Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[bodecea]

Why did Christians risk being fed to the lions?

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

And yet, folks like you repeatedly piss on religion and religious objection to same-gender "marriages" because of their belief in a "make-believe sky-god". Hypocrite much?

So, you are feeling persecuted because not everyone believes in your god(s)?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As long as any straight couple who gets joined in a civil ceremony is said to have had a civil union, I have no problem with it.

But there are religions, recognized by the gov't, that have no problem with gays being married. Why can't they be married in that faith?

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

Wherever homosexual "marriage" is officially instituted, homosexuality itself must necessarily be officially asserted in the public schools as normal/morally acceptable, just for starters. That is undeniably the essence of governmentally imposed equality of the same. Do you not see any conflicts of interest concerning the inalienable natural and constitutional rights of Christians, for example, particularly with regard to a rather obvious imposition on religious freedom, free association and parental authority? There's nothing trivial about the distinction to tens of millions of Americans who are pretty much fed up with pagans, inevitably leftists, shoving their morality, such as it is, on them in the public schools especially.

Other than getting government out of the business of marriage altogether or otherwise reforming it to obey the Constitution and reinstitute a public education system that provides for universal school choice, do you see any other solution in sight that protects the INALIENABLE rights of all?

Given the fact that homofascists and their fellow straight travelers are intent on shoving acceptance of their depravity in the name of tolerance in the schools and are intent on overturning natural, constitutional and case law (or just disregarding it) in the name of public accommodation against the prerogatives of private property and freedom of association, do you think we should take up arms now or wait until the Republic is reduced to the police state these goons are hankering for over this trivial distinction?

Here's something else to chew on. . . .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ry-have-the-right-to-deny-32.html#post8700263

 

[bodecea]

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

So...you are saying that the gay agenda is to force the majority to have gay marriages.

NO, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to declare that your gay union is normal and equally acceptable as a man/woman union.

But its not, its an aberation. But you are entitled to equal rights just like a downs syndrome person is entitled to equal rights.

How is allowing me to legally marry my wife forcing you to do anything of the sort? Seems to me you want to stick your nose in other people's business and tell us what we can or cannot do under the guise of your own sensibilities. Are we allowed to do the same to you?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

a civil union would do exactly the same thing, for you or a gay couple. The word "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

The gay agenda is not about equality or justice. Its about forcing the acceptance of the word marriage to describe a homosexual union.

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

Gay' marriage' is a fiction. Imo a pretty harmless fiction that will please some and harm almost no one but nevertheless a denial of reality.

It's news to me that big E Equality is a key American value. Do all citizens of your great nation spend an equal amount of time in jail? own an equal number of guns? have the same health care? are equally attractive to the opposite sex (or, in this context, to the same sex)? or even have the same income and identical shares of the national wealth?

If you don't think its official approbation does not harm anyone, you haven't really thought the matter through relative to the concerns of liberty in the real world, let alone concerning the prerequisites of a stable rule of law in a free society. See my post above and the attached link.

 

[bripat9643]

What if I told you only the genetics of a couple, and they are both XY, and I also told you that you would approve of them being married?

can two XY's produce a child? Can Rosie O'Donnel and her "wife" produce a child?

can a woman with XY chromosomes conceive? Be careful with your answer

Marriage does not require producing a child.

Producing a child does not require marriage.


And why do you put the word "wife" into "" marks? Shall we put your "marriage" into the same marks?

Producing a well adjusted child does require marriage. Producing juvenile delinquents and future residents of the state pen doesn't require marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

Again, that would be un-Constitutional, ‘separate but equal’ is a doctrine offensive to the 14th Amendment (Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). Imagine if you can an employee in the county clerks office responsible for issuing marriage licenses telling a same-sex couple they have to go next door to get their ‘civil union’ license, as they’re not allowed a marriage license.

Telling how you and others on the right endorse and are comfortable with this sort of discrimination in 21st Century America.

The ‘civil union’ solution is not a ‘solution,’ it’s an effort to make gay Americans different from everyone else; this the states cannot do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

can two XY's produce a child? Can Rosie O'Donnel and her "wife" produce a child?

can a woman with XY chromosomes conceive? Be careful with your answer

Marriage does not require producing a child.

