What Should We Do If Gay "Marriage" Becomes Legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deusnobiscum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fix said:
How is that relevant?

You surely would not dare compare a heterosexual woman with two men acting like husband and wife? They are unequal items.
Click to expand...
You said “Marriage involves a male and female. That is by design.” Designed for what? Children?
You surely would not base marriage solely on sex, right?
 
demol said:
You said “Marriage involves a male and female. That is by design.” Designed for what? Children?
You surely would not base marriage solely on sex, right?
Click to expand...
Yes designed for children and for complementarity.

How are two men designed for either one?
 
fix said:
Yes designed for children and for complementarity.

How are two men designed for either one?
Click to expand...
Ok, so I ask again, if a woman is unable to conceive or a man is sterile, should they marry?

And no matter what your taste may be, there are other forms of sex than just traditional intercourse. Not saying they are right or wrong, but there are.
 
demol said:
What is so great about traditional marriage? Have you seen the divorce rates? Why aren’t you out here pushing for a ban on divorce - easily the most serious threat to traditional marriage. And SSM affects you how? Please explain in detail. What has happened to your own marriage as a result? To compare marriage between two consenting adults and “pedophilia and to make it okay for children age 10-16 to have sex with adults” is ludicrous. Stating that “There is a movement out there to legitimize pedophilia” is really sad - when you are basing your arguments on Rush Limbaugh’s comments…
And the government is separate from church. It does not matter that God has not changed His commandment. Our founding fathers created the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
We should concentrate on heterosexual marriage and families by raising the bar not lowering it. To argue that a good reason for so called homosexual marriage because hetero’s disrespected it is a bogus argument.

For lot’s of reasons. I am a citizen, taxpayer and I vote.

Separation of church and state - where is that in the Constitution?
 
demol said:
Ok, so I ask again, if a woman is unable to conceive or a man is sterile, should they marry?

And no matter what your taste may be, there are other forms of sex than just traditional intercourse. Not saying they are right or wrong, but there are.
Click to expand...
The amount of these cases is so small that is it irrelevant.
 
buffalo said:
The amount of these cases is so small that is it irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Really? Then using your logic since the number of SSM is so small those too would be construed as irrelevant. Why are you worrying about them?

And when you have a daughter that doesn’t have ovaries, come back here and tell me how irrelevant that is.
 
demol said:
Ok, so I ask again, if a woman is unable to conceive or a man is sterile, should they marry?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Why would you even ask?
And no matter what your taste may be, there are other forms of sex than just traditional intercourse. Not saying they are right or wrong, but there are.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
demol said:
Really? Then using your logic since the number of SSM is so small those too would be construed as irrelevant. Why are you worrying about them?

And when you have a daughter that doesn’t have ovaries, come back here and tell me how irrelevant that is.
Click to expand...
I am not following your logic? Are you saying that a heterosexual person who has some medical problem is in some way equal to a homosexual person? I mean does one suddenly become homosexual based on menopause or pathology?
 
buffalo said:
We should concentrate on heterosexual marriage and families by raising the bar not lowering it. To argue that a good reason for so called homosexual marriage because hetero’s disrespected it is a bogus argument.

For lot’s of reasons. I am a citizen, taxpayer and I vote.

Separation of church and state - where is that in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
“Separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Where is marriage between one man and one woman in the Constitution?
 
fix said:
I am not following your logic? Are you saying that a heterosexual person who has some medical problem is in some way equal to a homosexual person? I mean does one suddenly become homosexual based on menopause or pathology?
Click to expand...
Not at all. You have stated that traditional marriage is the true and authentic marriage because only man and woman can conceive. My question then is, what about those heterosexuals that cannot conceive? If homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce why should a heterosexual couple that is also incapable of conceiving?
 
demol said:
“Separation of church and state” (sometimes “wall of separation between church and state”) is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Where is marriage between one man and one woman in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
It is a recent construct.

Government may not impose a state religion but it does allow religious proposition. A one way valve so to speak.
 
fix said:
Yes, of course. Why would you even ask?

Huh?
Click to expand...
Why do I ask? Because your argument for traditional marriage is that marriage involves a male and female by design for children.

So, now you are saying that even if they cannot conceive they should be allowed to marry. What makes the infertile couple any different than a homosexual couple? Apparently only body parts - which in these two examples are used solely for pleasure, not reproduction.
 
demol said:
Really? Then using your logic since the number of SSM is so small those too would be construed as irrelevant. Why are you worrying about them?

And when you have a daughter that doesn’t have ovaries, come back here and tell me how irrelevant that is.
Click to expand...
Laws have consequences. They set the tone and work toward the common good. Allowing murder because only 1 person is murdered is your argument? Homosexual acts and so called marriages lower the bar.

Why would you even say that?
 
buffalo said:
Laws have consequences. They set the tone and work toward the common good. Allowing murder because only 1 person is murdered is your argument? Homosexual acts and so called marriages lower the bar.

Why would you even say that?
Click to expand...
You’re comparing this to murder? Ok, I’ll spell it out: Marriage (traditional and same sex) involves two consenting adults. Murder involves one consenting person and one (or more) non-consenting (otherwise we would call this assisted suicide).

Why would I say that? Why not? You don’t like the question?
 
Gay marriage advocates keep raising the issue of infertility, but it has no bearing on the validity of marriage between man and woman. Man and woman are capable of completing the act of marital intercourse, which is only possible between opposite sex couples, whether or not they are fertile. And note that since not every act of marital intercourse results in conception, most or many acts of marital intercourse may not be fertile. It is a non-issue.

But same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse at all. Thus, marriage is impossible to them.
 
demol said:
You’re comparing this to murder? Ok, I’ll spell it out: Marriage (traditional and same sex) involves two consenting adults. Murder involves one consenting person and one (or more) non-consenting (otherwise we would call this assisted suicide).

Why would I say that? Why not? You don’t like the question?
Click to expand...
Murder doesnt always consist of just one consenting adult, sometimes its two consenting adults, like in euthanasia or cannibal fetish enthusiasts, for example.
 
JimG said:
Gay marriage advocates keep raising the issue of infertility, but it has no bearing on the validity of marriage between man and woman. Man and woman are capable of completing the act of marital intercourse, which is only possible between opposite sex couples, whether or not they are fertile. And note that since not every act of marital intercourse results in conception, most or many acts of marital intercourse may not be fertile. It is a non-issue.

But same sex couples are incapable of marital intercourse at all. Thus, marriage is impossible to them.
Click to expand...
Wrong, proponents of traditional marriage including priests, bishops, etc… state that only a man and woman can procreate. It is one of the church’s first defense.
 
demol said:
Which is not murder, but rather assisted suicide.
Click to expand...
And assisted suicide is actually indeed murder. Just because society says something isnt murder, doesnt make it actually so, like their reasoning with abortion. I would not trust society to define anything moral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top