships

If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

ANd by your lack of addressing #1 in my previous post I assume you and I agree that each church should be able to decide who they marry or dont marry and the government should not say who has the legal right?

 

Which nations exactly are you referring to legalized gay marriage and then rotted, declined, and fell?

I know the ancient Greeks and Romans are often cited as two examples, but the fact is that they never actually legalized homosexual marriage.

 

What are you saying? It ought to be perfectly legal to deny homosexual couples the same legal benefits as married heterosexual couples because one should marry for love, not legal benefits?

There's nothing confusing about this, and all the federal government really needs to do is tell the states, you don't have to call it "marriage", but you must offer gays a legal alternative which offers the exact same benefits that heterosexual couples receive through marriage. I have no doubts that if this were to pass, 90% of gay marriage supporters would be immediately satisfied. Of course, there will still be a small percentage of supporters who won't accept it, but that happens with any side of an argument, just as you can still find today a small percentage of Americans who would prefer a complete ban on all homosexual activity.

 

No, Ancient Greece merely completely decriminalized gay pedophilia and because all taboos were removed, the practice became rampant due to the abused-abuser cycle that applies to human psychology.

There it is...Ancient Greece...a society where the sexual taboos around deviant sexuality were removed. We don't need to repeat the experiment. The human animal is a sex fiend and will find release on anything it is permitted/learns to. That's just the nature of homo sapiens in any day or age. Monkey see, monkey do.

And because of this, the gay mainstreaming issue isn't one of an affront against god or any religion so much as it is an affront against logic and common sense. I simply hate it when religion gets brought into this debate because then it is reduced to one set of blind dogma vs another. Science will save the day. And the science of gay-mainstreaming says that Ancient Greece will be repeated. Read my signature for details on how the slippery slope is already progressing. Gays defending pedophilia. Who would've guessed? Oh, that's right: scholars.

 

So if Harvey Milk had been an open, unapologetic and documented sodomizer of drug addicted, mentally ill 18 year old boy, you would have no problem with him? I personally think he was a pedophile and should have been tried for his crimes, but this really has nothing to do with two people wishing to get married. Had he been married maybe he wouldnt have been promiscuous and chased the boys.

 

We're talking about the right for homosexual adults to get married, not pedophiles to molest children. Do try to stay on topic.

We're not repeating the experiment. The terms are completely different. The modern debate concerns adult relationships. Support for pedophilia today is so slim as to be virtually nonexistent. Ancient Greeks had the exact opposite mentality. It was okay for unmarried young men to engage in homosexuality with boys, but they were expected to marry women in the end. There was never a time in ancient Greece when it was considered acceptable for two grown men to engage in homosexual activity, and homosexual marriage was certainly never allowed.

That's an incredible perversion of the logic behind why Harvey Milk is defended by gay activists. It's because of his support of homosexual rights for adults that CA schools praise him. Or would you also suggest that King is universally praised throughout the nation because of his adulterous affairs, or Jefferson because he slept with slaves whom he considered to be his property?

People who want to talk about overblowing the topic with confusing arguments should start with this sort of dribble.

 

I already made the argument that marriage should not be something the government is involved in.

 

I know there are advantages, what I am saying is why does the government need to be involved in giving advantages? Does't also discriminate against single people?

 

I don't believe you need a church's approval either. If you love someone and want to be with them, then so be it.

 

OK, so you personally do not believe in gay marriage but do not think the government needs to be involved in any way allowing or disallowing it, and you dont believe the you need approval from the church or anyone else to be married? I suppose you agree that marriage at least has to be licensed in some way to have a legal document that proves you are married.
Unless I am totally misunderstanding and you believe that marriage is a word used to describe a personal commitment between two people and should carry no rights, benefits, or advantages available as individuals and anyone who wants to say they are married has that ability to do so?

 

religion should not be used as a reason to deny people equal rights, people tried this with interracial marriage too

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

 

All you need is a will spelling out who gets what where when and how much. Its pretty simple.

