J
Jennifer123
Guest
How is allowing gay marriage going to stop violence against homosexuals? How is gay marriage a right being denied?
- Status
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Marriage is not a civil right. It’s a religious right.
Today, a young black man called in on a radio station. He was absolutely livid that gay people were using black people as a crutch.
The minorities voted in favor of Prop 8. Why are the gays not yelling and screaming at them?
Because they need them in their argument.
Today, a young black man called in on a radio station. He was absolutely livid that gay people were using black people as a crutch.
The minorities voted in favor of Prop 8. Why are the gays not yelling and screaming at them?
Because they need them in their argument.
C
christcnection1
Guest
I personally believe we are far from that, but I could see a coalition of anti-Christian groups uniting through the coming decades, that could potentially be a violent threat.
And yes, the Germans hatred for the Jews did not happen overnight. It was a gradual process that culminated over a period of time.
You are rightfully concerned, but I don’t think we are anywhere near that.
This list is a scary thing, even if 99% are of their supporters are non-violent. Using this information, a handful of knuckle-heads could easily track down these individuals.
www.antigayblacklist.com
C
christcnection1
Guest
Are you also in support of the Polygamy Marriage Civil Right? If so, why stop there? There are other possibilities too…
If you think I’m being ridiculous, fine. But there are many Polygamists who take their “marriage(s)” seriously and also consider it a fundamental right.
Who’s to say?
I consider the Catholic perspective (and the perspective of most Christians) to be one of “tough” love. Unfortunately, some are motivated by hate, but the majority are not. From our point of view, supporting their desire to “marry” would not an act of love; it is likely just the opposite.
Someone like Mother Theresa would agree with the Church on this issue, but few people would call her a hate monger.
P
pathia
Guest
If it’s a religious right the government shouldn’t be controlling it. It should be left up to the churches.
J
jfhh
Guest
I am.
Polygamy is not just a Mormon thing and has as little to do with child abuse as monogamy does. Polygamy is in many religions, including evangelical Christianity and Judaism.
abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=5396768
ABC News:
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I agree.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Given the number of anti-Christians, relative to the number of people who identify themselves as Christian, this would be more like the Jews persecuting the rest of the Germans.
“Unlikely” seems a very mild word to describe the situation, unless there is a huge change in American beliefs.
S
Swan
Guest
Actually, I don’t think you are being ridiculous. The difference that jumps right out at me on the homosexual/polygomy comparison is this: Both homosexual and heterosexual unions are between two people. So this is a right granted to couples (pairs), not multiple folks. So in the case os same sex couples, denying them the same right boils down to sexual discrimination, IMO. Now I’m talking civil marriage here. I would never advocate that any religious institution be forced to perform gay weddings. For me there is a clear divide between civil and religious/sacramental.
G
GodsGadfly
Guest
Boycotts and protests are fine.
PHysically assaulting people, invading churches, breaking crucifixes, etc., is not fine. Liberals love to obfuscate the facts by ignoring anything they find uncomfortable.
In other words, I’m not surprised to see “Wicca” has been added to the nauseating “Coexist” logo. . . .
PHysically assaulting people, invading churches, breaking crucifixes, etc., is not fine. Liberals love to obfuscate the facts by ignoring anything they find uncomfortable.
In other words, I’m not surprised to see “Wicca” has been added to the nauseating “Coexist” logo. . . .
J
jfhh
Guest
Why are you against rights for triples? I believe that is unfair. The government shouldn’t discriminate against that. These unions can be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.
BTW, I am not homosexual nor bisexual and I’m not interested in any bisexual quadruplet union. But I believe it is unfair to deny people who are into that their rights. Giving them civil rights doesn’t mean you approve of their conduct. it means you support peace.
P
petitfleur
Guest
I scanned this thread so not sure if this has been bought upbefore. In the state of California Civil unions between gay people are legal. This gives them the same rights as married couples. Gay people want to be able to use the word marriage instead of civil union. BTW Elton John said this protesting was rediculouse.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I agree, who cares, morals mean nothing in a country. Gay marriage, multiple marriage partners, abortions out the wahzoo, lets just pass a bill called Immoral Free For All Act, everyone can do anything they want. I mean, that is what our forefathers founded this country for right?
