Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
kelvinf said:
Good morning Abyssinia! Do you ever sleep? šŸ˜ƒ I went to bed very late last night while you were online. šŸ™‚

I slept for about 7 hours and awoke about 3 hours ago and you are still online. Wow šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
I was off the internet about several hours before I came online about 30 minutes ago
 
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco was one of the Twitter users using the hashtags and a picture of a red cross to promote traditional marriage.

Weā€™re doing well, we have triangles, rectangles and now the red cross.
 
_Abyssinia said:
VIDEO: Heritageā€™s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan, Suze Orman

Ryan Anderson was against Piers Morgan, Suze Orman and most of the audience from their reaction at the end. What a hostile environment to go into and what a great defense of marriage he gave
Click to expand...
Kudos to this gentleman to have gone into such an environment to defend marriage. The woman was so rude to tell him his is uneducated and that he is just 31 years old.

Edited to add: BTW, the way the stage was set up was also just unfair.
 
kelvinf said:
Kudos to this gentleman to have gone into such an environment to defend marriage. The woman was so rude to tell him his is uneducated and that he is just 31 years old.

Edited to add: BTW, the way the stage was set up was also just unfair.
Click to expand...
You think rude is the prevailing attitude with gay advocates, and with Pro-Choice movements. They do seem to use it to there advantage. Or would you say its a two-way street?
 
kelvinf said:
Kudos to this gentleman to have gone into such an environment to defend marriage. The woman was so rude to tell him his is uneducated and that he is just 31 years old.

Edited to add: BTW, the way the stage was set up was also just unfair.
Click to expand...
I know. Didnā€™t CNN used to be a known as a more objective news organisation? They have become the new MSNBC. CNN put one pro traditional marriage advocate against the host and his female guest and most of the audience and then CNN put Anderson in the audience, while the host and other gay marriage proponent sit in the middle of the stage on a platform, giving the view that Andersonā€™s views on marriage are lesser then theirs and he does not deserve equal status in the debate :eek:

It sounds so desperate how redefining marriage advocates continuously say how inevitable it is, and how those who oppose redefining marriage are in the minoirty and how few young people are opposed to redefining marriage and how the polls show opposition to redefining marriage fading. It is almost like they are trying to convince themselves its legality is inevitable. 50 million Americans voted to uphold marriage has a union between one man and one woman in 31 states
 
_Abyssinia said:
I know. Didnā€™t CNN used to be a known as a more objective news organisation? They have become the new MSNBC

It sounds so desperate how redefining marriage advocates continuously say how inevitable it is, and how those who oppose redefining marriage are in the minoirty and how few young people are opposed to redefining marriage and how the polls show opposition to redefining marriage fading. It is almost like they are trying to convince themselves its legality is inevitable. 50 million Americans voted to uphold marriage has a union between one man and one woman in 31 states
Click to expand...
Actually it provokes emotional thought introspection especially for one who doesnā€™t actually know themself, I would say its intentional to suggest, ā€œYou are the minority who thinks this wayā€ ā€œwhat is wrong with youā€. And I would suspect it works well. Worked well with abortion.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Actually it provokes emotional thought introspection especially for one who doesnā€™t actually know themself, I would say its intentional to suggest, ā€œYou are the minority who thinks this wayā€ ā€œwhat is wrong with youā€. And I would suspect it works well. Worked well with abortion.
Click to expand...
A lot of people who do not have the proper formation of understanding what marriage is would not want not be in a minority against the majority or would not be against what they presume to be, ā€˜marriage equality?ā€™ Gay marriage advocates use emotional game playing to try and convince people to support the cause. BTW even if gay marriage was legalised in all 50 states there would be still be many prohibitions on who can marry who so it would not be equality in the definition sense
 
_Abyssinia said:
I know. Didnā€™t CNN used to be a known as a more objective news organisation? They have become the new MSNBC. CNN put one pro traditional marriage advocate against the host and his female guest and most of the audience and then CNN put Anderson in the audience, while the host and other gay marriage proponent sit in the middle of the stage on a platform, giving the view that Andersonā€™s views on marriage are lesser then theirs and he does not deserve equal status in the debate :eek:

It sounds so desperate how redefining marriage advocates continuously say how inevitable it is, and how those who oppose redefining marriage are in the minoirty and how few young people are opposed to redefining marriage and how the polls show opposition to redefining marriage fading. It is almost like they are trying to convince themselves its legality is inevitable. 50 million Americans voted to uphold marriage has a union between one man and one woman in 31 states
Click to expand...
Regarding the majority minority claim, in another video, the Attorney General of California kept on saying that polls support SSM in California although voters there have voted twice against it. When provided with this fact, she kept on saying polls show thatā€¦, polls show thatā€¦Thatā€™s all she could say.
 
rossum said:
Sā€¦
Which does not grant access to spousal benefits, like health insurance, federal estate tax and many others. It is a ā€œseparate but unequalā€ idea.

