Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Mac1958]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

The states rights issue and the gay marriage issue are mutually exclusive, unless and until the people vote in folks who would make it so.

Would some people want to see far more power concentrated in DC, more of a central planning approach? Yeah, I'm afraid so. I'm more of a federalist, but going from where we are now to a central authority which would take away property rights like that is one helluva stretch.

.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

The states rights issue and the gay marriage issue are mutually exclusive, unless and until the people vote in folks who would make it so.

Would some people want to see far more power concentrated in DC, more of a central planning approach? Yeah, I'm afraid so. I'm more of a federalist, but going from where we are now to a central authority which would take away property rights like that is one helluva stretch.

.

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative. Federalism is rooted in the concept of federal government restrained by enumerated powers, none of which grant to the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Constitutional amendments gave power to the federal government to ensure no discrimination exists in voting, but no similar amendment was passed to give it power over marriage, which has always been regulated by the states. torturing the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to contrive "rights" that were not intended is not constitutional constructivism, it's a power grab....a power grab that will one day backfire on you in a terrible way.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's call them what they are:

Fecal ****** Fiends.

Death and Decay, they worship it, even in their sexual rituals.

Another homophobe obsessed with anal sex.

Is it because they fear being anally raped?

Or fear that they will never have anal sex?

Why would I fear not engaging in a process that involves getting feces and dangerous bacteria on my life-generating organ?

 

[Skylar]

...that the U.S. has ever seen, Bryan Fischer claims.

On his "Focal Point" radio show, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer recently claimed that the "active, aggressive homosexual lobby" represented a threat to U.S. democracy.

As Right Wing Watch first reported, Fischer, who is no stranger to anti-gay declarations, told listeners, "I firmly believe the homosexual agenda represents the greatest single threat to religious liberty we have ever seen in the history of our existence as a nation."

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty That The U.S. Has Ever Seen Bryan Fischer Claims

I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

I think this is a preamble for the new Congress about to be seated in a couple of weeks.

Or not. Republicans aren't eager to deal with this issue....as public sentiment is so clearly against them. Even republicans are coming around.

 

[konradv]

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative.

You cannot consider rights to be "God given" and allow the states to decide whether same-sex marriages are legal.

 

[Skylar]

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative.

Sure you can. All you have to do is recognize that rights of the individuals trump State powers.

Read the 14th amendment some time on the State violating rights of federal citizens. It might disabuse you of some of your misconceptions.

Federalism is rooted in the concept of federal government restrained by enumerated powers, none of which grant to the federal government the power to regulate marriage.

Ah, but our form of federalism is also rooted in the rights of the individual being protected from abrogation. And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear, there are far more rights than those enumerated. Marriage is one of them, recognized as a fundamental right.

And the 14th amendment forbids the States from violating the privileges and immunities of Federal Citizens. Which every American is....including the gays. Take a look at Loving V. Virginia on the authority of the Federal Government to protect rights of individual from State law.

Constitutional amendments gave power to the federal government to ensure no discrimination exists in voting, but no similar amendment was passed to give it power over marriage, which has always been regulated by the states.

An amendment is necessary to protect the rights of individuals. Merely the recognition by the courts that such a right exists. And the right to marriage is such a right.

torturing the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to contrive "rights" that were not intended is not constitutional constructivism, it's a power grab....a power grab that will one day backfire on you in a terrible way.

Have you ever read the 9th amendment? Does the phrase 'reserve rights' mean anything to you? It should.

Recognizing the right to marry isn't 'torturing' any part of the constitution. As the constitution is predesigned by the Bill of Rights to accommodate more rights than are explicitly enumerated.

Recognizing and protecting the rights of the people isn't a 'contrivance'. Its pretty much the reason the government exists.

 

[Skylar]

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Says who? And who says that gays and lesbians can't have children? A lesbian couple I know is working on their second kid.

Worse, no one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. Why then would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist, exempting all straights, and applying it only to gays?

It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

The states rights issue and the gay marriage issue are mutually exclusive, unless and until the people vote in folks who would make it so.

Would some people want to see far more power concentrated in DC, more of a central planning approach? Yeah, I'm afraid so. I'm more of a federalist, but going from where we are now to a central authority which would take away property rights like that is one helluva stretch.

.

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative. Federalism is rooted in the concept of federal government restrained by enumerated powers, none of which grant to the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Constitutional amendments gave power to the federal government to ensure no discrimination exists in voting, but no similar amendment was passed to give it power over marriage, which has always been regulated by the states. torturing the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to contrive "rights" that were not intended is not constitutional constructivism, it's a power grab....a power grab that will one day backfire on you in a terrible way.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with the Federal government 'regulating' marriage.

