Can Anti-Same Sex M Advocates Address These Facts?

[☭proletarian☭]

I haven't heard a compelling reason to change the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Neither have the voters in any venue where it has been put to a vote.

I don't think opponents of it have a thing in the world to explain. It's up to those who want to change the law to make the case.

Keep in mind that no one is preventing anyone from getting married. Even here in TN any two people can get married.
The state won't sanction such a thing and won't award benefits to such a union. Any reason why they should? I don't see one.

...

 

[gautama]

The Abnormal Freaks already have the same civil rights as the Normals.

What the Abnormal Freaks want to do is to impose their views on the Normals so that the Normals change their Religion's definition of MARRIAGE established thru the millenia. With the Concept of PROCREATION being the central premise of that definition.

So, it boils down to the fact that the Abnormal Freaks want to sanctify their predilection for their method of ******* by forcing Religions to officially recognize their method of ******* as being NORMAL.

Unofficially, proportionally speaking, some of the places of worship have succumbed to the Abnormals. However the established, or the Official Church Doctrine of the various Religions has not.

The Abnormal Freaks, in order to get themselves to be considered as Normals.....which they are clearly NOT......want the blessing of the Government as well. In their mind that would give them their ULTIMATE IMAGINARY STATUS of Normality.

But, the Government reflects the will of the people. And the will of the people follows the concept of Marriage as it is defined by the Organized the Religions of the World in effect for millenia.....with the central premise of PROCREATION.

That is why, in spite of the whims of some judges who do not follow the letter of the law, and grant the Abnormal Freaks ephemeral "marriages".....INVARIABLY will lose on appeal. Since the overwhelming majority of the citizens (80% ?) steadfastly follow their Churches OFFICIAL Doctrine.

The Abnormal Freaks will continue to lose.

These are the IMMUTABLE FACTS of SSM (Same Sex Marriage)..... like it or not.

I have spoken.

 

[Zona]

Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.

Giving women the vote would send a message that its OK to be a woman. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for women voting so I could be wrong.

 

[Zona]

I dont think Blacks should be able to marry whites either. If we change that law, it will destroy marriage and everything it stands for.

 

[Zona]

Why do some gays want to marry each other anyway? (And not all gays think same-sex marriage should be legal.) They used to make fun of marriage.

Taxes. Medical care. If one get seriously sick in the hospital, the other person can visit...you know under the family only rule thing.


They want to be married for the same reasons straight people want to be married, as shocking as this is, I know.

 

[LuckyDan]

Civil union doesn't accomplish those things?

 

[Brubricker]

The post below is a perfect reflection of what I described at earlier points in this thread.

The Abnormal Freaks already have the same civil rights as the Normals.

What the Abnormal Freaks want to do is to impose their views on the Normals so that the Normals change their Religion's definition of MARRIAGE established thru the millenia. With the Concept of PROCREATION being the central premise of that definition.

So, it boils down to the fact that the Abnormal Freaks want to sanctify their predilection for their method of ******* by forcing Religions to officially recognize their method of ******* as being NORMAL.

Unofficially, proportionally speaking, some of the places of worship have succumbed to the Abnormals. However the established, or the Official Church Doctrine of the various Religions has not.

The Abnormal Freaks, in order to get themselves to be considered as Normals.....which they are clearly NOT......want the blessing of the Government as well. In their mind that would give them their ULTIMATE IMAGINARY STATUS of Normality.

But, the Government reflects the will of the people. And the will of the people follows the concept of Marriage as it is defined by the Organized the Religions of the World in effect for millenia.....with the central premise of PROCREATION.

That is why, in spite of the whims of some judges who do not follow the letter of the law, and grant the Abnormal Freaks ephemeral "marriages".....INVARIABLY will lose on appeal. Since the overwhelming majority of the citizens (80% ?) steadfastly follow their Churches OFFICIAL Doctrine.

The Abnormal Freaks will continue to lose.

