Same-Sex "Marriage" is a Governmental intrusion of monumental proportions

[orogenicman]

Everyone knows I'm against gay marriage, and generally, gays IMO, have the big 'G' on their foreheads as the Gay letter,

This country would never have been what its become if our society was hinged on gay culture.

You are not born gay. I firmly believe there are other issues at bay which help one facilitate the transition to homosexuality. It's unnatural.

-Geaux

--------------------------------
What's at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what's in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such "marriages." Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex "marriage" is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions. - See more at: Salvo Magazine - The Tyranny of the Minority by S. T. Karnick

Salvo Magazine - The Tyranny of the Minority by S. T. Karnick

------------------------

It is as simple as this. God said a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife.

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.


Jesus confirms this as well since he upheld and taught from Gods laws and showed us how they should be lived.

Matthew 19:4-6
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The bible is also quite clear that sex should be between a man and woman in marriage, so since God doesnt recognize Gay Marriages, Gay sex is considered sex outside of marriage and is Sexual Immorality and Sexual Immorality applies to Gay and Straight people and if one lives that lifestyle, the bible is also quite clear, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven if you practice a sexually immoral lifestyle. Jesus and the apostles no where in scriptures accepted Sexual Immorality as okay.

Colossians 3:5-7
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, 7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.

Galatians 5:19-21
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[a] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[b] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:5
5 For this you know,[a] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Mod Edit - Link removed as it links to another discussion forum.
=================================

Erm, allowing people to get married is an intrusion - on what? If you don't want to marry someone of your own sex, don't. No one is making you do it. Neither is anyone making anyone else do it. Get over yourself, bigot.

 

[Skylar]

And of course the OP knows this. This is an attempt to make the "objections to gay marraige be about something that is easily legally defeated"...instead of this which the LGBTs are trembling in their boots about >>> (post 151) 11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case SCOTUS Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Um, what? Why would homosexuals be 'trembling in their boots'? They're winning.

You may be projecting.

It also may be an attempt to "start another religions conversation about gay marriage in in order that people don't keep seeing the poll results here" >> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A poll that doesn't ask about support for gay marriage. Rendering it irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Syriusly]

You are not born gay. I firmly believe there are other issues at bay which help one facilitate the transition to homosexuality. It's unnatural.

Geaux, I don't want to put words in your mouth -- goodness knows it's done to me with amazing regularity -- so tell me if I'm understanding this.

If being gay is a choice that one makes (for whatever reason, as a result of whatever conditions), would you say that allowing gays to legally marry is essentially rewarding aberrant behavior?

.

Marriage is not a right. It's earned and a blessing. So I don't equate allowing gays to marry to being a 'reward' but just chalk it up to a bad decision. Just because something is voted into law by the 'people' doesn't mean that its constitutional. The courts got this one wrong too. No surprise there when you see what they did to pass Obamacare. But to their credit, they have been sticking it up his rear lately with his lawless EO's

-Geaux

Wow- so much wrong in one post- where to start?

Marriage is not a right. It's earned and a blessing.

The Supreme Court has disagreed with your going all the way back to 1923

In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Just because voters vote something into law doesn't ensure it is constitutional- but barring a court decision- it is assumed constitutional.

Courts are the ones who ultimately decide whether a law is constitutional- and so far almost every court has found bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is not a right. It's earned and a blessing. So I don't equate allowing gays to marry to being a 'reward' but just chalk it up to a bad decision.

The marriage you're talking about is religious tradition with no bearing on marriages allowed by the government. Since institution of religious practice is banned by the Constitution, disallowing same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

See ^^ This is exactly the shift in the conversation the LGBT cult wants.

They most certainly don't want to talk about how gay marriages strip children involved of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...to the child's formative detriment...or how states are ONLY involved in marriage to incentivize that best formative environment for their future citizens to become an asset and not a damaged burden.

These are your personal issues, based on your personal opinion. Back in reality, children of same sex parents are as healthy and well adjusted as those of hetero parents. So your imagined harm hasn't come to pass. The *actual* harm to children of same sex parents when their parent's marriages aren't recognized is well established.

And worse, for you, thoroughly recognized by the SCOTUS:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families
by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces
benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family
security.

Windsor V. US.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

So why would the courts ignore actual harm to children in favor of your imaginary harm?

I can't think of a single reason.

Otherwise marriage to states is a fiscal loss. The states need to get something for their money, granting tax breaks for the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it is not a right)

You say marriage isn't a right. The USSC recognizes that it is.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. But its quite irrelevant to the application of the law.

 

[Syriusly]

The texts of a religious book are not material to the functions of a secular government.

But who a state incentivizes for the best formative psychological environment for kids IS material to the functions of a secular government.

