There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'

No it does not. I have already shown countless marriage contracts in response to your claim, in which children are barely mentioned if at all. The marriage contract is between two parties ( they are signing the contract) and it's parameters / parties must coincide with the laws government imposes on the nature of that contract. When children are borne the state imposes a burden on its parents, separate and apart from the marriage contract. When the parents separate and divorce the state imposes other burdens and divides properties acquired consistent with state laws.

 

I don't suppose you'd care to cite the constitutional provision(s) that vest(s) any such authority in the federal government.

Awww, don't go away mad, just go away.

His claim about "gay marriage" is factual.

Why do you worry so much about what other people worry about?

Nothing new about any of that. What's new is the delusion that two deluded "parents" can provide any of that.

On the contrary, a major component of the value of marriage is its capacity to teach by example the children reared under its auspices how a mom and dad ought to relate to one another, that they may do likewise as adults, so that the society may survive and prosper; and without a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, that's impossible.

 

Actually it is really screwed up version of socialism but that's another thread.

 

Well, the gay community holds the giant middle finger of the Supreme Court to all claims that a gay marriage isn't real or recognized. Pretty much end of story. Really no different than when the Supreme court ruled miscegenation laws were equally unconstitutional.

 

Had one poster claim today that very few of the anti aborts held their position because of religious belief. Perhaps they have never heard of the religious right

 

"There's no such thing as 'gay marriage,' says John Piper: 'It's dishonorable and shameful'"

it's just called Marriage regardless if it's a gay or straight wedding

is Trump's adulterous marriages marriage... sure, they are too

 

Bull Twaddle. Theocracy = forcing religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law). The religious right is constantly doing this = Christian Sharia.

 

I am sure she takes great comfort in the amount of money she will get when she Divorces ol Carrot top.

 

As a conservative, I think other conservatives need to chill out with this whole gay thing.
It's more of a blessing in disguise than you think.
In 1944 the world population was 2 billion...now its like 9 billion.
Too many people! Without gays this number would be a lot higher.
Let them be gay if they want.
Plus they usually have good jobs and don't leech our economy.
Let them be!

 

Tex you sly devil - I would have never guessed !? Why are you embarrassed by your civil union being labeled as "Gay Marriage" ?

You should embrace your God given nature and not be embarrassed of who you are.

 

A slut is not a girl who likes having sex, but rather prefers multiple partners over one.

 

We should embrace abortion - at least in the early term - for the same reason. It is actually 7.5 Billion - on the way to 8.5 by 2030 but this does not detract from your point.

 

Maybe I wasn’t clear. If so, that’s my fault.

Any society should be ashamed and embarrassed to have “gay marriage” as a real thing.

 

Sorry my stats were a bit off...I'm on board with EARLY term also.

 

You mean there should just be marriage and that covers everyone and anyone, and no need for such a distinction, but because some people are so hung up and bigoted and controlling and backwards and hateful, it's necessary.

True, that is embarrassing.

 

Perhaps I misread your post.

 

Especially considering there are gay conservatives.

Repubs are always wanting these various groups to "walk away" from the Dem party....but then they spend most of their time crapping all over them. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

I knew that is what you meant but couldn't resist Any society that wants to tell its members who they should or should not marry should be embarrassed. Why would you want the state to do this ?

Who cares what people want to put on their "civil union paper" - and who are you to tell them what they can or cannot call their civil union. As long as that union is entitled to the same rights and benefits as marriage .. I do not think Gays care much what it is called either. I think that is why most of them use the term "Partner" rather than wife or husband.

This is a debate you will lose. That I can guarantee.

 

Of course it is, to constitutional illiterates and enemies of America.

On the contrary, they need to start refusing to use imbecilic phrases like "his husband" and "her wife"

Please, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Actually the phrase is every bit as oxymoronic as "gay marriage".

 

I just assumed everybody knows the definition of a slut. We have all known them, and they are an enigma to me because the actual sex act is not as important as having sex with multiple partners. It's like they try to dehumanize sex to the basic behavior of bumping uglies with as many men as they can find.

It's the requirement of not having a monogamous relationship that makes me wonder... why? The one guy isnt enough?

Or prostitutes... I have known prostitutes, and for them, its not even about the sex. It's about money, and the actual sex act is just work.

The one thing they both have in common is a complete lack of empathy when it comes to being concerned about how they are perceived by society at large. They truly do not care!

Its just interesting to me. There is no correlation with the male population. Us guys are really really concerned with social standing. Women are... generally not.

 

Horse crap. Sorry there is no moral high ground here no neutral position here and that does not at all change the fact that Mohammed's impetus and what got his lame ass thrown out of Mecca in the first place was that he didn't think the rich were doing enough to help the poor.

 

Because all conservatives are gay?

 

You're right - there is no call for "gay marriage" anymore. The Supreme Court and those who believe in equal application of rights and privilege now just call it marriage - whether between a man and a woman or two women or two men. Just plain old "marriage" now. Either live with it or leave - it's the Constitutionally recognized law of the land.

 

Population growth is a bigger deal than many realize - and industrialization of the population is even bigger. Only 1.4 Billion of the worlds 7.5 population is industrialized. If China was to reach First world levels of consumption - would resource production would have to double (this was as per a study I read a number of years ago).

This is just China. We also have nations like India and others industrializing. The massive increase in consumption due to industrialization leads to a big increase in pollution into the Oceans and CO2. This increase will dwarf any decreases by first world nations by orders of magnitude.

The biggest environmental issue facing the planet is pollution of the Oceans - not that one would know this from all the coverage CO2 gets. 2/3 are population increase and industrialization for reasons given above. CO2 comes in at a distant 4th.

We could turn off the CO2 taps tomorrow if we really wanted (meaning decreasing by 50-80% very rapidly). What we can't do is filter the oceans -- which happen to produce roughly 60% of the worlds oxygen supply and a whole lot of food.

More than 2 cans of Tuna a week and you exceed the Mercury guidelines for pregnant women. This guildeline is very low but still - we are hitting thresholds.

If the first world was to reduce emissions by 20% over 10 years (and this is unlikely as we are already quite efficient) while at the same time industrializing another 1.4 Billion (which gets us not even to half of the worlds population which is projected to be 8.5 Billion by 2030) The net carbon difference works out to be an increase from 100 units to 280 units. This is because the early decades of industrialization are particularly dirty. So the first world goes from 100 to 80 while the third world goes from 0-200 = 280.

Now we probably will not reach industrialization of another 1.4 Billion in 10 years but you get the picture. Our 20 unit reduction is very little in comparison to a 200 unit increase. That said - if Africa would ever get its act together - unlikely as that may seem we could reach this level of industrialization. Going from eating a bowl of rice a day to eating some meat once a week is a huge increase to the carbon equation ... never mind getting power and an iphone.

 

I think - generally- most men and women are concerned with social standing.