Pro-gay-rights folks, I don't understand y'all

[estesbob]

Is somebody making you marry another man?

Are Dred Scott or Plessy still good law?

And the point is?

 

[Exalt]

I oppose homosexual marriage becuase it is an attempt to legitimize grevious.sin As far as opposing homosexual marriage I am in good company:

reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSL1627550020080516?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Have you ever heard of the establishment clause of the constitution?

It is NOT the place of the government to enforce your religion’s condemnation of homosexuality on those individuals.

 

[Exalt]

Never in history has any significant society understood marriage as being the union of homosexuals.

This is true. It’s groundbreaking, isn’t it? Society evolves, it moves forward, it progresses. You know, here’s another “never in history!” statement: never in history has the world gone without a war for more than a few years? Well, that’s certainly a tradition I’d like to see changed.

There are countless bad habits we have as a species that ought to change. And there are countless good habits that we, as a species, ought to take up. Protecting homosexual couples who have no negative impact on you is something *good *that we ought to take up.

Rulings like the Cal ruling show a profound contempt for the natural instincts of the people; the almost universally held concepts of right, wrong and what is socially important.

No. They don’t. On the contrary, they show a reverence for the love two human beings feel for one another, and respect at the life-long commitment they pledge for one another.

For courts to sully it by mandating that it be extended to sexual perversion shows total contempt for the natural inclinations of people throughout ages. It shows total contempt for religion

No one is forcing churches to marry gay people.

And since you brought it up; it is not the place of government to enforce the condemnation of the Church on the people of America. That’s in the establishment clause of the Constitution.

 

[BamaRider]

First I asked Exalt-

What gives you the right to tell him he can’t have 3 wives? In YOUR world NOTHING! You wanna throw out the defination of marriage to whatever “alternative lifestyle” flavor of the month is. You’re jumping up and down at the state tellin ya, a marriage is a man and a woman, so I guess we can count on you to sit idle when the polygamist lobby starts making noise to get them a license

So he came back with this answer-

think we ought to give a close look at our anti-polygamy laws. I think they’re unconstitutional. If three women and a man want to get married, so be it. If we’re going to have laws about marriage, then they need to be considered as well.

Which basically says he thinks polygamy is ok.

Then I said-

BUT the state can dang sure define what a marriage is for the purpose legality. Example: death SSI death benefits, go to the surviving spouse, in a legal marriage, not a live in. Thank God in Alabama that is defined as a man and a woman.

Those benefits should be denied to live ins of gay or straight relationships.

So in

And Exalt responded-

So in other words, you would want those benefits to go to someone other than the same-sex spouse? If it was an opposite-sex spouse, those benefits ought to go to them, right?

So now I’m gonna say- I want the benefits to go to the spouse, in a marriage as defined by current law -READ MY TEXT which is MAN AND A WOMAN LOL. Not 2 men, 2 ladies, or any combination of 3-5 you wanna throw on the wall to see what sticks.

I appreciate a guy like you hanging out on a religious forum, certainly makes for lively debate.

But here is where ya wrong. Catholics do not fear gays, evolutionists, etc. We do NOT want a law placing our believes on the land concerning homosexuality. Where we draw the line is THEM, telling us, what the defination of a marriage is gonna be, the will of the people spoke in California, but nooooo gay actvisits were NOT gonna stand for that. They knew full well if they could get it to the State Supreme Court anything could happen, and it did.

Applying YOUR logic the men out in Texas in that compound were just exercising their right to “alternate lifestyle” by marrying 3-4 ladies and having sex with under age girls. And I can tell ya, a law that accomdates that line of thought is NOT gonna fly with 70 million Catholics. A marriage is a man and a woman.

If 2 men decide to live together not gonna affect MY marriage at all, but when you redefine marriage to 1 man and 3 women then, we gotta talk.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is true. It’s groundbreaking, isn’t it? Society evolves, it moves forward, it progresses. You know, here’s another “never in history!” statement: never in history has the world gone without a war for more than a few years? Well, that’s certainly a tradition I’d like to see changed.

There are countless bad habits we have as a species that ought to change. And there are countless good habits that we, as a species, ought to take up. Protecting homosexual couples who have no negative impact on you is something *good *that we ought to take up.

No. They don’t. On the contrary, they show a reverence for the love two human beings feel for one another, and respect at the life-long commitment they pledge for one another.

No one is forcing churches to marry gay people.

And since you brought it up; it is not the place of government to enforce the condemnation of the Church on the people of America. That’s in the establishment clause of the Constitution.

