Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[Jermosh]

If that were correct you could point it out, however it is not correct so you cannot point it out, correct?

You stated this:
"Civil marriage laws are designed to comply with Natural Law, which continues to produce children whether the marriage is sacramental, natural or unrecognized. SSA relations do not produce children thus do not need children related issues "
So I have shown that perversions do create children outside of Natural Marriage, I have also shown that our Civil marriage covenants are in no way made to protect procreation nor have the need for it.

This is why the church speaks of “disorder” in regard to understanding Natural [Moral] Law. Two consenting adults can do many things which include crimes and violations of Natural [Moral] Law.

We are not speaking of Church law or morals, but of civil law. Do you agree that everyone have the Universal Natural Right to be partners with another consenting adult or not. Again we are talking about the language of our civil law. Either you think they should be locked up and jailed, or left to be legally allowed to use benefits that are legally given to other perverse relationships.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, but you gave it as a exclusive for civil marriage.

You stated this:

• Texas Roofer
  "Civil marriage laws are designed to comply with Natural Law, which continues to produce children whether the marriage is sacramental, natural or unrecognized. SSA relations do not produce children thus do not need children related issues

I think if you believe my state is “exclusive for civil marriage” there problem is little need to post

We are not speaking of Church law or morals, but of civil law. Do you agree that everyone have the Universal Natural Right to be partners with another consenting adult or not.

No I do not

Again we are talking about the language of our civil law. Either you think they should be locked up and jailed, or left to be legally allowed to use benefits that are legally given to other perverse relationships.

Those are your word and frankly you are poorly informed as to what I think

 

[Jermosh]

I think if you believe my state is “exclusive for civil marriage” there problem is little need to post.

Then you agree that procreation is not a part or the intent of the Civil covenants that are combined in a civil marriage license.

Those are your word and frankly you are poorly informed as to what I think

I am not insinuating that you do think that they should be locked up, just illustrating a point that you either recognise someone Natural Right to be partners with another consenting adult or not. If you do believe it is their right, then why are allowing some to gain certain civil sanctioned benefits and not others, even though both are seen as perversion according to Natural Law. Natural Law is not the same as Natural Rights BTW.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then **you agree **that procreation is not a part or the intent of the Civil covenants that are combined in a civil marriage license.

Not in the least.

**I am not insinuating **

Actually “insinuating” is all you are doing and thus not real argument is present

that you do think that they should be locked up,

here is your quote;" * Either you think they should be locked up and jailed*"

just illustrating a point that you either recognize someone Natural Right to be partners with another consenting adult or not. If you do believe it is their right, then why are allowing some to gain certain civil sanctioned benefits and not others, even though both are seen as perversion according to Natural Law. Natural Law is not the same as Natural Rights BTW.

The situation is clear the recognition of a civil marriage in and of itself is insignificant. The access to restitution benefits which are afforded through civil marriage are a different matter. When the “marriage” does not produce children the restitution benefits are not really needed. However since marriage is designed to produce children (even if that is not true of all cases) some benefits are installed upon marriage while others are not bestowed until the children exist. If same sex (ss) marriages become laws the ss will not really get new benefits what will happen is the marriage benefits will be reduced or eliminated and only child benefits will exist.

Note: When posting, post without pronouns or certainly with minimum pronouns

 

[Jermosh]

However since marriage is designed to produce children (even if that is not true of all cases) some benefits are installed upon marriage while others are not bestowed until the children exist.

Like what? Please give an example of some benefit that is given to a married couple when they have children.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Like what? Please give an example of some benefit that is given to a married couple when they have children.

Well on tax form 1040 you have lines 2, 6, 11, 23, 33, 34, 40, 42, 48, 52, plus earned income credit. Similierly most states have some form of these. Additionally you have “family” health care which cover children but not elderly dependents

 

[Jermosh]

Well on tax form 1040 you have lines 2, 6, 11, 23, 33, 34, 40, 42, 48, 52, plus earned income credit. Similierly most states have some form of these. Additionally you have “family” health care which cover children but not elderly dependents

Those are given to single parents as well, in fact you can decrease your tax liability quite a bit by filing single if you can. Family insurance is given to a single parents children as well.
Do you have any others?

 

[b_ulmen]

Marriage is not necessary, the civil unions are sufficient. The rule governing civil unions needs to be moidified to allow for spousal rights that are assumed for married couples. This will give the gay’s the “rights” they claim to seek while protecting the sanctity of marriage. marriage is a religious ceremony co-opted by the govt, civil unions are entirely govt controlled. imho.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Those are given to single parents as well, in fact you can decrease your tax liability quite a bit by filing single if you can. Family insurance is given to a single parents children as well.
Do you have any others?

and where did these children come from?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Marriage is not necessary, the civil unions are sufficient. The rule governing civil unions needs to be moidified to allow for spousal rights that are assumed for married couples. This will give the gay’s the “rights” they claim to seek while protecting the sanctity of marriage. marriage is a religious ceremony co-opted by the govt, civil unions are entirely govt controlled. imho.

I wonder what those “rights” would be, what “rights” would be conferred to civil unions?

