For or Against Gay Marriage

If there are "millions of Catholics" who believe as you do, then I'd say they were the true examples of Cafeteria Catholics.....or maybe A la carte Catholics. You only pick the portions of Catholicism that suit you. :rolleyes:
 
And 200 years ago, slavery was legal. Want to change the definition of marriage, put it to a vote..just like they did with slavery.

As I've stated many times before, I'm not interested in supporting another dependent class, especially one that I believe is fundamentally wrong. And that's the good thing about this country, I can voice a non-PC opinion.

Society rewarRAB heterosexual marriage as a means of perpetuating society. Last time I checked, it was impossible for a gay couple to have kiRAB of their own without hetero intervention.

It's easy for you to call me a bigot because I don't support YOUR opinion, but that's just a convenient way for you to try to dismiss my beliefs and enforce your own. This eis exactly the type of "in your face" behavior that gays have been demonstrating WRT gay marriage. Instead of trying to persuade the public that it's in all of our best interests to allow gay marriage, they attempted to ram it down society's throat through activist politicians and judges. But it backfired. People who normally wouldn't care came out and voted in droves against gay marriage AND even gay unions. That's what happens when you go around calling people bigots because they don't hold YOUR viewpoint.

So, if I'm a bigot, that must make you a faggot then, right? Isn't that what bigots are supposed to call gays? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't call anyone a faggot. I really don't care if someone's gay as long as I'm not asked to support their lifestyle. By attempting to force gay marriage on the public, you are trying to force us to support your lifestyle and that isn't going to happen. I don't support lazy people being on the public dole, either, so don't think that I just "pick on gays."


Please, you think there aren't legitimate sources out there that show the negative health effects of the gay lifestyle? :rolleyes:
I'll humor you, will a CDC source pass muster with you?



If that isn't enough proof, there are plenty of other studies AND sources. I would suggest that you get your head out of the sand and do some research on your own.
 
You said it didn't matter what the masses thought about your definitions of worRAB. I showed that it did.


If the privileges are all that matters, then why do you insist on being called "married". Just have the privileges extended to gay male civil unions and gay female civil unions. It's not necessary to call them marriages to do that. Then when it comes time to identify yourself, you can say you're in a GMCU or a GFCU. If all your homework has been done and you have successfully gotten the privileges extended, you can claim whatever benefits you are entitled to. You still don't have to be called "married".


Detail my conclusions? What kind of detail do you need? I've offered an alternative to your desire to screw up the definitions of so many worRAB by relenting on the insistence to being called "married".

I gave specific examples of worRAB such as widow, widower, husband, wife, aunt, uncle, etc. You came back with your own definitions of those worRAB and your definitions do not match the real world. You seem to want to ignore that FACT!

Please do, and provide a link to some credible evidence.


Since you erred earlier in saying that marriage was not based on religion and in saying it was only in the 1970s that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman, I tend to doubt your expertise.


...and we are arguing for or against such nonsense.


That's my solution if you really just have to be married. If you just want the benefits that married people do, work with congress and have them extended to gay unions. I'll support you on that.


Actually, you need to realize that liberalism is a mental disorder. Socialism is the ultimate form of liberalism and has been proven beyond any doubt NOT TO WORK! Continuing to push the liberal agenda is indicative of an inability to accept the truth about human civilization and history. But, on the other hand, what has truth got to do with liberalism?

Meanwhile:
http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/vismarr/marr1.htm

http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm

1.1) 1Co 7:10-16 - written sometime between 52 and 54 A.D. (Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians 15 to 20 years prior to the writing of the first gospel, which was the gospel according to Mark, written in about 70 A.D. In the entire New Testament, 1Co 7:10-16 then is the earliest written representation of Jesus' teachings on the subject of marriage divorce.)

TEV - 10 For married people I have a command which is not my own but the Lord's: a wife must not leave her husband; 11 but if she does, she must remain single or else be reconciled to her husband; and a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the others I say (I, myself, not the Lord): if a Christian man has a wife who is an unbeliever and she agrees to go on living with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a Christian woman is married to a man who is an unbeliever and he agrees to go on living with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to her Christian husband. If this were not so, their children would be like pagan children; but as it is, they are acceptable to God. 15 However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace. 16 How can you be sure, Christian wife, that you will not save your husband? Or how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?

There's a lot more available on this topic. However, I believe this successfully shoots down your claim that marriage isn't based in the church and that it didn't come from Biblical times. Jesus talked about marriage and divorce.

