It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.

No... they had legal equality. There is nowhere in the country where homosexuals did not have the same access, rights or affording of the same opportunities as heterosexuals. They couldn't marry same-gender but no one could marry same-gender, that isn't marriage and hasn't been marriage for more than 5k years it has existed..

And we go around full circle again- with you disagreeing with the courts, and saying what you personally believe is fact.

And how appropriate that you echo the very same argument made by the State of Virginia when it argued why its ban on mixed race marriage was not discriminatory


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally.


Gay couples were as equal as the Lovings were in 1960. Virginia argued that blacks had the same access to marry as whites- as long as blacks married blacks and whites married whites.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.

You've demanded that something be changed to include homosexual relationships. Then demanded the thing you changed to be codified into law, against the will of the people. And I will tell you, as sure as the sun rose today, this will not stand.

Well since you have been wrong on virtually every point so far, your prediction gives me great comfort.

 

[Syriusly]

In fact, I think your real problems just began

Examples?

Boss is going to hold his breath and stamp his feet even harder!

 

[Syriusly]

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

That sounds great, until one realizes you've also said you are waiting for a law to be pushed allowing random gay men to put their penis in your mouth; that gays will not be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong; that same sex marriage will lead to legal pedophilia. You talk about your gay friends, how same sex marriage should be respected, in the same thread you denigrate gays and say that marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex. Your statements on this subject fluctuate wildly.

You don't know what I'm talking about because you're not reading what I'm talking about with an open mind. You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe and so nothing I can post can be anything other than bigoted homophobia.

All I've done is try to illustrate to you how it's a really stupid idea to put government and courts in charge of deciding what we can call marriage and also demanding they make their orders without respect to any religious morality. It's a really dumb idea to change the meaning of words so you can accommodate your sexual proclivity of choice. My point has been that this will ultimately lead to things you're very uncomfortable with but you've set the course.

Sorry, this post is bullshit. You've done far more than argue government should get out of the marriage business. You've argued that gays will never be accepted because they know what they are doing is wrong. You've argued that same sex marriage is based on a sexual proclivity but opposite sex marriage is not. You've argued that gays are not looking for equality and will never be satisfied with whatever treatment they get under the law. You've argued that since marriage is now based on sexual proclivities (according to you) consent laws are going to be changed or done away with. You argued in the OP that the 'gay lobby' will push for laws to allow gays to orally or anally rape random people on the streets! How is that illustrating anything about the courts being involved in marriage?

If people think you are bigoted against homosexuals it is because you have made multiple statements which seem to denigrate or disparage gays. They have been quoted on more than one occasion.
Let's look at some again.

From a psychological perspective, they can never feel accepted because they know homosexuality is wrong. It simply doesn't matter how much effort is made to accept them, they can't accept themselves.

Seems to me, we've done ALL those things and still, we're being called bigots and homophobes. Unless we totally accept your behavior and restructure society so that gay people are treated superior to anyone else, you're not going to be happy. I don't even know if that would make you happy... I think you can't BE happy. You know what you are doing is wrong and you need validation... constantly... never-ending. Well, I am tired of placating you and pandering to your needs. Grow the **** up and accept that some people don't approve of your sexual deviant behavior.

No, what you are witnessing is otherwise tolerant and rational people becoming frustrated because they can't ever seem to do enough for gays. You keep pushing and pushing for something you're never going to have...

You see, what you really want is to be accepted as normal... but you're not normal, are you? You realize what you do is wrong and abnormal for human beings and you seek to have your abnormal behavior accepted and legitimized... but you know that it never will be. No amount of tolerance will ever suffice, you'll keep on pushing until society pushes back, and they will.

Sorry, but I am a little concerned. Because, frankly... I don't see the difference between a person who prefers sex with same gender partners and a person who prefers sex with anything else.

Then there are the many times you've compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, and of course the OP where you talk about how much easier it would have been to continue to be intolerant of gays, how gays are going to push for laws allowing them to orally and anally rape strangers on the street.....do you see a trend here, a tone to many of your posts?

Sure, some of your posts seem reasonable. Sometimes you come off as perfectly tolerant of people's lifestyle choices. I'm not sure why you'd expect people to accept those posts and ignore the ones that indicate the opposite.

