Rebuttals for same sex marriage PLEASE!

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe1 said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Is anyone threatening to take down the Church? SSM certainly isn’t going to do that. The biggest threat to the Church in the West has been some of its doing.
Click to expand...
Many want to take down the Church. We could probably make a very long list of people and organizations who want to. SSM is an attack on the family and on the values of God. This idealogy that it’s your body you can do anything and it’s fine is being taught in schools and is trying to erase the will of God
Click to expand...
It’s my body. I don’t owe you an apology or explanation. I don’t owe the President, the Queen, the Pope or any other official high or low, and I certainly don’t need their permission.

I do not want to see the Church destroyed. I actually greatly admire it, even if I disagree with certain fundamental tenets. I even support without equivocation its right to set the moral and ethical boundaries of its membership. What I will not accept is that it has any power over me.
 
Last edited:
The topic is same-sex marriage. According to an LGBT web site, “civil unions” was an unacceptable term. It meant, according to them, second-class status for gay couples. I watched Ellen DeGeneres tell then Presidential candidate John McCain that same-sex unions will be called marriage.

No, the current situation amounts to a dictatorship against religious people. Your religion is private. You can never talk about or promote anything from it in public.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, no one knows anything about you, where you live, etc. Again, respectfully, I saw a young woman say this on TV: “Keep your beliefs off my body!” UH… What?

Only you decide if it has any power over you.
 
edwest211 said:
The topic is same-sex marriage. According to an LGBT web site, “civil unions” was an unacceptable term. It meant, according to them, second-class status for gay couples. I watched Ellen DeGeneres tell then Presidential candidate John Mc Cain that same-sex unions will be called marriage.

No, the current situation amounts to a dictatorship against religious people. Your religion is private. You can never talk about or promote anything from it in public.
Click to expand...
I meant “civil marriage”. You know, the “city hall” kind of marriage.

And no, the current situation does not represent a dictatorship. You are not forced to marry someone of the same sex, your church isn’t being forced to. Just because you no longer have the power to force your religious views on homosexuals doesn’t mean you’re suddenly mean you’re in a dictatorship, it means gay people are no longer in a dictatorship. The reduction of the political power of your church is a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
I just ran a query on our DHR database.

251,223 cases where children were removed from the parents over the last 9 years.( that is how far our database goes back )
Every single one was from Heterosexual based families.

I draw at least 3 conclusions from this data:
  1. Homosexual based families in my State don’t have children.
or
  1. Homosexual based families don’t have their children removed from them at all.
or
  1. Homosexual based families have yet found their way into the DHR system.
 
Power. An ugly word. Politics is not God. And privacy? That no longer exists? I will not be forced to call anyone by their dictatorship or perceived “power” over me, like the law in New York City that forces certain defined entities to address a transgender person by a certain preferred pronoun or face legal consequences. I have noticed general civility drop greatly over the last 40 years.
 
  1. Yes, but the goal is a health intact family with a father in the home. Arguing that humans fail does not make an argument.
  2. Not enough research has been done and is a recent thing. The children are now starting to speak up.
  3. Which one’s do you find objectionable and why?
4.Morality is rooted in truth and love. The perfection of love and truth, we call God.
  1. Even a post menopausal women can be open to life. (The Bible records this miracle)
  2. Sort of - The CC is the main one though.
 
edwest211 said:
Power. An ugly word. Politics is not God. And privacy? That no longer exists? I will not be forced to call anyone by their dictatorship or perceived “power” over me, like the law in New York City that forces certain defined entities to address a transgender person by a certain preferred pronoun or face legal consequences. I have noticed general civility drop greatly over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with any such law (and doubt it would ever meet First Amendment muster).
 
niceatheist said:
It’s my body. I don’t owe you an apology or explanation. I don’t owe the President, the Queen, the Pope or any other official high or low, and I certainly don’t need their permission.

I do not want to see the Church destroyed. I actually greatly admire it, even if I disagree with certain fundamental tenets. I even support without equivocation its right to set the moral and ethical boundaries of its membership. What I will not accept is that it has any power over me.
Click to expand...
Obviously you don’t owe an apology to the Queen, Pope, President, official, etc. The reason why God gave us these rules was because he wanted us to live godily lives in accordance with his will. You, like all of us, have free will to do what you want.
 
buffalo said:
  1. Yes, but the goal is a health intact family with a father in the home. Arguing that humans fail does not make an argument.
Click to expand...
Why precisely is that the goal?
  1. Not enough research has been done and is a recent thing. The children are now starting to speak up.
Click to expand...
All the evidence thus far shows children in such homes are at no greater risk then elsewhere, and no, one or two anecdotal cases does not prove a point.
  1. Which one’s do you find objectionable and why?
4.Morality is rooted in truth and love. The perfection of love and truth, we call God.
Click to expand...
And your free to blieve that.
  1. Even a post menopausal women can be open to life. (The Bible records this miracle)
Click to expand...
Really? Come on.
  1. Sort of - The CC is the main one though.
Click to expand...
I would argue that for a period of time it was, but the groundwork, like the rule of law, individualism, and a great deal of political theory, arose before the Church, and a great deal of the Enlightenment happened outside the bounds of the Church (and elements of the Church were, and still are, disapproving of many Enlightenment views). That still doesn’t mean I feel that the Church has any right to impose its views on me.
 
Yet the APA former President says no real research was done and the APA has been taken over by activists.

Would you support research in a pill that would eliminate SSA?
 
Certainly anatomy provides a powerful hint that, in the sexual relationship of (say) 2 men, something is amiss. Is each behaving as one would expect, in accord with the nature of their bodies?
 
I’ll try that one with my wife the next time I get a panic attack :roll_eyes:
 
Rau said:
Certainly anatomy provides a powerful hint that, in the sexual relationship of (say) 2 men, something is amiss. Is each behaving as one would expect, in accord with the nature of their bodies?
Click to expand...
And yet, even among other animals, sex organs can be used in unorthodox ways. Bonobo chimps are notorious for sexual practices that would have ended them up in court rooms throughout much of the US at one time.

Even in nature, things are not that straight forward.
 
buffalo said:
Anyone can and could have an attorney draw up a civil agreement.
Click to expand...
There was no means in the United States to draw up a civil agreement that could give same-sex couples the same rights and privileges as married people, and even where they existed, gay couples had all sorts of problems when it came to issues like end of life decisions, inheritance, and so forth. That was the very nature of the original claims, that the equal protection before the law was being denied.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top