Secular argument against gay marriage

[josh987654321]

Some will express this view. Not all do.

They would have to be Ignorant of their faith when it comes to marriage not to express this view.

Gospels Mathew 19:4-6
*4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

I think it’s fair to say that their views on marriage and yours don’t perfectly align.

To be Christian and not have our view align with marriage being between a man and a woman would be ignorance of the above gospel quote.

There’s a spectrum of views. Some hate the idea, some don’t care, some are in full support. Some are still evaluating it.

Alot of people don’t really care about marriage anymore and the laws will reflect the majorities view of marriage, so if the majority are Christian, than I think it’s important to stress the importance of marriage, as it provides a strong foundation, it provides the building blocks in which to raise the next generation.

Marriage is very important, as marriage declines, society will also decline, as strong marriages means strong families and in turn brings up strong and good citizens for the next generation.

The Christian’s that I’ve heard express support for the marriage of homosexuals don’t say that. In general what I’ve heard them say is “I don’t have a problem with it. If they want to marry let them marry” (or some variant of that).

Yea I have heard that alot, thats why I say it’s a contradiction, it’s like saying “I believe marraige as only between a man and a woman, however I don’t really care.” or saying “I don’t really care about the definition of marriage period.”

They don’t know the importance of marriage and how benificial it is to raise the next generation with a valued understanding of marriage.

Don’t read too much into it. It may not be saying too much more than what’s written on the ballot.

It’s a shame I think, it just shows how many Christians are Ignorant to the importance and value of marriage.

When they cast a vote pro same sex marriage, they cast a vote to intentionaly remove Christian values (their own values) that they know to be benificial for society from the law that governs us, which is illogical I think.

Thank you for reading
Josh*

 

[Peter_Plato]

You can either spend your time defending confusing arguments and lose the war, or come up with less confusing arguments and win, up to you.

The confusion has been created by advocates of same sex marriage who have over the past ten years or so added intentionally ambiguous and loaded terms into the debate. In an attempt to “simplify” the argument let’s look at a parallel case.

Advocates of same sex marriage claim, counterintuitively, that marriage should not be limited to complimentary male-female partnership because that is discriminatory towards individuals who are sexually oriented towards those of their own gender. However, if gender is an arbitrary feature that ought not be an obstacle in the way of a couple seeking marriage, why should other, equally “arbitrary,” features such as speciation be an obstacle?

The argument has been that animals, for example, cannot give legitimate consent to such long term commitment that a marriage entails, but what about an hypothetical alien species?

Suppose there arrived on the Earth a species of inhabitants from another solar system with comparable intelligence to that of human beings but with markedly different physiology. Say these creatures were reptilian-like but with psychology and emotive functions that were otherwise similar to human beings. Further suppose that after a time these creatures sought the physical and sexual companionship of human beings.

It should become quickly apparent that the two views of “marriage” that are presently at odds regarding same sex unions would necessarily have to take two very opposing views regarding the sexual dalliance of humans with this alien race.

Promoters of same sex marriage would have great difficulty upholding any kind of sanctions against these human-alien relationships, on the grounds that the marriage relationship is essentially only a relationship between any two individuals capable of consent. Why not a human - alien marriage given that this breed of aliens is fully capable of informed consent? Nothing else should stand in the way, according to SSM proponents.

On the other hand, promoters of a traditional view of marriage as a union between complimentary sexes of the same species ordered towards procreation, would have compelling reasons to make a claim that human-alien sexual relationships are essentially disordered. This is not about breeding pairs, it is an issue concerning how the natural and biological integrity of entire species of moral beings should be respected and upheld.

In some sense, this respect for speciation is the issue at stake in the same sex debate, with advocates of SSM willing to cast off biological norms for the sake of human whim and dalliance, allowing “experimentation” with the manner in which sexual normalcy will be viewed by future generations, without so much as a whiff of evidence that this may be any good for humanity, and merely because a proportion of the current generation deems it so based NOT upon reason but on current social trends.

The point here is that advocates of SSM could make no case to preclude alien-human marriages because they have already abandoned any idea of order or biological purpose as inherent to marriage relationships. These people have let the ship sail regarding the role of biology in marriage and adhered instead to subjectivity and choice, absent regard for the role of procreation. The same arguments made for inclusion of same sex partners in marriage also make compelling the inclusion of alien-human pairings once the definition has been altered to make the role of biology irrelevant.