Of course homosexuals seek acceptance in society. Find any group of people that is not accepted and they will likely try to gain that acceptance; humans are social creatures in general. Guess what? They are gaining that acceptance. Homosexuality is far more accepted today than it was a few decades ago. The Obergefel ruling may be an outgrowth of that acceptance, so what? You may have a problem with homosexuality (you deny it but continue to talk about homosexuality as wrong and immoral) but the country as a whole is clearly moving towards being accepting.

That was my point about my post where I swapped out "Jew" for homosexual.

His diatribe would be right at home at Stormfront talking about the evils of Jews.

Here is the thing- Obergefell actually was riding behind the crest of public approval- when the court declared that the Lovings had a right to marry, they were 20 years ahead of public approval.

If this was 1965- would Boss be arguing about the evils of the mixed race agenda forcing its immoral lifestyles on American people. There were people making those same arguments then.

That was my point about my post where I swapped out "Jew" for homosexual.

His diatribe would be right at home at Stormfront talking about the evils of Jews.

Here is the thing- Obergefell actually was riding behind the crest of public approval- when the court declared that the Lovings had a right to marry, they were 20 years ahead of public approval.

If this was 1965- would Boss be arguing about the evils of the mixed race agenda forcing its immoral lifestyles on American people. There were people making those same arguments then

 

[Mertex]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic........and have a distorted view of reality....and FYI, you and a bunch of homophobes are condemning homosexuality. And, your little brag about bending over backwards to try and please them is a whole lot of rubbish....you and the rest have never accepted them much less bent over backward to please them. And here's a news flash for you..... "the country has allowed it". In case you're not aware of it, same-sex marriage has been deemed legal in the country by the Supreme Court......who wields a whole lot more authority than your puny little self.

If you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. But, your little rant isn't going to change anything....they are tax-paying humans and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

 

[Faun]

Evercurious is bisexual who just happened to fall in love with a man who is a jealous type so I now live a "straight" life (we've been together 15 years now.) Prior to that I was in an open marriage with the father of my two children; and honestly had my husband been legally able to marry his other gal I would have been fine with it, though likely the other gal wouldn't have been so w/e. First husband and I had a very lovely marriage, had two wonderful kids as we'd intended, and we're fairly good friends even now that our boys have all grown up.

On the other hand, my adopted sister had to leave her home state, and family, to marry her girlfriend, and had to stay there because her home state would not recognize their civil union. The son of very good friends of the family had to leave his home state, and family, to marry his boyfriend, and again, had to stay there because his home state would not recognize his marriage. I actually /know/ people that these crappy laws hurt very well.

Additionally, outside my immediate "family" I've befriended hundreds of folks from the LGBT community over the years and I've heard their stories. One of them left the US for Europe because of anti-gay sentiment, one of them was fairly regularly beaten in the bathroom at school for being transgender, another was beaten up for wearing drag to a club, another nearly committed suicide because of being teased constantly in HS, another was hate by her own ******* parents for being a lesbian... I'm not an emotional person so I don't "wring my hands" over it, I get angry, because I see and hear what these people have to go through for no other reason than "gay sex is icky"

The double standard of it all makes me belief it's all bullshit, the whole ******* thing; I was fairly open about my bi-sexuality in HS (in the late 80's) I had girlfriends more than boyfriends and pretty much everyone in school knew it; no one really cared, if anything they thought it was sexy or w/e, most men fantasize about two women together or with them so that's socially okay - but a gay man? "ICK!! BURN THEM!!" It's a load of crap from a bunch of bigots as far as I'm concerned, sorry.

They say they're "protecting us" by stopping it, because their God is going to destroy the country/world, because gay men are "dangerous," or w/e bullshit, but the truth in prob. 99% of the cases is that they just think gay men are gross, nothing more. If God was going to "end" this country, then he would have done it in the beginning, because homosexuals have /always/ been here, and yet there /still/ no evidence of all the bullshit these fuckers fear monger in their protests and "arguments", and no evidence what so ever that their God gives a rats ass if a few people fall out of his flock. If he did then why didn't he stop the whole "freedom of religion" thing the founding fathers put in? Why did he leave it in? Free will. Yet the Christian's have no interest in "Free Will" only their personal /interpretation/ of Gods will.

