The homosexual threat to marriage

A perversion of humanity, huh. Maybe to them it's not.

Personal religious (or whatever) views on the marriage subject should not be forced upon anyone. This country is supposed to be about freedom not the other way around.

 

Read my quote. I could careless who gets married. I only appose official recognition of perversions. Homos or heteros should have civil contracts concerning government laws.

 

And maybe child buggery isn't a perversion to pedophiles. What the hell's your point?

You do understand that "gay marriage" proponents have no greater object than to force their view of marriage on everyone, right?

 

Giving rights to one group doesn't necessarily decrease rights for other groups.

 

Not necessarily. Couldn't we just say it is a societal value?
Just like limiting marriage to 2 people is a societal value. Or telling a 15 year old they can't get married.

 

You definition omits the implications of legality. I defined a "legal marriage".

 

I hardly see that as having "deleterious effects on society". Children can come from broken homes and turn into fine adults and children can come from a home with a mother and a father and turn out to be a bad apple.

Do only good things happen behind the doors of two parent heterosexual homes? Your argument is lopsided and would be a good argument if only the problems were limited to single parent homes and homes with two gay parents... but they are not. Single parents can be great parents, and just because a home has two parents does not mean that said parents are good... nor does being gay make automatically make them bad parents. But then concepts such as good and bad are relative to the individual and I am betting your measure or morality is different than my own.

 

Then you don't see much.

Yeah, brilliant. With that in mind, we might as well legalize parent/child sex while we're at it.

Doesn't matter, because traditional families at least have the prima facie potential to provide all the necessary elements of good child rearing, whereas "gay marriages" do not.

Not if they're homosexuals, they can't.

Actually you've made it plain on many occasions that you don't understand what morality is in the first place.

 

Perhaps, so enlighten me.

 

Child "buggery" does cause harm to children, mentally and sometimes physically, so I do have a problem with that.

Some gay marriage proponents might want to force their view on those of us that are straight, but if two consenting adults want to get married why should they be not allowed to? It's not my thing, but to each their own, and to be quite honest I could care less.

 

I did read what you said. All I pointed out is that to gay people it's not a perversion. I'm not gay, and neither are you, so how do we know what they're thinking?

I do however agree that the government should not be defining marriage.

 

So why are you trying to deny gays their freedom of choice?

 

Lol...Bigotry and morality tend to twist together in the frightened minds of religious fundamentalists so we actually don't give a rat's ass about their hypocritical notions of morality. They are not only on the wrong side of history, they are on the wrong side of religion.

 

We can agree on that point. Your church should be able to decide who they marry or not. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and our pastor wouldn't marry a couple that didn't have at least one of the couple as a member of the church. I support that right.

Gay marriage is and should be legal, but forcing a church or clergy to perform the ceremony is against our constitution's freedom of religion clause.

 

Tolerance means I accept your right to express your opinion. It doesn't mean I have to withhold mine.

 

Does not matter who thinks what, human biology defines our sexuality.

 

The state licenses and regulates marriage contracts between two adults with all the privileges and responsibilities that law entails.

No religion's version of marriage, nor the sexual proclivities of the parties that enter into one, is relevant because atheists as well as the various flavours of religionists can enter into such legal contracts as sincere celibates if that is their wont.

Let the meddling busybodies tend to their own connubial preferences, and not fixate upon Americans who do not comport with their demands.

 

Adam and Eve raised a murderer. If that's the bar for hetrosexual couples, what is your bar for gay parents?

 

Actually, that's a conflation of the civil recognition of marriages with the religious rite of holy matrimony. The institution of marriage and the word 'marriage' are not owned by any religion.

I would be fine with separating the civil recognition of marriage from the rites of holy matrimony. I disagree with the idea that this requires government to change what it calls marriage. It would be better, in my view, to revoke the authority vested in religious entities to proclaim a religious union to be a legal marriage. Let religion stick to blessing unions within the rites of holy matrimony, or whatever similar rites their religion uses. Remove them from playing a role in the civil recognition of marriage.

 

yes i also agree
but lets not assume that there is anything specially admirable about the decisions of religionists

not so long ago most churches would not have married a mixed race couple
and many would not have married a mixed jewish/christian couple
and they would have ridden a moral high horse about gods law and morality

religionists are plenty self righteous
but not necessarily more moral than anyone else
although they may be....

btw
a marriage is essentially a contract from the governments point of view

registering any contract is not a governmental endorsement of that contract

 

That's my problem with the Christians who do this.

Speaking from the Christian viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, I think too much focus is put on this one, because it makes it look like it is worse than others.
It's not.

Problem is, like every other group, it's always the loudest of the bunch who's doing it.
Most Christians don't hold that opinion.


As long as Churches are allowed to say "no"... there should be no complaints.

 

Yahtzee!!! 50%+ divorce rates among heteros (even religious right heteros) and Limbaugh-esque serial remarriages have already turned marriage into a joke.

 

Left hand use is functionally equivalent to right hand use. While Heterosexual sex is responsible for the perpetuation of the human species and homosexual sex is responsible for orgasms, 57% of the HIV cases, and little else.
Seems silly to have this elaborate institution and legal framework built around two people because they have orgasms.

 

The duties to spouse and children continue after divorce, so not sure of your point. Marriage doesnt have to be until death do us part, to serve its purpose. A divorced father is preferrable to an absent or unknown father.

 

Considering the average couples has sex over 20 times per year, and maybe 2 - 3 children in a fifteen year period, I wold say the having children is more a side effect of hetrosexual sex than it's main goal.

If you try to think of gay couples as American Citizens who have the right to fall in love with someone, then you'll get over your irrational fear of SSM.