Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldcelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
holyrood said:
This discussion goes above and beyond the scope of homosexuality or homosexual ‘marriage,’ to the deeper root of our society’s obsession with 1) sexual pleasure; 2) having anything and everything we want, because we want it; 3) re-defining ‘self-fulfilment’ and ‘I want’ as the highest goals.

By showing their lifestyle and mindset, THEY THEMSELVES, have convinced me this is bad for society.

Why? ** The sheer hedonism**. The all-encompassing sweep of self-centeredness, the self-indulgence to the exclusion of all else, is truly breath-taking.

What am I seeing at these sites? Seeking sexual pleasure to the exclusion of almost all else.
In essence, a child somewhere in this world will continue to go to bed hungry so she and her husband can buy sex toys and pay for memberships on dating websites and have drinks and expensive dinners for multiple dating partners.

Multiply this by millions of people living this way–including in the particular area we’re discussing–and it’s not only a question of the sexual morality, but of all the good that is not being done because we have become, as a nation, obsessed with our own gratification. Of all the elderly and poor and children being neglected so that millions can pursue their promiscuity–which is highly prevalent among homosexuals.

Yes, I know that not every homosexual couple lives this way. But it’s common enough that it’s a huge impact on our society.

As I’ve read, all I can think is: WHO IS TAKING CARE OF THESE KIDS??? How is all this constant drama affecting the children watching it? How does it affect them seeing that their parents are (to all appearances) too pre-occupied with all their new relationship energy and dating to have much time left for the kids? How is it affecting a 15 year old girl and her future relationships to see her mother, father, and father’s girlfriend traipsing in and out of a single bedroom constantly and to live with the constant tension between the two women and her father jumping back and forth between two homes and simply not there because he’s off with his girlfriend?

Many of these couples chose to be childless in favor of having the freedom to live this lifestyle. Multiply this choice by millions, and there IS an impact on our society, as the number of workers supporting each older person on social security dwindles, as the burden is raised on each of those individuals.

We’re talking here specifically about creating a whole new concept of ‘marriage’ between two people of the same sex, but all of these things play into that–how we got here, where it’s going to continue to take us. ** I bring these things up because over and over, studies show that this hedonism is quite common among homosexuals**. *** I see it in these sites and people I know, directly from these people’s own mouths, and we’re fooling ourselves pretending it’s not happening, and calling people names rather than addressing how this is affecting our society and our children***.
Click to expand...
What a thoughtful and compelling post. Thank you! In the interest of space I clipped out a few of the most notable statements. Homosexual normalization, to the point of pretending two males or two females can marry is but a symptom of the overall problem of a self absorbed, self indulgent society. Homosexuals are at issue on this thread but the hedonistic, objectifying behavior also occurs in heterosexuals. The root cause is the loss of religious influence on society, here and abroad. Maybe we can even blame contraception which has allowed fornication and adultery to flourish. Or the 60s with its inane theories about “if it feels good do it” “tune in, turn on, drop out.” I’m old enough to remember this sea change and it hasn’t been for the better. It was supposed to be about “freedom” but it’s not the freedom we find in the New Testament.

My own experience and contact with homosexuals mirrors your own. Although many male homosexuals were “committed” partners, it did not stop them from having some sauce on the side. I had a long talk with a psychiatrist who is homosexual about this phenomenon and he said that “sex is meaningless except for the transient pleasure” Therefore in his mind, and in the mind of many homosexuals, having an encounter with someone other than the partner doesn’t damage an already disordered relationship. The prohibition of sexual betrayal is part of most societies because of the destruction of the family and therefore society. But since homosexuals cannot procreate, it matters not where they play.

Yet the irony is that some homosexuals claim they want “marriage” but what they really want is to normalize their disordered sexual activity. Once they have that piece of paper so many in the 60s and 70s demeaned, they can force their agenda into schools (well they already are but it will get worse) force businesses and charities to decide whether to violate their conscious or go out of business.

Truly you wonder how someone could be so addicted to a specific type of sexual pleasure that they are totally unconcerned with how it is a force for evil in our society. But it just goes back to the selfish desires and the glamour of evil.

Lisa
 
Cor_Cordis said:
That is still not “marriage”.
Click to expand...
For myself I am content to go with the legal definition of marriage since I am not a Christian.

Are you telling us that Jesus was not legitimately descended from David? After all, David’s relationship with Bathsheba (his eighth wife) did not conform to your narrow definition of marriage.

rossum
 
LisaA said:
Yet the irony is that some homosexuals claim they want “marriage” but what they really want is to normalize their disordered sexual activity. Once they have that piece of paper so many in the 60s and 70s demeaned, they can force their agenda into schools (well they already are but it will get worse) force businesses and charities to decide whether to violate their conscious or go out of business.

