The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

[CopticChristian]

Sorry to hear of your crippling neurosis. I sympathize - when I was in France, I refused to eat at McDonalds because the frogs had adopted the metric system. I simply could not bring myself to order a quarter-pounder with cheese by anything other than its correct American name.

Asimon,

Now as I recall from Pulp Fiction…the big mac is Le Royal with cheese…was that just Tarantino playing with my mind or what?

 

[Debora123]

It doesn’t. I was just using this example to show how weak the argument actually was. If there was some mass movement to redefine what a duck was, I wouldn’t lose a second of sleep over it. There are more important things with which to concern ourselves.

Who says I lose sleep over it? I don’t. And I never said this was the most important thing to concern myself with. Of course there are more important things. But that doesn’t take away the fact that I will not call marriage something that it’s not, neither do I think it’s right for a group of people to want the rest of us to do so.

 

[Debora123]

As I said, the gay rights movement, in general, does not concern itself with what religions think of them. The purpose of the movement is to get the secular government of the United States to acknowledge their same sex partnerships as having the same legal standing as heterosexual couples. While a minority of homosexuals would also like to confront and force change within the various Christian denominations, I consider this misguided. For one thing, the same Constitution that, in principle, would allow homosexuals the freedom to marry each other, also protects religions from being forced by the government to alter their doctrines. For another, the Episcopal Church just recently announced they would begin sanctifying same-sex marriages. So a gay couple that really wants the blessing of a religion for their marriage has somewhere to go now.

I wasn’t being specific to whether they want the government or us “religious people” to acknowledge their arrangement as a marriage. The fact is, they DO want the rest of the world to give them the official title of marriage.

And as I said, I have absolutely 0 problem with a gay couple having the same legal “rights” as straight couples. However, they need to come up with their own term to identify their arrangement. Because it’s not a marriage.

 

[buffalo]

Leading me to re-state my question. On what authority do you assert what the intended function of marriage is, and why it’s immutable?

.

I can hardly believe anyone would even ask this question. Common sense, biology and natural law. Why is it immutable? Try an experiment. Put homosexuals on an island and see what happens.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I’d imagine all homosexuals have different opinons on marriage, and many of them may well understand why you disagree with same-sex marriage. I’ve met some that claimed they don’t care about marriage.

I also find it funny that some of you guys believe there is some kind of Homosexual Agenda trying to take over the world and destory Judeo-Christian morality.

 

[Debora123]

On what authority do you assert what the intended function of marriage is, and why it’s immutable?

What do you mean, why isn’t marriage immutable?

The word “marriage” was created to define a very specific type of relationship between male/female. That’s what marriage IS.

Like a duck is a duck, marriage is marriage. I don’t know why we even need to go over this again.

Sorry if not all of us are going to agree to call “marriage” something it’s not.

 

[Debora123]

I also find it funny that some of you guys believe there is some kind of Homosexual Agenda trying to take over the world and destory Judeo-Christian morality.

Whens some people specifically attack Christianity and bash it for not recognizing a same sex relationship is a “marriage,” what ARE we supposed to think??

 

[buffalo]

I’d imagine all homosexuals have different opinons on marriage, and many of them may well understand why you disagree with same-sex marriage. I’ve met some that claimed they don’t care about marriage.

I also find it funny that some of you guys believe there is some kind of Homosexual Agenda trying to take over the world and destory Judeo-Christian morality.

Unmasking the “gay” agenda

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Whens some people specifically attack Christianity and bash it for not recognizing a same sex relationship is a “marriage,” what ARE we supposed to think??

You can be annoyed, but possibly also recognise the fact that the USA (if that is where you live) was not founded as a Christian nation, and that not all of the founding fathers were Christian. The USA is not a nation under God. However, I suppose it’s unfair for people to bash Christianity.

Unmasking the “gay” agenda

You believe that nonsense? Tell me, do you even KNOW any homosexuals?