Producing a child does not require marriage.


And why do you put the word "wife" into "" marks? Shall we put your "marriage" into the same marks?

Producing a well adjusted child does require marriage. Producing juvenile delinquents and future residents of the state pen doesn't require marriage.

And that's always true eh?

 

[bripat9643]

As long as any straight couple who gets joined in a civil ceremony is said to have had a civil union, I have no problem with it.

But there are religions, recognized by the gov't, that have no problem with gays being married. Why can't they be married in that faith?

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

I don't think there should be any kind of legally recognized union for gays at all, especially not one that confers government benefits on them. That destroys the whole point of having the institution in the first place, which is to promote an arrangement that is beneficial for procreation. What possible social benefit could come from giving gays Social Security survivor benefits?

 

[bripat9643]

And should we be able to prove, to your satisfaction, that gay is "natural", then what? Will you be okay with it then?

Some deviancy is always "natural" because deviant behavior occurs naturally. That does not make deviant behavior is normal.

Isn't Deviant just different than the Norm? A deviation from the norm? I mean brown eyes are normal for us so having blue eyes makes you a deviant? If gays were the majority, would that mean that your sexual orientation was unnatural, deviant?

Wrong. It's deviant from what is healthy and beneficial to the species. It's in the same class as blindness and scoliosis, not eye color.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As long as any straight couple who gets joined in a civil ceremony is said to have had a civil union, I have no problem with it.

But there are religions, recognized by the gov't, that have no problem with gays being married. Why can't they be married in that faith?

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

Why are you so adamantly determined as to what the such a union is called? If a "civil union" garners the same financial and social benefits as a "marriage", why such a fuss about a word?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So...you are saying that the gay agenda is to force the majority to have gay marriages.

NO, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to declare that your gay union is normal and equally acceptable as a man/woman union.

But its not, its an aberation. But you are entitled to equal rights just like a downs syndrome person is entitled to equal rights.

How is allowing me to legally marry my wife forcing you to do anything of the sort? Seems to me you want to stick your nose in other people's business and tell us what we can or cannot do under the guise of your own sensibilities. Are we allowed to do the same to you?

If you were truly interested in social justice and liberty for all, you'd acknowledge the necessity of universal school choice and getting the government out of the business of marriage altogether. I have absolutely no issue with you marring whomever you please. Who's stopping you anyway? We don't need the government to affirm our marriages at all, which is all you're really talking about. But when you make your morality my business by thinking to impose it on my children in the schools or overthrow my property rights, you assert the law of the jungle in violation of the social contract of inalienable rights.

It's the leftists in this country that are doing that, not the Christians. It's the leftists in this country demanding acceptance for something no free human being has to accept, not the Christians, certainly not the classical liberals among them like me.

Does the pagan left respect the prerogatives of private property and free association in the marketplace?

That would be an emphatic no.

Does the pagan left respect the prerogatives of parental authority in the public schools?

Another emphatic no.

Classical liberals are clearly losing the cultural war, and so goes the government. Your victory will be that of a police state and inevitably the ashes of civil war and chaos.

 

[bripat9643]

Because as long as there are separate institutions, there will be separate rules. Once marriage is for gays and straights, the inequality is gone.

Why are you so adamantly opposed based solely on what the union is called? It would seem to me that the name is the most trivial factor in a marriage.

But if you want to make all unions made without a religious segment Civil Unions, I am fine with that. But as long as Christian unions are called marriages, then unions performed by other faiths should be called marriages as well.

you keep confirming that the gay agenda is not about equality and tolerance and rights. Its about the govt forcing the majority to accept behavior that it considers deviant as normal.

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

If government is paying them benefits, then it does affect me. It also affects others in society in other ways. For instance, in the matter of adoption. Putting "gay marriage" on the same plain as real marriage gives gays equal rights to adopt, and that isn't beneficial for the children being adopted.

 

[OKTexas]

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

Semantics is the issue when someone says marriage is for straight people and civil unions are for gay people. If they are the same, why do I need two words? And what's more important, a value, equality in this case, or a word? Let's see how honest you, don't play semantics just answer the questions.