I never said homosexual “couples” have a negative impact on me. In my occupation, I have seen homosexuality’s effects for a long time, and am no longer even surprised by it.

I realize this means nothing to you, but I do care what children are exposed to. If you actually believe homosexual relationships are typically Jane and Jen living their peaceful suburban lives, you don’t know very much about them. I would not want children to take any of their ideas about marriage from that. And I do care that some people are willing to throw away millenia of societal experience for some elitist fad, because I know how easily people lose respect for societal mores and the law when the underpinnings are removed. As little as you might think so, virtually every law on the books has its origins in religious values. If you threw them all out, there would be almost nothing left of the law. You might find it interesting to visit a law office where they have a complete set of old “Case Reporters”, go back the very earliest ones and see how pervasive religion is in the development of laws that still govern us today.

And as far as “no one is forcing churches to marry gay people” is concerned, one does not have to look very far to see how far Canadian rulings have encroached on religion when it comes to accommodating homosexuality. One does not have to look very far to see how the state has encroached on religious institutions in the U.S. because of elitist innovations concerning abortion.

Perhaps you did not know that the state allows clergymen to marry people legally. It’s an accommodation the state has given to religious bodies for centuries. If a particular church refuses to “marry” “gay” people how long will it be before the courts decide that is an illegal “discriminatory” use of state power if the “right to marry” is a “constitutional right”? The ACLU probably already has its pleadings and briefs prepared.

 

[thistle]

Ah, the wonders of allegory. It’s a literary device, it’s not supposed to be the same thing.

So in other words, you would want those benefits to go to someone other than the same-sex spouse? If it was an *opposite-sex *spouse, those benefits ought to go to them, right?

THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.

It is NOT the place of the government to enforce your religion’s condemnation of homosexuality on those individuals. That’s right there in the ESTABLISHMENT clause of the constitution. NUMERO UNO in the bill of rights!

Give me a situation (or two or three) and I’ll tell you my opinion. Essentially, though, I think marriage is a contract between sentient individuals who wish to spend the rest of their lives in each other’s company. It is a life-long romantic relationship that is agreed to end at death.

I think we ought to give a close look at our anti-polygamy laws. I think they’re unconstitutional. If three women and a man want to get married, so be it. If we’re going to have laws about marriage, then they need to be considered as well.

You know, to amuse my friends, I sometimes link them to these forums. They think you hate gay people, you hate Muslims, you hate liberals, you’re obsessed with sex, and you are religiously obsessed zealots. I tell my friends that they’re wrong and that you people are good and not hateful. But in threads like this, it’s really hard for me to make that argument. Let me explain:

Banning gay marriage doesn’t protect marriage. It won’t in any way contribute to decreasing the divorce rate, juvenile delinquency, or any other issue. What it does do is make people like my friends (many of whom are gay) feel alienated, misunderstood, caricatured, betrayed, and left out of the American dream.

Personally? I think they have good reason to feel that way, considering the responses here.

I’m not American but doesn’t your dollar bills say “In God We Trust” ?? Well God condemns homosexual activity so why don’t you trust him??

 

[Pug]

You fight for your Church’s condemnation of homosexuality. But the Church’s opinions on homosexuality have no place in a secular government. That’s right there in the establishment clause.

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph. It’s a paragraph, and it contains a connecting word, so I tend to think the ideas in it are related in your mind, especially the first and the second sentence. Are you trying to say that it is against the law of the land for a voter like estesbob to vote (or take some other political action or “fight for”) based upon any convictions he may hold that someone determines is related to a religion? I don’t think that is what you mean, though.

I think estesbob can fight for whatever laws or amendments he thinks will promote the general welfare of the people of this country. I assume both sides in this debate want the general welfare of the country. We don’t agree on what constitutes the country’s best interest, most likely.

 

[PetersKeys]

I am sometimes dense and/or utterly clueless. Could you explain what you mean by “support government benefits”?

im sure their struggle of getting gay marriage legalized has caused a good amount of legal fees and court costs.

Gay pride parades cost ordinance fees and city rental which effects taxes. Because AIDS is very prevalent in the gay society it increases our taxes being shuffled to them when they irresponsibly get AIDS by having the number of partners they do.

The irresponsibility of the Gay community has cost our society millions in taxes. Most in health related costs, medicaid, AIDS treatments and the ordinance fees and subsidizing of their Gay Parades and Political Rallys. All that costs a great amount of money

 

[Exalt]

But here is where ya wrong. Catholics do not fear gays, evolutionists, etc. We do NOT want a law placing our believes on the land concerning homosexuality. Where we draw the line is THEM, telling us, what the defination of a marriage is gonna be, the will of the people spoke in California, but nooooo gay actvisits were NOT gonna stand for that.

