Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[markeverett49]

And that is fine for Catholics. But you’re making a religious argument (which is fine if you’re talking to a Catholic) but my main point is that 80% of the world’s population isn’t Catholic, and therefore are not bound by OUR religious convictions. What they do is up to them.

This won’t do. You write as if Catholics were alone in finding homosexual acts morally wrong. Muslims also do, as do most Protestant Christians, most of the Orient and Africa too. It’s a small percentage who think homosexual acts are morally good (-or morally neutral).

I should think with your great familiarity with Catholic moral theology you would appreciate a distinction such as the following. A) A Catholic is obligated to hear Sunday Mass, and B) It is wrong for ANYONE to murder a fellow human being. See the difference?

It is wrong for any man to lie with another man as with a woman. If a man is unaware of this moral truth, his culpability may be lessened but the act is no less a grave moral wrong. This is not an act that is simply wrong for Catholics; it is wrong for anyone.

 

[DexUK]

This won’t do. You write as if Catholics were alone in finding homosexual acts morally wrong. Muslims also do, as do most Protestant Christians, most of the Orient and Africa too. It’s a small percentage who think homosexual acts are morally good (-or morally neutral).

I should think with your great familiarity with Catholic moral theology you would appreciate a distinction such as the following. A) A Catholic is obligated to hear Sunday Mass, and B) It is wrong for ANYONE to murder a fellow human being. See the difference?

It is wrong for any man to lie with another man as with a woman. If a man is unaware of this moral truth, his culpability may be lessened but the act is no less a grave moral wrong. This is not an act that is simply wrong for Catholics; it is wrong for anyone.

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Those people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong. This very fact alone, whether we like it or not, disproves the point that homosexual acts are discernible as wrong by reason alone. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

 

[90Domer]

I like this one too and I shall add it to the list of statements by Fix, Elizabeth and now you…

Thank you CC for the flattering compliment. I consider myself in excellent company.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

 

[90Domer]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Those people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong. This very fact alone, whether we like it or not, disproves the point that homosexual acts are discernible as wrong by reason alone. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

As I said before, you CANNOT be in full communion with the Church and support SSM. Those who do are NOT followers of Catholicism. Period. Amen.

 

[Publisher]

---

CopticChristian;10619829\There is a possibility that the powers that be will silence Friends as well.[/QUOTE**:
Friend, I am very comfortable with Silence. Out of the Living Silence Truth is Heard.**

 

[CopticChristian]

---

CopticChristian;10619829\There is a possibility that the powers that be will silence Friends as well.[/QUOTE**:
Friend, I am very comfortable with Silence. Out of the Living Silence Truth is Heard.

Friend,

You are probably seen as a friend and supporter so silence may not be in your future

quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing

Paul Parker, recording clerk for Quakers in Britain says: “The day the first same-sex couple can marry in their Quaker meeting will be a wonderful day for marriage, and a great day for religious freedom in Britain. Quakers greet the news we can ‘opt in’ to equal marriage with enthusiasm, but await the details of how this will work in practice.”

Quakers began to call for a sexual morality based on the worth of relationships in 1963 with the publication of ‘Towards a Quaker view of Sex’. It was probably the most influential document published by Quakers in Britain in the twentieth century. This collection of essays was not an official Quaker statement on sexuality but was published by the Literature committee of the Friends Home Service Committee as a contribution to thought on an important subject. The booklet insisted on the basic similarity of homosexual and heterosexual emotional and moral experience and said: “Surely it is the nature and quality of a relationship that matters: one must not judge by its outward appearance but by its inner worth… We see no reason why the physical nature of a sexual act should be the criterion by which the question whether or not it is moral should be decided. An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual.”

Since this is CAF, this is not a friendly point of view…

 

[90Domer]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Those people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong. This very fact alone, whether we like it or not, disproves the point that homosexual acts are discernible as wrong by reason alone. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

Dex, the RCC has taught the faithful on the moral evils of SSM. The Church has taught the Truth and asks you to defend it. You are choosing to ignore over 2000 years of inspired wisdom which is based in natural law. In all Christian charity, you are putting your knowledge above the Church’s. Simple stated, you are not being humble and are (gently-stated) worshipping at the alter of self opinion. Please consider the grave nature of your opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Those people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong. This very fact alone, whether we like it or not, disproves the point that homosexual acts are discernible as wrong by reason alone. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

Polls do not determine revealed truth or dogma and to cite any poll in your argument deflates any argument you have and points to inability to state what is proper Church teaching.