The issue concerns the states violating the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to state marriage laws they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end. “This [the states] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently, there is no 'power grab,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

The states rights issue and the gay marriage issue are mutually exclusive, unless and until the people vote in folks who would make it so.

Would some people want to see far more power concentrated in DC, more of a central planning approach? Yeah, I'm afraid so. I'm more of a federalist, but going from where we are now to a central authority which would take away property rights like that is one helluva stretch.

.

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative. Federalism is rooted in the concept of federal government restrained by enumerated powers, none of which grant to the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Constitutional amendments gave power to the federal government to ensure no discrimination exists in voting, but no similar amendment was passed to give it power over marriage, which has always been regulated by the states. torturing the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to contrive "rights" that were not intended is not constitutional constructivism, it's a power grab....a power grab that will one day backfire on you in a terrible way.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with the Federal government 'regulating' marriage.

The issue concerns the states violating the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to state marriage laws they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end. “This [the states] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently, there is no 'power grab,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Wrong. The 14th Amendment was not designed to be read broadly beyond the issues it was designed to address, the abolition of slavery and the rights of those with previous conditions of servitude. It doesn't conceal and "secret rights". State marriage laws, as they exist, don't violate the equal protection clause because it is applied equally; that is, any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex. This applies regardless of race, gender, previous slave status, or even sexual orientation. What's "ignorant and ridiculous" (your words and they fit you so well) is the notion that the right to marry, applied equally to everyone, translates into a right to marry whoever one wants, which has no legal precedent whatsoever.

Your legal argument is crap, your grasp of constitutional law feeble, and your reasoning skills leave something to be desired. Bye.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PGREEN SAID:

“I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.”

Yet you seek to disadvantage gay Americans for that very reason alone, leaving same-sex couples no other recourse than to file suit in Federal court.

 

[GreenBean]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

 

[GreenBean]

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Says who? And who says that gays and lesbians can't have children? A lesbian couple I know is working on their second kid.

Worse, no one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. Why then would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist, exempting all straights, and applying it only to gays?

It makes absolutely no sense.

who says that gays and lesbians can't have children? A lesbian couple I know is working on their second kid.

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

 

[GreenBean]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

I did not apply the productive sex argument - I applied the sane sex argument. While it is true that only heterosexual sex is natural, wholesome and healthy and produces future generations and homosexual "sodomy" merely breeds disease and pestilence - that fact alone is not ample cause to prohibit grown adults from engaging in their perverted lifestyle.

 

[Skylar]

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

The states rights issue and the gay marriage issue are mutually exclusive, unless and until the people vote in folks who would make it so.

Would some people want to see far more power concentrated in DC, more of a central planning approach? Yeah, I'm afraid so. I'm more of a federalist, but going from where we are now to a central authority which would take away property rights like that is one helluva stretch.

.

You cannot be a federalist and support the trampling of state prerogative. Federalism is rooted in the concept of federal government restrained by enumerated powers, none of which grant to the federal government the power to regulate marriage. Constitutional amendments gave power to the federal government to ensure no discrimination exists in voting, but no similar amendment was passed to give it power over marriage, which has always been regulated by the states. torturing the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments to contrive "rights" that were not intended is not constitutional constructivism, it's a power grab....a power grab that will one day backfire on you in a terrible way.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with the Federal government 'regulating' marriage.

The issue concerns the states violating the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by denying same-sex couples access to state marriage laws they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, evidence in support, and a legitimate legislative end. “This [the states] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently, there is no 'power grab,' the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Wrong. The 14th Amendment was not designed to be read broadly beyond the issues it was designed to address, the abolition of slavery and the rights of those with previous conditions of servitude.

The 14th amendment was meant to apply the bill of rights to the States. As before the 14th, the States could (and frequently did) violate the rights of federal citizens. as the Bill of Rights didn't apply to States. The 14th amendment gave the Federal government the authority to intervene to protect those rights from State violation.

It didn't limit itself to slavery. Or even mention slavery. But instead the 'privileges and immunities' of federal citizens and that they receive 'equal protection if the law'.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

From Section 1, 14th amendment

And the right to marry is such a privileges and immunity. You may disagree. But no one cares.

It doesn't conceal and "secret rights".

You're confused. Reserve rights already exist. They aren't 'created' or 'concealed' by the 14th amendment. They are guaranteed by the 9th amendment. The 14th gives the Federal government the authority to protect them from State violation.

Remember...rights trump state powers. Read the 9th amendment some time. You'll find it illuminating.

State marriage laws, as they exist, don't violate the equal protection clause because it is applied equally; that is, any person can marry any unrelated person of the opposite sex.

The same logic was used to justify interracial marriage bans. As they applied equally to whites and blacks. Alas, you need a valid reason to deny someone a fundamental right. And in gay marraige bans, there is no such reason. Nor a compelling state interest.