 

[Arthropod]

:clapping: Many thanks for that reference to a superb, moving article which is eminently reasonable and based on personal experience. It is undoubtedly the best analysis of the subject I have read - and irrefutable!

Thanks! As a protestant on a roman catholic forum, it is nice to get some positive comment for once

 

[inocente]

This is where I think you miss understand, I agree that all citizens should be treated equally unless there is good cause to do otherwise, but don’t you think there is good cause to treat a homosexual union differently to a heterosexual union in regards to calling/recognising them as a marriage?

Err… obviously not from what I’ve been saying.

Given the differences in the physical human anatomy of a man and a woman and the compatability of a man and a woman, I thought that the union of two men or two women and a man and a woman would be fundamentally different, they are treated equally under law, but does that mean we should call all women, men? would that be the only way to treat men and women equally?

But men and women are treated equally under the law.

I would very much like to know, what do you think marriage is?

I’d say civil marriage is the union of two adults to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death parts them.

This law I think undefines marriage, do you think society is better off by recognising homosexual unions as a marriages? could you please tell me what value has this given to your understanding of marriage?

Society is always better off without prejudice. Marriage also.

*I think this is like saying, if we percieve something like the acts of homosexuality as moral, than it will stop people from abusing and insulting these people, no one steps back to see that people shouldn’t be abusing or insulting anyone and that the acts of homosexuality don’t need to be viewed as moral when they are not.

I think this is like saying, something is not a sin, therefore no one will hate the sinner, instead of saying hate the sin and not the sinner.*

But clearly there is deep-rooted discrimination, clearly there are those who hate the “sinner”, clearly something must change to make things better.

 

[inocente]

I think two thirds of christians who approved legalizing gay marriage are a contradiction, to be christian means to believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, why would they vote for the removal of that definition from the legal system that governs them? why would they vote for the removal of christian values that they believe are beneficial for society from their legal system?

That’s millions of people, I can’t go round asking them all.

*I don’t think it make’s any sense for a Christian to be pro same sex marriage in regards to the law.

Thats like saying “I believe marriage to be only between a man and a woman, however I also believe that homosexuals can marry” can you see the contradiction?

I ask you, what is your definition of marriage?

If you say only between a man and a woman, than why would you be pro a completely different definition? it doesn’t make any sense to me, please help me to understand because I can’t wrap my head around that kind of thinking.*

There’s a difference between civil marriage and marriage in your church. One is provided by society to recognize the bond between two people, the other is a sacrament before God. Big difference.

 

[inocente]

I find this an interesting observation given that he provides absolutely no reason to think it to be true. He doesn’t seem to regard providing compelling evidence in support to be necessary, which says something of his view of marriage.

He was just summing up after the debate.

If a patient (marriage) was in great danger of not surviving as viable, for the doctor in charge to allow experimentation on the patient by various inexperienced concoctors of “novel remedies” demonstrates quite clearly that the doctor has given up all hope. He may even mutter to himself, “What harm could it do to the patient?” This attitude signals that the doctor has given up all hope that the patient can make a recovery. I suspect there is something of this attitude of futility in the Spanish leader’s message. In other words, “What damage could it do to marriage considering that marriage appears to be a dying institution? Why not let the experimenters in and attempt their own brand of fiddling with the institution? What damage can be done, since marriage is in a state of rigor mortis?”

You seem to be saying nothing should ever change because it might go wrong, but women getting the vote and freeing the slaves didn’t bring about the collapse of civilization, so I don’t think giving a small minority the chance to marry will either.

To be clear, this is not an attitude one would have if they had any real concern for marriage as an institution. It is the perspective one would take if the survival of marriage were of no real concern. What damage, after all, could be done, since the patient is already moribund?

Are you saying that the value of your marriage depends on who else gets married?

Sit down with your spouse and suggest that if gay marriage is legalized in your neck of the woods, your marriage will instantly be worthless and you should break up forthwith. Let me know how she takes it.

Really though I think the bad health of civil marriage is to do with easy divorce, and isn’t going to be affected much either way by gay marriage.

