The Homosexual Dilemma

[toxicmedia]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.

Mark

I added to my post but you answered before I finished.

Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
a. Men can marry women.
b. Women can marry women.
c. Men can marry men.

All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.

If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.

Simply not true. If everyone is treated the same, there is no discrimination. If the law changed where a black could only marry a white, there would be no discrimination.

Everyone is treated equally.

Mark

Laws can be discriminatory in themselves - the example you gave above is one.

Laws should be as broad and inclusive as they can be without endangering people or the public. That's how I see it.

You can't allow adults to marry children - it's clearly damaging to children and children can not legally consent or understand the ramifications of what is happening to them. Incest is another area where there is potential damage if they choose to have children. But on the issue of gender there is no damage to society or to the individuals themselves.

Marriage should be between two consenting human adults - that's broad, inclusive and non-discrimminatory.

Who is being discrimminated against there? No one.

The next argument would be polygamy. I personally don't care if a someone chooses multiple spouses - to me, it's an individual choice between consenting adults. But I've heard reasonable arguments against it as well but that usually occurs in other countries.

IMO.....

Marriage between two adult humans shouldn't be prohibited unless it puts on or more of the particiapants in an inferior financial or emotional state.

Kind of like a formal legal version of ..."if there is anyone who can show just cause why the couple should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your peace"

So for plural marriage...the sister wives are put in a financial, as well as emotional inferior state, to the patriarch. Attention, and financial resources are divided. So in a plural marriage with 3 wives, and 1 husband, the wives only get 1/3 of the attention from the husband, and 1/3 of his financial support.

Children, horses, developmentally disabled people, and so on...cannot avoid being in an emotional inferior state to an adult human over 18.

I haven't found any drawbacks at all to what I've called the "inferior state" clause.

It's my baby. And my only real attempt at amatuerish legal stuff

 

[hjmick]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Irrelevant mumblings

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.

Are you a moderator? Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.

That's one way to avoid addressing facts you don't like...

If he edits his post, I'll respond to it.

 

[1751_Texan]

About 98% of pedophiles are male. Sexual fantasies of heterosexual pedophiles revolve around young girls. Yet the homosexual lobby insists that Americans should risk the physical and mental health of young boys by being forced by law to hire overt homosexuals to supervise boys. When the BSA won their victory in court the homosexual lobby put them on the hit list. The hypocrisy is stunning.

that is not correct...I don't know where you gleaned your data from but a pedophile is both categorized in the adult sexual behavior and the fascination of his sexual attractions[children].

Pedophiles that are heterosexual in there adult sexuality are not only attracted to "girls". Pedophiles can be attracted to one gender or both. Their attraction classifies their pedophilia not their adult sexual encounters.

 

[Iceweasel]

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

States don't rule on the Constitution. If they do they are way out of line. You are confusing sexual preferences with race, gender or religion. Since when have sexual relationships been a Constitutional right? States have always defined marriage, they did so by representative government. If sexual relationships were a Constitutional issue no state would have ever defined marriage.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

What basic right are you talking about? Are homosexuals being denied the right to vote?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You ask many people, perhaps even most, they'll tell you that they don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom, they just don't want it rubbed in their face.

So what has the homosexual movement been doing for the past several years?

Yeah, you got it.

Consider how pervasive the gay agenda has become.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

.

1. The forcing of gay marriage not by persuasion and winning hearts and minds, but through judicial activism. Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war.

No one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.

2. Workplaces have become a nightmare as gays and transgenders are given special rights and considerations and political correctness is enforced so that everyone is forced to walk on eggshells

There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.

There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Irrelevant mumblings

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.

Are you a moderator? Then quit posting in emboldened red. I won't respond to any post like yours. Please refer to USMB rules. It's moderators who post in emboldened red.

I can go back and change the color, that will not change the content.

Yet you haven't. You're not a moderator and don't need to be using red. It's a reasonable request.

 

[Coyote]

one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.

Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.

At one time the suffragets were considered a "radical minority" and vociferously and even violently resisted.

At one time those who fought for civil rights for negros was considered a "radical minority" and vociferously and even violently resisted.

People felt their rights - constitutionally protected rights - were being "forced" upon society.

Are you suggesting that this was contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy?

 

[Seawytch]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Just as you are trying to argue that there is no gender discrimination...but there is (courts are determining). Just like in the 1960s with anti miscegenation laws, courts are finding anti gay marriage laws unconstitutional.

You claim in your OP

" Never in U.S. history has there ever been an overturning of the will of the people that didn't lead to war."

And then went on to cite an instance where the will of the people was overturned and there was no war. I want you to pay particular attention to the date that YOU provided. 1967 is when Loving v Virginia was overturned. Now I want you to look at Gallup polls regarding interracial marriage. Tell us what you note?

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

States don't rule on the Constitution. If they do they are way out of line. You are confusing sexual preferences with race, gender or religion. Since when have sexual relationships been a Constitutional right? States have always defined marriage, they did so by representative government. If sexual relationships were a Constitutional issue no state would have ever defined marriage.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

What basic right are you talking about? Are homosexuals being denied the right to vote?

