Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

  • Thread starter Thread starter GaryTaylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do people think of this reasoning I am trying below to defeat same sex marriage being law?

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination, now Im sure there are laws against that arn’t there?

So to legalise discrimination should be logically unlawful.

Anyway would really like people to tweak this kind of reasoning or let me know of their idea’s, as using this kind of reasoning could help us oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law, I don’t think we should deny homosexuals the union by law, but we should definatly be denying them ‘marriage’ with regards to the law.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
josh987654321 said:
What do people think of this reasoning I am trying below to defeat same sex marriage being law?

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination, now Im sure there are laws against that arn’t there?

So to legalise discrimination should be logically unlawful.

Anyway would really like people to tweak this kind of reasoning or let me know of their idea’s, as using this kind of reasoning could help us oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law, I don’t think we should deny homosexuals the union by law, but we should definatly be denying them ‘marriage’ with regards to the law.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
I don’t think that argument would fly, but you are right in trying to find a purely secular argument that can defeat what we already know is a bad thing if it should come to pass, that of defining gay unions as marriage.

The truth is, gay unions are not the same as traditional marriage. They have many similarities, “love” in the common sense, a vow to remain faithful for life, two consenting adults, intention of living together, are some of the main ones. The big difference is that these unions cannot result in the procreation of children, which the usual marriage can. Even where a couple cannot have children for medcal reasons, there is always the possibility of that changing. Look at Sarah who conceived in her 96th year. Even within marriage, our beloved Church does not permit couples to use contraception, which would be against life and against a fundamental principle of marriage.

The whole argument starts at a deficit because the courts insist that they have the right to redefine marriage. The court is presumptuous in assuming marriage to be a humanly originated institution, and that presumptuousness seems to be driving it to commit a grave error in redefining what God alone has the right to redefine. It was presumptuous in the case of abortion, siding with the right of women to abort their unborn babies, a right to life and death that resides in God alone.

It is no wonder that we continue to get one bad decision after another from our court system which believes it must assiduously remove all matter of faith and religious belief from the discourse, and this in a country that was founded on Christian principles. I know a lot of you do not agree with this, but save your breath for another thread. Our Constitution does not allow the establishment of any particular religion and then it turns around and makes a religion out of secularism and attempts to shove that godless religion of the devil down the throats of all God fearing citizens. I once thought that people in high places with lots of degrees after their names were maybe a little smarter than the rest of us. That myth has long since been dispelled, one senseless ruling after the other.
 
josh987654321 said:
What do people think of this reasoning I am trying below to defeat same sex marriage being law?

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination, now Im sure there are laws against that arn’t there?

So to legalise discrimination should be logically unlawful.

Anyway would really like people to tweak this kind of reasoning or let me know of their idea’s, as using this kind of reasoning could help us oppose same sex marriage with regards to civil law, I don’t think we should deny homosexuals the union by law, but we should definatly be denying them ‘marriage’ with regards to the law.

Thank you for reading
Josh
Click to expand...
For your argument to succeed, you would have to show how allowing gay marriage takes away a right or interferes with a right of heterosexuals who want to marry. Failing that, I don’t really see how you can make the claim.
 
JamesCaruso said:
The big difference is that these unions cannot result in the procreation of children, which the usual marriage can. Even where a couple cannot have children for medcal reasons, there is always the possibility of that changing. Look at Sarah who conceived in her 96th year. Even within marriage, our beloved Church does not permit couples to use contraception, which would be against life and against a fundamental principle of marriage.
Click to expand...
Yup, however it’s not the ability of procreation that my primary concern is with, it’s the sexual relations, because the ability to procreate is not grounds to refuse a marriage, however the sexual relations should be enough ground to refuse such marriage’s, as everyone should know that the acts of homosexuality is a miss use of the body sexually, however hetrosexuality is the designed use.

Therefore in regards to marriage, the sexual nature of each union would dictate that they are vastly different, so this idea of equality through marriage seems to be very illogical to me.
The whole argument starts at a deficit because the courts insist that they have the right to redefine marriage. The court is presumptuous in assuming marriage to be a humanly originated institution, and that presumptuousness seems to be driving it to commit a grave error in redefining what God alone has the right to redefine. It was presumptuous in the case of abortion, siding with the right of women to abort their unborn babies, a right to life and death that resides in God alone.
Click to expand...
Yup, Marriage was a word used to describe something Godly, now they have taken that word and removed God from it, so I suppose they are going to abuse it without God, as it seems to be, no longer a word used to describe something Godly and I don’t understand why people want to get married a remove God from the equation, I guess they want what others have in mariage, but don’t realise it equires God in their lives.

And with Abortion, Im just glad Australia didn’t tap into that insanity, I don’t know why people would legalise abortion, it’s like legalising murder, the laws are there to protect physical harm to innocent human life above all else, when they are no longer doing that, which I consider the minimum, they are really warped in their morality, but that’s a separate issue.

