Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[JoeB131]

"Devotion" is not the question. Dogs are devoted. We are talking about a miniscule percentage of the world's population demanding to change the defintion of marriage to fit their "beliefs". They are demanding this against a huge percentage of the world's population "belief" that this is very wrong.
Horses, cows, sheep, goats are "fertilized" in a similar fashion. Are you comparing lesbians to animals?
Deceit is a way of life for "active" homosexuals. They are pretending to be something they are not. The fraud starts when they are seducing their victims. Yes deceit occurs among the rest of the population, but the rest of the population does not base their entire life on lies.

I think this is obscene argument.

Homophobes threaten to kill or abuse homosexuals every day, so they are less than forthcoming about it because they don't want to deal with your bullshit. And then you accuse them of being "deceitful" when they are taking actions to avoid your unacceptable behaviors.

According to your "argument", homosexuals would be "afraid" to marry for fear that they would be exposed for what they are. Then why would they want to be married???

And thank you for agreeing that homosexuals are deceitful though you sugar coated it with "less than forthcoming".

Not telling an asshole something is hardly being deceitful.

But hey, once we make it a crime to be a homophobe, I'm sure they'll be a lot more forthcoming.

 

[logical4u]

It's like you are living in the 90s, when homosexual relationships equal debauchery. That is not the case. Many same sex couples have a much more real relationship than some heterosexual. Homosexual activity does not lead to STIs or other problems, sex does.

Honey, a marriage and a "relationship" are two very different things.
And yes, homosexual activity does lead to STDs and other problems (similar to promiscuity). It has been made uncomfortable to state truth and facts due to the "tolerant" people shoving political correctness (deceit) onto the public stage. Please do some research, see who is more likely to die first, a heterosexual or a homosexual male. The difference between promiscuous crowd and homosexual marriage activists are that the promiscuous crowd is not trying to make what they do "legitimate".

Gee I wonder why homosexual males are dying more frequently. Maybe has a little something to do with bigots who bully and ostracize homosexual males. So much so they become depressed and think their life means nothing? How many heterosexual males do you know getting bullied for being straight? I would guess that number would either be zero or something very close. Do that ever come up in your research? That young men are dying because of hate speeches made against them. Just because they are not "manly" enough.

Just for your viewing pleasure, thought you might enjoy this vid. oh and while your at it don't forget to look up Pastor Sean Harris.

[youtube]w2839yEazcs[/youtube]

While you ignore the health problems caused by multiple sexual partners, AIDS, mental health as a response to rejection from other "homosexuals", and physical damage to being used in a way that is against the normal bodily functions.

Yes, heterosexual men are bullied. What "hate" speeches are being made to homosexuals (that they would actually listen to, not some freak, preaching hate) that depress them so? Do you think that failure to search for the Truth, and instead living a lie cause depression? Are you suggesting we coddle anyone that has a warped sense of reality?

 

[logical4u]

I think this is obscene argument.

Homophobes threaten to kill or abuse homosexuals every day, so they are less than forthcoming about it because they don't want to deal with your bullshit. And then you accuse them of being "deceitful" when they are taking actions to avoid your unacceptable behaviors.

According to your "argument", homosexuals would be "afraid" to marry for fear that they would be exposed for what they are. Then why would they want to be married???

And thank you for agreeing that homosexuals are deceitful though you sugar coated it with "less than forthcoming".

Not telling an asshole something is hardly being deceitful.

But hey, once we make it a crime to be a homophobe, I'm sure they'll be a lot more forthcoming.

Yeah, the thought police are being touted, again, and by the same people that "claim" to be "tolerant". What about the victim's family? Is it okay to be deceitful with them?

 

[JoeB131]

According to your "argument", homosexuals would be "afraid" to marry for fear that they would be exposed for what they are. Then why would they want to be married???

And thank you for agreeing that homosexuals are deceitful though you sugar coated it with "less than forthcoming".

Not telling an asshole something is hardly being deceitful.

But hey, once we make it a crime to be a homophobe, I'm sure they'll be a lot more forthcoming.

Yeah, the thought police are being touted, again, and by the same people that "claim" to be "tolerant". What about the victim's family? Is it okay to be deceitful with them?

I'm sorry, what "victim" are you talking about?

You mean the family members who can't deal with a gay relative because they let Bronze Age stupidity run their lives?

Screw them. (Figuratively, not literally. I know they don't swing that way.)

 

[bayoubill]

The anus is not a sex organ.