I'm not confusing anything. Sexual preference is whether you choose missionary position or doggie style. Sexual orientation is considered to be hard wired. The only choice is whether to act on it or be celebite. Oddly, outside of religious orders - no one demands that heterosexuals abstain from their orientation.

Marriage is a recognized right.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

They are racist, you are homophobic. Clear enough for you?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.

Interracial marriage was forced onto most states by a radical minority. Most people were opposed to interracial marriage (only 20% supported it in 1967). Your arguments sound an awful lot like theirs...

State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to intermerge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."​

Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.

Some states do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire based on religion, race, gender, country of origin, etc. Kinda renders your "special" argument moot.

Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.

And of course you can provide examples of all this Christian "mocking" in the media, right?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

This is my point. They are pushy, "in your face" and want to flaunt themselves everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. It's the way gays today think they're more important than anything else going on in this country, that their private lifestyle must be everyone's business, whether we like it or not. And they continue to peacock their way into every TV show, professional sports, and every other venue of popularity. And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes. Amazing how that same standard doesn't apply to boorish gays.

 

[ninja007]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

Typical. 95% of the pop is straight. You act like the gayz should get half of the media.

And one key job of the government is to protect minority rights.

Don't you just love it when the system begins to work as it was intended on paper? ​

not at the price of someone else (whites).

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And my question remains, what if Christians acted like this? I'm sure we'd be considered insufferable assholes

They do, and you are, even here.

 

[Seawytch]

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Requiring marriage to a partner of the opposite sex was also applied equally, regardless of race, gender, or even sexual orientation.

Take that argument a step back in history: Requiring marriage to a partner of the same race was also applied equally.

Virginia tried to argue there was no racial discrimination but there was. The court determined:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You're in good company. A lot of Leftists miss that one.

Interesting. Doesn't however change the fact that insisting that marriage and it's legal benefits be limited only to mixed-gender couples violates the Constitutional premise of equal treatment under the law, which is what has struck down a multitude of state bans.

The other thing...the "hearts and minds" aspect...that is exactly what has been going on as well. This wasn't pushed to the SC right off the bat - it has been going through state after state. Polls show, overwelmingly - that support for same sex marriage has been growing with over 50% in favor. To me, though - that's irrelevant because basic rights should never ever be determined by popular opinion.

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

 

[80zephyr]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

Our government policies were set up to help families raise children. It is the only reason these laws exist. Since gays cannot have children, having the government give them the same benefits is unreasonable.

Government discriminates every day. Tell me, is it discrimination if I have to pay taxes to provide for some one elses welfare?

Of course it is.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

He doesn't see the forest for the trees, just his I Got Mine, like most Americans. It's why he's not concerned about the slaughter of Native Americans. It didn't happen to him and now he has a truck and a TV so life is all good, if those faggots would just get back in the closet that is.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And Sodom fell
The Bible

Sodom was destroyed, according to the angels, "because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great before the Lord".

Yes, amazing how militant, belligerent homosexuality is not new and people protested their unrelenting intrusion. And back then it was more than just obnoxiousness, gangs of homosexuality were attacking outlying towns and villages well beyond the cities. They were a force of oppression. As Ecclesiastes says, "there is nothing new under the sun" and it's true. Gays in American and Europe today are well on track to being the very kind of people in the ancient cities who were destroyed by a righteous God to give reprieve to their neighbors in Southern Canaan. There's a link that can't be denied.

Case in point, asshole Christian at work.

 

[1751_Texan]

one has forced you to a gay marriage. No one has forced you to accept gay marriage. Your opinion of gay marriage is not relevant to those that will marry.

Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.

There is absolutely no special right on homosexuality in the work place. There is not one law protecting homosexuals in the work place...NOT ONE.

Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.

There is not one incident in which any school child has to share the restroom with a transgendered child. You can not post one example of that policy in place in any school in America.

I don't know if it has happened yet but the attempt is being made.

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?
Christians and Jews are worse. This thread is proof positive.

Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.

Gay marriage has been forced onto most states that have it by a radical minority. Most people support traditional marriage, as do the gays that use the argument that marriage can only be between two people. That is contrary to our system of laws and representative democracy. Gay marriage denies the special relationship man has with woman and pretends gender does not matter. In other words, it forces the government to propagandise a lie.
Texan:that is incorrect, It was states that wrote ban laws that have been affirmed Unconstitutional. No one forced the states to write those laws. the Attorneys General of each of those states did the states a disservice by allowing those states to follow through in their unconstitutional legislation...no one forced that states to do that.

Some states and cities do take away the ability of an employer to fire or not hire a homosexual. Since no sexual orientation law existed before it is a special right.
I stand corrected there 21 states that do not allow an employer to fire an employee just for being gay.

Christians are routinely mocked in the media. Homosexuals are treated like they are hip, cool, someone to be admired for their abnormal sexuality.
Everyone is mocked...Why should Christians be treated more sacrosanct than they are now? Christians are one of the protected classes...but no where in the Constitution does it say they must be free of Mockery.