 

[inocente]

In that case I would like to see how you refute the article (by a homosexual) referred to by Arthropod:

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

He says he started off being attracted to men, then married his “soul mate” girlfriend, and then switched back to a gay once separated. Sounds more like he’s bisexual than homosexual.

He gives a Plato-like plea that there’s a greater good in a male-female relationship, which may well be true for him, and repeats the utopian argument that kids are better off with male and female parents, conveniently forgetting that in the real world many are in single-parent families.

 

[markeverett49]

Society is always better off without prejudice

False. Most Western societies (-all that I know of, but I coulda missed one) are better off for capitalizing a prejudice against smoking and unhealthy eating. They would be better off if they capitalized a prejudice against having children out of wedlock, no-fault divorce, and viewing pornography. The social science research is overwhelming that these things (among others) harm individuals and society. The happiest and healthiest people are heterosexuals in long marriages. Divorce tends to make men less healthy, and everyone knows that it tends to leave women and children in tough financial straits.

Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” is yet another mistake made by smug people who a) think they know what is best for everyone but b) have a miserable track record (-as detailed in social science research of the past 50 years) and c) refuse to take this evidence seriously because they don’t like what it suggests. As my old sociology teacher used to say, “Unless you can accept the consequences of a truth, you won’t be able to see it.”

 

[inocente]

There is very good reason to see a vast difference between heterosexual couplings that would, in the natural course of things, produce children who need two decades of oversight, and same-sex couplings which can never produce offspring. The sexual revolution has been hard on marriage----and deliberately, defiantly so. (It is ironic, to say the least, that many intellectuals who now argue for same-sex marriage were arguing twenty years ago that marriage was an oppressive institution we would be better off without.) This is one more log on the fire of the West’s smug self-destruction.

Giving women the same opportunities as men has upset a few apple carts but would you want to go back? I think a fairer world is always a better world, even though it makes for interesting times for those living through the changes.

 

[markeverett49]

Giving women the same opportunities as men has upset a few apple carts but would you want to go back? I think a fairer world is always a better world, even though it makes for interesting times for those living through the changes.

Well, it is WOMEN—especially unmarried women—who complain the most. (Though married women also complain that their husbands have watched so much pornography they no longer want to interact much with a flesh-and-blood woman.) They are LESS happy, not more. (Many men who want to treat women as sex objects are thrilled with the way things are----lots of easy sex, no consequences, no relationships, and there’s always another damaged young thing staggering into view when the woman you’re currently exploiting turns 30…)

We’re not talking about opportunities to work or go to school. We’re talking about a culture which tells women they’re only as valuable as they are sexy / young. The rampant individualism underlying the sexual revolution has chewed up and spit out millions of women and children. This doesn’t help them at all. They’re neither better off nor freer. They are victims of a huge lie.

 

[inocente]

False. Most Western societies (-all that I know of, but I coulda missed one) are better off for capitalizing a prejudice against smoking and unhealthy eating. They would be better off if they capitalized a prejudice against having children out of wedlock, no-fault divorce, and viewing pornography. The social science research is overwhelming that these things (among others) harm individuals and society.

Prejudice is an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge, so doesn’t apply to smoking and unhealthy eating.

Sorry, you just seem to be against everything now, so I don’t know how to respond

The happiest and healthiest people are heterosexuals in long marriages.

That’s a great reason to legalize gay marriage - then they can also enjoy the health benefits of long marriages.

Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” is yet another mistake made by smug people who a) think they know what is best for everyone but b) have a miserable track record (-as detailed in social science research of the past 50 years) and c) refuse to take this evidence seriously because they don’t like what it suggests. As my old sociology teacher used to say, “Unless you can accept the consequences of a truth, you won’t be able to see it.”

The world was getting better every year throughout history until the last 50 years when suddenly things took a turn for the worse?

 

[markeverett49]

Prejudice is an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge, so doesn’t apply to smoking and unhealthy eating.

Sorry, you just seem to be against everything now, so I don’t know how to respond

That’s a great reason to legalize gay marriage - then they can also enjoy the health benefits of long marriages.

The world was getting better every year throughout history until the last 50 years when suddenly things took a turn for the worse?

