What if three or more homosexuals wanted the state to call the sexual relationship they have "marriage"?

[CopticChristian]

Well, all that proves is that the man was arrested for trespass because he seemingly staged a ‘sit in’ in protest at the school’s policies, which is not the same thing as being arrested for not agreeing with the school policies, as the scare story would have you believe.

Not only is it a storm in a teacup, the teacup isn’t actually a teacup!

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.

He was arrested for trespassing because that was what they could arrest him for. They refused to give him assurance and so they arrested him for what they found the ability to arrest him for, tea cup, silver and crumpet.

 

[josh987654321]

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, this is why we say it’s disordered and Immoral, If people religious or non-religious want to reject “Immoral” than okay, but they can’t reject “design or disordered” as thats just fact.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think gay-activists/same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality are accused of speaking against homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[livingwordunity]

He wouldn’t leave the property until they would tell him that he could opt his child out of being indoctrinated in “gay marriage”. They wouldn’t back down, so he wouldn’t. But since they had the law on their side, he was arrested for “trespassing”. He could not opt his child out without being arrested. This proves the point that when something becomes the law people can go to jail for disobeying it.

I understand that, Living Word, but it isn’t his property so if he had to leave, he should have left. There are alternatives, e.g. take your child to another school or don’t send them to school at all. However, it’s true that this is ludicrous.

There is no alternative if someone can only afford to send their kid to a public school. If they don’t send their kids to school they will have their kids taken away since it’s the law that kids must be enrolled in some kind of schooling. I know about this because I have kids, and public school is all I can afford. And when you have your kids in public school, they only give you the choice of one public school. This is determined by the neighborhood you live in. Because I’ve moved around, I have enrolled my kids in public schools in 3 different states. And it’s pretty much the same deal. Plus, I think they gave the father little to no notice about their plan to teach his Kindergartener about so-called “same-sex marriage”. So even if it were possible to enroll his child in another school, it would have been after they already fed his child their propaganda.

 

[CopticChristian]

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, this is why we say it’s disordered and Immoral, If people religious or non-religious want to reject “Immoral” than okay, but they can’t reject “design or disordered” as thats just fact.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think gay-activists/same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality are accused of speaking against homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Male and Female He created them

He created them to be fruitful and multiply and as He created them they are sexual

Humans are sexual

Imagine that there is no heterosexual. Why is it we must describe what is by a term that says that Male and Female are different? This is obvious. Let’s eliminate the word, the notion that there is any need to describe the obvious. If there is no such thing as heterosexual then there is no need to describe something that is not heterosexual.

To be human is to be sexual and Male and Female He created them to be fruitful and multiply as sexual…not heterosexual.