The Homosexual Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter InSearchofGrace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
qui_est_ce said:
It’s not an assumption, it’s a fact.
Click to expand...
Not at all. How is it a fact? Not all changes constitutes a change in definition.
qui_est_ce said:
Why not? If you can change the definition of marriage from between on man and one woman, to two consenting adults, why can’t you change it to whatever you want it to be?

You have already done so
Click to expand...
Why so? Your argument simply doesn’t follow, as a matter of logic. It’s quite consistent to hold that two consenting adults should be able to marry and that adults and children should not be able to marry.
qui_est_ce said:
. That is not what I said,
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely what you said: permitting the change would permit any and all changes.
 
secular_freedom said:
Not at all. How is it a fact? Not all changes constitutes a change in definition.
Click to expand...
Look in the dictionary. What was the definition of marriage 10 years ago, what is it today? It’s CHANGED.
secular_freedom said:
Why so? Your argument simply doesn’t follow, as a matter of logic. It’s quite consistent to hold that two consenting adults should be able to marry and that adults and children should not be able to marry.
Click to expand...
I never said it was inconsistent, I said once you change a fundamental understanding of a concept by changing the definition, it’s possible to change the new concept as well.
It’s absolutely what you said: permitting the change would permit any and all changes.
Click to expand...
👍
 
qui_est_ce said:
Look in the dictionary. What was the definition of marriage 10 years ago, what is it today? It’s CHANGED.
Click to expand...
Again, a change is not necessarily a redefinition.
qui_est_ce said:
I never said it was inconsistent,
Click to expand...
Sure you did. That’s your whole point.
qui_est_ce said:
I said once you change a fundamental understanding of a concept by changing the definition, it’s possible to change the new concept as well.
Click to expand...
Nope. Your claim: once you change the legal definition of marriage, any change to the definition of marriage is possible and permissible, which is nonsense.
 
buffalo said:
Not at the outset. But already suits have been filed to lower the age of consent. If that happens then it would. Many seemingly little steps mean big changes.
Click to expand...
Already our states have differing ages of consent for sex, for marriage, for legal contracts, etc. And the 50 states do not all agree. And these ages are changed from time to time. None of this threatens ALL of the standards that a society agrees to.

Just because we decide to legalize the ingestion of alcohol does not mean that we have to approve the ingestion of all drugs. Nor does lowering the drinking age to 18 mean that we have to allow 12-yr-olds to drink.
 
secular_freedom said:
Except this is simply patently untrue. After same-sex marriage is accepted and legal across the country, couples will still be able to get married. Marriage won’t somehow become illegal (which is what you’re claiming) just because same-sex couples gain the right to marry. But all of this is beyond obvious.
Click to expand...
no where did I say marriage would be illegal. Not sure how you read that from my post. Let me rephrase, marriage will cease to have any value, meaning or social need to exist. And in fact that is already happening. Gay marriage is the next step followed by polygamy, followed by marriage ceasing to be something the state bothers to support in any form.
 
larkin31 said:
Cultures simply decide, through their laws, what is legal and what is not. If you are afraid that legalization of alcohol will then mean that we must also legalize heroin and crack, then…oh wait…alcohol consumption IS legal but crack is not??..so…wait…society actually CAN expand certain privileges and not grant THEM ALL? Wait, what about my slippery slope fears???
Click to expand...
but marijuana is being legalized as we dialog. How long do you think it will be before other drugs are legalized?
 
vsedriver said:
but marijuana is being legalized as we dialog. How long do you think it will be before other drugs are legalized?
Click to expand...
dunno

it has taken marijuana centuries, and at least 40 years of active effort. And it is not there yet. Most other drugs ARE legal, just highly regulated.
 
