The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Most Catholics, aren't. That's why I like this pope, he's damn near a Christian...

You have no basis to judge who is and isn't Christian and to what degree.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

Homosexuality Catholic Answers

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

Homosexuality Catholic Answers

Yes. I'm already Catholic. You don't need to educate me on what my own faith teaches.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Most Catholics, aren't. That's why I like this pope, he's damn near a Christian...

You have no basis to judge who is and isn't Christian and to what degree.

I have every basis, I know the faith, just as I know Judaism and Islam. All are utter nonsense BTW.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

Homosexuality Catholic Answers

Yes. I'm already Catholic. You don't need to educate me on what my own faith teaches.

It wasn't for you but I highly doubt you know either. Most Catholics, like most Christians, are in name only.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

Homosexuality Catholic Answers

Yes. I'm already Catholic. You don't need to educate me on what my own faith teaches.

It wasn't for you but I highly doubt you know either. Most Catholics, like most Christians, are in name only.

You have no basis for that assumption either. You neither are a Christian nor understand Christianity and your ignorant guesses are a poor substitute for genuine familiarity.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Which teachings of the RCC are you referring to? Do you even know what the Catechism says about homosexuals? The Church is far more compassionate toward gays and sensitive toward their plight than Protestant fundamentalists, that's for sure.

Homosexuality Catholic Answers

Yes. I'm already Catholic. You don't need to educate me on what my own faith teaches.

It wasn't for you but I highly doubt you know either. Most Catholics, like most Christians, are in name only.

You have no basis for that assumption either. You neither are a Christian nor understand Christianity and your ignorant guesses are a poor substitute for genuine familiarity.

I understand most religion far better than most of the faithful, which is why I rejected all of it. Just humans seeking easy answers to a life, and a universe, that they will never, and can never, understand. If you buy the lie of God, or any other faith, off you go to make babies and plow the fields, exactly what we need the vast majority of you to do. Works like a charm...

 

[Dragonlady]

The sin is in accepting homosexuality as if it were normal. It might be a greater sin than the act of homosexuality itself.

It's like trying to see the world through the eyes of any pervert. It looks much different to a pedophile or zoophile. All you have to do to make the world comfortable for perverts is to accept and normalize the perversion! See how you can look at the world through their eyes.

Exactly. The equivalent would be meeting bulimics on their terms. We should all just encourage restaurant owners to have vomit urns on tables.

Always always always always important to remember the difference between behaviors and static states of being, like race, in this conversation. People pass on behavioral standards socially. Over time they become standards and collective-mores.

Do we hate bulimics or people with other eating disorders/orientations? No! We each know someone struggling with it who may be a friend or a family member. Do we make bulimia normal or risk being called a "hater" or being sued for refusing to put vomit urns on tables? NO!

What bullshit! Bulimia is a disease which can kill you, left untreated.

You looneys are going further and further in your bigotry and hatred. Reject the children! What nonsense.

It's you who are being rejected and with good cause. With every post you make yourselves more vile and disgusting. Accepting homosexuals is a greater sun than being a homosexual. You re just making stuff up now.

This is not Christianity or anything close to it. This is just spewing hate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

I don't have the first clue what I'm talking about? I'm not the one waxing rhapsodic about how entire cultures throughout history have been completely invalid because they didn't adhere to an intensely Westernized and extremely modern view of marriage, love, and relationships that you apparently learned from pop culture, in the process of endorsing an addition to the definition of marriage that has NEVER been the norm in ANY culture. I would at this point have to advance the suggestion that you're talking out of your ass.

Do you know anyone who's polygamous? Anyone who comes from a culture where polygamy is common? Do you even know that there are places like that in the world, or that they have existed all over the world at one time or another, throughout human history? But you're prepared to state categorically that the ONLY VALID TYPE OF MARRIAGE, the only type of marriage that includes commitment, or the specific type of love that exists in marriage, is the sort that we have in the US and other Western nations, right now. Because FYI, that whole "souls igniting on fire" line of poetic bullshit would probably make people from even a hundred years ago laugh their asses off, let alone farther back.

Maybe this is too complicated for you to understand. Or maybe you're just so ******* arrogant that you really do think you can look at a polygamous triad (for example) and say, "You don't really love each other. Only I and those like me TRULY love and have commitment and are married, because we do it in pairs."

Which kinda makes you the person you keep trying to say gay marriage opponents are. Ouch.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

But I am correct. In Loving v. Virginia, the State argued that they were not interfering with anyone's right to marriage- any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. The Courts- correctly found that argument to be specious and ruled that Americans have the right to marry.

No court case said that marriage was about 1 man and 1 woman- not Loving v. Virginia, not Zablocki- not one.

Nor did the argument about procreation work- since States didn't care whether hetero couples could have children, would have children- and even allowed Hetero couples to marry who had to prove that they could not have children.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- marriage is about much more than children.

I am familiar with the homophobic terms- and they are really hateful.

We may concur that homosexuals will NEVER in any way, in and OF them selves, regardless of race, culture or religion EVER be able to create a child out of that union. Agreed? That one simple and obvious point. THAT is my point..

Your point appears to be that you just want to exclude homosexuals from marriage- using arguments that have failed to convince any court.