You’re making it seem like you have to call gay people married. You don’t have to call it anything. The government has *never *forced Churches to marry *anyone *and that certainly includes gay couples.

Applying YOUR logic the men out in Texas in that compound were just exercising their right to “alternate lifestyle” by marrying 3-4 ladies and having sex with under age girls.

Woah, woah. I said that the laws against polygamy are something that need to be looked at. But child molestation is child molestation. I suspect that if polygamy *were *legal, families that practice polygamy would be more in the open and less afraid of their government.

If 2 men decide to live together not gonna affect MY marriage at all, but when you redefine marriage to 1 man and 3 women then, we gotta talk.

The decision for two men to live together has the exact same effect as the decision for two men to get married.

 

[Exalt]

I never said homosexual “couples” have a negative impact on me. In my occupation, I have seen homosexuality’s effects for a long time, and am no longer even surprised by it.

I realize this means nothing to you, but I do care what children are exposed to. If you actually believe homosexual relationships are typically Jane and Jen living their peaceful suburban lives, you don’t know very much about them. I would not want children to take any of their ideas about marriage from that. And I do care that some people are willing to throw away millenia of societal experience for some elitist fad, because I know how easily people lose respect for societal mores and the law when the underpinnings are removed. As little as you might think so, virtually every law on the books has its origins in religious values. If you threw them all out, there would be almost nothing left of the law. You might find it interesting to visit a law office where they have a complete set of old “Case Reporters”, go back the very earliest ones and see how pervasive religion is in the development of laws that still govern us today.

And as far as “no one is forcing churches to marry gay people” is concerned, one does not have to look very far to see how far Canadian rulings have encroached on religion when it comes to accommodating homosexuality. One does not have to look very far to see how the state has encroached on religious institutions in the U.S. because of elitist innovations concerning abortion.

Perhaps you did not know that the state allows clergymen to marry people legally. It’s an accommodation the state has given to religious bodies for centuries. If a particular church refuses to “marry” “gay” people how long will it be before the courts decide that is an illegal “discriminatory” use of state power if the “right to marry” is a “constitutional right”? The ACLU probably already has its pleadings and briefs prepared.

My roommate has asked me to take out the trash right, but I’m afraid that if I start to take out the trash, I might be distracted by doing the dishes. And if I do the dishes, I might accidentally drop my ring in the disposal. And, of course, I’ll have to reach in to get it. And when I do, there’s a possibility the disposal will turn on somehow. And if the disposal turns on, I’ll likely lose my hand, or, at least, a few digits. Therefore, I shouldn’t take out the trash.

Two can play the slippery slope game. Do you really want to go there?

 

[Exalt]

I’m not American but doesn’t your dollar bills say “In God We Trust” ?? Well God condemns homosexual activity so why don’t you trust him??

Though that is the national motto, this government is still secular. Because you’re not American, you may not be familiar with the United States Constitution - or, even, the history that sparked it. You might want to look it up. Check out the Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment.

 

[Exalt]

I’m not sure what you mean in this paragraph. It’s a paragraph, and it contains a connecting word, so I tend to think the ideas in it are related in your mind, especially the first and the second sentence. Are you trying to say that it is against the law of the land for a voter like estesbob to vote (or take some other political action or “fight for”) based upon any convictions he may hold that someone determines is related to a religion? I don’t think that is what you mean, though.

I think estesbob can fight for whatever laws or amendments he thinks will promote the general welfare of the people of this country. I assume both sides in this debate want the general welfare of the country. We don’t agree on what constitutes the country’s best interest, most likely.

I’m saying that the condemnation of homosexuality is based on explicit religious doctrine and dogma. Religious laws, however, have no place in our secular government.

 

[Exalt]

im sure their struggle of getting gay marriage legalized has caused a good amount of legal fees and court costs.

Gay pride parades cost ordinance fees and city rental which effects taxes. Because AIDS is very prevalent in the gay society it increases our taxes being shuffled to them when they irresponsibly get AIDS by having the number of partners they do.

The irresponsibility of the Gay community has cost our society millions in taxes. Most in health related costs, medicaid, AIDS treatments and the ordinance fees and subsidizing of their Gay Parades and Political Rallys. All that costs a great amount of money

Wow, really?

I mean, seriously.

Did you just use the Auto-Immune Deficiency Disease as ammunition to fight gay marriage?

