Same Sex Marriage - 10 Reasons Why You Should Oppose It

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasted 9minutes watching this poorly produced video with nothing new being introduced.:mad:
 
This is not going to ‘outsmart’ any liberal professors. There are so many assumptions and premises that aren’t going to be granted. It might be a good re-statement of arguments for people who already grant them, but this isn’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t share those beliefs.
 
Wasted 9minutes watching this poorly produced video with nothing new being introduced.:mad:
Why would there need to be something new? The reasons that sexual relationships between 2 men or 2 women don’t make sense don’t change from day to day. As a Catholic, I assume you’d concur with at least some of the points made in the video?
 
Still don’t get why we don’t make protestant communion illegal if were obligated to codify our beliefs into law.:confused: Perhaps you guys are picking on us queers for cultural homophobic reasons?

Cardinal Raymond Burke kind of sets my gaydar off… just saying. I’ve seen enough old Queen’s to be able to spot one, with a fairly high degree of accuracy. It’s common for queers to be anti queer, the most gay porn per capita is watched in the bible belt. Being anti gay is, well… kind of gay. Feed the starving kids first, I bet you Jesus is more concerned with that than two men getting a SECULAR right that you feel we don’t deserve.

🤷 Could be wrong, pray and be honest with yourself and I’m sure God will love you no matter what turns out to be true.🤷
 
Still don’t get why we don’t make protestant communion illegal if were obligated to codify our beliefs into law.:confused: Perhaps you guys are picking on us queers for cultural homophobic reasons?

Cardinal Raymond Burke kind of sets my gaydar off… just saying. I’ve seen enough old Queen’s to be able to spot one, with a fairly high degree of accuracy. It’s common for queers to be anti queer, the most gay porn per capita is watched in the bible belt. Being anti gay is, well… kind of gay. Feed the starving kids first, I bet you Jesus is more concerned with that than two men getting a SECULAR right that you feel we don’t deserve.

🤷 Could be wrong, pray and be honest with yourself and I’m sure God will love you no matter what turns out to be true.🤷
Congratulations.

I think that’s the most falsities I’ve seen condensed into a single post in my life.

Since this post will be removed soon, there’s no point in rebutting it.
 
The following was written by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

It is worth a very careful reading.

U.S. CONSTITUTION OFFERS EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

Traditional marriage already has a legitimate and exclusive foundation in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution’s Preamble explicitly states that among its enumerated purposes is to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

According to Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, Fourth Edition (2007), “posterity” means, exclusively, entities, such as “later generations,” “children,” “progeny,” and other terms unequivocally identified with biological descendants.

Since the Preamble establishes the “legislative intent” that judges look to in determining the meaning of a law or constitution, it is clear that the U.S. Constitution is designed to secure the blessings of liberty to the biological descendants of the citizenry that constituted the United States at the time that the Constitution was enacted. This makes those biological descendants and whatever essentially pertains to them, including, presumably, the process by which they come into being as citizens of the nation, a central part of purpose of the Constitution itself.

“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.

That is to say, while anyone can contribute to the blessings of liberty which may be bestowed upon posterity, traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the only civil institution naturally able to create the very object which is to receive those blessings, namely, posterity itself – the biological descendants of the present citizenry.

Anyone can make contributions to posterity, but the sexual union of male and female alone actually makes posterity itself. Marriage is the civil institution that regulates that union in civil society.

Thus, the Preamble’s wording establishes a distinct and special basis for traditional marriage, which does not obtain in homosexual unions.

This role of traditional marriage in producing society’s posterity is consistent with the classical meaning of marriage, even as understood by the pagan Romans.

Matrimony is taken from the Latin, “mater,” meaning “mother,” and “monium,” meaning “a state or condition,” thus defining the purpose of marriage as a man taking a wife in order to have children. In ancient Rome, this was understood as the purpose of marriage, the production of new citizens for the pagan Roman Empire.

