How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lulu88 said:
**We have all been raised in a culture with a worldview based on the doctrine of demons collectively known as Liberalism with its various cousins such as Modernism, Feminism, Individualism, Americanism, and Secular Humanism.

As such we are all contaminated by that influence and must work hard to remove those philosophic influences and presumptions from ourselves whenever and wherever we find them. Our ability to recognize and identify the subtleties of Satan’s snares depends upon this.**

Lulu
Click to expand...
You forgot identity politics.
 
epan said:
I thought the tide turned on public opinion some years back. Polls show tat the majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Without abortions and marriage equality to discuss, there would be little to distinguish the two political parties. I sometimes wonder if that is not part of the motivation for keeping these issues in the press constantly. This may explain some of the fervor of the debate.
Click to expand...
Epan,

You are a marvel. You again generalize as you have on posting about homosexuals that you appear to fupport. Polling as you know does not represent anything but a sample. Voting unfortunately represents those that leave their home to vote. As you know voter turn out is a disaster.

You believe that abortion and marriage distinguish the two political parties. You suggest that these issues should just go away and be left alone and not discussed.

I always think about the Protestants that run around asking “what would Jesus do”?..and I wonder what “John Wesley” would do as you post this?
 
epan said:
I thought the tide turned on public opinion some years back. Polls show tat the majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

Without abortions and marriage equality to discuss, there would be little to distinguish the two political parties. I sometimes wonder if that is not part of the motivation for keeping these issues in the press constantly. This may explain some of the fervor of the debate.
Click to expand...
Scrutiny of polls is something we expect in 2012.

My appraisal of these things you cite is that there is wide variance, which suggest some influence of poll question, polltaker and so forth.

I’m not really sure there is a bandwagon in favor of sodomite marriage, as there is a consciously constructed “bandwagon” by pumpers of the media.
 
Stephen168 said:
So your position is: The King is always right, even an irrational King.
Click to expand...
No. This is a free society. What private individuals do is unrestricted by the government unless their behavior is demonstrably harmful to others. In other words, not everything that is immoral is illegal, nor should it be.
 
fix said:
And how consent is defined in the law cannot be changed? It has in the past and can be in the future.

So proscriptions regarding incest can easily be reversed.
Click to expand...
This government is founded on the consent of the governed. While I’m sure there have been some new rules regarding specific cases and exactly what constitutes consent (e.g. can you give consent under the influence of alcohol) I don’t believe there has been a major change in the definition of consent. Could you perhaps provide an example?

This is a democracy. We can change any rules we want. We could repeal the bill of rights if we wanted to. As it stands, however, there are serious legal impediments to pedophilia and incestual procreation that are very unlikely to change.
 
lulu88 said:
**We have all been raised in a culture with a worldview based on the doctrine of demons collectively known as Liberalism with its various cousins such as Modernism, Feminism, Individualism, Americanism, and Secular Humanism.

As such we are all contaminated by that influence and must work hard to remove those philosophic influences and presumptions from ourselves whenever and wherever we find them. Our ability to recognize and identify the subtleties of Satan’s snares depends upon this.**

Lulu
Click to expand...
Please try to stay on topic. Discussions about gay marriage devolve into “but… but… abortion!” far too often.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I do agree with what he is saying. We’re losing the gay marriage debate because we have already, at this point, eroded the meaning of marriage. For most people marriage is nothing more than a public ceremony of an expression of love by two persons to one another where they are given civil rights as a couple. How do you say that doesn’t apply to homosexuals? Before we can win this battle, we need to get back to basics. We need to make people understand what marriage in its entirety is. And starting with “it is between a man and a woman” won’t suffice at this point of the battle.
Click to expand...
And it will continue this way as long as we continue to give the State the power to define and sanction marriage, which has up until King Henry VIII and the French Revolution, been defined and sanctioned by the Church.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
This is a democracy. We can change any rules we want.
Click to expand...
No, we have a republic.
As it stands, however, there are serious legal impediments to pedophilia and incestual procreation that are very unlikely to change.
Click to expand...
Twenty years ago the same was said about homosexual activity.

In twenty years, your statement won’t be true anymore.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
This government is founded on the consent of the governed. While I’m sure there have been some new rules regarding specific cases and exactly what constitutes consent (e.g. can you give consent under the influence of alcohol) I don’t believe there has been a major change in the definition of consent. Could you perhaps provide an example?
Click to expand...
Age of consent can be changed. That is pushed for all the time. No reason it cannot be changed. That is one good example.
This is a democracy. We can change any rules we want. We could repeal the bill of rights if we wanted to. As it stands, however, there are serious legal impediments to pedophilia and incestual procreation that are very unlikely to change.
Click to expand...
Just 20 years ago two men claiming to be “married” would have been thought of as a joke. Today it is happening. There is no reason more changes could not happen.
 
nordskoven said:
Homosexuality has scavanged around in my culture long enough. I want my culture back. I want my rainbow back. I want “gay” back. I want three billion spent in hush money/reparations to victims of homosexual Catholic clerics back. I want the singular sacrament of marriage back, that hallowing of the primal integration of male and female in matrimony that is set apart as holy.