The prejudice against same-sex marriage is both fair and reasonable. It is NOT based on sexual orientation but on the nature of marriage: the union of a male and female that naturally leads to offspring.

The reason so many heterosexuals now think “gay sex” is the same thing as heterosexual sex is that they have severed the connection between sex and childbirth. (This is a fact of biology, not an invention of the Church.) Contraception and abortion were necessary forerunners for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now, many heterosexuals have ‘made themselves gay’ by sterilizing their sexual encounters. The rub of this—which you can see now but perhaps one day will—is that when heterosexuals tell you that gay sex is equivalent to heterosexual sex is that is equally meaningLESS.(It has no purpose, no meaning, it is just whatever people want for as long as they want it and for whatever reason they want it. This is adolescent thinking.)

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks! As a protestant on a roman catholic forum, it is nice to get some positive comment for once

You are far from being the only non-Catholic whose posts are appreciated - and often deeply appreciated!

 

[tonyrey]

He says he started off being attracted to men, then married his “soul mate” girlfriend, and then switched back to a gay once separated. Sounds more like he’s bisexual than homosexual.

Your assertion does not alter the facts he has presented. Marriage is based on biological facts about reproduction and the complementary roles of the male and female in the family in accordance with the Christian belief that man and woman are created for each other.

He gives a Plato-like plea that there’s a greater good in a male-female relationship, which may well be true for him, and repeats the utopian argument that kids are better off with male and female parents, conveniently forgetting that in the real world many are in single-parent families.

A real world in which single-parent families are the result of the permissive mentality. The endorsement of gay marriage amounts to taking permissiveness to its logical conclusion and endowing every form of sexual relationship, including polygamy and polyamory, with the cloak of legality - as if human laws are necessarily just and beneficial for society - as well as being an attempt by the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage. Sympathy and compassion for the victims of injustice and prejudice should not allow the foundation of society to be destroyed in the name of “tolerance” and encourage the permissiveness which has already fragmented families and caused immense suffering for fathers, mothers and children.

The irrational insistence on the claim for a relationship identical in every respect - even in name - with that of a man and a woman is motivated by a perverse desire to undermine its traditional status. In a secular society it is an illogical desire to be recognised as equal to heterosexuals according to a virtually obsolete custom which has no spiritual significance! It is both ironic and hilarious that many heterosexual couples think marriage is a meaningless, old-fashioned custom that can be safely ignored and discarded whereas homosexuals believe it is an essential sign of integration in society!

 

[josh987654321]

Err… obviously not from what I’ve been saying.

But men and women are treated equally under the law.

Exactly, and rightly so, but do we call women, men? why can women not argue to be recognised as men for equality sake?

I’d say civil marriage is the union of two adults to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death parts them.

Why not three consenting adults?

Basically civil marriage can mean what ever we want it to mean, whats the basis for defining civil marriage? why do you think biology and male and female complimentarity should have nothing to do with marriage? even if it is civil? the law recognises marriages, who is defining them? should we just roll over and allow every definition of marriage to be under civil marriage, because thats essentially what your doing by separating your beliefs from civil marriage, do people even know where marriage comes from in order to define it?

Society is always better off without prejudice. Marriage also.

Refusing the word marriage to homosexuals is not prejudice, it’s whether they are a marriage or not and I obviously don’t think that a homosexual union is a marriage, it lacks the male and female complimentarity of a marriage.

But clearly there is deep-rooted discrimination, clearly there are those who hate the “sinner”, clearly something must change to make things better.

Yes that is true, thats why I understand what they are trying to do, but they are going the wrong way about it by trying to re-define (really undefine) marriage, because it’s teaching society to love the sin which isn’t the right thing to do is it? instead we should be teaching society to love the sinner as this way it wont encourage sin.

That’s millions of people, I can’t go round asking them all.

You seem to be one of them though.

There’s a difference between civil marriage and marriage in your church. One is provided by society to recognize the bond between two people, the other is a sacrament before God. Big difference.

Where do you think the roots of civil marriage comes from? the law recognises what the majority of people call a marriage, in which is rooted in our beliefs, how than could you support a definition of marriage that isn’t rooted in anything, that has no historical basis or reasoning behind the definition?