These are the IMMUTABLE FACTS of SSM (Same Sex Marriage)..... like it or not.

I have spoken.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Legalizing same-sex marriage would send the message that it's OK to be gay. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for making it legal so I could be wrong.

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.

Giving women the vote would send a message that its OK to be a woman. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for women voting so I could be wrong.

Everyone wants to be a proletarian

 

[Brubricker]

Civil union doesn't accomplish those things?

Theoretically maybe, but there are no civil unions in existence today which accomplish those things.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Why are right-wingers so stuck on that word?

And why are they so obsessed with homo.sex.uals?

 

[LuckyDan]

Civil union doesn't accomplish those things?

Theoretically maybe, but there are no civil unions in existence today which accomplish those things.

How many people marry for tax breaks and reduced insurance premuims? Show of hands? Anybody?

 

[mdjgirl7]

As a Christian I can tell you we will never advocate ssm. That is not our idea but God's he states that very clearly in the Bible. Wouldn't we be a hypocrite if we did? Obliviously some of you have no idea what a church does in our communities around the country. We are not perfect never claimed to be. We know we will never be perfect. But we do try to follow the instruction of the Bible as closely as we can that is the whole point.

The secular world likes to label us as to what they think we should be like. You know we think we are perfect yet we do not live up to their standard but we always measure up to God's standard. The difference is we have been saved our debt is settled with God and he the only one we are concerned about impressing.

Like I said God says no to ssm or homosexuality period. Again I say that is not our words but God's. Does this mean we get a right to hate gay people no it does not. We should always treat each other with respect that does not mean we get to disrespect God in that effort.

I do not say that ssm will destroy the traditional marriage. We are saying is God does not approve and we are not to disagree with him. Do u understand what I am telling you?

One more thing I assure you their are many Churches that reach out to the lost the hungry and the homeless. The churches are one of the last refuge that when somebody needs help the church will step out and try and help them I have been apart of that on many occasions. One church cannot help everybody in this world but we try and cover as much as we can.

I agree with you on one thing there are Church's out there that are not houses of worship but like you said money grubbers that is very sad but we are not all like that. God will deal with them I assure you. That will be his timing not ours.

 

[Smartt33]

We are all familiar with the claim SSM should not be allowed because it is immoral and will send an atomic wedgie up the nuclear family's fanny. Thus the strongest claim against SSM is for preservation of our Republic. On the question of its moral value: It does not matter.

Actually, Spiritually speaking it is all about moral values. lowering moral values in a community, in a public way, does lower the community values. That has been seen in many ways over the past 200 years. When a community condones immorality, more immorality will peak it's ugly head in and grab the community. Look at the musif and movie industries, immorality runs them for the most part. Immorality is where the money is.

It truly does not. I think it's immoral for Christian churches, who operate tax free, to erect structures in the name of Christ, preach about the Love of God and the call to Sacrifice, then lock the doors to keep the homeless out.

I agree that churches need to open their doors to any community member. Not necessarily for membership, but certainly to come and worship and fellowship. I believe the majority of churches do, and I know that of the churches that do, the majority of them are the best churches in the world. Most of them are small churches. and the majority of churches in Amrtica, and even in the world, are small chuerches, less than 200-300 members. Those churches are where the majority of the Christians are also. It is also where the majority of the true Gospel ministries are carried out.

Does my indignation based on my moral compass justify robbing those Churches of their rights? No. The Constitution guarantees them the Right to gloriously display their hypocrisy on a regular basis. (this does not apply to all Christian churches, but the majority of US churches are guilty of following Caesar instead of Christ.) The cry of a moral crime without the justification of intrusion is a selfish microphone indeed.

This is where you lose any credibility you might have had. You don't care at all about churches "rights." You would rip those rights right our from under ever Christian that you have opportunity to do so with. Yes, there are hypocrites in the Christian church, just like there are on these message boards. (you, for example) If I am not mistaken, Caesar and Christianity do not mix. Caesar gets his part, but Caesar has no control of the church. Right now, Caesar is ripping off all people and taking what is not his.