If one wishes to get deeper into my "spiritual" thinking; personally I'm an agnostic, while I'm mostly scientific leaning, I figure that maybe, just maybe, there is something/someone out there who started all this, maybe it even guides us; but if that is the case, then it appears s/he wishes homosexuality to be accepted because it's happening all over the planet, not just here. This is not just /our/ supposedly "degenerating" society, but the will and voice of a global society that will become absolutely necessary in the long term of the human race. Ultimately, in my world view, belief system, or w/e your want to call it, we as a species absolutely must learn to accept each others differences; our different cultures, societies, languages, and our different religions, or lack there of, if we are ever going to have world cooperation/co-existence, if we're ever going to be able to make the transition into space living, if we're ever going to colonize another planet and ultimately save our species, as well as the species of every animal on this planet. If there is a "superior being" out there, then why did s/he make us smarter than the "animals"? So we could war with each other over who's god is better?? I believe that /if/ there is a "God" then we humans have been given higher intelligence /because/ we are tasked with ensuring that all "Earthlings" survive to eternity. We have the brain power to make it happen and even the foundations of the country that could support it, but instead of embracing the freedom that would allow that "advancement" as a species, we're too busy fighting with each other over stupid shit like who's loving and having sex whom. It's a waste of this country's "good" foundation to move backwards in "acceptance" of fellow man in all their differences.

I basically find the argument facetious and shortsighted for "peace," which is why I say that if /Christian's/ cannot accept those who are "different" or have "different beliefs" then they will cease to exist, because the bigotry and hatred they display regarding what two men thousands of miles away from them do, pretty much destroys any chance of any kind of world co-existence and cooperation - which ultimately leads to a path of non-existence for every species on this planet (albeit perhaps, if we're lucky in the Russian roulette of asteroid strikes, not for millions of years when the Sun swallows the planet.) I suppose ultimately that I do not believe that a God who would put us here simply to fight with each other over this kind of stupid shit until he let the sun destroy us is a "good" God to follow in the first place (which ultimately leads me to the idea/thought that it is not, in fact, /God/ who teaches this bullcrap, but rather men, weak scared men who want to maintain or gain control of other men and have no interest in actually "saving" anyone, souls or otherwise, but rather are only interested in pushing their personal agenda and beliefs at the time, no matter how unreasonable and unrealistic those personal beliefs and opinions are.)

I mean if we're going to talk stupid shit; how long before we blow up Japan for their encouragement of sex between 13 year olds? How long before we destroy the middle east because they don't believe in the Christian teachings? How long before we finish the job with the Native American "Pagans"? Where does it stop?

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

It's clear that our laws and rules can't respect both views because they conflict. So it seems the reasonable and rational thing to do is find some way that we can all get along together and also have a society which we can coexist in. I don't know if it's the "ideal" solution but it seems to me that removing government from sanctioning all marriages and replacing government recognition of traditional marriages with a recognition of domestic partner contracts instead, is a way to ostensibly give everyone what they want. Churches and religious people get to keep the "sanctity of traditional marriage" so vitally important to their religious foundation, and LGBT couples have a mechanism by which they can obtain the benefits of traditional married couples.

PLUS.. there is an ADDED benefit to CUs... it opens the door to any number of domestic arrangements between two legal parties. A civil union contract could be used by an adult child caring for their aging parent, or two spinster sisters living together, or two eternal BFFs who have nothing but a platonic relationship. It's no longer about sexual behavior or romantic love, it's simply a legal contract without any binding emotional condition attached.

Unfortunately, whenever I have presented my idea, the response I get is the same from both sides. The religious people pushing to ban gay marriage say it's not acceptable and gay marriage proponents say it's not enough. It's almost as if the "activists" don't want to resolve the issue.

Despite the doubts, I have plenty of gay friends and I've watched them be discriminated against for a long time while this battle has raged on. It will continue to rage on as long as we allow it to because neither side is willing to give. So we can keep on fighting this fight, one side winning a 'victory' this year only to have it reversed next year, surrendering more and more of our freedom to government and courts where at the end of the day, no one has really gained any ground... OR... we can become reasonable people who approach this problem rationally and with the idea of trying to solve the problem and give everyone what they want.

Reasonable people already approached the problem and resolved it. Your butthurt over the matter doesn't actually factor into the equation as you think it does. The problem is solved.