We are facing the question of “what is marriage” you say but thats religious marriage and not civil marriage, well where does civil marriage come from, who decides it’s meaning? where are the roots toward it’s definition?

To those who promote or support born that way theory
It’s doesn’t make a bit of difference if anyone was born that way. Predisposition to sin we all have. Some worse than others. It is not an excuse to sin. We don’t act on our impulses that would bring us to any sexual sin.
Then we would be like an animal with no intelligence to not know right from wrong.

** We don’t go along to get along and go with the flow. Flow of what?**
You want people to be damned or in heaven. How uncharitable would it be not to care about someone’s salvation to lie to them so as not to hurt their feelings. Feelings that could cause them to follow the path to hell? False compassion is not true love. Love in truth, not in lies.
GB

Like Speakttruth says, It is a false compassion to support same sex marriage or encourage the acts of homosexuality, it is not true love, if people know better, than why do they do worse by voting for same sex marriage, by encouraging homosexuals to act on their disordered desires? because thats not love or compassion at all.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Thanks! As a protestant on a roman catholic forum, it is nice to get some positive comment for once
tonyrey;10659255:

You are far from being the only non-Catholic whose posts are appreciated - and often deeply appreciated!

x2

The prejudice against same-sex marriage is both fair and reasonable. It is NOT based on sexual orientation but on the nature of marriage: the union of a male and female that naturally leads to offspring.

The reason so many heterosexuals now think “gay sex” is the same thing as heterosexual sex is that they have severed the connection between sex and childbirth. (This is a fact of biology, not an invention of the Church.) Contraception and abortion were necessary forerunners for acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now, many heterosexuals have ‘made themselves gay’ by sterilizing their sexual encounters. The rub of this—which you can see now but perhaps one day will—is that when heterosexuals tell you that gay sex is equivalent to heterosexual sex is that is equally meaningLESS.(It has no purpose, no meaning, it is just whatever people want for as long as they want it and for whatever reason they want it. This is adolescent thinking.)

Thats a good way of putting it.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

They would have to be Ignorant of their faith when it comes to marriage not to express this view…]To be Christian and not have our view align with marriage being between a man and a woman would be ignorance of the above gospel quote.

There’s a little bit if possible ambiguity in the word “faith” here. But some one can be completely aware of what is written in their holy book and either disagree or not care while still being a member of that religion.

Sex before marriage may be an example of this.

Alot of people don’t really care about marriage anymore

Quite true. I myself am not sure of what good it is outside of the legal benefits that come with it.

and the laws will reflect the majorities view of marriage, so if the majority are Christian, than I think it’s important to stress the importance of marriage, as it provides a strong foundation, it provides the building blocks in which to raise the next generation.

And some one can do this without objecting against homosexuals engaging in the same civil contract.

…]it’s like saying “I believe marraige as only between a man and a woman, however I don’t really care.” or saying “I don’t really care about the definition of marriage period.”

There are many more possible thoughts behind the stance. Some people view legal marriage and spiritual marriage as being distinctly different.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Society is always better off without prejudice. Marriage also.

But clearly there is deep-rooted discrimination, clearly there are those who hate the “sinner”, clearly something must change to make things better.

I can’t see any consistency within a line of thought that acknowledges a certain behaviour to be a sin but that there nothing wrong in enabling individuals to engage in that behaviour. The problem with this POV is that sinful behaviour is sinful because it is damaging to the spiritual integrity of the individual. Enabling sinful behaviour is tantamount to approving the harm done by the individual to themselves under the guise of “freedom.”

Why would you agree that certain behaviour is sinful, but argue that individuals should be aided and abetted in engaging in the behaviour unless you lacked a concern for the well-being of the individual?

I see absolutely no inconsistency in the idea of loving the sinner and not approving of the potential harm to the individual that sinful behaviour is causing to them. It is possible, after all, to love a person and hate a cancer that is destroying them. Sin is destructive of individuals, so it is entirely correct to hate the sin precisely because of the harm done to the person committing it,

If you admit that same sex behaviour is wrong and sinful, how can you condone the conditions to come about that will make sin easier to commit and make it socially licit? The only possible sense I can make of this position is that you really don’t believe same sex behaviour to be sinful, but are just claiming it is to present yourself as a “Christian.”

Perhaps I am mistaken about your position and you don’t really think same sex behaviour is wrong at all. At least, that would be consistent on your part.

 

[inocente]

Your assertion does not alter the facts he has presented. Marriage is based on biological facts about reproduction and the complementary roles of the male and female in the family in accordance with the Christian belief that man and woman are created for each other.

Methinks it was only because he called himself gay that he caused any interest, after all his arguments are not original, they’ve been presented before.

A real world in which single-parent families are the result of the permissive mentality. The endorsement of gay marriage amounts to taking permissiveness to its logical conclusion and endowing every form of sexual relationship, including polygamy and polyamory, with the cloak of legality - as if human laws are necessarily just and beneficial for society - as well as being an attempt by the enemies of religion to destroy the spiritual significance of marriage. Sympathy and compassion for the victims of injustice and prejudice should not allow the foundation of society to be destroyed in the name of “tolerance” and encourage the permissiveness which has already fragmented families and caused immense suffering for fathers, mothers and children.

If that’s your view (and I have some sympathy with it) then surely the thing to do would be to roll back permissiveness to undo the great damage it has caused. But you won’t do it by stopping gays from getting married, that’s not going un-fragment families or make fathers, mothers and children happy again.

The irrational insistence on the claim for a relationship identical in every respect - even in name - with that of a man and a woman is motivated by a perverse desire to undermine its traditional status. In a secular society it is an illogical desire to be recognised as equal to heterosexuals according to a virtually obsolete custom which has no spiritual significance! It is both ironic and hilarious that many heterosexual couples think marriage is a meaningless, old-fashioned custom that can be safely ignored and discarded whereas homosexuals believe it is an essential sign of integration in society!

If homosexuals value marriage and many heterosexuals don’t, why isn’t that an absolutely spiffing top-notch argument for legalizing gay marriage?

 

[inocente]

Exactly, and rightly so, but do we call women, men? why can women not argue to be recognised as men for equality sake?

Not sure I understand your point.

*Why not three consenting adults?

Basically civil marriage can mean what ever we want it to mean, whats the basis for defining civil marriage? why do you think biology and male and female complimentarity should have nothing to do with marriage? even if it is civil? the law recognises marriages, who is defining them? should we just roll over and allow every definition of marriage to be under civil marriage, because thats essentially what your doing by separating your beliefs from civil marriage, do people even know where marriage comes from in order to define it?*

It’s not a matter of rolling over, in a democracy the majority get to decide. We might not always go along with the majority but that’s how it is.

I’m not separating my beliefs, I’m happy to see gays married in my church.

Refusing the word marriage to homosexuals is not prejudice, it’s whether they are a marriage or not and I obviously don’t think that a homosexual union is a marriage, it lacks the male and female complimentarity of a marriage.

But it is state-sponsored prejudice to treat citizens unequally without good cause.

Yes that is true, thats why I understand what they are trying to do, but they are going the wrong way about it by trying to re-define (really undefine) marriage, because it’s teaching society to love the sin which isn’t the right thing to do is it? instead we should be teaching society to love the sinner as this way it wont encourage sin.

It’s only a sin according to some religions, and stopping people from marrying is encouraging promiscuity. Are you saying you’d rather people are promiscuous?

*Where do you think the roots of civil marriage comes from? the law recognises what the majority of people call a marriage, in which is rooted in our beliefs, how than could you support a definition of marriage that isn’t rooted in anything, that has no historical basis or reasoning behind the definition?

We are facing the question of “what is marriage” you say but thats religious marriage and not civil marriage, well where does civil marriage come from, who decides it’s meaning? where are the roots toward it’s definition?*

Don’t know, sorry.

Like Speakttruth says, It is a false compassion to support same sex marriage or encourage the acts of homosexuality, it is not true love, if people know better, than why do they do worse by voting for same sex marriage, by encouraging homosexuals to act on their disordered desires? because thats not love or compassion at all.

Who told you it’s not true love, how do you know what is and isn’t true love?

And who told you homosexuals’ desires are disordered? Compared with the depravities many heterosexuals get up to? How is marriage encouraging anything other than responsible behavior?