Massachusetts has often been the iconic ridicule of radio pundits and Christian religious groups who claim it is a great example of the product of immorality, and especially in the Same Sex M debate. This demonstrates the fundamental cognitive dissonance of mob mentality. Here is why: MA has long been a leader in respecting and protecting the sanctity of Marriage. We are approaching a 20 year celebration of having the lowest divorce rates of any State in the entire nation:

That is great. However, that does not mean that morality is not the center of the problem.

"Massachusetts and Connecticut rank first and second, respectively, for having the lowest divorce rates in the nation, according to new 1994 divorce data from the National Center for Health Statistics."
STATE-BY-STATE DIVORCE RATES


That was a time when SSM was being lobbied here. Let's jump a decade and see those numbers:


"The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5."
Divorce Statistics, Marriage Statistics: Divorce Rates in America, Marriage

It was around that time the Constitution chalked up another victory of being a more honest National manifesto. The anti-SSM crowds were ballistic with predictions. Five years later:



Provisional 2008 data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report show that after over four years of legal same-sex marriage, the divorce rate in Massachusetts has actually dropped, from 2.3 per thousand residents in 2007 to about 2.0 per thousand in 2008, the lowest rate in the nation—and one that hasn’t been seen since the 1940's.
Low Massachusetts divorce rate another defeat for same-sex marriage opponents


Wow. If that is the type of destruction gays bring to the sanctity of marriage and society I am scared as hell to find out what good it could possibly accomplish.

Iam not citing the data in a claim of causation and saying SSM made divorce rates go down. I am citing it to show the argument of causation put forth by anti-SSM crowds that Same Sex Marriage causes enough harm on society to justify burning portions of the Constitution is simply too damn gay to be true.

That means they must be doing something a little different. However, morality is still the center of the SSM debate, and it is central in finding the right solution.

 

[gautama]

Giving blacks the vote would send a message that its OK to be black. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for blacks voting so I could be wrong.

Giving women the vote would send a message that its OK to be a woman. That's how I've always viewed the motives of those opposed to it. But hey, I'm for women voting so I could be wrong.

Everyone wants to be a proletarian

The Wannabe Kommisar,

"Everyone wants to be a proletarian" ????

What a preposterous statement.

I come from a line of Aristocrats.

I look down on rubbish like you......and, justifiably so.

 

[Brubricker]

Civil union doesn't accomplish those things?

Theoretically maybe, but there are no civil unions in existence today which accomplish those things.

How many people marry for tax breaks and reduced insurance premuims? Show of hands? Anybody?

You know very well that the proponents of same-sex marriage are not pushing it for those reasons alone. I think we can agree that all sides see it as a big-picture question.

 

[LuckyDan]

Theoretically maybe, but there are no civil unions in existence today which accomplish those things.

How many people marry for tax breaks and reduced insurance premuims? Show of hands? Anybody?

You know very well that the proponents of same-sex marriage are not pushing it for those reasons alone. I think we can agree that all sides see it as a big-picture question.

I've heard the "new frontier in civll rights" arguments, too, and I'm pretty sure if I were black I'd find them insulting.

 

[Darkwind]

Personally I don't care who marries who.
But your post is only going to attract those that already agree and piss off those that don't.
I might be the only one that simply doesn't care......eat what you want and I'll do the same.

I'm optimistic opponents will approach the challenge with honesty and a genuine attempt to explain how their causation argument is seriously depleted by the available info.

I would be optimistic that you would be honest in accepting and giving true value to the arguements against it. But I won't hold My breath.

I don't really care about the ghey issue on marriage. I support the elimination of government in the interference of all marriage period.

But I'm always amuse by people who cherry pick information and then wonder if people will acknowledge the data while wholly rejecting any information refuting them simply because they just don't want to hear it.

Nice try though.

 

[gautama]

Personally I don't care who marries who.
But your post is only going to attract those that already agree and piss off those that don't.
I might be the only one that simply doesn't care......eat what you want and I'll do the same.

