Gay marriage

[suspiria]

Government has a duty to protect its citizens, society, from obviously harmfull practices...therefore Gov't should reward those unions which are beneficial...such as 'The Family'.

What makes " Family" Benificial, and gay marriage not benifical??? And Gay's do have families together too.

 

[MyName]

vBulletin Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MyName again.

Check your control panel...

check please!

 

[no1tovote4]

Government has a duty to protect its citizens, society, from obviously harmfull practices...therefore Gov't should reward those unions which are beneficial...such as 'The Family'.

IMO the Government's sole duty is to protect people from direct victimization, not to "reward" right action. If you get into that you begin having the government "reward" people by not giving them tickets when they wear their seatbelts, etc. It becomes too intrusive.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Government has a duty to protect its citizens, society, from obviously harmfull practices....

wow, that limits us to a very boring existence.

 

[dmp]

What makes " Family" Benificial, and gay marriage not benifical??? And Gay's do have families together too.

Because the Homosexual lifestyle is destructive - it kills people, rather quickly, it's abusive, and makes people emotionally bankrupt.

Frankly? If my kids ever lose their parents, I'd rather my kids die than grow up with homosexual parents...it'd be better for the kids to be taken out of this world, than grow up accepting the perverse, deadly, lifestyle choices homosexual parents would teach them, by example.

 

[5stringJeff]

wow, that limits us to a very boring existence.

Yeah... no chainsaws at the dinner table for you guys!

(Sorry... I'm in a silly mood)

 

[dmp]

IMO the Government's sole duty is to protect people from direct victimization, not to "reward" right action. If you get into that you begin having the government "reward" people by not giving them tickets when they wear their seatbelts, etc. It becomes too intrusive.

I'm saying, it behooves the government to promote, reward, and encourage those social unions which benefit society.

 

[suspiria]

Because the Homosexual lifestyle is destructive - it kills people, rather quickly, it's abusive, and makes people emotionally bankrupt.

Frankly? If my kids ever lose their parents, I'd rather my kids die than grow up with homosexual parents...it'd be better for the kids to be taken out of this world, than grow up accepting the perverse, deadly, lifestyle choices homosexual parents would teach them, by example.

so you have proof of this, and have proof that this does not go on in a "Straight" house hold?

 

[Stitchman]

While homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations.

yeah, and the other 80-60 percent are straight people. So then maybe straight marriage should be illiegal! Hitler was straight! Sadamm was straight! My point is, no matter the category of people, there are good and bad people in them, and you can't argue with that.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Yeah... no chainsaws at the dinner table for you guys!

(Sorry... I'm in a silly mood)

I was thinking more along the lines of grenade juggling, sword swallowing, and pin the tail on the world champion boxer.

 

[dmp]

so you have proof of this, and have proof that this does not go on in a "Straight" house hold?

Yup. Lots of evidence. And common-sense. Neither of those you'll respond to.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm saying, it behooves the government to promote, reward, and encourage those social unions which benefit society.

Once again, then you have the government defining what is "good" or not, penalizing the bad and promoting their definition of good. Which you may see as okay right now with the Right leading the parade, but that will not always be the case.

Only one source can define the "good", if you are a Christian that source would be the Grand Architect of the Universe.

Since the government is not an extension of the church, nor can it be, it should not be allowed to begin defining what is primarily a religious institution.

 

[dmp]

yeah, and the other 80-60 percent are straight people. So then maybe straight marriage should be illiegal! Hitler was straight! Sadamm was straight! My point is, no matter the category of people, there are good and bad people in them, and you can't argue with that.

By your statement I can conclude you'd NOT be in favour of reducing molestations by 20-40 percent. Good for you. Scary for your Children.

But the otherside of the coin is - that statistic makes homosexuals 10? 20? (somebody do some math for me) times MORE LIKELY to molest a kid, than a normal adult. If 95% of the population commits 60% of the crime, and 5% commits the other 40%, which group is 'more' dangerous?

 

[suspiria]

Yup. Lost of evidence. And common-sense. Neither of those you'll respond to.

you say common sense I say intolerance

 

[dmp]

you say common sense I say intolerance

...you say that because you have no common-sense.

 

[Trinity]

What makes " Family" Benificial, and gay marriage not benifical??? And Gay's do have families together too.

Really that's interesting last time I checked it was not possible for a man to make another man pregnant, nor is a man capable of carrying a baby, or vice versa in the case of women!

 

[dmp]

Once again, then you have the government defining what is "good" or not, penalizing the bad and promoting their definition of good. Which you may see as okay right now with the Right leading the parade, but that will not always be the case.

Only one source can define the "good", if you are a Christian that source would be the Grand Architect of the Universe.

Since the government is not an extension of the church, nor can it be, it should not be allowed to begin defining what is primarily a religious institution.

Are you arguing "The Family" and "Marriage" is 'not' beneficial?

 

[suspiria]

...you say that because you have no common-sense.

yes, and someone who thinks because someone is different then themselves is wrong, and imoral has lots of common sense

 

[suspiria]

Really that's interesting last time I checked it was not possible for a man to make another man pregnant, nor is a man capable of carrying a baby, or vice versa in the case of women!

adoption, and you can have a family without kids!!!!

 

[no1tovote4]

you say common sense I say intolerance

Yet, they have a right to their opinion..

Wouldn't it be more tolerant to allow them their opinion rather than attempting to force them to follow your opinion?

This whole "tolerance" thing seems to only go one way. That shouldn't be the crux of your argument either, as by making it you are being necessarily intolerant toward another's point of view and wishing to base laws off of your point of view, the very thing you don't want them to do, which will be the next logical step of such an argument of "intolerance".

This is another reason the government should never be the group to define what is right. Laws should be made and based off of the direct victimization of another, thus allowing for actual tolerance of other's religious views without one side forcing the other to live their way.