 

[buffalo]

         The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
        ***Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972***

FEDERAL LEVEL: 1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.
2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

1. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
   7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual’s sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.
   8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men’s and women’s organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.
   9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.
   STATE LEVEL:
   1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.
   2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
   3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
   4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
   5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
   6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
   7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
   8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

         The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
        ***Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972***

FEDERAL LEVEL: 1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.
2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.
3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.
4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.
5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

1. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
   7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual’s sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.
   8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men’s and women’s organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.
   9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.
   STATE LEVEL:
   1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.
   2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
   3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
   4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
   5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
   6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
   7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
   8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

What’s wrong about any of that? Most of that stuff is the bare minimum of equal rights, and what other minority groups would expect, apart from possibly the bits about sex education and polygamy. Most of those are simply making homosexuality legal, and giving them the rights and opportunities of everyone else. I don’t see how that proves any plan to destroy Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality.

And, besides, that doesn’t represent the views of all homosexuals. Homosexuals are all different, and they all have different opinons, believe it or not.

 

[buffalo]

What’s wrong about any of that? Most of that stuff is the bare minimum of equal rights, and what other minority groups would expect, apart from possibly the bits about sex education and polygamy. Most of those are simply making homosexuality legal, and giving them the rights and opportunities of everyone else. I don’t see how that proves any plan to destroy Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality.

Your claim was there is no agenda. Ready to move on or you need more?

 

[prodigalson2011]

What’s wrong about any of that? Most of that stuff is the bare minimum of equal rights, and what other minority groups would expect, apart from possibly the bits about sex education and polygamy. Most of those are simply making homosexuality legal, and giving them the rights and opportunities of everyone else. I don’t see how that proves any plan to destroy Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality.

And, besides, that doesn’t represent the views of all homosexuals. Homosexuals are all different, and they all have different opinons, believe it or not.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

That, maybe?

 

[CopticChristian]

What’s wrong about any of that? Most of that stuff is the bare minimum of equal rights, and what other minority groups would expect, apart from possibly the bits about sex education and polygamy. Most of those are simply making homosexuality legal, and giving them the rights and opportunities of everyone else. I don’t see how that proves any plan to destroy Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality.

And, besides, that doesn’t represent the views of all homosexuals. Homosexuals are all different, and they all have different opinons, believe it or not.

Regular,

You remind me of the True Centrist…

Reach in your pocket, look at your money…“In God We Trust”…you will see it everywhere

What’s wrong is that there is no such thing as a homosexual minority as a class of people. Define your understanding of a minority…Race, Creed, Color, Religion…where does the homosexual fit in?

 

[Debora123]

You can be annoyed, but possibly also recognise the fact that the USA (if that is where you live) was not founded as a Christian nation, and that not all of the founding fathers were Christian. The USA is not a nation under God. However, I suppose it’s unfair for people to bash Christianity.

What does whether or not the US is or is not a Christian nation have to do with anything? When someone specifically attacks Christian morality, of course I’m going to think they have an anti Christian moral agenda.

 

[ASimon]

Who says I lose sleep over it? I don’t. And I never said this was the most important thing to concern myself with. Of course there are more important things. But that doesn’t take away the fact that I will not call marriage something that it’s not, neither do I think it’s right for a group of people to want the rest of us to do so.

Once again, you’re not being compelled to change your opinion of what marriage is. The ‘at-large’ movement does not concern itself with the opinion of individuals. It’s about getting legislative policy changed. The example of racism is instructive here. The civil-rights era marches and rallies were aimed at compelling the government to enact specific policies, not to end racism. If people were affected enough by the rallies and marches to change their racist opinions, then great, but it was not necessary to the movement. Of course, now 50 years later, race relations are relatively normalized, and racism in what we would accurately call a terminal decline. So it all worked out, or at least, it’s working out.

You say that marriage means X, and you will never, ever call marriage anything but X. That’s fine. But for someone who claims they don’t lose sleep over the issue, you’re surely testing that assertion by repeatedly pointing it out. I, for one, actually think this issue is pretty important, which is why I’m talking about it.

buffalo:

I can hardly believe anyone would even ask this question. Common sense, biology and natural law. Why is it immutable? Try an experiment. Put homosexuals on an island and see what happens.

Disease is also a fact of biology. Does that mean we should do away with the science of medicine? I’ll tell you another fact of biology - humans are actually able to reproduce regardless of whether they’re married at any given moment. Not only that, some married couple are incapable, or unwilling to reproduce. Meanwhile, despite their biological limitations, gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children conceived through artificial means, arranged for through surrogates, or adopted.