Christ will return for His Bride, the Church, as John describes in his marriage-named “revelation” taken from the word for that intimate unveiling, that apocalypse. No profane mimickry can stop that. No PC persecution can stop that. May I endure and be faithful and true throughout the apostasy; throughout the erasure of religious rights; throughout the convulsion of heartless indifference to God’s will and to people longing to conform to it. “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

In the history of the world, even under homosexual rulers, homosexuals have never sought to engage in marriage; it’s not their culture; it’s mine. The exception is Nero marrying the slave boy who resembled the wife he kicked to death. Stop the cultural imperialism of homosexuality. Hands off my culture. You have your own. Honor my boundaries.

Homosexuals represent the richest demographic in America, yet there is a dearth of homosexual charities. Homosexual privilege extends to having creating unconstitutional unequal protection under the law with “hate crimes,” a privilege that Democrats blocked extending to pregnant women. Yet homosexual culture has bred skyrocketing homosexual-on-homosexual violence. Homosexual culture has put women and children last. There are three times the deaths from breast cancer as AIDS; yet AIDS gets three times the funding. Homosexual culture has celebrated bondage and discipline and fake rape as sexual intimacy. Homosexual culture has for millennia obsessed about sexual relations with youth they won’t honor with safety from predation.

Households protected by domestic partnerships can include single mothers uniting under asexual legal and financial certitude. This could suffice to protect homosexuals from life’s insecurities as far as materially possible. That isn’t enough for them. Homosexuals want what is mine. Homosexuals can caricature women, express disdain for “Gennies” (genetic females), dress up and make-up and wed in full drag but sacramental homosexual marriage will be like the profane marriages of Noah’s era, an era filled with rape and violence. Homosexual marriage will never be anything more than another privilege garnered by the richest among us. Homosexual marriage is like an affirmative action program for white males. Marriage is the first and will be the last sacred integration of male and female. Give me the civil right to honor this universal sacrament. Homosexuals have no tradition here, no holy honor to restore.

Lord, keep me safe from predation and let the wolves eat themselves. AMEN
Click to expand...
Your sentiment is appreciated. But you can’t have the past back.
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
No. This is a free society. What private individuals do is unrestricted by the government unless their behavior is demonstrably harmful to others. In other words, not everything that is immoral is illegal, nor should it be.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with answering my question, but thanks for trying. I didn’t real expect an answer because I believe there is one.
 
BobCatholic said:
Twenty years ago the same was said about homosexual activity.

In twenty years, your statement won’t be true anymore.
Click to expand...
What specific legal impediment to gay marriage existed 20 years ago that does not exist today?

There were several serious groups attempting to allow gay couples to marry 20 years ago (early 1990s) so they would not have said “the same” about homosexual marriage.
 
Stephen168 said:
Which has nothing to do with answering my question, but thanks for trying. I didn’t real expect an answer because I believe there is one.
Click to expand...
Your question was “So your position is X?” That is what we call a “yes or no” question, so you are right to believe there is a real answer. My answer was no. I am not sure why you are confused.
 
fix said:
Age of consent can be changed. That is pushed for all the time. No reason it cannot be changed. That is one good example.

Just 20 years ago two men claiming to be “married” would have been thought of as a joke. Today it is happening. There is no reason more changes could not happen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the age of consent can change, and it is different between different states. If we define pedophilia as “attraction to girls below the age of consent” then we would clearly see it could not happen. However, we could also (and more correctly) define pedophilia as attraction to girls who are not yet sexually mature. Therefore, in order for pedophile marriage to be legalized, the age of consent would have to be lowered to an age before the typical onset of puberty, or ~10-12 years old. There are very few developed countries with ages of consent near there (some parts of Mexico: 12, Japan and Spain: 13, Germany, Italy: 14) We should note, however, that these are the minimum ages of consent, i.e. sex with people under the listed ages is always criminal, but legal sex with people over these ages may require certain other conditions be met. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that the US would ever set the age of consent low enough to legalize pedophilia marriage.

20 years ago: religioustolerance.org/hom_mar5a.htm
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
What specific legal impediment to gay marriage existed 20 years ago that does not exist today?

There were several serious groups attempting to allow gay couples to marry 20 years ago (early 1990s) so they would not have said “the same” about homosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
Number of states during that time which allowed or recognized SSM during that time - zero.

Homosexuality was just being on the verge of acceptance during the early 90’s. Some countries (like Denmark) were already doing SSM’s.

If I went back in time to 1950 and said that states would be recognizing SSM’s I’d be locked up in a mental institution - that’s how ludicrous the idea would have been to the people at the time. Such an idea would have been ludicrous as late as the 70’s.

Cultural Marxism slouches toward Gomorrah.
 
BobCatholic said:
Number of states during that time which allowed or recognized SSM during that time - zero.

Homosexuality was just being on the verge of acceptance during the early 90’s. Some countries (like Denmark) were already doing SSM’s.

If I went back in time to 1950 and said that states would be recognizing SSM’s I’d be locked up in a mental institution - that’s how ludicrous the idea would have been to the people at the time. Such an idea would have been ludicrous as late as the 70’s.

Cultural Marxism slouches toward Gomorrah.
Click to expand...
Actually the idea would no doubt have appeared ludicrous even if you went back several millenia in time. Societies often tolerated homosexual behavior, but not homosexual marriage. Nearly every culture recognized that such a concept was an impossibility, and of no benefit to the state whatsoever. Marriage was recognized as between men and women. It is only our current society that seems to have so lost its senses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top