I know that a lot of you think this. You were all cheering and celebrating the SCOTUS ruling and you're full of hubris and confidence that you've won this war and it's now just a matter of dispatching a few 'bigots' like Kim Davis and you're set... but I don't think so. In fact, I think your real problems just began.

Fortunately for America, what you think has no bearing on reality.

 

[Faun]

You've decided, like all other gay marriage fanatics, that I am a bigoted homophobe and so nothing I can post can be anything other than bigoted homophobia.

Gee, wonder where anyone could have gotten that idea??

oh ... wait .........

Boss says, [/b]"Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you!"[/b]​

..... THAT'S where.

 

[Faun]

Gays can marry, The law says so, so what? It's not normal natural or God honoring and every one (deep down) knows it.

Do you also notice the most bigoted folks here are also among the most religious? By the way, what does any of your thoughts on gays have to do with U.S. law? When did we begin writing laws based on the Bible?

Also, it enhances the spread of AIDS.

Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.

 

[Faun]

Jews are God's chosen people
Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

Not since the New Testament.

 

[EverCurious]

Again... I don't have a problem with removing government from the marriage business altogether. I don't think the government, at the federal level, has any power whatsoever when it comes to how we as individuals define marriage. That should be entirely up to us, and we should be free to believe whatever we want... If we believe homosexuality is wrong and there is no such thing as homosexual marriage... that should be respected. If we believe gay marriage is a beautiful thing between two people who love one another... that should also be respected.

Have you been arguing to get the gov out of the "marriage business" for your whole life, or only /now/ that the rules of the game are changing about your "ball"?

Marriage licenses have been issued since the middle ages and oft tied with gov, interestingly they were "invented" specifically to permit marriages that would otherwise be "illegal/invalid" for various reasons; because the waiting period wasn't up, because the "designated" dowry wasn't paid, or whatever. It was a way for a couple, or their parents, to circumvent the established traditional church "formality" rules about marriage (and/or to avoid the "banns of marriage" proclamation as a public matter.)

Up until the 1600's marriage was a private matter; basically if a couple told the church or (gov) court that they were married that was that. However, the church(s) were finding issues they didn't like; Catholic's marrying non-Catholics, divorce and/or second marriages, or even because the marriage didn't take place at the prescribed times and other stuff like that so /they/ pushed for a more formal "legitimate" form of marriage. In the mid 1700's the Church of England declared that marriages were basically a gov. issue and marriage licenses started to get /really/ entangled with gov. (Some stupid shit in there too, like in the early 1800's there was a combo gov/church "edict" that marriages performed between 6pm and 8am were invalid lol)

Now of course, America didn't follow the Church of England's lead there, specifically noted freedom of religion and such in our founding documents. So in America, we didn't require the "banns" to make a marriage "official" as declared by the European religions (Roman Catholics, Church of England, etc.) so we kind of followed our own rules here. As far back as the early 1600's marriages licenses were being issued in the "new world" so in 1776 we American's continued our "tradition" of defining our own rules about marriage. From the get-go we'd put it into states hands; like in most states we recognized "common law" marriages but NC and Tenn /never/ recognized them as legal, or a number of states required a blood test while a bunch didn't, etc. So not only did America make it's own rules about what constituted a "legal" marriage, the individual states did as well.

This poses a problem if one is to argue "tradition" as some kind of across the board standard, because the truth is that there /wasn't/ any across the board standard for the country; we have made our own beliefs and rules from the beginning of this country. While one can reasonably argue that it should just be left up to the states (and only run into the higher power of the us constitution,) one cannot "reasonably" argue that there is an "over reaching" belief across the board that "marriage is between one man and one woman" because there /are/ Christian churches all over this country who (even openly) support SSM. To argue that /your/ state or churches particular definition is "right" and the other's "wrong" is not a valid argument in the US, and frankly history shows very clearly that it never has been that way. Reality is that the constitution overrules all of it and has to, unless we're going to switch to a theocracy - and even if we did, why should the churches who welcome SSM be forced into submission by those who are against it??

In the end, the constitution very correctly declares that marriage is a fundamental right of humans; and it's not even limited to the US, the UN and many other countries note the exact opinion. Even if one wishes to argue that it's just Liberals pushing an agenda, then the painful truth for "selective traditionalists" is that Liberals are winning across the planet...