**Abortion and Same Sex marriage are intrinsically evil. Both are sins that cry to heaven for justice. Both destroy souls. Both are examples of unjust laws. Both laws teach others to sin.

Children are central to the issue. To deny the obvious is to be oblivious to reality.

Anyone who obtains happiness from objective mortal sin is deceived. To claim any Catholic should support evil is beyond words.

There is no love in affirming sin. Your position is not Catholic.

What is true is that Catholics are bound to reject unjust laws. It does not have to be a matter of dogma to bind under pain of mortal sin. There is ample evidence in the CCC, encyclicals, Vatican directives, bishop’s statements, and basic moral theology that contradicts your words. In fact it is frank to state that this position insults intelligence.

We must all disagree with support of unjust laws. First, support for these unjust laws is morally wrong. To support the effort or the law is to support SSM. There is no logical way around that. It is like supporting pro abortion laws.

Secondly, religious arguments are fine. The Christian faith has and must influence the law.

You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be ambivalent about others who commit mortal sins. You need to represent the Catholic faith and teachings in all venues

The RCC has taught the faithful on the moral evils of SSM. The Church has taught the Truth and asks you to defend it. You are choosing to ignore over 2000 years of inspired wisdom which is based in natural law. In all Christian charity, you are putting your knowledge above the Church’s. Simple stated, you are not being humble and are (gently-stated) worshipping at the altar of self opinion. Please consider the grave nature of your opinion.**

So, supporting Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality is like supporting pro-abortion laws, evil is evil.
.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. Those people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong. This very fact alone, whether we like it or not, disproves the point that homosexual acts are discernible as wrong by reason alone. Now we may well believe we know better, by virtue of our ‘revealed truth’, but that is undeniably a matter of religious conviction.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

We do not know whether homosexual acts are on the same plane as murder in a moral sense. legally no. But we also need to be aware that murder is also condoned more and more in the west. Abortion is murder. Infanticide, which the current president refused to oppose, which one of the most powerful lobbies in the U.S. (PP) espouses) and which is legal in all but the jurisdictions that have not prohibited “partial birth abortion”. Euthanasia is legal in some places in the West. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in some places.

We really can’t base our morality on what’s legal, because anything at all can become legal, and much that is heinous has been legal from time to time and from place to place.

We ought to be better people than to do that. All laws are based on some concept of morality. Sometimes on high standards, and sometimes on low. But the mere fact that something is or might become “legal” in no way obligates us to support it or fail to oppose it. If we don’t do that, we really have no moral sense at all.

From a moral standpoint, of course, it is entirely immaterial whether a majority of Catholics accept it if, indeed, they do. We do not derive our morals by vote.

People wonder what has happened to the Church in this country, and, indeed, in much of the west. It seems obvious to me that it cannot be respected, and will not be respected to the degree that it does not stand for moral clarity and act upon it. We see lots of divorce among Catholics, lots of abortion, lots of refusal to bear children, lots of other immoral things, and we think “well, if X number of Catholics are okay with it, then we should all accept it.” The very opposit is true. We should stand for something in this world if we are going to stand for anything in the next. And people aren’t blind. Those not of our faith can point to our very moral laxity to condemn our faith.

 

[DexUK]

We really can’t base our morality on what’s legal, because anything at all can become legal, and much that is heinous has been legal from time to time and from place to place.

All well and good, but we can’t expect the secular world to make good laws unless we can prove to their satisfaction that the laws they want are bad. And to do that, we have to frame our objections in a way that doesn’t appeal to a faith that they don’t hold.

Put simply, if you want to persuade an atheist to do something, you aren’t going to get anywhere by saying “it’s what God wants”. As far as the atheist is concerned, all you’re saying is that you’re right because you say you’re right, and that isn’t enough proof.

If we’re right we have to prove it in ways that others can accept. We have to demonstrate our rightness, we have to prove it, we have to speak our opponents’ language, since they can’t understand ours. If what we are fighting for is sufficiently ‘right’ then there will be a way to do it. If not, then whatever we’re proposing for is simply meant for us to be taken on faith. Very few people seem to understand this.

 

[markeverett49]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder. We are formed to believe that homosexual acts are objectively wrong, but that formation is via our religious moral training. .

Again, no. You seem to confuse the phrase “conventional morality” or “natural law”–whether used by pagans, Muslims, Christians, agnostics, Jews, and freethinkers—with “Catholic moral teaching.” (For the record, I was raised ANTI-Catholic and as a young adult was agnostic.)

Even those ancients who didn’t condemn homosexual acts never thought of them as the equivalent of heterosexual ones. Even pagan philosophers regarded lives built around sexual appetites (-this would go for some heterosexuals too, of course) as base.