Niether's the mouth.....

please don't tell my wife...

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I always have to chuckle at the left's attempt to group people due to some belief that they don't like and then assign that belief some negative label. All in the hope that if we call you that name, then you'll be so shocked that you'll immediately join the 'correct' group. I've used the analogy of Orwell's book 1984 before. "You can't hold a differing opinion because it is not the correct one and it doesn't 'fit' in to the preferred belief system. To be a part of THE group you must hold this opinion, otherwise you are a _________ (fill in the blank)."

I do not believe that a homophobe is someone who just doesn't support same-sex marriage. Just like I do not believe someone is racist when they do not support Barry's agenda. Shock labels just cheapen the labels themselves.

I don't use it as a shock label. If someone was trying to make you have a gay marriage, then you'd be completely entitled to be against that. YOu don't play for that team. Got it.

But to say because you don't like it, no one should be able to do it, well, then you are acting out of a "phobia". So the term "homo-phobe" kind of fits.

Religion does play a major role in forming a person's values. All of my children went to church when they were young. They attended activities and we were very active in the church. Now that they are adults they hold mostly the same values that I have. And when the constitutional amendment came to a vote, they voted the same way I did.

Such is life.

So you are letting con men do your thinking for you based on a book of Bronze Age fairy tales. How special for you.

But I again have to ask the question. Would you be down with stoning your daughter (hypothecally) if she was not a virgin on her wedding day? Would you let her marry her rapist if he paid you fifty shekels like the Bible says. If she stopped being a Christian and became a Wiccan, would you kill her like the bible says to?

It seems to me that you are very selective in which religous texts you are keen to follow.

No, I got it. You are not a Christian. I think that's great. It is YOUR life and since this is the United States of America, you still (unless the left has its way) have the ability to hold far different opinions. And your opinions, and therefore your morals, will be reflected in the way that you vote. You can try to tell me they are not, but they are. I would expect nothing less. Just like my morals, my values are reflected in the way that I vote. A democracy OR a republic usually reflect the majorities views based upon who they elect into office. To tell me that it is not right to impose the views of the majority on a minority is ignorance. How could you govern? You couldn't govern squat effectively. We're headed that way, but it's not like that yet.

That is another reason why I believe that the states should be deciding MORE issues for themselves. The federal government is a bloated, ineffective, poster child for the way things should NOT be done. If New York wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then I say they should be able to do so without any issue what-so-ever. If Oklahoma wants to pass a state constitutional amendment that does not allow for same-sex marriage, then I think we should be able to do so.

If a homosexual couple wants to be married, then I would think that since New York provides for such activity, that they would go there to be married and to have their marriage recognized. From some of the same-sex couples I have the pleasure of knowing, Oklahoma would be poorer for the loss. However, what I have found is that same-sex couples from Oklahoma have traveled to New York, have gotten married, and returned here to live. I have been told that in their view, they are legally married and are happy. I think that is wonderful for them. Incredibly, I have also been informed that they returned to Oklahoma because they like the conservative values still in place here and that it is a safe place to raise children. You have got to love the irony of that!

I also get the "phobia" thing. It's a way for members of one viewpoint to belittle and marginalize members of an opposing viewpoint. "There's something wrong with that person," is a good way to ultimately say that if I don't follow a certain viewpoint then it's because I have "issues". I've noticed that since Barry was elected those "phobia" labels have become the favorite nouns for the left to describe opposing viewpoints. Don't like the way Holder has coddled the New Black Panther Party? It's only because you're a racist! Opposed to same-sex marriage? Why it's because you're homophobic, of course! Only problem is that the constant use of these labels has reduced them to nothing but a "white noise" that no one pays attention to anymore.

I know I don't pay attention to it anymore...

 

[logical4u]

Not telling an asshole something is hardly being deceitful.

But hey, once we make it a crime to be a homophobe, I'm sure they'll be a lot more forthcoming.

Yeah, the thought police are being touted, again, and by the same people that "claim" to be "tolerant". What about the victim's family? Is it okay to be deceitful with them?

I'm sorry, what "victim" are you talking about?

You mean the family members who can't deal with a gay relative because they let Bronze Age stupidity run their lives?

Screw them. (Figuratively, not literally. I know they don't swing that way.)

Yes, that is the attitude to which I am referring... If those people don't agree with your beliefs, it is OKAY to be deceitful with them (similar to the muslim belief). And homosexual activists cannot understand why people don't respect them.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, the thought police are being touted, again, and by the same people that "claim" to be "tolerant". What about the victim's family? Is it okay to be deceitful with them?