I bet the founders of our laws would be mortified at the idea of legalising Abortion, it goes against everything the law is supposed to stand for.
It is no wonder that we continue to get one bad decision after another from our court system which believes it must assiduously remove all matter of faith and religious belief from the discourse, and this in a country that was founded on Christian principles. I know a lot of you do not agree with this, but save your breath for another thread. Our Constitution does not allow the establishment of any particular religion and then it turns around and makes a religion out of secularism and attempts to shove that godless religion of the devil down the throats of all God fearing citizens. I once thought that people in high places with lots of degrees after their names were maybe a little smarter than the rest of us. That myth has long since been dispelled, one senseless ruling after the other.
Click to expand...
Remember there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom, It’s good to have knowledge, but wisdom is far, far more valuable, id rather have alot of wisdom than alot of knowledge, but it’s good to have both if we can, so your right to think people with degree’s have knowledge however alot a severely lacking in wisdom I think.

I think the courts seem to be in that position where they want to be everyone’s friends, and in doing so allow society to run a muck, Abortion was the absolute stupidity and just down right disgraceful legalisation that goes against everything the law is supposed to stand for, which is the protection of innocent human life.
epan said:
For your argument to succeed, you would have to show how allowing gay marriage takes away a right or interferes with a right of heterosexuals who want to marry. Failing that, I don’t really see how you can make the claim.
Click to expand...
hmm, well it’s just illogical to give two vastly different unions because of their sexual nature under the same word as marriage wouldn’t you agree epan?

It interferes with my right of marriage being just between a man and a woman, that’s how it’s discriminiation.

Im not going to oppose homosexual unions in regards to the law, I don’t agree with it, but I wont force them not to do it by law, but when they try to get equality for two unions that are not equal under marriage, it’s discrimination and there should be some kind of just grounds regarding the law to stop that from happening isn’t there epan?

To stop the law from illogicaly, equating two different unions under the same word as marriage?

I mean if they really wanted the two unions to be equal in certain aspects, than there would have to be some kind of separate but equal policy, because they are factually separate, I don’t know why people can’t see that, it’s like that booklet I had on here earlier said, equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality with regards to marriage is fiction, as the sexual nature dictates that they are vastly different unions, it’s not about legalising same sex marriage, it’s about pretending that the two unions are both marriage’s.

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Sad to say, Merriam Webster already has same sex m******* in its dictionary:

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

Definition of MARRIAGE

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : t**he state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage **
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

And, to be honest, there has always been the use of the term marriage in a common sense as in meaning 3 above. It’s the attempt to equate God-blessed heterosexual marriage with blasphemous homosexual mating that has Christians in an uproar, and rightly so. One is a marriage that aspires to the highest possible level, a union that is of God to participate in His continual act of creation by bringing new children with eternal souls into existence, and raising them in a loving and caring home in the ways of holiness. Nothing could be more godly. Granted, the majority of marriages do not attain this standard, but the door is open-- walking through it is up to them.

The other descends to the lowest level of degradation that can exist between two human beings, pretending to be of God, but actually far removed from God, joining together in an unholy sexual alliance totally closed to life in direct contradiction to the intended purpose of God-authored human marriage,

How can these two unions be equivalent?

Because someone says “I love you?” Is that our new criteria for marriage? Or maybe the test is whether they intend to engage in mutual sexual abuse?

Are the Supreme Court Justices seriously considering ruling in favor of gay m*rriage, and if so, have they completely lost their minds? I am certain their training has been more extensive than law, soap operas and class B movies. Nine human beings with the best of educations and deemed worthy of appointment to the highest offices in the land surely must have brains larger than a poppy seed?

What is at play here? Is it regard for human esteem? Or can their minds be so darkened by the lives that they live, that they cannot see the clear light of reason and morality? I certainly hope not, on either count. But if they rule in favor of gay m*rriage, what are we to think?

Will fire come down from the sky? I hope not.

This is Divine Mercy Sunday coming up. It could not come at a more appropriate time. This country needs all the mercy it can get. We are living on a precipice of our own choosing. The question is, “How much closer to the edge can we push?” Drugs everywhere, craziness everywhere, Impurity everywhere, abortion of unborn babies everywhere, casinos sprouting up everywhere, senseless murders everywhere, all signs of a soulless society… and now we are considering legitimizing homosexual m*rriage? Inch by inch… I am not half as much afraid of nuclear destruction as I am of this internal destruction. By the time the nukes get here, there won’t be much left to save at the rate we’re going. Let’s hope that there will be ten just people left. (Gen 18)
 
 
kelvinf said:
Reagan: ‘Don’t believe in gay marriage’ Video on Piers Morgan 😊
Click to expand...
He brings up the point about bisexuals. I can see a case going to court now with a bisexual who has both a female and male partner and argues their rights is being infringed or that they are being discriminated against because they can not get married to both their partners. A case like that may be an opening case for marriage being redefined again for polygamous marriage
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top