I mean, if you wanna go there, we can go there. By all means, throw the first stone.

 

[thistle]

Though that is the national motto, this government is still secular. Because you’re not American, you may not be familiar with the United States Constitution - or, even, the history that sparked it. You might want to look it up. Check out the Bill of Rights, especially the first amendment.

Is this the Constitution that says all men are created equal but it just didn’t happen to apply to the indigenous peoples, African Americans, or women until about 200 years later??!!

 

[LRThunder]

Is somebody making you marry another man?

Are Dred Scott or Plessy still good law?

1. Give the pro-gay marriage crowd time. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
2. No, because the Civil War and the 13th Amendment nullified Dred Scott and Brown vs Board of Education overturned Plessy.

 

[LRThunder]

My roommate has asked me to take out the trash right, but I’m afraid that if I start to take out the trash, I might be distracted by doing the dishes. And if I do the dishes, I might accidentally drop my ring in the disposal. And, of course, I’ll have to reach in to get it. And when I do, there’s a possibility the disposal will turn on somehow. And if the disposal turns on, I’ll likely lose my hand, or, at least, a few digits. Therefore, I shouldn’t take out the trash.

Two can play the slippery slope game. Do you really want to go there?

Not even close to the same thing.

Let me give you a real example: In the 1920’s, Hitler made it clear that he wanted to rearm Germany and intended to eliminate the Versailes Treaty. The first act of defiance was the growth of the German military past the Treaty mandated 100,000 limit. Second was the remilitarization of the Rhineland unopposed…it all snowballed until World War II broke out in 1939. That was a slippery slope, not this dishwasher, losing ring, taking out the trash non-example.

 

[estesbob]

Have you ever heard of the establishment clause of the constitution?

It is NOT the place of the government to enforce your religion’s condemnation of homosexuality on those individuals.

But you are perfectly content to have the govt force your views on the rest of us. The impostion of play marraige on the people of California will end in November when the people are given a chance to speak. Then you can fall back on callng everyone bigots.

 

[myndsplyntur]

Yes it is. Homosexual marriage is absolutely something we should be concerned about. It attempts to take away the true meaning of marriage (between man and woman). It is depraved and should not be allowed and we should speak out against it.

Personally, I think that gay people should be allowed to get married if they really want to. I don’t think it has to be called marriage, if it wants to be called domestic partnership, that’s fine too.

I was always under the impression marriage was supposed to be about love, but some people seem to think it is solely about procreation…? Whatever.

I think we heterosexuals are doing a good enough job ruining the “sanctity” of marriage with the divorce rate. C’mon…

 

[estesbob]

First I asked Exalt-

So he came back with this answer-

Which basically says he thinks polygamy is ok.

Then I said-

And Exalt responded-

So now I’m gonna say- I want the benefits to go to the spouse, in a marriage as defined by current law -READ MY TEXT which is MAN AND A WOMAN LOL. Not 2 men, 2 ladies, or any combination of 3-5 you wanna throw on the wall to see what sticks.

I appreciate a guy like you hanging out on a religious forum, certainly makes for lively debate.

But here is where ya wrong. Catholics do not fear gays, evolutionists, etc. We do NOT want a law placing our believes on the land concerning homosexuality. Where we draw the line is THEM, telling us, what the defination of a marriage is gonna be, the will of the people spoke in California, but nooooo gay actvisits were NOT gonna stand for that. They knew full well if they could get it to the State Supreme Court anything could happen, and it did.

Applying YOUR logic the men out in Texas in that compound were just exercising their right to “alternate lifestyle” by marrying 3-4 ladies and having sex with under age girls. And I can tell ya, a law that accomdates that line of thought is NOT gonna fly with 70 million Catholics. A marriage is a man and a woman.

If 2 men decide to live together not gonna affect MY marriage at all, but when you redefine marriage to 1 man and 3 women then, we gotta talk.

There are NO arguments used to justify homosexual mariage that do not apply poylygamy. Bascially we are entering a period of time where the terms family and marraige are meaningless.
That , of course, is from a leagl and cultural perpsective. From a moral perspective a marriage and family will remain what they always have been. As Abe Lincon pointed out calling a tail a leg does not make it so.

 

[estesbob]

I think we heterosexuals are doing a good enough job ruining the “sanctity” of marriage with the divorce rate. C’mon…

What a hoot and such a solid affirmation of the “dignity” of homosexuality. You are saying "well marriage is so screwed up we might as well let homosexuals do it too.

Talk about damning with faint praise!