I'm sorry, what "victim" are you talking about?

You mean the family members who can't deal with a gay relative because they let Bronze Age stupidity run their lives?

Screw them. (Figuratively, not literally. I know they don't swing that way.)

Yes, that is the attitude to which I am referring... If those people don't agree with your beliefs, it is OKAY to be deceitful with them (similar to the muslim belief). And homosexual activists cannot understand why people don't respect them.

Hey, call a co-worker a fag, and see who gets fired. It's getting to the point where the people who need to keep their nonsense to themselves are the homophobes, and the world is better off for it.

Worked with a lady who worked at the company for 14 years. Then one time at the Holiday Party she brought her partner, who decided to dress in a man's suit so nobody missed the point. She was fired a few weeks later. The official claim was that they were reducing manpower in that department, but they filled the position with someone else or they could have easily transfered her to another department.

Now, she didn't lie about being gay, she just didn't show up at work with a tea-shirt with a big pink triangle on it. But they fired her for it anyway.

So, yeah, I can see why people won't come out with it and have to deal with your nonsense.

If this happened today, she could have sued the pants off of them, as well she should have.

 

[JoeB131]

So you are letting con men do your thinking for you based on a book of Bronze Age fairy tales. How special for you.

But I again have to ask the question. Would you be down with stoning your daughter (hypothecally) if she was not a virgin on her wedding day? Would you let her marry her rapist if he paid you fifty shekels like the Bible says. If she stopped being a Christian and became a Wiccan, would you kill her like the bible says to?

It seems to me that you are very selective in which religous texts you are keen to follow.

No, I got it. You are not a Christian. I think that's great. It is YOUR life and since this is the United States of America, you still (unless the left has its way) have the ability to hold far different opinions. And your opinions, and therefore your morals, will be reflected in the way that you vote. You can try to tell me they are not, but they are. I would expect nothing less. Just like my morals, my values are reflected in the way that I vote. A democracy OR a republic usually reflect the majorities views based upon who they elect into office. To tell me that it is not right to impose the views of the majority on a minority is ignorance. How could you govern? You couldn't govern squat effectively. We're headed that way, but it's not like that yet..

Dude. that was total deflection. I asked you a very valid question about why you aren't stoning your daughter if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night or killing your neighbors when they work on Sunday. These are also rules in the bible, that you ignore.

Going into the "you're a mean old atheist who doesn't respect my beliefs" mode is deflection.

If you really think the Big Book of Bronze Age Fairy Tales is a guide for your life, then why do you only follow some of the rules. (Namely, the ones that validate your own fears and biases.)

That is another reason why I believe that the states should be deciding MORE issues for themselves. The federal government is a bloated, ineffective, poster child for the way things should NOT be done. If New York wants to legalize same-sex marriage, then I say they should be able to do so without any issue what-so-ever. If Oklahoma wants to pass a state constitutional amendment that does not allow for same-sex marriage, then I think we should be able to do so.

Sort of meaningless. If New York grants a gay marriage license, Oklahoma has to respect that license. Just like it has to respect a drive through marriage license issued in Nevada.

If a homosexual couple wants to be married, then I would think that since New York provides for such activity, that they would go there to be married and to have their marriage recognized. From some of the same-sex couples I have the pleasure of knowing, Oklahoma would be poorer for the loss. However, what I have found is that same-sex couples from Oklahoma have traveled to New York, have gotten married, and returned here to live. I have been told that in their view, they are legally married and are happy. I think that is wonderful for them. Incredibly, I have also been informed that they returned to Oklahoma because they like the conservative values still in place here and that it is a safe place to raise children. You have got to love the irony of that!

I think you are mistaking "conservative values" for "not wanting to live in a congested urban area." Heck, I'd love to live out in some rural place, if I could afford it.

I also get the "phobia" thing. It's a way for members of one viewpoint to belittle and marginalize members of an opposing viewpoint. "There's something wrong with that person," is a good way to ultimately say that if I don't follow a certain viewpoint then it's because I have "issues". I've noticed that since Barry was elected those "phobia" labels have become the favorite nouns for the left to describe opposing viewpoints. Don't like the way Holder has coddled the New Black Panther Party? It's only because you're a racist! Opposed to same-sex marriage? Why it's because you're homophobic, of course! Only problem is that the constant use of these labels has reduced them to nothing but a "white noise" that no one pays attention to anymore.