Homosexual acts have been looked down on by most people who have ever lived, religious and pagan, ancient and modern.

 

[DexUK]

Again, no. You seem to confuse the phrase “conventional morality” or “natural law”–whether used by pagans, Muslims, Christians, agnostics, Jews, and freethinkers—with “Catholic moral teaching.” (For the record, I was raised ANTI-Catholic and as a young adult was agnostic.)

Even those ancients who didn’t condemn homosexual acts never thought of them as the equivalent of heterosexual ones. Even pagan philosophers regarded lives built around sexual appetites (-this would go for some heterosexuals too, of course) as base.

Homosexual acts have been looked down on by most people who have ever lived, religious and pagan, ancient and modern.

I’m not discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexual acts: I’m talking about the way in which we frame our argument to the world and the fact that for our ‘proof’ we rely upon an element of faith that our opponents do not have. This is why the world that isn’t Catholic is not agreeing with us, because, as I repeat, they simply don’t accept the premise of our argument because they don’t have faith in it.

 

[CJECulver]

Dex, the RCC has taught the faithful on the moral evils of SSM. The Church has taught the Truth and asks you to defend it. You are choosing to ignore over 2000 years of inspired wisdom which is based in natural law. In all Christian charity, you are putting your knowledge above the Church’s. Simple stated, you are not being humble and are (gently-stated) worshipping at the alter of self opinion. Please consider the grave nature of your opinion.

This!

Dex, you are (deliberately?) conflating two issues, using one as the excuse for the other.

The secular world will not accept purely religious arguments, you are correct.

But then you want to use that as an excuse for why you, as a Catholic, are exempt from obedience to Catholic teaching. Further, you have argued that the Church has no business trying to tell a secular world what is and what is not right. Many of us have pointed out, with copious citations of Church teachings and Scripture, why your arguments are incompatible with what the Catholic Church teaches, and you just insist on doubling down on your own private arguments.

To date you have not made the slightest attempt, aside from a single cherry-picked quote from a single cardinal, to demonstrate that your beliefs are in line with the Catholic Church, nor have you given the slightest indication that you’re interested in what the Catholic Church has to say. Have you, for example, read any of the documents I linked to in a previous post? Have you reflected on them? Have you made any attempt to align your private opinions with those of the Church? If so, you have demonstrated none of that here.

You simply repeat your private opinion again and again, ad nauseum. It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe you have any concern for the teachings of the Church on this matter whatsoever.

Do you?

 

[LightFromLight]

I’m not discussing the rights and wrongs of homosexual acts: I’m talking about the way in which we frame our argument to the world and the fact that for our ‘proof’ we rely upon an element of faith that our opponents do not have. This is why the world that isn’t Catholic is not agreeing with us, because, as I repeat, they simply don’t accept the premise of our argument because they don’t have faith in it.

SSM serves no purpose what-so-ever. What bothers me is that you live in the UK where we have civil partnerships that have identical rights to marriage.

There isn’t a single logical argument for gay marriage. It is not even a matter of equal dignity or value, they want equality in the sense of man + man = man + woman.
It is completely irrational, I’m stunned that anyone is behind it.

 

[PRmerger]

IThose people who are not religious are still able to determine that murder is wrong by means of reason alone, but many of them (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) do NOT determine that homosexuality is wrong.

In just a few seconds on Google I found a multitude of arguments against same sex “marriage”. None of them appealed to religion for their apologia of their position.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
lifesitenews.com/news/french-homosexuals-demonstrate-against-same-sex-marriage/

In fact, I posted on Facebook last week a youtube video of an atheist homosexual who opposes gay marriage.

So it’s absolutely untenable to propose that we could not come to understand the truth of objections to same sex “marriage” without a religious prompting.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, I posted on Facebook last week a youtube video of an atheist homosexual who opposes gay marriage.

Ah, yes. Here it is. A robust, thoughtful, cogent argument against homosexual “marriage”, without a single reference to God, religion, Catholicism.

patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2013/04/the-difficulty-with-engaging-gay-marriage.html

 

[TimeEntrance]

You cannot be a Catholic in good standing and be ambivalent about others who commit mortal sins. You need to represent the Catholic faith and teachings in all venues.

1. I’m not a practicing Catholic.
2. I answer to God and not to you.

My mother is Catholic and attends Mass every Sunday. I’m sure she supports gay marriage. She would regard your style of parenting immoral (not allowing your children to visit with gay people in your family).

My mother would also be–and was when I was a child–hostile towards me being opposed to, but more especially, derogatory towards homosexuals.