While not every traditional marriage may actually beget new citizens for America, and while anyone may be able to adopt children, nonetheless traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the sole natural institution by which our “posterity” is begotten in order to replenish and perpetuate the citizenry of our nation. No merely arbitrarily-formed contract – including so-called “same sex marriage” – can fulfill that role as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, when they created a Constitution that secured the blessings of liberty, not only for ourselves, but also for our posterity.

Therefore, there is no legitimate basis for demanding “marriage equality” for homosexual unions – given the wording that expresses the legislative intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution.
 
The following was written by Dr. Dennis Bonnette.

“Equal protection” clauses are cited in both state and federal claims alleging that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. But equality claims are illicit unless litigants are similarly situated before the law. Since heterosexual marriage as a general institution can, at least potentially, further the purposes of the Constitution by securing the “blessings of liberty…to…our posterity” (biological descendants) insofar as traditional marriage is the only institution that is naturally able to produce society’s posterity (biological descendants) – and since homosexual unions cannot produce any “posterity” (biological descendants) by themselves, the potential litigants are not similarly situated.
Sadly, the response to reasoned argument is often “Love is love!!!” or “Equality!!!” and the claimant walks away feeling as if the mere pronunciation of the words have proven the existence and virtue of gay “marriage.”
 
Sadly, the response to reasoned argument is often “Love is love!!!” or “Equality!!!” and the claimant walks away feeling as if the mere pronunciation of the words have proven the existence and virtue of gay “marriage.”
Isn’t it absurd that words in the constitution never intended to endorse SSM are used to support it, and words never intended to exclude it are proposed to be used to defeat it!
 
U.S. CONSTITUTION OFFERS EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
I do not agree with this. The Constitution is silent on marriage and thus it is left up to the states or the people via the 10th Amendment. The only reason I see that the Federal govt is involved at all is because they tax people differently if they are married. If we got rid of the income tax and replaced it with a consumption tax or simple flat tax the “equality” argument goes away. Even if the income tax was kept, getting rid of all the exemptions designed to control/influence behavior would cut out the equality argument.
 
I do not agree with this. The Constitution is silent on marriage and thus it is left up to the states or the people via the 10th Amendment. The only reason I see that the Federal govt is involved at all is because they tax people differently if they are married. If we got rid of the income tax and replaced it with a consumption tax or simple flat tax the “equality” argument goes away. Even if the income tax was kept, getting rid of all the exemptions designed to control/influence behavior would cut out the equality argument.
There’s more to the equality argument than taxes.
 
There’s more to the equality argument than taxes.
I would agree at a State level but I do not see it at the Federal level. The court case that struck down part of the DOMA law was based on taxes.
 
I would agree at a State level but I do not see it at the Federal level. The court case that struck down part of the DOMA law was based on taxes.
Aside from tax beneifts, there are benefits related to social security, immigration, veteran/military service, and federal employment.
 
Aside from tax beneifts, there are benefits related to social security, immigration, veteran/military service, and federal employment.
These may be very reasonable rights to bestow on couples who are not eligible for marriage.

Where I live, the most common form of photo ID is the Driver’s Licence. But not every person needing photo ID demands a Driver’s Licence. Because a Driver’s Licence has a particular meaning! So the Photo ID was born!
 
These may be very reasonable rights to bestow on couples who are not eligible for marriage.

Where I live, the most common form of photo ID is the Driver’s Licence. But not every person needing photo ID demands a Driver’s Licence. Because a Driver’s Licence has a particular meaning! So the Photo ID was born!
That’s great. Except that that law doesn’t forbid someone who can drive, but chooses not to, from getting a Driver’s License.
 
That’s great. Except that that law doesn’t forbid someone who can drive, but chooses not to, from getting a Driver’s License.
But you fracture the analogy! A couple of blokes can’t “drive”. They may have had a case for photo id, and should have put THAT case, not sought a driver’s licence!
 
But you fracture the analogy! A couple of blokes can’t “drive”. They may have had a case for photo id, and should have put THAT case, not sought a driver’s licence!
I don’t know what you imagine “driving” is analogous to, but it’s clear you have to torture this analogy in order to make it work for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top