 

[b_ulmen]

I wonder what those “rights” would be, what “rights” would be conferred to civil unions?

not sure if you were being sarcastic or not…

what I think they are asking for is the hosptial visitation, passing of property, being beneficiary on life insurance, etc. The materialistic stuff they apparently don’t have access to now. But then most of what I see is that they want to have thier lifestyle accepted and celebrated as being normal and moral. I think the former set could be accomplished without much angst from Christians, though the latter is never going to be accepted. imho

 

[Texas_Roofer]

not sure if you were being sarcastic or not…

what I think they are asking for is the hosptial visitation, passing of property, being beneficiary on life insurance, etc. The materialistic stuff they apparently don’t have access to now. But then most of what I see is that they want to have thier lifestyle accepted and celebrated as being normal and moral. I think the former set could be accomplished without much angst from Christians, though the latter is never going to be accepted. imho

Not intending to be sacrcastic lets look:

hosptial visitation can that not be handled by power of attorney?

passing of property can that not be handled by dual ownership?,

**being beneficiary on life insurance **this has nothing to do with marriage anybody can be a beneficiary.

See it will be to break up the methods used to record social security, and “family insurance” see the affects is not the intended affects

 

[RobbyS]

Not intending to be sacrcastic lets look:

hosptial visitation can that not be handled by power of attorney?

passing of property can that not be handled by dual ownership?,

**being beneficiary on life insurance **this has nothing to do with marriage anybody can be a beneficiary.

See it will be to break up the methods used to record social security, and “family insurance” see the affects is not the intended affects

Given that so many straight couples today decide not to have children,or even get married, and given the nature of any self-sex relationship, sexual or not, I doubt that more than a few percent want to raise children. The gay marriage movement is simply destructive, to make a joke out of what has always been called matrimony.

 

[b_ulmen]

Not intending to be sacrcastic lets look:

hosptial visitation can that not be handled by power of attorney?

passing of property can that not be handled by dual ownership?,

**being beneficiary on life insurance **this has nothing to do with marriage anybody can be a beneficiary.

See it will be to break up the methods used to record social security, and “family insurance” see the affects is not the intended affects

I’m by no means a gay marriage apologetic, just putting out what I’ve seen as some of the more common things they want. I agree, there are currently legal options available, and I think the real reasons go to thier desire for total acceptance and being considered morally equal. you’ll have to poke someone else if you want more argument.

 

[Jermosh]

and where did these children come from?

The stork?
Either way of adopted or blood, those tax benefits have nothing to do with being married.

Are you going to show me this Civil marriage benefit that promotes procreation? Or are you going to contend that civil marriage has nothin to do with having children?

 

[Jermosh]

Not intending to be sacrcastic lets look:

hosptial visitation can that not be handled by power of attorney?

passing of property can that not be handled by dual ownership?,

**being beneficiary on life insurance **this has nothing to do with marriage anybody can be a beneficiary.

See it will be to break up the methods used to record social security, and “family insurance” see the affects is not the intended affects

Those things can be had at a fairly high cost. Hospitial visits are not automatic unless the partner walks around with the paper stating as such. There are other benifits as well, like SS, divorce settlements, child adoption rights, etc, etc. Why should one perverted couple get all this with a $45 fee, and the other pay $thousands?

 

[doubtingdaniel]

Same sex attraction is a psychological problem and such a marriage would be damaging to the individuals in them.

They should remain friends, not lovers.

Homosexuality is NOT a psychological problem. It is in fact an often occurrence in nature among many different species!!! It has in fact been studied through independent genetic research groups and the scientific evidence points to homosexuality being a hereditary trait! The same goes for heterosexuality! Gay marriage wouldn’t be anymore damaging to the individuals than heterosexual marriage! It is an inherited right as an American and this nation was not founded as a Christian nation! It was clearly founded as a Secular nation in which case religion should have no say in the freedoms of others!!!

Think About It.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The stork?

your best post yet :clapping:

Either way of adopted or blood, those tax benefits have nothing to do with being married.

I canot help but notice you dismiss facts constantly. The standard deduction alone is $10,900 even if one spouse has no income verses $5,450 for a single (which is usless unless the single has income)

Are you going to show me this Civil marriage benefit that promotes procreation?

It is clear your eyes, ears, and mind are closed on the issue so I see no reason to pursue the facts with you

Or are you going to contend that civil marriage has nothin to do with having children?

no

Those things can be had at a fairly high cost. Hospitial visits are not automatic unless the partner walks around with the paper stating as such

and for spouses? (the same)

There are other benifits as well, like SS, divorce settlements, child adoption rights, etc, etc.

there you go now your getting to the truth

Why should one perverted couple get all this with a $45 fee, and the other pay $thousands?

Are you implying marriage is a $45 relationship?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Homosexuality is NOT a psychological problem. It is in fact an often occurrence in nature among many different species!!! It has in fact been studied through independent genetic research groups and the scientific evidence points to homosexuality being a hereditary trait! The same goes for heterosexuality!

I agree in many cases but not all

Gay marriage wouldn’t be anymore damaging to the individuals than heterosexual marriage!

I disagree

It is an inherited right as an American and this nation was not founded as a Christian nation!

I disagree ever heard this " When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed **by their Creator **with certain unalienable Rights,"

or that “In God we Trust” (look on any printed money)

It was clearly founded as a Secular nation in which case religion should have no say in the freedoms of others!!!

Think About It.

 

[edwest2]

And there it is. The cry for a Secular Nation. And tolerance for all, except religious people who should have no say. Make sense? No. Freedom of speech? No.

That is the heart of the matter. Or as it was put on another forum: We don’t want to feel ashamed or guilty or sinful anymore. Man wants God out of the way so he can do whatever he wants. It’s happened before.

Peace,
Ed