Actually, I’m not going to go much into my rearing and family culture both immediate and extended. But I will say this… if by what some say on here happens under liberal initiatives and culture is true, then I should be dead or at minimum impossible to overcome and able to seek and attain personal goods for myself.

I know for a fact you don’t care for me, nor does anyone on this forum. But life as a whole is pretty much like that. So, I’m not exactly sure why you think I should care that you will become emotionally traumatized or unstable over homosexual marriage? Is there some Golden Rule here in this?

I’ve got enough problems in life. Gay marriage is an insignificant problem for me. For decades I’ve been Chuck Noland. Did 3, 4, 5, 10 people come provide me moral support in an environment of absolute immorality? No. I’ve been “morally pulling myself up by my own bootstraps” since I was a kid.

What I’m hearing are people complaining that they want the Federal or various state governments to intervene in the lives of Americans and morally support them because they’re too weak to morally support themselves or their families.

Who I sympathize with our the many lives of girls and women I’ve read about being stepped on in the nation of Cambodia. They and I are alike. Neither of us has any power. Nor does most people in our communities value us in any way. We are expendable and meaningless. These are my sisters and this is who I sympathize with. If those that oppose homosexual marriage can’t keep it together mentally if they see two happy gay people hold hands then that is a problem within themselves they must confront. Life in the world will still march on in spite of your problems. This is true for those Cambodian girls too. This will be true in Chicago or London or Bangkok as well.

And trust… I’ve received a lot of hate from liberal American and European women simply because I’ve stated I doubt homosexuality is genetically heritable, that I suspect its genesis arises in many nuanced factors in the individual’s life, and that in general terms I regard homosexuality as immoral. There is no tolerance for those views today among those that identify as liberal and progressive usually.

I’m sure the liberal regards me as the devil for that.

Now let me Chuck Noland myself again and state something the conservative will regard me as the devil for.

Given obesity and obesity caused diabetes is a mortal sin (gluttony and sloth and assault on the Temple of God), and given that active homosexuality is a mortal sin, and given I don’t think obese people are going to be damned to hell, then I’ve come to doubt, and do not think, active homosexuals will be damned to hell.

 

[josh987654321]

When gay marriage is approved–and it will be–I’ll treat those married couples and any children they are legally and personally responsible for, with all the charity I’d give Christ. At least I’d hope so.

Their life is for them. It’s not my life.

I view it kind of like the apostle St Paul, in his letters about eating food that had been sacrificed to a false idol.

St Paul never said that with the charity of Christ or Love of Agape we should eat the food that the pagans had offered to their false idol, even if they did find it offensive that we refused to eat with them, so yes treat them with charity, but don’t take part in the mocking of God’s creation.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I’m sorry, but homosexual behaviour is NOT on the same level as murder.

True.

My problem with the argument is that we tell people that they don’t need religious conviction to know things are wrong, but when asked to prove it, we rely on nothing but arguments derived from religious ideas or ideas motivated by religious ideals. It doesn’t make us wrong, but it makes the argument unprovable to those without the benefit of faith. Unsurprisingly they then don’t agree.

The thing about homosexuality is that it ignores the basic sexual anatomy of a man and a woman, to ignore their sexual compatability is just illogical, so it’s not just religious arguments, it’s the fact that homosexuality is a miss use of the bodies organs and knowing this, the religious argument is that such actions mocks God and his creation.

As for the numbers of people agreeing or disagreeing with SSM, I’m sorry to disappoint you but recent polls indicate that the majority of Catholics in the USA actually agree that civil law should recognise homosexual unions and give those in them the same benefits, rights and responsibilities as heterosexual married people. In the UK, where I am, the majority of the population is in favour of SSM. Now maybe those pro-SSM American Catholics aren’t real Catholics in some people’s eyes, and maybe the UK population is wrong, but until and unless a better argument can come along, none of them are going to see eye to eye with the Church and we won’t be able to convince them, much less tell them what to think as they perceive it now, which, given that’s the perception, tends to make them more hostile to the Church. That can hardly be what anyone here wants.

Like I said Dex in my previous post, if they want to take part in the illusion that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, than that is their business but it doesn’t mean that this illusion should be legalised and forced onto others like me who wish to deal with the truth.

For the government to legalise same sex marriage would be for the government to legalise a false equality, to enforce an illusion.

I should have the right not to take part in this illusion that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, because they are fundamentally different.

Don’t you worry about our legal system enforcing an illusion or false equality simply because a large group simply don’t wish to deal with the truth?

They will be legalising a lie and outlawing the truth to legally equate homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh