Isn't trying to ban gay marriage forcing our religion on other people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pardon me…I know I’m late to the game on this thread. But the problem with all these debates is that liberals decide the terms and the media pushed them, repeating lies until they became, for all intents and purposes, ‘truth’ in the eyes of those who will believe what they want to believe.

You cannot ‘ban’ what never existed in the first place.

Nobody ever ‘banned’ so-called gay marriage. It simply never existed, anywhere, any time, in the entire history of mankind.

It was not ‘banned.’ It did not exist, period.
 
Nobody ever ‘banned’ so-called gay marriage. It simply never existed, anywhere, any time, in the entire history of mankind.

It was not ‘banned.’ It did not exist, period.
Would that disposition make “Gay Marriage” a non-issue and something to be ignored?
 
Pardon me…I know I’m late to the game on this thread. But the problem with all these debates is that liberals decide the terms and the media pushed them, repeating lies until they became, for all intents and purposes, ‘truth’ in the eyes of those who will believe what they want to believe.

You cannot ‘ban’ what never existed in the first place.

Nobody ever ‘banned’ so-called gay marriage. It simply never existed, anywhere, any time, in the entire history of mankind.

It was not ‘banned.’ It did not exist, period.
One could say the ability for a homosexual couple to form a mutual bond in marriage was never realized or recognized because the majority of humanity in the past, like now, have been heterosexual, and there was the need to form stable units around the consequent children. But there have always been homosexual people. Maybe it is time to wake up and realize that the past was restricted culturally and see that gay people want to share life of love with someone as much as straight people. Marriage simply has evolved. It is now more about love. In biblical times, there were various arrangements. The fact that marriage’s historic similarity has been the male-female matching is naturally due to the fact that most people are heterosexual and families came forth that way. But marriage has received significant developments anyways:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...42669891e9f92cc9ada0eee8913.jpg?itok=iLRE2ZsR
 
One could say the ability for a homosexual couple to form a mutual bond in marriage was never realized or recognized because the majority of humanity in the past, like now, have been heterosexual
They still are. There never has been and barring severe Nietzschean tendencies never will be a majority of people with homosexual tendencies. Even pro-gay supporters only inflate the stats to 1 in 10. More realistically, it’s probably 0.3 in 10.
Maybe it is time to wake up and realize that the past was restricted culturally
You don’t know much about Greece and Rome, do you?

Try Googling “Greek homosexuality”. You will soon find you are mistaken and take a more correct view of the history of homosexuality.
Copying a previous post of mine:
I have a video series for this graphic! (Rather, someone else does. I’m just posting the links:)

Be warned: the man does insult “atheists”. If you cannot handle namecalling, this video will be of no use to you.

NEVERTHELESS, I POST THIS BECAUSE, if you can get past his schtick, he does present a half-decent explanation for the existence of each of the graphics on this little bugger - and why, in the Christian schema, they are no longer relevant.

youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6E4IjdJJc - Levirate Marriage
youtube.com/watch?v=dUA2pR2L5Qg - Man, Woman, and Slave(s)
youtube.com/watch?v=IqjSgfTwbRo - Soldier and PoW
youtube.com/watch?v=ZVsZYvQ3o3s - Male and Female Slave (also see #2)
youtube.com/watch?v=ahJpxUjOzuE - Rapist and his victim
youtube.com/watch?v=-qERQNk_-W8 - Concubines
and finally: youtube.com/watch?v=_Phhu55kat4 - Polygamy, of course.

Again, if you can be the better man and learn from a hostile witness, you may learn something you didn’t know before. It’s not easy, and I don’t do it often. But it’s usually worth it when I do.
 
That are seen through your Christian lenses. There are many people who lived fulfilled sexual lives without procreative sex, your doctrines and teachings claim this is impossible though.
Wow, now physical realities can even be denied.

So if I hand you 2 bolts and say put them together that would not be odd to you? Because you can not join them would you blame my religion for making false dogmas about bolts and nuts?🤷
 
Wow, now physical realities can even be denied.

So if I hand you 2 bolts and say put them together that would not be odd to you? Because you can not join them would you blame my religion for making false dogmas about bolts and nuts?🤷
Obviously, the fact that nuts and bolts go together for a reason is now considered a religious proposition! Yes, it startles me too. Whenever I argue from the anatomical facts of men and women, I am accused of making a religious argument!

Reality must yield to fantasy.
 
Birdpreacher–do you have two moms?

I do.

Her whole life is about her partner and she really doesn’t give a darn about the children from her actual marriage. Including the ones who totally support the gay lifestyle.

So, based on my lived experience, gay parenting is somewhat problematic.
It’s a good thing you said this - I’ve noticed that besides being under whatever LGBT letter, those that do tend to make it their identity and kids tend to be peripherals.
 
Not unless one sees participating in the democrat process as forcing.

The force being applied here (I assume you are talking about America) is the force of the courts.

What gay “marriage” advocates fail to realize is that same power structure could someday just as easily rule against so-called gay “marriage” even if a majority agree with it. Then, as Jason Lewis notes, “they’ll be the ones screaming about states rights and the 10th Amendment”.

See, using the force of big government is fun, neat, cool and necessary as argued by some, ----until the beast rolls over on you.
 
I know someone who was raised in a single-parent home, and she is doing great, too. But the properly-done research shows that overall, children from single-parent homes don’t do as well as children from married, two-parent-of-the-opposite-sex families. Public policy should not encourage children’s being raised in single-parent families.
All of my friends - all boys since I came from an all-boys school - that came from single parent household , that I knew of, had a couple of things in common that led them to be okay, both in their teenage years, college and after. All of them held academics as very important. Perfect grades, good test scores were goals if not standards to them. As my class valedictorian said “I can’t have a B. My mom can’t have a B. It’s unacceptable.” These kids were no nonsense types. Another thing they had in common was that they were raised by their moms. It was clear that some of them adopted the “I have be the man” since their fathers were absent. This mentality, which I strongly suspect, resulted in a no nonsense attitude towards academia and whatever they did outside. One of the boys, as I visited him during a semester, said about his new girlfriend, “She practically made me grow up. She’s teaching me how to be a man,” in semi-drunken state.

Some of the boys in the class ahead me belonged to single parent households headed my their mother. Each that I knew of, like the ones in my class, held straight-As and was involved in at least one varsity sport where they were a starter. They saw academics and sports as the equalizer for the lack of a father figure, though some had their grandfathers filling in that role as I later found out.

Out of the my peers that lived with his dad (mom died when he was young) confessed that he “missed his mommy” in tears during a retreat. A teammate of mine who lost his dad as a fire fighter also shared his sadness of not having a dad after a practice (I don’t know how the topic came up).

Even my own father, estranged unfortunately, taught me - by his actions - how not to be a dad (he doesn’t really know how to cook, so that sort of led me to develop my cooking skills or else I would’ve starved) and how not to handle certain situations. He’s adept at handling finances unlike my mother, so I learned frugality and financial literacy from him.

My mother basically comes close to Mrs. O’ Brien from The Tree of Life. Not quite like the character, but she -as I reflect on it - has a lot of similarities of motherly love and community popularity. In fact, my parents are reflected in both Mr. & Mrs. O’ Brien, more or less.
 
Do you know, personally, any kids in Same Sex Homes?

I do, they are doing great.
You same-sex mirage supporters resort to the same appeals.

Wait, let me see, “Love makes a family,” right? Saw that in my Playbill.
 
That societies the world over have frowned upon it no matter religion, creed, race, or political belief up to only the last decade or two? That logic tells us the man and woman belong together because that is what will further the species?
Many people have stopped seeing marriage as a means to propagate the species and stable society. Instead, it’s more like a permission to have lots of sex, and really, that’s not even needed at this point.

I think eventually science will show what natural law already tells us: That contraception, so-called gay “marriage” and playing house with one’s significant other do not compare in the slightest to Holy Matrimony.

It’s going to be much harder now for the activists to cover all of the negative aspects. So I expect them to be even more hostile in the future towards Christians. I still think they’re much too afraid to go after Islam or minorities.
That it will lead to the legalization and glorification of things like incest, polygamy and - eventually - pedophilia?
That’s the direction we are heading. Just wait for the “two consenting adults” crowd to be a no-show at those events—or if they are throwing their support behind it, as some already do in the gay “marriage” supporters crowd. That’s how entitlements work, though. One begets another begets another.
What good would that do? You have heard it before and it makes no difference.
On strict principle, that would be correct. In fact, I heard on the radio this morning that there’s more of a historical precedence for polygamy than for so-called gay “marriage”. As far as America is concerned, those SCOTUS judges couldn’t possibly vote that down now. And if what it can be proven that some higher-thinking animals like primates, dolphins or even squid can consent, even in the most minuscule manner? What then? Or what about if they say things like kids under 18 used to marry all the time, or how child brides are accepted in some cultures?

The logic has now become much more difficult for the court to refuse unions, not in the least because the “two consenting adults” crowd really doesn’t care about sexual preferences as much as they market----unless of course we are talking about Catholic priests or conservative politicians. Then they better darn well be perfect!
There is absolutely no live and let live with the ideological left. It is their way or the highway, end of story and whoever tries to stand up them will be bullied, audited, chastised, isolated, and vilified.
For white Christians, that is true, However, they have unwritten orders from the DNC not to tamper with anything that might hurt the chances of liberal politicians getting elected. Funny that they should need support from those whose disagree with them on supposedly such important issues if their ways are so good and great for us all.
How about people who don’t believe in my Holy Book can quit shoving their beliefs down my throat?
Because their beliefs are cool :cool: and neat.

Let’s face it: one of the only reasons so many people support so-called gay “marriage” is because it’s VERY easy. This is NOTHING like the Civil Rights Movement, where if you sat in a diner that didn’t serve Blacks with a Black person, you could have the entire place surround you, and if something happened, the police and the government and the ACLU or GLADD wouldn’t be there to protect you or sing a sad song of assurance that it was all a show.

Sometimes, people who were active were risking their lives. I sincerely doubt many of the supporters of so-called gay “marriage” would do that. In fact, they are already caving before conservative Islam.

And with Russian and Chinese influence on the rise, how long is this even going to last?
 
Why is your anecdotal evidence valid, but DaisymaeD’s isn’t?
Because people like birdpreacher who, obvious by the tone of his posts and the language he uses, wants no honest discussion. He doesn’t like religion. He doesn’t think traditional morality is anyway valid so people like him show up on issues like these – sort of like the LGBT activists - that’s all they think about. People like birdpreacher do not work from a basis of facts or respect, they work off of a basis of emotions, indignation and arrogance. Look at his posts which I think are fair indicators that we are not dealing with a poster of respect and honesty; he is the typical secularist that offers nothing knew to the discussion besides mocking, smugness and condescension. Once you have a birdpreachers you’ve met them all. He is an example of what modernity has wrought.
 
=DaddyGirl;13084373]You are comparing gay couples who want to marry to child abusers, murderers, rapists, and thieves?
Kind of a quick retreat, huh?
If the Supreme Court followed your line of thinking, it would rule that the Catholic Church must perform same-sex marriages…because that wouldn’t be forcing their beliefs on you, it would be doing what they think is right–as you think you are doing.
And we would resist to the bitter end. How far are they willing to go? Going to bring out the army to force the Churches to marry them?

Some Christians are ready to die for their cause. Are the so-called gay “marriage” advocates?

It may come to that one day.

Personally, I think the advocates will run for the hills, especially if Islam is on the march, because most of them support it because it’s easy and acceptable to do so.
So perhaps, you should follow suit…and not force others to follow your beliefs?
As other have said, like laws that protect people from rapes and murder? Being against those things is part of my beliefs as well. Maybe I shouldn’t force those beliefs on people?

But that’s not even the right question. The question in secular society is what is best for the state.

Laws against murder and rape are because they harm people. So-called gay “marriage” also harms people, especially children.
 
Obviously, the fact that nuts and bolts go together for a reason is now considered a religious proposition!
Not sure that’s a good analogy. BTW: There are some bolts that will accept other bolts.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Finding two nuts that fit together might be more challenging. But it might make for an interesting engineering problem.:hmmm:
 
Originally Posted by Birdpreacher View Post
Do you know, personally, any kids in Same Sex Homes?
I do, they are doing great.
I hear the same thing from people in dysfunctional relationships a lot over the years. :rolleyes:

Besides, I know of kids raised by practicing homosexuals who are not very well off from personal experience. Why should your observations be taken into account and not mine?
 
So long as we all live in society we are going to have to live with prohibitions and allowances with which we may find some disagreement. We could probably all be said to do some amount of imposing, and being imposed upon. Find the set of complications you can be happy with. If they may you unhappy try to be a motivation for a change in the hearts of the people.
Too simple. It all comes down to what is best for society. It need not be for all of us to get lost in this infinite diversity of arguing back and forth what personal preferences are. We have the existence of natural law and order.

No court or desire to feel good and fuzzy inside will ever change that.
 
How can you bring a comparison with rape into this discussion? :confused:
Being raped must be much, much worse than being robbed off your money at gunpoint!
Because it’s about forcing. The state uses its force to deter rapes with rules and regulations.
Is it so hard to believe it would regulate something as important as marriage under similar principles?
 
Because it’s about forcing. The state uses its force to deter rapes with rules and regulations.
Is it so hard to believe it would regulate something as important as marriage under similar principles?
Still can’t get my head around how people can find a connection between “allowing SSM” with “not allowing rape” :confused:

Let me state upfront again that I am entirely against SSM.

But how can you question a law that prohibits rape “with rules and regulations”? I would have thought that this is self-evident. Can you think of a society that condones rape? Even in a most decadent society at least half the population (all females) would protest against a law legalising rape. 😦
 
We live in a society based on ordered liberty, not freedom to do whatever we want regardless of consequences. The argument “it’s not your business, it has nothing to do with you” holds no water, as no man is an island. If a man decides to use drugs, he doesn’t just effect his own life; his addiction changes the lives of his family in a negative way, it changes the lives of the people he robs to sustain his habit in a negative way, it changes the lives of the people affected by his actions under the influence of drugs in a negative way, etc.

Gay marriage in the same way affects the children who could be adopted in said union who will grow up without the influence of either a male father or female mother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top