Justice Kennedy:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not a right. It's earned and a blessing. So I don't equate allowing gays to marry to being a 'reward' but just chalk it up to a bad decision.

The marriage you're talking about is religious tradition with no bearing on marriages allowed by the government. Since institution of religious practice is banned by the Constitution, disallowing same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

See ^^ This is exactly the shift in the conversation the LGBT cult wants.

They most certainly don't want to talk about how gay marriages strip children i)

Gay marriages do not strip children of anything.

Gay parents are raising children- when they get married they are married gay parents raising children.

The only change is that their children now have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

It is irrelevant what the bible says in Homosexuality or same sex marriage...except for those wishing to marry under the rules of the bible.

Belief in the Bible is protected by the Constitution... just as one's sexuality is.

This is America....All gods are equal

And of course the OP knows this. This is an attempt to make the "objections to gay marraige be about something that is easily legally defeated"...instead of this which the LGBTs are trembling in their boots about

Since no one is listening to your delusional fantasies about the cases going before the courts...no one is 'trembling in their boots'

 

[NYcarbineer]

The texts of a religious book are not material to the functions of a secular government.

But who a state incentivizes for the best formative psychological environment for kids IS material to the functions of a secular government.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Shall we talk about how gay marriages strip children involved of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time? Why should any state incentivize an inferior formative structure for a child to be raised in?

The state gives the same benefits to a single mom as they do a married man/woman couple. Probably even more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The texts of a religious book are not material to the functions of a secular government.

But who a state incentivizes for the best formative psychological environment for kids IS material to the functions of a secular government.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Shall we talk about how gay marriages strip children involved of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time? Why should any state incentivize an inferior formative structure for a child to be raised in?

Gays can already raise children without being married. By your logic, they should somehow be penalized.

How would you penalize them?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The texts of a religious book are not material to the functions of a secular government.

But who a state incentivizes for the best formative psychological environment for kids IS material to the functions of a secular government.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Shall we talk about how gay marriages strip children involved of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time? Why should any state incentivize an inferior formative structure for a child to be raised in?

Rights are rights and do not have to prove some sort of proper 'incentive' to be protected.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The texts of a religious book are not material to the functions of a secular government.

But who a state incentivizes for the best formative psychological environment for kids IS material to the functions of a secular government.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Shall we talk about how gay marriages strip children involved of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time? Why should any state incentivize an inferior formative structure for a child to be raised in?

Then hetero couples wanting to get married should have to prove that they have the financial means to properly raise a child.

 

[mdk]

It is irrelevant what the bible says in Homosexuality or same sex marriage...except for those wishing to marry under the rules of the bible.

Belief in the Bible is protected by the Constitution... just as one's sexuality is.

This is America....All gods are equal

And of course the OP knows this. This is an attempt to make the "objections to gay marraige be about something that is easily legally defeated"...instead of this which the LGBTs are trembling in their boots about >>> (post 151) 11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case SCOTUS Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It also may be an attempt to "start another religions conversation about gay marriage in in order that people don't keep seeing the poll results here" >> Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I don't now why you keeping linking to these threads? Almost every point you've made, if not all of them, have been utterly and totally destroyed by a number of people. If anything you would not to steer any more traffic to those debacles because it doesn't exactly show you to be very knowledgeable on an array of subjects.

 

[Geaux4it]

Marriage is not a right.

Actually it is.

It's earned and a blessing. So I don't equate allowing gays to marry to being a 'reward' but just chalk it up to a bad decision. Just because something is voted into law by the 'people' doesn't mean that its constitutional. The courts got this one wrong too. No surprise there when you see what they did to pass Obamacare. But to their credit, they have been sticking it up his rear lately with his lawless EO's
-Geaux

Says you. And you don't even know what our rights are, of which marriage is one. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, you need a valid state interest and a very good reason. And opponents of same sex marriage have neither.

Again, marriage is not a right, but a privilige

-Geaux

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is not a right.

Actually it is.

It's earned and a blessing. So I don't equate allowing gays to marry to being a 'reward' but just chalk it up to a bad decision. Just because something is voted into law by the 'people' doesn't mean that its constitutional. The courts got this one wrong too. No surprise there when you see what they did to pass Obamacare. But to their credit, they have been sticking it up his rear lately with his lawless EO's
-Geaux

Says you. And you don't even know what our rights are, of which marriage is one. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their right to marry, you need a valid state interest and a very good reason. And opponents of same sex marriage have neither.

Again, marriage is not a right, but a privilige

-Geaux

Again, that's your opinion. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted it. Alot. Recognizing the marriage is a right.

You can disagree, of course. But your disagreement will have no legal relevance