Truly you wonder how someone could be so addicted to a specific type of sexual pleasure that they are totally unconcerned with how it is a force for evil in our society. But it just goes back to the selfish desires and the glamour of evil.

Lisa
Click to expand...
This is what I do not understand. So many seem so unconcerned about the fate of our children. How can anyone of goodwill favor indoctrinating children into such an evil ideology?
 
fix said:
This is what I do not understand. So many seem so unconcerned about the fate of our children. How can anyone of goodwill favor indoctrinating children into such an evil ideology?
Click to expand...
Because unfortunately they fail to see the evil.
 
fix said:
It does not exist anywhere. The law would be unjust. No true law.
Click to expand...
You have a very strange definition of “exist”. Does something which is written down and is correctly authorised by the appropriate authorities not “exist”. You are drifting away from reality here.

rossum
 
rossum said:
You have a very strange definition of “exist”. Does something which is written down and is correctly authorised by the appropriate authorities not “exist”. You are drifting away from reality here.

rossum
Click to expand...
The law may exist, but what it represents does not exist. It is a fiction. It is an unjust law. Not a true law.

If a law said a minority person was not a human would that be true?
 
rossum said:
You have a very strange definition of “exist”. Does something which is written down and is correctly authorised by the appropriate authorities not “exist”. You are drifting away from reality here.

rossum
Click to expand...
You are a Buddhist correct? Do your teachings not include compassion for the weak? You have tried to make a god of the law and rules instead of considering the impact of this proposed law upon the weak and vulnerable. You have more “compassion” for a group of self absorbed sex addicts than for those who will be adversely impacted by the push to normalize abnormal behavior. Do you have the same “compassion” for the havoc wrought by violent people, drunks and addicts?

I do not understand people who claim to be so compassionate and non violent they won’t take up arms or eat meat yet they champion the right of some to force their disordered practices on those who find them repugnant.

Of course I am more disgusted with Catholics who champion homosexual normalization but then I have higher standards for members of my own faith.

Lisa
 
rossum said:
For myself I am content to go with the legal definition of marriage since I am not a Christian.

Are you telling us that Jesus was not legitimately descended from David? After all, David’s relationship with Bathsheba (his eighth wife) did not conform to your narrow definition of marriage.

rossum
Click to expand...
The “legal” definition is meaningless because it defies the actual definition of the word based on the natural order of our observable design that has been recognized for millennia throughout a variety of cultures and civilizations.

How exactly, does David’s broken life and inherent weaknesses make Jesus illegitimate?
 
rossum said:
For myself I am content to go with the legal definition of marriage since I am not a Christian.

Are you telling us that Jesus was not legitimately descended from David? After all, David’s relationship with Bathsheba (his eighth wife) did not conform to your narrow definition of marriage.

rossum
Click to expand...
The definition I am citing is not limited to Christianity.
 
rossum said:
The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.
Click to expand...
Your tag-line is utter nonsense in its self-defeating premise.

If it were “true” then everything you claim has no objective truth to it.:rolleyes:
 
Cor_Cordis said:
The “legal” definition is meaningless because it defies the actual definition of the word based on the natural order of our observable design that has been recognized for millennia throughout a variety of cultures and civilizations.
Click to expand...
I guess if the law claims leprechauns exist then they exist.
 
rossum said:
It exists in law.

rossum
Click to expand...
Does “law” necessarily reflect the truth of our natural design?

When “law” claimed that blacks were less than fully human - was that true reality?

When “law” claimed that the Jews were “untermensch” (under humans, sub-humans) was it truly representative of reality?

Tell me. What is 'Truth"?
 
fix said:
I guess if the law claims leprechauns exist then they exist.
Click to expand...
Aren’t leprechauns the biological offspring of homosexual unions?:rolleyes:

Why are we discriminating against green people?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
Aren’t leprechauns the biological offspring of homosexual unions?:rolleyes:

Why are we discriminating against green people?
Click to expand...
Yes I just Googled this and by a good authority, Leprechauns are always male. Thus no Leprechaun reproduction possible! I thought they sprang full grown from toadstools or is that fairies?

Lisa
 
fix said:
The law may exist, but what it represents does not exist. It is a fiction. It is an unjust law. Not a true law.

If a law said a minority person was not a human would that be true?
Click to expand...
In legal terms, yes. Slaves used to count as 3/5 of a person and Native Americans did not count at all, remember?

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top