Before you respond, please have the common sense to realize that I am sarcastically disagreeing with you. Also, I am not saying that gays should not be allowed certain rights with their partners. They all know its a sin, I pray for them, that is the best I can do. But, they do need a reality check, stomping on a cross, yelling and screaming and other actions they partake in are not the way to get what you want. Their perception that they have created is that of a kicking screaming child, and unless they get the Supreme Courts to turn over the will of the people, they will not get what they want until they start to change their perception that the population, as a whole, have of them.
J
jfhh
Guest
Gay people are free to use that word in private all they want already. But this is a matter of them being able to use that word for public documents that ask if they are married for example. Having gays tick off one check box and straights another is like segregation.
You could say the bathrooms for blacks worked just as well as the bathrooms for whites. Maybe in some areas they were even cleaner or better or less crowded. That doesn’t make that right. Separate but equal here is not right. Same for gay marriage.
Just because society and law put gay marriage and hetero marriage in the same category does NOT mean YOU privately have to or that the church has to. I AGREE with you that these marriages are actually invalid marriages, i.e. not marriages at all in the ontological sense. BUT, that does that mean then that we as Catholics (I am a heterodox Catholic) should support Propositions that ban other kinds of invalid marriage? Like remarriage without a finding of nullity of previous marriage? To be consistent, the orthodox Catholics should support that, but they don’t (except the extremists).
J
jfhh
Guest
Then why stop there? Why not ban premarital sex and extramarital sex? Why not pass a U.S. constitutional amendment creating a censorship board for movies that would cause moral harm to public or actors? Why not ban OTHER kinds of invalid marriage like remarriage without a previous finding of nullity?
C
christcnection1
Guest
Maybe we should allow humans to marry animals while we are at it. I’m not sure if that would be a move up the ladder for the animal kingdom or for humans. Who could possibly argue this fundamental right?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I do not have a problem making extramarital sex illegal…I am not a promiscuous husband.
The fact of the matter is, marriage is a social and religious rite, not a civil one. It has nothing to do with what blacks went through. You can not tell a lot of gays are even gay, whether or not it is a choice or biological which I think it is different for each of them. It boils down to refusing a religious lifestyle devoted to God despite your selfish sexual prefernce, in order to pursue an immoral lifestyle that has a damaging impact on society.
What needs to happen, is they need to define the specific rites that they need in order for them to have the same legal aspects of a civil style marriage, but leave the religious rite of marriage alone.
But before anyone will accept it in a majority vote, they need to clean up their image. The reason their image is so jacked up right now is because they think that they need to define themselves with looks and actions. Women do not have to dress as men and men do not have to act as women for them to be gay. They can continue this if they want, but the social majority will continue to reject it.
J
jfhh
Guest
animals are not persons, they are not beings whom we can relate to on an interpersonal level that is fundamentally equal. If we were to make contact with alien civilizations one day though, I would be open to supporting the right for humans and aliens to marry – there an interpersonal relationship would be possible.
Besides animals can’t give true consent anymore than a 3 year old can (or younger depending on how smart the animal is)
C
christcnection1
Guest
A seven year old can give their consent, but I don’t think that’s a good idea!
Of course I agree that animals should not be able to get married humans. But if extraterrestrials came to this planet, what makes you think that their level of intelligence, reason, and ability to rightly consent is not far greater than man vs. animals? In other words, they could be leaps and bounds more intelligent than us than we are compared with apes.
I’m sure many animals lovers are convinced they have a unique interpersonal relationship with their pets, and there is nothing you could say to suggest otherwise.
Oh, this is a ridiculous conversation!
The bottom line is I believe the practice of polygamy, homosexuality, beastiality, adultery, fornication, contraception, and I’m sure many other sexuals deviances are morally reprehensible.
However, to support your case, if homosexual marriage is considered a civil right, I see no rational reason why polygamy should be discriminated against. If one is accepted, you have a stronger case for getting your beliefs accepted.
That said, I am clearly against both.
B
buffalo
Guest
Right - trying to redefine marriage to be between a man and an animal just wouldn’t work. But some will try.
It seems so obvious today, but I wonder in 10 years.
- Status