secular_freedom said:
Read what I wrote again: It’s false to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any coupling can get married. This would still be true even if polygamy were legal.
Click to expand...
why couldn’t any coupling then get married? Why couldn’t an adult daughter marry her adult father? Or a brother and a sister? If you can remove the gender part of the definition of marriage then you can remove the number part and the relationship part. And at that point marriage really doesn’t exist.
secular_freedom said:
I’m not married, so I can’t speak from any personal understanding. But if I were married, then I’d imagine that its meaning would derive from a deeply intimate connection between me and my partner. Of course, such connection differs from couple to couple. What’s your point?
Click to expand...
strangely enough the ‘intimate connection’ part isn’t part of the definition of marriage. Neither is sexual orientation which is why a gay man can marry a straight woman. You aren’t required to have an intimate connection to get married. Historically many people married complete strangers.

Marriage is not a license to have sex or a public acknowledgment that two people are in love. It is a public commitment two people make to each other for the purpose of forming a family unit perfectly suited to the raising of children.
 
vsedriver said:
Marriage is not a license to have sex or a public acknowledgment that two people are in love. It is a public commitment two people make to each other for the purpose of forming a family unit perfectly suited to the raising of children.
Click to expand...
This is not its ONLY purpose. No one denies that marriage promotes procreation.
 
secular_freedom said:
Again, a change is not necessarily a redefinition.

Sure you did. That’s your whole point.

Nope. Your claim: once you change the legal definition of marriage, any change to the definition of marriage is possible and permissible, which is nonsense.
Click to expand...
:hypno: :confused:Depends on what your definiition of definition is
 
larkin31 said:
This is not its ONLY purpose. No one denies that marriage promotes procreation.
Click to expand...
To be quite juvenile, uhhh yes it is.

Marriage is absolutely about forming a relationship that is aimed directly at a family and children through procreation. That is its primary purpose. Always has been, although that has been changed lately. A woman I work with actually told me that the primary purpose of marriage was the protection of property!!!
 
larkin31 said:
dunno

it has taken marijuana centuries, and at least 40 years of active effort. And it is not there yet. Most other drugs ARE legal, just highly regulated.
Click to expand...
marijuana was legal for centuries. It was only became illegal in 1937. And most other drugs existed and were used legally without prescriptions until the later part of the 20th century.
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
To be quite juvenile, uhhh yes it is.

Marriage is absolutely about forming a relationship that is aimed directly at a family and children through procreation. That is its primary purpose. Always has been, although that has been changed lately. A woman I work with actually told me that the primary purpose of marriage was the protection of property!!!
Click to expand...
You’re not being juvenile; you’re being obtuse.

I said “ONLY” and even capitalized it. Then you ignored the word “ONLY” and substituted “primary” as if they are the same.

Did you do this intentionally, or by mistake?
 
Seeker2010 said:
Religion has NO PLACE in civil law. That doesn’t mean any law that is a religious law has no place in civil law, taking it that far would mean laws against murder cannot be passed. That said, if the only reason for banning something is because ‘God said so’, and there are no legitimate secular reasons for it, the ban has no business happening.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with civil unions. but I will fight to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman being perverted to include gays. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Even civil marriage has a socially beneficial aspect. There are reasons outside religon to maintain the traditional definition.

Just another sign that our country is destroying itself and will eventually go the way of the Roman Empire. Legalize gay marriage, legalize abortion, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize illegal aliens. Did I leave anything out?

Evil triumps when good men do nothing. Not many good men out there, or, more likely, they have chosen to sit on their hands.
 
rodomonte said:
I have no problem with civil unions. but I will fight to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman being perverted to include gays. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ. Even civil marriage has a socially beneficial aspect. There are reasons outside religon to maintain the traditional definition.

Just another sign that our country is destroying itself and will eventually go the way of the Roman Empire. Legalize gay marriage, legalize abortion, legalize drugs, legalize prostitution, legalize illegal aliens. Did I leave anything out?

Evil triumps when good men do nothing. Not many good men out there, or, more likely, they have chosen to sit on their hands.
Click to expand...
Every child has the right to their biological parents. The homosexual agenda wrongly focuses on the adults not the needs of children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top