I know I don't pay attention to it anymore...

I think if you really think that 5 minutes of performance art by the NBPP was a federal offense, you've got some kind of racial issue going on.

But the thing is, if you are a well-adjusted straight guy, why would you care about gay marriage anyway.

Not because of the bible, because the bible is full of rules that you ignore. Mostly, because of your own fears. Look, that gay dude is probably not going to hit on you, and if he does, you can say, "I don't swing that way". I'm just not seeing how this effects you in any way shape or form.

But it is a great way for the Plutocrats to distract your attention while they dismantle your middle class way of life.

 

[logical4u]

I'm sorry, what "victim" are you talking about?

You mean the family members who can't deal with a gay relative because they let Bronze Age stupidity run their lives?

Screw them. (Figuratively, not literally. I know they don't swing that way.)

Yes, that is the attitude to which I am referring... If those people don't agree with your beliefs, it is OKAY to be deceitful with them (similar to the muslim belief). And homosexual activists cannot understand why people don't respect them.

Hey, call a co-worker a fag, and see who gets fired. It's getting to the point where the people who need to keep their nonsense to themselves are the homophobes, and the world is better off for it.

Worked with a lady who worked at the company for 14 years. Then one time at the Holiday Party she brought her partner, who decided to dress in a man's suit so nobody missed the point. She was fired a few weeks later. The official claim was that they were reducing manpower in that department, but they filled the position with someone else or they could have easily transfered her to another department.

Now, she didn't lie about being gay, she just didn't show up at work with a tea-shirt with a big pink triangle on it. But they fired her for it anyway.

So, yeah, I can see why people won't come out with it and have to deal with your nonsense.

If this happened today, she could have sued the pants off of them, as well she should have.

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

 

[rdean]

Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

It's not, but the right wing is wrong about so much, this is simply another example.

 

[gxnelson]

Yes, that is the attitude to which I am referring... If those people don't agree with your beliefs, it is OKAY to be deceitful with them (similar to the muslim belief). And homosexual activists cannot understand why people don't respect them.

Hey, call a co-worker a fag, and see who gets fired. It's getting to the point where the people who need to keep their nonsense to themselves are the homophobes, and the world is better off for it.

Worked with a lady who worked at the company for 14 years. Then one time at the Holiday Party she brought her partner, who decided to dress in a man's suit so nobody missed the point. She was fired a few weeks later. The official claim was that they were reducing manpower in that department, but they filled the position with someone else or they could have easily transfered her to another department.

Now, she didn't lie about being gay, she just didn't show up at work with a tea-shirt with a big pink triangle on it. But they fired her for it anyway.

So, yeah, I can see why people won't come out with it and have to deal with your nonsense.

If this happened today, she could have sued the pants off of them, as well she should have.

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

Please stop being so stupid...

So you are saying every single gay person out there is hiding who they really are??? If that's true then why do we know about gay people?

Also, since some do hide who they are did you ever think as to the reason why??? Why tell people who you really are when you know you will get beat up and possibly killed because of it?

 

[JoeB131]

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

Yes, the gays are all conspiring against you in secret meetings with secret handshakes.

By your logic, Jews who don't have obviously Jewish names but don't talk about their religion are "hiding" stuff, too.

I don't know which church most of my co-workers go to and I don't care. They aren't lying to me about it, they just aren't volunteering it. Are they being deceitful? Or have they just concluded it isn't any of my business?

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, call a co-worker a fag, and see who gets fired. It's getting to the point where the people who need to keep their nonsense to themselves are the homophobes, and the world is better off for it.

Worked with a lady who worked at the company for 14 years. Then one time at the Holiday Party she brought her partner, who decided to dress in a man's suit so nobody missed the point. She was fired a few weeks later. The official claim was that they were reducing manpower in that department, but they filled the position with someone else or they could have easily transfered her to another department.

Now, she didn't lie about being gay, she just didn't show up at work with a tea-shirt with a big pink triangle on it. But they fired her for it anyway.

So, yeah, I can see why people won't come out with it and have to deal with your nonsense.

If this happened today, she could have sued the pants off of them, as well she should have.

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

Please stop being so stupid...

So you are saying every single gay person out there is hiding who they really are??? If that's true then why do we know about gay people?

Also, since some do hide who they are did you ever think as to the reason why??? Why tell people who you really are when you know you will get beat up and possibly killed because of it?

I don't think this person can stop being stupid.