You seem to think that marriage is designed to be for the universe of couples that can have children- and to exclude those who cannot ever 'create a child out of that union'

That universe would of course include homosexuals- and every heterosexual couple who cannot create a child together- for instance my 80 year old uncle who just recently remarried- and every couple who needs sperm or egg donors.

But you don't exclude everyone in that universe- you exclude only homosexuals couples.

Because your argument is predicated on excluding homosexuals from marriage. And attempting to find a rationalization that doesn't appear to be as blatantly discriminatory as excluding mixed race couples from marriage.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

By definition, to love someone more than everyone else, you cannot love two people as such. By definition, if two people love each other as such, it is mathematically impossible for a third person to be included.

Emotional threesomes are much like sexual threesomes....there's always one person who gets left out more than the other two.

I'm sorry, when did THAT become "the definition"? I'm pretty sure the argument was "love", not "more than everyone else". So now you want to investigate everyone's relationships when they apply for marriage licenses, to make sure that they're as movie-script-infatuated as they can possibly be with each other, before you'll validate their union?

Please don't tell me what polygamy is and isn't like. It's even worse than the scads of atheists clamoring to tell me the "correct" way to be a Christian.

Are you really saying that if, rather than loving just one person, I love two people more than anyone else in the world, you feel justified in denying me the happiness of marriage simply because my relationship is different from yours?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

But I am correct. In Loving v. Virginia, the State argued that they were not interfering with anyone's right to marriage- any black man could marry any black woman. Any white man could marry any white woman. The Courts- correctly found that argument to be specious and ruled that Americans have the right to marry.

No court case said that marriage was about 1 man and 1 woman- not Loving v. Virginia, not Zablocki- not one.

Nor did the argument about procreation work- since States didn't care whether hetero couples could have children, would have children- and even allowed Hetero couples to marry who had to prove that they could not have children.

As a man who has been married to my wife for over 20 years- marriage is about much more than children.

I am familiar with the homophobic terms- and they are really hateful.

THAT is my point. To them (homosexuals) it's just a status symbol.

And that does appear to be your point- you project a lot of things onto homosexuals- based upon what appears to be just your personal prejudice.

I had one of my best friends marry the man he loves last summer.

It was no more a 'status' symbol than my own marriage.

And for you to call it that- just displays your ignorance and prejudice.

 

[Syriusly]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

We're not pushing anything, fucktard. We're just echoing the exact same bullshit arguments you've been giving, with "same sex" replaced by "polygamous" or "incestuous". Unlike you, WE are actually bright enough to construct an argument we don't necessarily hold with for the intellectual purpose of playing devil's advocate. Not everyone does their thinking with their glands.

Yes- you ******* idiots are pushing discrimination- and you are deliberately using the straw man of incestuous marriage and polygamy because you are ******* bigots who lost your battle to continue to discriminate against homosexuals- and you still haven't even figured out why.

Just as mixed race marriage bans are not the same as gay marriage bans are not the same as incestuous marriage bans are not the same as polygamous marriage bans.

Unlike you- we can tell the difference.

Unlike you- we understand the legal distinctions.

And unlike you- we don't spend our time fantasizing how other people have sex- or care.

 

[Syriusly]

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

Fight all you want, the gay cousins would NOT HAVE TO BE 55 nor PROVE anything. The straight would.

Giving gays easier access to the institution.

LOL- people have to follow the law- why do you think homosexuals are somehow magically exempt from Wisconsin's law?

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage

 

[Syriusly]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

Irrelevant. Hypocritical behavior by one side does not negate hypocritical behavior on another.

When marriage became a right is also irrelevant - there is literally no argument left for marriage to be denied for virtually anything. 2 weeks ago you COULD have mounted a procreation/family argument even if it was wrong (it really was the last bastion of those that want government to control marriage) but that is now no longer an option.

I am not here to argue for or against polygamy or sibling marriage.

But there are arguments against each that existed before- and existed after last Friday's ruling.

Last Friday's ruling is as unrelated to the issues of sibling marriage and polygamy as Loving v. Virginia was.

The arguments did/do exist, but the legal arguments now do not include the limiting factors when marriage was between one man and one woman.
It is now open to anyone in any number.

That limiting factors ended with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

That is undeniable

Its pretty obvious that you have given up even trying to make your argument- hence the claim 'undeniable'

What limiting factors?

You have yet to articulate any 'limiting' factors that are different today for a sterile sibling couple or a polygamous trio than existed 2 weeks ago.

Because you can't even seem to articulate any argument against sibling marriage or polygamy.

You just are against them.

Just as you never had any argument against 'gay marriage'- you just thought it was 'icky'

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no basis to judge who is and isn't Christian and to what degree.

You do all the time. One examples is on this page, "You neither are a Christian nor understand Christianity and your ignorant guesses are a poor substitute for genuine familiarity." I know you don't understand the doctrines of your denomination, RCC.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the **** have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

Sad you can't think of any reasonable legal argument against sibling marriage- but just like 'gay marriage' you just are against it.

Clearly you are convinced you just have no legal argument against polygamy or sibling marriage- and for some reason blame everyone else for your own lack of an argument.

 

[Seawytch]

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN

So? That doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans were strongly against it. Only 20% of the country supported interracial marriage, despite it being a man and a woman, in 1967. American's were "forced" to "accept" interracial marriage.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

So you never served I take it. You've never heard that on a submarine 100 men go down and 50 couples come back up?