Because they are not the same, married people can have sex, gays can only engage in masturbation. Get it, they can never be the same.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And should we be able to prove, to your satisfaction, that gay is "natural", then what? Will you be okay with it then?

Some deviancy is always "natural" because deviant behavior occurs naturally. That does not make deviant behavior is normal.

Isn't Deviant just different than the Norm? A deviation from the norm? I mean brown eyes are normal for us so having blue eyes makes you a deviant? If gays were the majority, would that mean that your sexual orientation was unnatural, deviant?

Considering the natural purpose for sexual intercourse, a drive to have sex with someone of the same gender is not natural in that sense. That genetic abberations do sometimes occur, that would also be "natural". That does not make those deviant genetic manifestations normal.
Human homosexuality is a matter of choice. Even if genetically abnormal, human beings are theoretically endowed with the capability of making rational, reasoned choices. Knowing that a "natural" deviation is not normal, humans have the ability to choose following their abnormal, deviant nature or to choose to accept a normal lifestyle.
With the intense, non-stop, all-encompassing saturation of popular media and culture with the "glamour" of homosexuality, it is of little wonder that so many young people are "discovering" their own sexual deviance. It's quite fashionable right now to demonstrate personal disassociation from the established norms by being "gay".

 

[bripat9643]

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

No it recognizes the unique difference between the two institutions. If you can't see the difference then it is I that laughs my ass off.

I recognize that both involve Americans joining in a union because they love one another. That you choose to ignore that and focus solely on the sexual aspect shows your own issues. Laugh away.

But know that my side is winning.

The sexual issue is the crux of the matter. If it wasn't for sex, why would gays want to get married?

The arguments contrived by the apologist for "gay marriage" couldn't be more pathetic or absurd.

 

[Iceweasel]

If government is paying them benefits, then it does affect me. It also affects others in society in other ways. For instance, in the matter of adoption. Putting "gay marriage" on the same plain as real marriage gives gays equal rights to adopt, and that isn't beneficial for the children being adopted.

We also pay more for health insurance. Before WA had gay marriage, maybe four years ago when they got civil unions laws passed, I got a notice from my health insurance company that they are no longer allowed to use the words, "husband, wife, marriage or divorce". The new improved language was "domestic partner" and "domestic relationship". So they had to add the partners to the plans. And they don't have kids so it was a win win for them.
I'll bet the Unaffordable Care Act mirrors the lingo and terms.

 

[bripat9643]

But what if it is part of the "natural" order? Will you accept it then?

It can't be because it takes heterosexuals to create them. They can't reproduce. Accepting it is one thing, I think most people do. But the problem is that we are told it is an alternative that's equally valid. It may be to the individuals but not to society as a whole. Opposite genders is how mankind exists. Homosexuality may be an interesting side note but it adds nothing to man's existence.

So, straight people who can't have children, for whatever reason, or maybe even just don't have children, should be treated like gays? I mean, they aren't adding anything to man's existence now are they?

One could even say that they were worse, at least the ones that could have children but don't, since they are letting the species die right?

If they made a fertility test mandatory to get a marriage license, libturds would be the first people in line to protest.

 

[bripat9643]

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

And yet, folks like you repeatedly piss on religion and religious objection to same-gender "marriages" because of their belief in a "make-believe sky-god". Hypocrite much?

So, you are feeling persecuted because not everyone believes in your god(s)?

So now you're attacking his religion? Don't you think your attempt to divert the discussion is pathetically obvious?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

You make a false assumption. Guess you get to figure out which ignorant, uninformed statement you have made is wrong. One, some, or all...doesn't really matter. You have apparently made up your mind and applied what you consider the appropriate labels. I suggest you put me on "ignore".

 

[bripat9643]

So...you are saying that the gay agenda is to force the majority to have gay marriages.

NO, the gay agenda is about forcing everyone to declare that your gay union is normal and equally acceptable as a man/woman union.

But its not, its an aberation. But you are entitled to equal rights just like a downs syndrome person is entitled to equal rights.

How is allowing me to legally marry my wife forcing you to do anything of the sort? Seems to me you want to stick your nose in other people's business and tell us what we can or cannot do under the guise of your own sensibilities. Are we allowed to do the same to you?

We've already had the real world example of the baker who is forced to attend a gay wedding. What more proof do you need?