 

[SayMyName]

It isn't that it is wrong, but from a natural selection perspective, it is against the promotion of a species. No reproduction can come of it, so it is illogical.

From a personal perspective, if I lived a long time ago, it would be all good, since it would mean more females for me to propagate my own genetic material through the human species without as much competition.

 

[editec]

What is it about people that they so obsess about other people's sexuality?

Are they getting some kind of creepy (and truly pathetic) vicarious thrill thinking about homosexual congress? Do they have some sort of an obsessive-avoidance syndome?

Is it some kind of weird political voyeurism in action?

Are they responding to a need to control people?

I just don't get it.

What's the point?

 

[logical4u]

Hey, call a co-worker a fag, and see who gets fired. It's getting to the point where the people who need to keep their nonsense to themselves are the homophobes, and the world is better off for it.

Worked with a lady who worked at the company for 14 years. Then one time at the Holiday Party she brought her partner, who decided to dress in a man's suit so nobody missed the point. She was fired a few weeks later. The official claim was that they were reducing manpower in that department, but they filled the position with someone else or they could have easily transfered her to another department.

Now, she didn't lie about being gay, she just didn't show up at work with a tea-shirt with a big pink triangle on it. But they fired her for it anyway.

So, yeah, I can see why people won't come out with it and have to deal with your nonsense.

If this happened today, she could have sued the pants off of them, as well she should have.

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

Please stop being so stupid...

So you are saying every single gay person out there is hiding who they really are??? If that's true then why do we know about gay people?

Also, since some do hide who they are did you ever think as to the reason why??? Why tell people who you really are when you know you will get beat up and possibly killed because of it?

"You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"...

One of the reasons "gays" get beat up: they dress up like an easy woman, and act like an easy woman, when they get a man alone that thinks they are an easy woman, the man (that wants a woman) discovers that he has been deceived, reacts, violently. Not saying it is right, just saying that deceit is a way of life for active homosexuals.

If homosexuals dressed as their sex and advertised themselves as homosexual, I don't think there would be near the violence from heterosexuals. Of course, they would not get the thrill they get when they deceive people (or why would they dress and act that way).

 

[logical4u]

The homosexual activists are telling us that "their movement" is like the civil rights movement. How can it be when the "homosexuals" can be deceitful about who they really are? (There isn't any hiding "black" skin) The whole presentation of "equality" is deceitful by the homosexual activists. They will not show who they are. They will not say what they really want (except in rare "choir" meeting where they think 'straights' are not paying attention). They compare themselves to situations that are in no way similar, and then tell people to "give" them the status of "married", a relationship built on honor and integrity. Sorry, I have never heard of a homosexual described with those terms for their private behavior.

Yes, the gays are all conspiring against you in secret meetings with secret handshakes.

By your logic, Jews who don't have obviously Jewish names but don't talk about their religion are "hiding" stuff, too.

I don't know which church most of my co-workers go to and I don't care. They aren't lying to me about it, they just aren't volunteering it. Are they being deceitful? Or have they just concluded it isn't any of my business?

Talk about changing the subject.... Are Jews demanding that definitions be changed and special benefits be given to them, specifically because "want" it that way?

 

[logical4u]

What is it about people that they so obsess about other people's sexuality?

Are they getting some kind of creepy (and truly pathetic) vicarious thrill thinking about homosexual congress? Do they have some sort of an obsessive-avoidance syndome?

Is it some kind of weird political voyeurism in action?

Are they responding to a need to control people?

I just don't get it.

What's the point?

Another ploy by a homosexual activist: your agenda is to legitimize (by using the force of the law) a sexual act. When people disagree with you, you tell us to leave your sex life alone. That is what legal homosexual "marriage" is about, legally accepting same sex relationships as "legitimate" family. There is no physical possible way for them to be "family". They can take from others and have a substitute family, they can pretend they are the same, but it is not physically (that is scientifically!) possible. If you want us out of your "sex life", quit flaunting it on the public stage.

 

[Cenotaph]

"You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"...

One of the reasons "gays" get beat up: they dress up like an easy woman, and act like an easy woman, when they get a man alone that thinks they are an easy woman, the man (that wants a woman) discovers that he has been deceived, reacts, violently. Not saying it is right, just saying that deceit is a way of life for active homosexuals.

If homosexuals dressed as their sex and advertised themselves as homosexual, I don't think there would be near the violence from heterosexuals. Of course, they would not get the thrill they get when they deceive people (or why would they dress and act that way).

You're not implying that all homosexual men do this, right? (I just want to be clear).