Many gays do.

rossum
Click to expand...
And why should the state grant access to those rights. How do gay unions benefit the state? Marriage certainly does, providing a healthy environment for procreating children and raising them to be productive members of society, which is reason enough for the state to have a vested interest in their prospering. If this is not true, then neither type of union should have any particular tax or other advantage. The fact is, it could be argued that gay unions are a detriment to society and should be discouraged. First, they are a discouragement to enter into unions that are open to life and will benefit society by bringing children into the world, and second, they are a sexual perversion which will weaken the moral fabric of society. You may not believe the latter, but most people in Western civilization have believed so for many centuries.

Gays may see a point, but the state should not. Only gays, and misguided sympathizers, have an interest in gay unions, and not a healthy or sensible one at that.
 
_Abyssinia said:
A lot of people who do not have the proper formation of understanding what marriage is would not want not be in a minority against the majority or would not be against what they presume to be, ā€˜marriage equality?ā€™ Gay marriage advocates use emotional game playing to try and convince people to support the cause. BTW even if gay marriage was legalised in all 50 states there would be still be many prohibitions on who can marry who so it is not equality in the definition sense
Click to expand...
Sublime brainwashing, yes indeed, its easy to become swayed in thinking. The south and midwest have been clearly speaking out. Gun-laws, Abortion, Marriageā€¦ just not trying to hear it. Many areas such as here and Mass, there are too many who refuse to speak up as not to disturb there comfort. They are desensitized and withdrawn into their own world. Its the as long as they do that over there thinking. Same in NYC and why you see everyone quickly walking and not talking. Its the ā€œI donā€™t care what they are doing attitudeā€ I have a payment on the home and two children to care for. šŸ¤· Make no waves.

Its what Dr King called the appalling silence of the good.
 
josh987654321 said:
Instead of ā€˜unhealthyā€™ try ā€˜disordered and immoralā€™
Click to expand...
Then we are moving out of civil law and into religion. Adultery is ā€œdisordered and immoralā€ yet there are no civil laws against it. In the secular arena, you will have to come up with non-religious reasons to justify the law you want.
Homosexuality and hetrosexuality are two very different things, why would you treat them equally? there is no equality between the physical make up of a man and a women, itā€™s madness!
Click to expand...
Yet in many areas of the law both men and women are treated equally, itā€™s madness. Would you repeal the 19th Amendment?

rossum
 
JamesCaruso said:
How do gay unions benefit the state?
Click to expand...
Happier citizens. More couples available to adopt orphaned children. More efficient use of available housing.
Marriage certainly does, providing a healthy environment for procreating children and raising them to be productive members of society, which is reason enough for the state to have a vested interest in their prospering. If this is not true, then neither type of union should have any particular tax or other advantage.
Click to expand...
So, you would withdraw all marriage benefits from heterosexual couples with no children, or all of whose children are adults? If it is children which generate the benefit to the state, then childless couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not get any state benefits. The benefits can be restored if the couple adopts a child.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Happier citizens. More couples available to adopt orphaned children. More efficient use of available housing.

So, you would withdraw all marriage benefits from heterosexual couples with no children, or all of whose children are adults? If it is children which generate the benefit to the state, then childless couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not get any state benefits. The benefits can be restored if the couple adopts a child.

rossum
Click to expand...
And you really think the state has an interest in giving tax and other benefits to people for the flimsy reasons you stated? Get serious.

The benefits are there because the state sees marriage as an institution to be encouraged. In general, it works very well. If the state wanted to tweak tax benefits associated with marriage a bit, I have no problem with that, but I donā€™t think it would be wise for the state to become intrusive as to how many children you have, whether or not you will have children, why you havenā€™t had children yet, and so forth and so on. It works well just the way they have formulated it-- why tinker with success?
 
rossum said:
More couples available to adopt orphaned children.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Conceded, now these children you have to concede that to sustain life they would have to procreate. So why not get to plan A procreate first? Whats the fundamental issue?

Is this helping the procreation plan?

Is it part of it?

Abortion, Gay Marriage, I would say procreate not deviate. Missing the mark twofold now. How does that make it easier to get back to procreate?

Iā€™m not seeing rossum, whats your thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top