 

the ability to call your self family when your loved one is in the hospital, same sex couples have been denied admittance to see their loved one when they were on their death bed because they were not legally considered "family"

 

This is not true. It is simply another fabrication made up to pull at the heart strings of caring people.

The fact is, there is nothing stopping people from visiting in hospitals. Hospitals have visiting hours. When our baby was in the ICU we could have brought in any visitor we wanted to see her.

When my father was in the ICU after suffering a stroke, anyone could have come in to see him as long as there were no more than 3 people.

I have a sister that is a nurse in Labor and delivery, she says the same thing. They don't check ID's when you go to visit someone.

I have visited friends, neighbors, family, children, old people and have NEVER been denied access to visit someone.

 

it's happened, it shouldn't but it does sadly

 

You don't know a lot about pedophilia do you? Here's a quote from the biography of Harvey Milk "The Mayor of Castro Street":

Milk also was a fierce advocate of promiscuous gay sex; against the views of his biographer and gay friend and accredited journalist Randy Shilts who wrote the book above. Milk defined that promiscuity was intrinsic to gay culture. Shilts position was that it spread AIDS. Ironically they were both right.

And Milk is being touted as a "wise historical figure" to California school kids by the gay culture itself, [gays, lesbians, transgenders..etc. etc.] And these same people know about Milk's views on promiscuity as intrinsic to gay culture and they know about his sexual predation on minors addicted to drugs [and therefore vulnerable].

So gays promoting this individual to children is SCREAMING something to anyone with a brain who can connect the dots. It would be different if gays upon being called out on Milk, did an about face and offered up an apology. But this is not the case. Instead of being shocked themselves about his pedophilia against kids on drugs, gays line up in almost perfect unanimity to defend his actions as "forgivable", "excuseable" or "to be ignored in the face of his greater accomplishments". Chief of those "accomplishments" gays describe as Milk promoting their culture into the mainstream. So connect the dots there too, if you dare..

This is very much on topic. I wish it wasn't. I wish I could say that gays in the lion's share denounce Harvey Milk. But the opposite is true. So as long as gays defend pedophilia, I will link them to it. As soon as they stop, I will....

 

If "God" is offended by homosexuality, why does he keep making homosexuals?

Maybe "God" is offended by homophobes and makes homosexuals just to (*)(*)(*)(*) you off.

 

You know there comes a time when you must realize that this fixation on Milk is really a sexual perversion. Now we know who they're talking to when they ask

"Got Milk?"

 

I don't mind Christians who are politically active, but when they start saying someone they don't like is being influenced by the devil they instantly get labeled a retard in my book. Go back to being a whore in Boston Abagail Williams.

 

It's either that or I am concerned that gays are becoming synonymous with sex crimes against minors. In Milk's case, minors who are made vulnerable by being mentally imbalanced and addicted to drugs. I think he makes an unbelievably poor role model for kids. You and I differ in that opinion. And that is the point. Get it? In other words, I know what you're up to. You're getting desperate. You don't like me bringing up Milk because it causes too much attention to the fact that gays are promoting a pedophile. So you pull your ace of spade out: "Closet homo". That's the one that usually "zaps" the opposition into silence right? Did I get that right?

Sorry. Long ago I gave up caring what your ilk try to keep pushing your mental illness into "normalcy". I will persevere. If you want me to stop bringing up Harvey Milk, have gay groups make a public denouncement of promoting him to kids. Until that happens I will be called [fill in the blank] and keep talking about it anyway.. After all, it's this type of courage and tenacity your ilk applauds in matters of stumping from the heart, yes? Or is that only acceptable when promoting gay sex to kids?

 

It not progress, it's called perversion and it existed in biblical times.

If you read the Bible, you would read that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah
for similar perversion. It offended him and that's a fact, not opinion.

Why do you think they call it sodomy anyhow?

Segregation is an entirely different subject and thousands of conservative (Union) Americans lost their lives
to end it. Democrats and liberals from the South fought for slavery and lost thousands of lives also.

 

Left handedness is abnormal. Hazel eyes are abnormal. Double jointedness is abnormal.

Should people with those traits be treated as second class citizens too?