The homosexual threat to marriage

A legal marriage is a state sanctioned religious institution. I don't give a wit whether or not the religious institutions I hold sacred are, or are not, sanctioned by the state. The absence, or the presence, of a state sanction has no affect on the validity of a religious institution. What's more, it is not even the state's sanction of heterosexual-marriage that is threatened; it is merely the exclusivity of that sanction that is threatened.

After all of the destruction that we heterosexuals have wrought upon marriage, family and sexuality in general, we have some nerve claiming that homosexuals are an existential threat to marriage. It is only because of the destruction and disgrace brought on by us, heterosexuals, that now has homosexual-marriage appear less deviant than it once did to many.

Given the divorce rate and the percentage of children born out of wedlock, statistically, heterosexuals have done more damage to marriage than there is left to do. In my opinion, the worst thing homosexuals could do to marriage, at this point, is kick a dead horse. We, heterosexuals, do not have a legitimate claim of exclusivity over what we have mostly abandoned.

When it comes to homosexuality, let he without heterosexual sin cast the first stone.

 

crash! Kerplunk!

 

And it does not occur to you that the loss of that exclusivity could have deleterious effects on society?

As I can't remember anyone making that claim, I find myself impelled to ask whom "we" refers to.

Sure we do, because marriage is between a man and a woman and always will be - not because anybody says so, but because it is so.

What's stone throwing got to do with it? Are we throwing stones at the blind by refusing to give them driver's licenses?

 

The only just use of force, even force of law is to protect actual individuals and their property from others and their property;
it is not to protect a theoretical category of people such as a society.

Your equivocation of homosexuality with a terrible disability says very bad things about you.
The only cheaper shot one man can take at another, the only thing lower than condemning others for giving into a temptation that you, yourself, have given into is to condemn them for giving into a temptation that you have been spared.

If the state wants to sanction homosexual-marriage, "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's".

In my opinion, equivocating homosexual-marriage with marriage is as inaccurate as equating the state's sanction of marriage with the religious institution of marriage.

 

I am with ya that we heterosexuals in general need to get our own house in order before casting dispersions upon gays... but... I object to the word deviant being associated with homosexuality as being gay in and of itself causes no harm to anyone. To me a deviant action has an associated harm... which being gay does not.

 

Deviant is a derivative of deviation; it has no harmful connotation. I am not familiar with the etymology you refer to. However, homosexuality is clearly deviant but so is being left handed.

 

Such as? Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for years and you know what has changed? Men can marry men and women can marry women... then end. The sky has not fallen, then end of western civilization has not happened... gays can get married and life goes on.

Do you believe that if you believe a thing to be true that it thus is true? If so a good argument of perception becoming reality... but the actual reality is that same sex marriage is slowly gaining support and becoming legal in more and more States. Denying it does not make it not so.

 

Sorry, have not atheists and others been married by Justice of the Peace for over a hundred years? Your claim of marriage being a religious institution is not a credible one.

 

Very well said.

 

": different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deviant

Deviant like many words has a definition that is subject to the context for which it is used. As per the webster's definition it can be a departure from a norm, and/or morally correct action. The latter becomes quite subjective as morality is relative to the individual. But its all semantics and perhaps not worth getting caught up over. I would be interested to know your view of homosexuals in general as a positive, a negative, or a benign neutral?

 

Nobody really believes that it would. It's just a argument on which bigots hang their hats.

But there is a legit reason to keep blind people from driving

 

I hate to break it to you, but gay people are marrying.

 

And society is crumbling!

 

...and if anyone has any issue with that then they are labeled a BIGOT! ...is that correct? ....Is tolerance only a one way highway?

 

Well, to be fair, we heterosexuals have had more time to screw it up. Maybe the Homosexuals will figure out how to catch up.

 

Are gay people sponsoring bills to outlaw hetrosexual marriage? No.
There's you're two way street.

 

You make my point. The state has been sanctioning relationships as marriages that are well outside of the religious institution of marriage for years.
I cannot empathize with a desire to have the state sanction, let alone exclusively sanction, any of my personal relationships or religious institutions.
I could not care less about the state or what it does, or does not sanction. I do care about those who use force, even the force of law to oppose associations or disassociations. One's liberty to associate with those of one's choosing is only as secure as one's liberty to disassociate with those of one's choosing. That's why I like that Indiana law.

 

Hey Danny if someone disagrees than that is their choice...tell me? You have a problem with freedom of choice? ...or maybe all should drive the same direction? ...no need to over complicate the point!

 

What you read into "deviant" says more about you than me. I made myself clear.

As to the morality of homosexuality -
Homosexuality is only a sin because it is a form of fornication, sex outside of a bilateral-monogamous-heterosexual-marriage.
Where is the outcry against heterosexual-fornication????? Heterosexual-fornication has done far more harm to actual individuals,
and theoretical societies, than homosexual-fornication has the biological capacity to ever do.

What is at issue is not the morality of homosexuality; it's whether or not the force of law should be used to impose the morality of some upon others.

Far too many do not see the imposition of their morality upon others as a usurpation of other people's morality; they see it as the only alternative to having their counterpart's morality imposed upon them by force or by mere exposure.

 

So atheists cannot get married?

 

I was not aware that homosexuality had such a brief history.

 

We need to separate the legal union from the religious union.

Government can't define marriage, marriage is a religious institution. Religion can't tell government who they can legally unite.

The answer to this issue is to remove all powers of government over marriage. For government to only provide legal unions period. For religion to join whomever they wish or don't wish within the prevue of their religion.

To my mind any debate of gay marriage also needs to include polygamy. All of the arguments for gay marriage/unions also apply to polygamy, why is it taboo?

 

Marriage has been and is under attack by bad social engineering and intrusive government. Heterosexuality is as irrelevant in the war on marriage as drinking milk is on the war on drugs.

 

The state sanctions marriages between atheists; God does not, as it should be.

 

I'm sure that homosexuality is as old as mankind, but homosexual marriage has a very brief history.