-----

Now, if we want to talk honestly about the supposed "pedophile" threat SSM somehow opens up, well then lets talk about some of the legit marriages approved by the church itself. There wasn't originally any age requirement for marriages - in fact there are hundreds of marriage licenses from the 1850's that note the bride's age as young as 12 and grooms ages as young as 14. Back then, prior to like the 16th century, there wasn't any concept of "childhood" what-so-ever - children were considered to be little adults so the idea of "pedophilia" didn't even exist as an "idea" much less was it recognized as a factor in a "legit" marriage. In fact, "Pedophila" as a concept didn't even exist until the 1900's, and it wasn't until the 1950's that the actual term for it was put out. It wasn't until 1929 that an actual rule was put down by the church(es) about children and marriage; 16 and/or 21 depending on particular religion and where in the world, and that wasn't even really a church thing, it was put in because of societal thinking changes, not because of any religious belief. (The concept of sexual consent is believed to have started in India the late 1800's; it only applied to girls there and is believed to be a "defense" against forced rape.) Still, even /after/ the churches put on that "age limit" in the early 1900's it was easily "gotten around" and still considered a "legit" marriage by both church and gov. just by putting down that the bride/groom was "under age" or a "minor" on the license. There are some churches that note the "marriage age" as between 12 and 14 in the early 1200's though; they only declare specifically invalid marriages below age 7 - yet despite that declaration there are many church validated marriage licenses (even from that particular church) with kids as young as 2 or 3 years old long after that, up until the late 1800's. (Which rather kills the idea of marriage being about "sex" as well... or I sure ******* hope it does anyway.)

(And of course, you realize that is exactly why they defined pedophile as age 11 and below, and why they specifically note that the "adult" must be at least 5 years older than the object of their desire, right? Because if they didn't set the bar that "low" in the 1850's it would label like 90% of the marriages in the world at the time as "pedo marriages" heh) Times change though, and society, quickly followed by gov, and church, change their views on all kinds of stuff - thus the 1929 church declaration of 16 or older unless the parents consent. (By that time parents weren't doing so many arranged marriages, so it was much more about the kido's choice than the parents political/financial arrangements - and of course on the heels of social uproar about little girls being raped in India... - aka there wasn't much bitching about said change by anyone.)

Now, in America, almost from the beginning, we didn't even bother with writing down the ages of the bride/groom so who knows if they were "legal" age. However, there is a late 1600's marriage license issued in the new world with the brides age of 9, another has the grooms age as 4 years old; those are under the English religious rules of course, but there's really no evidence to support a theory that churches in America (as a new country) imposed "consent ages" for "valid" marriages until /after/ the age of consent was established in US law (and of course those ages varied from state to state) so it's not likely that we American's enforced the 1200's church marriage guidelines of 12-14 years old any more than those in Europe did (specifically Wales, Britian, Scotland as I recall that particular churches influence). If we presume that America, like the majority of the rest of the world, followed India's late 1800's social change/uproar regarding the "sexual" age of consent, then we could "guess" that is when the church began to actual "enforce" any kind of legal age of marriage concepts in America. Though it should be noted that even as late as the 2000's we have continued debate about things like "Romeo and Juliet" relationships trying to get around sexual consent and marriage laws alike.

To be clear, it's not that I personally approve of young aged marriages, nor that I think we as a nation should, but rather that /if/ we are going to argue about supposed church "tradition" when it comes to "pedophilia" then let us argue truthfully, instead of avoiding the reality that the "age rules" of "traditional" marriage in the eyes of the church have changed massively over the past few centuries, (and I've really only touched upon the tip of the ice burg for changes of so-called "tradition" within religion.) Thus I feel that using "tradition" as an argument against SSM is uneducated, if not flat out dishonest... If anything, the argument that SSM is going to lead to pedophile marriage would actually be more of a /returning/ to so-called "church" tradition, than /continuing/ the more modern idea of /not/ allowing it...

 

[Faun]

Homosexuality is bad for society as a whole
Homosexuals can not have children
Homosexuals are psychologically imbalanced
God created a MAN and a WOMAN for family purposes and with differing personalities and skill sets.
Anything that deviates from that is "sin born" and needs to be repented and turned from in the eyes of God.

Actually, according to the Bible, G-d create a man and a woman to have sex with each other to be fruitful and multiply -- and then have sex with their kids/parents and their siblings to be more fruitful and multiply even more.