Since I’ve now used “common sense” to demonstrate that “biology” and marital status have naught to do with one another, perhaps you’ll try answering the question again. On what authority do you assert what the definition of marriage is, and why it can never change.

Debora123:

What do you mean, why isn’t marriage immutable?

The word “marriage” was created to define a very specific type of relationship between male/female. That’s what marriage IS.

Like a duck is a duck, marriage is marriage. I don’t know why we even need to go over this again.

Because you’re not really answering the question. Accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, civilization defined this very specific relationship as “marriage” thousands of years ago. Now, thousands of years later, we’re contemplating changing the definition to be more inclusive. My question is, on what authority do those in opposition assert that this cannot be done?

Your answer amounts to saying that marriage was defined as X thousands of years ago, which is not an answer at all. Or you say that marriage was defined to outline relationships with very specific functions. I’ve already demonstrated why that answer is problematic, but even if it weren’t, my question would stand - why not change the functions by which we define marriage?

 

[buffalo]

Disease is also a fact of biology. Does that mean we should do away with the science of medicine? I’ll tell you another fact of biology - humans are actually able to reproduce regardless of whether they’re married at any given moment. Not only that, some married couple are incapable, or unwilling to reproduce. Meanwhile, despite their biological limitations, gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children conceived through artificial means, arranged for through surrogates, or adopted.

Since I’ve now used “common sense” to demonstrate that “biology” and marital status have naught to do with one another, perhaps you’ll try answering the question again. On what authority do you assert what the definition of marriage is, and why it can never change.

Because you’re not really answering the question. Accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, civilization defined this very specific relationship as “marriage” thousands of years ago. Now, thousands of years later, we’re contemplating changing the definition to be more inclusive. My question is, on what authority do those in opposition assert that this cannot be done?

Your answer amounts to saying that marriage was defined as X thousands of years ago, which is not an answer at all. Or you say that marriage was defined to outline relationships with very specific functions. I’ve already demonstrated why that answer is problematic, but even if it weren’t, my question would stand - why not change the functions by which we define marriage?

Call me unconvinced.

Did you get the biology part? Male and female parts work together for a specific function.

No they are not. Homosexuals are much more promiscuous, have more partners, end their relationships early and violently. How can this possibly be a model for children?

It cannot nor will it ever change because it is a deviant family unit. It may survive around the margins but it can never replace marriage between one man and one woman and that family unit. It will always violate the natural law no matter what man decrees.

 

[Debora123]

Once again, you’re not being compelled to change your opinion of what marriage is. The ‘at-large’ movement does not concern itself with the opinion of individuals. It’s about getting legislative policy changed. The example of racism is instructive here. The civil-rights era marches and rallies were aimed at compelling the government to enact specific policies, not to end racism. If people were affected enough by the rallies and marches to change their racist opinions, then great, but it was not necessary to the movement. Of course, now 50 years later, race relations are relatively normalized, and racism in what we would accurately call a terminal decline. So it all worked out, or at least, it’s working out.

You say that marriage means X, and you will never, ever call marriage anything but X. That’s fine. But for someone who claims they don’t lose sleep over the issue, you’re surely testing that assertion by repeatedly pointing it out. I, for one, actually think this issue is pretty important, which is why I’m talking about it.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I said I don’t sleep over this subject, doesn’t mean I think it’s completely insignificant.

I don’t see how your racism comparison applies.

 

[Debora123]

Because you’re not really answering the question. Accepting your premise for the sake of the argument, civilization defined this very specific relationship as “marriage” thousands of years ago. Now, thousands of years later, we’re contemplating changing the definition to be more inclusive. My question is, on what authority do those in opposition assert that this cannot be done?

Your answer amounts to saying that marriage was defined as X thousands of years ago, which is not an answer at all. Or you say that marriage was defined to outline relationships with very specific functions. I’ve already demonstrated why that answer is problematic, but even if it weren’t, my question would stand - why not change the functions by which we define marriage?

I say that marriage is what it is. That is all. It really is that simple.

 

[Rob_has_lapsed]

I can hardly believe anyone would even ask this question. Common sense, biology and natural law. Why is it immutable? Try an experiment. Put homosexuals on an island and see what happens.

Like England?