Not that one man’s opinion (however great he may have been) should decide this issue, but here is pretty clear evidence that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that homosexuality was a disordered inclination, from an advice column he penned:
Bold added for clarity.
What good is it to have the right to get a license to get married if they can’t get married? So of course we must change the definition so they can get married.
Since the license enables you to marry, what impediment are you referring to?What good is it to have the right to get a license to get married if they can’t get married? So of course we must change the definition so they can get married.
I believe I did not specifically target what I said at you. I commend you for being able to place your faith into so much of religion, for that is amazing that the love of god is strong within you. I’m saying that I do not put as much faith as you do, which sometimes is bad, but I do have reasons for it.
People have been rationalizing sinning since Adam ate the apple.But since homosexuality is normal for gay folks, it’s not exactly true that they’ve had the right to get a state license to get married to someone of the same-sex.
You certainly created a Strawman. I only used what you typed. If I added to what you typed I would be creating a Strawman.That was not a ‘definition’ but a statement of what I think it is about. If you are saying that it is solely about graphically described sex acts, then are you arguing that rape is a valid marriage?
See, both sides can play the ‘silly strawman’ game.
Schizophrenia is normal for those folks.But since homosexuality is normal for gay folks, it’s not exactly true that they’ve had the right to get a state license to get married to someone of the same-sex.
The US Constitution defines it.
I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I’m an old southern woman from Savannah and we call everyone “darlin’, hun, pumpkin, sweetheart, etc.” I certainly didn’t mean to be condescending. The irony is that I would have considered it rude had I not used the term “darlin’,” because where I come from using a term of endearment like that is a way of softening something that could possibly come across harshly otherwise, and that you don’t want to be taken the wrong way. It’s a way of letting someone know that you’re remaining congenial. But again, I’m sorry it was offensive to you.
Yes, I remember him. His biography is worth reading. And here’s something also worth reading:
The book in question, Making Gay Okay, says, “The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance…The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic.”
Well let’s not go overboard, buddy.The book in question, Making Gay Okay, says, “The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance…The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic.”
It’s rather extraordinary that gay folks, a mere 3-5% of the population, have been able to do a cultural conquest, by force no less, that will undermine the very foundations of the American Republic. I never realized that we were that powerful
You’ve had a lot of help from your straight liberal colleagues, right. The same folks that brought us Roe vs. Wade, contraception, etc. And as you noted with polygamy, we’re not done here…are you going to fight the polygamist marriage campaign or respect their rights? Just curious - I actually would like to hear what you would say on that, seriously.Boomer?
Well, few know enough about median incomes for LGBT persons.The book in question, Making Gay Okay, says, “The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance…The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic.”
It’s rather extraordinary that gay folks, a mere 3-5% of the population, have been able to do a cultural conquest, by force no less, that will undermine the very foundations of the American Republic. I never realized that we were that powerful
No, it is a statement of biology and Natural Law. Males are ordered (designed) to have female mates and females are designed to have male mates. This is biology 101. The “mating” of any species is ordered toward producing offspring whether or not you are a human being or a rat or a horse. One can obtain sexual gratification with objects, the same sex or one’s own appendages but that is not ordered toward the intended use of the reproductive system. Nor is using the digestive system to obtain gratification intended by nature. That religious teaching from Judaism to Buddhism to Christianity reflect biology and Natural Law only give them MORE not less credibility.
Nice try but a complete canard. For one, we ALL have the ability to control our passions. I assure you that the happiest married man notices a beautiful woman walk by and he might get a bit aroused but he’s not going to tear her clothes off and rape her. Just because you are sexually attracted to someone doesn’t mean you can or should have sex with them, much less marry them. As to your attempt to equate homosexuality with racism, biology 101 again. A man, regardless of his skin tone is ordered (designed) to marry a woman regardless of her skin tone. The essential elements, the complimentary nature are already there. One need not thwart Natural Law to prove this point. You know the parts fit together correctly and there is the added bonus that a child may result from their sexual relationship.
Yes, you can permit yourself a cheap laugh over an obvious error. (If it makes you feel better.)Lion IRC;12697147:
Discrimination on the basis of race was enshrined in the Constitution by democratic vote. Loving vs Virginia is a just a recognition of the will of the people.
How many US states voted for SSM?I admit that I have made similair misstatements and typos myself, but may I be permitted a brief?
No? oops
The majority.
Thank you and I realized you were Southern. The comment was not just the use of the “endearment” to someone you do not know (I realize it is used more frequently in the South) but the subsequent “it’s not all that complicated…” That certainly came off as demeaning. I’ve learned from long experience on this forum that it’s easy to fire off a comment without realizing how it will be interpreted…and I’ve been placed in the penalty box because of my imprudent remarks more than once. Just a friendly bit of advice.
Nice try, but Natural Law (which is the basis of much of Catholic thinking on sexuality) has nothing to do with science or biology or even with nature. It is a philosophical/religious construct invented by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas.
And yet, Aquinas did not invent biology or anatomy. He didn’t have to philosophize about the fact that the human race is composed of–yes, men and women, and that they are sexually complementary. That much was self evident for thousands of years.