 

[Faun]

I don't believe in your god- nor do I care what you think is normal- being left handed is not normal.

IF marriage does anything, it encourages monogamy- which hopefully will reduce the spread of Aids.

However, even beyond that- tell me why you think the marriage of two lesbians 'enhances the spread of Aids'?

AIDS? maybe not Lesbian's but - God intended women to be a helpmeet for man. (marriage)
does it seem "natural" to you for a woman to be with a woman?
Do you think it is in the best interest of a child to be raised by 2 women?

Your god is not my god.

Whether something is natural depends on how you are defining that word.

If two women love and support a child, emotionally and financially, I think that is in a child's best interests.

There is only ONE GOD. We don't get to pick and choose

I don't believe that there is any god.

However, Jews believe that there is one God- and Jesus Christ is not his Messiah- they get to pick and choose.
Muslims believe there is only one God- and Jesus is a prophet- not a savior.
Hindu's believe in many gods- to them your god is nothing more than your imagination- or maybe an aspect of Shiva(?)

However, in the United States, we do not base our laws, including marriage laws, on one or all of many Christians interpretations of what the law should be.

we don't, yet, the reality is, there is One God

And we never will -- it's hard-coded in our Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes

There is LITERALLY... no such thing as a Homophobe...

gay Americans who can now legally marry.

There are no Leftist Americans and Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

They can't in Alabama. We don't do marriage licenses anymore...

Yeah I heard that Alabama was shutting down the issuance of Marriage License and that's a Mistake.

In the fairly near future, the political winds are going to shift... and shift 180 degrees. And that shift is going to reject the ideological Left... and it is going ot go to work to hold those who scuttled the nation, INDIVIDUALLY responsible.

The Licenses issued to Homosexuals provides EVIDENCE of Crimes against the People of the United States, in stark, specific and irrefutable terms.

Sure.... the Voter Registration roles are available... but all that shows is that a person was affiliated with the enemy's political party. It doesn't show that they actually bought into Left-think or open, unmitigated, deviant acts of degeneracy.

The Marriage Licenses signed by the individuals who have applied to officially play queer-house, do that.

With that, a trial for crimes against the people should not last longer than it takes to ask: "is that your signature" and where it can be established that they are the same person that signed that application and accepted that 'license', they're guilty. Then its just a matter of taking them to where their skulls can be crushed by a sledge, as the next one is already being questioned regarding THEIR 'license'.

Sorta like a slaughter house, minus the empathy for the poor innocent creature... .

The looney bin let Keys have access to a keyboard again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes

There is LITERALLY... no such thing as a Homophobe...

gay Americans who can now legally marry.

There are no Leftist Americans and Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

They can't in Alabama. We don't do marriage licenses anymore...

Yeah I heard that Alabama was shutting down the issuance of Marriage License and that's a Mistake.

In the fairly near future, the political winds are going to shift... and shift 180 degrees. And that shift is going to reject the ideological Left... and it is going ot go to work to hold those who scuttled the nation, INDIVIDUALLY responsible.

The Licenses issued to Homosexuals provides EVIDENCE of Crimes against the People of the United States, in stark, specific and irrefutable terms.

Sure.... the Voter Registration roles are available... but all that shows is that a person was affiliated with the enemy's political party. It doesn't show that they actually bought into Left-think or open, unmitigated, deviant acts of degeneracy.

The Marriage Licenses signed by the individuals who have applied to officially play queer-house, do that.

With that, a trial for crimes against the people should not last longer than it takes to ask: "is that your signature" and where it can be established that they are the same person that signed that application and accepted that 'license', they're guilty. Then its just a matter of taking them to where their skulls can be crushed by a sledge, as the next one is already being questioned regarding THEIR 'license'.

Sorta like a slaughter house, minus the empathy for the poor innocent creature being dispatched, as at least cattle serve a viable purpose... .

 

[Faun]

Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.

No... they had legal equality. There is nowhere in the country where homosexuals did not have the same access, rights or affording of the same opportunities as heterosexuals. They couldn't marry same-gender but no one could marry same-gender, that isn't marriage and hasn't been marriage for more than 5k years it has existed.

You've demanded that something be changed to include homosexual relationships. Then demanded the thing you changed to be codified into law, against the will of the people. And I will tell you, as sure as the sun rose today, this will not stand.