I'm optimistic opponents will approach the challenge with honesty and a genuine attempt to explain how their causation argument is seriously depleted by the available info.

I would be optimistic that you would be honest in accepting and giving true value to the arguements against it. But I won't hold My breath.

I don't really care about the ghey issue on marriage. I support the elimination of government in the interference of all marriage period.

But I'm always amuse by people who cherry pick information and then wonder if people will acknowledge the data while wholly rejecting any information refuting them simply because they just don't want to hear it.

Nice try though.

I'm pretty sure I see why Darkwind would like to eliminate what he call's "the Govt's interference in MARRIAGE".

Until now the Abnormal Freaks whined that they were denied "equal rights".....and they were right. But since "civil unions" are now legal, they can't whine that they don't get the same civil rights as the NORMALS.

So THAT is not the issue.

For Darkwind the central issue is that Darkwind erroneously thinks that the Govt's stance of NOT granting the Abnormal Freaks the recognition of their version of Marriage, deprives them of their ULTIMATE IMAGINARY STATUS of being NORMAL.......which OBVIOUSLY they are NOT.

Since some States like Massachusetts grant the Abnormals the recognition they seek......and there are numerous breakaway Places of Worship (not only in Massachusetts) that not only recognize, but perform SSM, Darkwind would like the "US Govt to stay out of the MARRIAGE issue."

Unfortunately for Darkwind, the Overwhelming Majority of States are unlike the FREAKY State of Massachusetts (and a couple of others) where an Obamarrhoidal Abnormal Freak like the QUEER Barney Frank can wreak damage on our whole country.

The Overwhelming Majority of States will NEVER permit the Abnormal Freaks from taking over the States', as well as the US Govt's version of MARRIAGE based on the Organized Religions' version established throughout the millenia (and whose central premise is PROCREATION), and followed by the devout American citizenry which will remain at ~80% (?) for probably centuries to come.

There is also an ADDITIONAL misconception on the part of the Abnormal Freaks AND the Normals.

The MISCONCEPTION is that the US Govt has a CONSCIOUS BIAS against the Abnormal Freaks.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

The US Govt relies on its existence because of Tax Revenue. And, Tax Revenue is structured in such a way as to tax the FAMILY UNIT......and that foundation of the Tax Revenue might as well be carved in marble and brought down from Mt.Sinai. The FAMILY UNIT is defined IDENTICALLY as that of the Organized Religions of the World's version of MARRIAGE replete with the PROCREATION factor included.

Thus, when TAXES are levied against the citizenry, THIS ESTABLISHED "FAMILY UNIT (with children)" DETERMINES THE TAXES THE US GOVT RELIES ON.

The US GOVT doesn't give a shit whether an Abnormal Freak "marries" another Abnormal Freak or decides to **** a duck...fall in love.....and "marry" this avian creature in some "break-away' church that marries Queer Freaks like Barney Frank. The US Govt DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THIS AS A FAMILY UNIT FOR TAXATION PURPOSES and therefore will NOT recognize this so-called "MARRIAGE".......nothing personal, Darkwind...NOTHING PERSONAL.

Darkwind is correct however, in suggesting that the Govt should keep its tentacles out of as much of the private sector as possible.

Darkwind's instinctual reaction against the Obamarrhoidal-type of intrusion into the Private Sector should be applauded.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I dont think Blacks should be able to marry whites either. If we change that law, it will destroy marriage and everything it stands for.

Worthless Nazi racist troll.

 

[goldcatt]

Civil union doesn't accomplish those things?

Theoretically maybe, but there are no civil unions in existence today which accomplish those things.

Get rid of DOMA and they might.

Of course I'm with Dive and some others in wanting to see all civil marriage changed to civil unions, and leaving "marriage" to the religious authorities. Problem solved, everyone is equal, everyone gets the same recognition and benefits with no religious overtones. Let the various churches and others do as they please.