Which might explain the absolutely abysmal record gay marriage bans have faced in the federal courts.

This applies regardless of race, gender, previous slave status, or even sexual orientation. What's "ignorant and ridiculous" (your words and they fit you so well) is the notion that the right to marry, applied equally to everyone, translates into a right to marry whoever one wants, which has no legal precedent whatsoever.

Actually Loving V. Virginia establishes the Federal government's authority to override State laws if those laws abrogate the fundamental right to marry. With Windsor v. the US reaffirming the 'certain constitutional guarantees' that state marriage laws are subject to.

You can ignore both rulings. But your willful ignorance doesn't really change much.

Your legal argument is crap, your grasp of constitutional law feeble, and your reasoning skills leave something to be desired. Bye.

Says you. Yet much the same arguments have carried 6 federal circuit court districts and made gay marriage legal in 36 of 50 States. With the USSC preserving every single one of those decisions. Including the decision that overturned prop 8 for much the same reasons.

And this same USSC overturning the portions of DOMA that banned gay marriage.

You can call it 'crap'. Yet gay marriage is still legal in 36 of 50 states. And growing. Get used to the idea.

 

[GreenBean]

Yes they do

No, they don't. You've been lied to, as usual. Want to find out, use Google images and search for "scat sexual fetish", but not from work. The shit-eaters are straight, and seriously fucked-up.

IT's known as corophillia, and like like Homosexuality, beastiality, necrophilia and other sexual perversions - it's the activity of a diseased mind.

That's what they used to think about straights going down on each other, but no longer since it's normal. Ask your dad what he prefers, mommy's mouth is probably top of the list.

So what you're saying is that corophillia should be promoted amongst children like homosexuality is and while they're at it perhaps a few lessons - good idea go eat shit and let us know how it works out

What I saying is when you scream the fags are bad, you'll soon discover the straights are worse and what was Sexual Perversion changes over time, just like rug-munching and blowjobs are now considered NORMAL, since they are.

Yes ... Men munch rugs Women give Blow Jobs that is normal - when you reverse the roles it is perversion. Got it ?..... good... glad I could clarify that for you Penis breath.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Say who?

Look right at the marriage license- nothing about that there. Certainly wasn't in my wife and my wedding vows- certainly we are glad to have had children, and certainly I would want our child to have married parents- but we could have had children without marriage and we could have been married without children.

We allow 80 year old couples to marry- we even require some couples to prove that they can't reproduce before we allow them to marry.

You just don't apply the same standards to homosexuals that you do to heterosexuals.

Do you allow Pigs and Dogs to marry - They're harmless swine and canine . I grudgingly admit that homosexuals are are degenerate members of the Human Race that should be held to higher standards than the pig that wallows in shit - It does me or anyone else little harm for Pigs to have mock marriages - and it also does no harm to allow perverts to have faux marriages as well - just get out of sane peoples faces if that's how you insist on living your twisted little lives.

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

 

[Skylar]

I did not apply the productive sex argument - I applied the sane sex argument. While it is true that only heterosexual sex is natural, wholesome and healthy and produces future generations and homosexual "sodomy" merely breeds disease and pestilence - that fact alone is not ample cause to prohibit grown adults from engaging in their perverted lifestyle.

So can we all agree that the the ''productive sex equals morality' argument is blithering nonsense not worthy our consideration? As no one, not even its author, seems willing to defend it.

As for 'sane sex', read up on Lawrence v. Texas if you'd like to know why the USSC doesn't see things the way you do. And pay special attention to the fella that wrote that ruling. And Romer V. Evans. And Windsor v. the US.

That would be Mr. Swing Voter himself. Justice Kennedy. The man who will probably decide the fate of gay marriage bans should they ever be heard by the USSC.

 

[Skylar]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage".

Sure there is. Just go to the 36 of 50 States where they are performed every day.

They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman.

And you are more than welcome to whatever subjective interpretation of marriage you wish. No one really cares. What gays and lesbians are interested in is legal recognition for their marriage.

And in the majority of the nation, they have it.

 

[Skylar]

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.

Says who? And who says that gays and lesbians can't have children? A lesbian couple I know is working on their second kid.

Worse, no one is required to have children or be able to have them to get married. Why then would we exempt gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist, exempting all straights, and applying it only to gays?

It makes absolutely no sense.

who says that gays and lesbians can't have children? A lesbian couple I know is working on their second kid.

It's not "their" Child - there's a sperm donor involved

Sure there is. And in any straight couple, if one member was infertile and they used a sperm donor for fertilization, it would be the couple's kid. Its no different for gays and lesbians. Or anyone who uses a surrogate. Or anyone who adopts.