You're still ******* deranged.

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to ... which is the primary purpose of marriage and why it's a right ... your brain remains too deformed to comprehend.

And again, using your twisted logic, blacks had equal rights to marry ... they could marry any other black person.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Umm, hate to kick your soap box out from under you ... buuuut ........ married gay couples are far less likely to spread HIV.

LOL!

LOL!

.

.

.

ROFL!

.

.

.

OEeewww MAN! That's funny.

Queers are disease sponges.

The premise is that once' Married', the fudge packer will somehow be struck with a sense of principle...

Principle, which of course, it had ignored from the first time it sucked cock... and every time it did so right up to and through the pretense of the 'wedding' night.

So... It's fairly unlikely that the unprincipled degenerate is going to find the strength of character to behave within principle... just because they're pretending to be principled, by claiming themselves married... in the hopes of being 'seen' as "Legitimate", OKA: "A person of principle."


If the lowly *** were capable of principled behavior... they wouldn't be a ***.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.

No... they had legal equality. There is nowhere in the country where homosexuals did not have the same access, rights or affording of the same opportunities as heterosexuals. They couldn't marry same-gender but no one could marry same-gender, that isn't marriage and hasn't been marriage for more than 5k years it has existed.

You've demanded that something be changed to include homosexual relationships. Then demanded the thing you changed to be codified into law, against the will of the people. And I will tell you, as sure as the sun rose today, this will not stand.

You're still ******* deranged.

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to ... which is the primary purpose of marriage and why it's a right ... your brain remains too deformed to comprehend.

And again, using your twisted logic, blacks had equal rights to marry ... they could marry any other black person.

Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Skylar]

Well I do enjoy flaunting in front of homophobes

There is LITERALLY... no such thing as a Homophobe...

Says you, and your 'homo means 'self' nonsense. The dictionary says otherwise. In any contest of the meaning of words between you and the dictionary....the dictionary wins.

There are no Leftist Americans and Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and woman. As our law so delightfully demonstrates, your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively.

Yeah I heard that Alabama was shutting down the issuance of Marriage License and that's a Mistake.

Alabama might pout for a little while. But more rational heads will again prevail and begin issuing marriage certificates. And if they issue them for anyone, they have to issue them for straights and gays.

In the fairly near future, the political winds are going to shift... and shift 180 degrees. And that shift is going to reject the ideological Left... and it is going ot go to work to hold those who scuttled the nation, INDIVIDUALLY responsible.

Unless none of that actually happens. Remember, your record of predicting the future is awful. You told us that the USSC was going to overturn same sex marriage in Obergefell, told us that the people would turn on the Supreme Court, even predicted a civil war.

None of that happened. Your subjective opinion clearly offers no objective insight into future events. And have proven statistically to be worse than guessing.

The Licenses issued to Homosexuals provides EVIDENCE of Crimes against the People of the United States, in stark, specific and irrefutable terms.

Save for the 'crimes' part. Or the 'irrefutable' part. Remember, issuing licenses for gays isn't a crime. Which kind of takes the wind out of your sails on the legal front.

 

[Skylar]

Homosexuals from the beginning have asked for- and demanded- and fought- to achieve legal equality.

No... they had legal equality. There is nowhere in the country where homosexuals did not have the same access, rights or affording of the same opportunities as heterosexuals. They couldn't marry same-gender but no one could marry same-gender, that isn't marriage and hasn't been marriage for more than 5k years it has existed.

You've demanded that something be changed to include homosexual relationships. Then demanded the thing you changed to be codified into law, against the will of the people. And I will tell you, as sure as the sun rose today, this will not stand.

You're still ******* deranged.

No matter how many times it's explained to you that gays did not have the right to marry the person they wanted to ... which is the primary purpose of marriage and why it's a right ... your brain remains too deformed to comprehend.

And again, using your twisted logic, blacks had equal rights to marry ... they could marry any other black person.

Marriage IS: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

....or one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

You can pretend all you like that YOU define marriage. Back in reality, you remain nobody. And we define it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Unless none of that actually happens.

Well, that's what CNN told those who asked 'what happens when Homosexuals are accepted and they demand to be married.

It happened..., because it HAD to happen. As such are the nature of slippery slopes, because they lead directly to inevitable consequences.