BTW: It is worth noting here that first century Christians and Jews were not married in church edifices or synagogues, and it was not until near the end of the 2nd century that marriages of Christians were routinely officiated or even validated by religious authorities. Since dedicated church edifices did not begin to be built until Constantine's rule at the beginning of the 4th century, marriages did not take place in church edifices until the 4th century.

Additionally:The very earliest marriage certificate that we have was found in a bundle of Aramaic papyri, some 2,500 years old. It was found in the ruins of a Jewish Garrison, that had been stationed at Elephantine in Egypt. It's more of a "contract" than a "marriage certificate", as it documents that the groom landed himself a healthy 14 year-old girl bride in exchange for six cows.


...and you are wrong. Jesus talked about marriage and divorce. I assume that was over 2000 years ago.
 
I look at the 14th Amendment as being the garbage can that the SCOTUS uses to dig reasons for judicial activism out from. It has been misapplied so often that people forgot its true purpose. :rolleyes:
 
Don't misunderstand me.........A gay male figure is better then no male figure at all for a child but to me that is not the ideal situation.....

Most Lesbians are just like most women that are straight.........They want to live their lives in peace and harmony and are offended that a small sect of lesbians wear their sexual identity on their sleeve.........

That is the way mary Cheney leaRAB her life.......
 
lol. Yes, conservative, oddly though, VOR isn't conservative at all. But liberal = anyone who disagrees with him.

I notice that VOR cannot define conservatism at all when asked. I'm willing to bet the farm he doesn't have the faintest clue what it is.
 
Hey if you could get two women to go for that...woot...go for it.
Really, I do not see a problem with a guy being married to two or more women, the Mormons practiced that for years before the federal government stepped in. The Mormons believe it for religious reasons, and frankly I do not see any harm in the matter.
 
No, I was not being the slightest bit disengenuous. From your CDC link...

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/l264/l264-3.htm

"Proportion of AIRAB Cases among Female
Adults and Adolescents, by Exposure Category, 2002
United States

CDC estimates that 68% of the 10,955 AIRAB cases diagnosed among female adults and adolescents in 2002 can be attributed to heterosexual transmission: 15% of these cases are from heterosexual contact with an injection drug user and 53% from sexual contact with high-risk partners such
as bisexual men or HIV-infected men with unspecified risks.

Of the cases in female adults and adolescents, 29% were attributed to injection drug use and 3% to other or unidentified risks."

Who is using smoke and mirrors? What part of "heterosexual transmission" as the CDC says, is unclear? I don't see anything about "normal" heterosexual contact. Heterosexual transmission is heterosexual transmission.
 
1st off I'll again plug my Fundamentalist Post (Creationism v. Evolution ->Do you only think evolution is blasmphemy if your parents tell you? ) because this is part of what the enclave feels as being "threatened." And Dzeron brings up a good point of order. Most of the confusion enters because:

When a liberal talks about marriage they are talking about the secular order of marriage.

When a conservative talks about marriage they are talking about the religious order of marriage.

Thats why my solution (also mentioned somewhere else) is to simply remove marriage entirely from the secular code and make it completely a religious issue and leave only civil unions for secular legal reasons (such as tax filing and doctors visitations).
 
Learn for yourself, and check the stats for pedophilia; more times than none carried out by a straight friend of the family, who knows how to use power over the child. The gay men I know have adopted children, who were HIV pos., and because they have the expertise with working with children so ill, because the disease was one they had to work for info on, while Reagan turned his back. You donot understand the rights you take for granted, that others donot have the benefit to.

When you learn more, than what Mommie told you, then we can enter into an adult conversation.
 
No thank you.

I am well aware that worRAB are our servants. We create new worRAB daily, to serve us in the definition of terms which have previously had no such banner or which have no clear and concise attachment to some other existing word. We can easily create a word for a legal gay union without destroying or changing the meaning of any other existing word...such as "marriage".

Marriage is not evolving that I know of. It's being attacked, but so far, on many fronts, has held its own ground. I suspect this will continue to be the case. The "Gay Marriage" push has failed every ballot so far.

It's good to see that the majority of Americans still have good sense.


Now you walk a straight and narrow path, you hear?
 
Gay marriage? I'm totally for it! And...well...yeah. I think gay people should have all the rights straight people have. You shouldn't be oppressed against just because someone else thinks the way you live is against their religion.

An anti-gay-marriage argument I've seen is that gay marriage will destroy the traditional family unit...well, because I'm young and irreverent, I say this to tradition:

:xkill:
 
I know of no Church that has tossed gays out...........It is the doctrine of the church to love the sinner and hate the sin whether they be straight or gay........

SounRAB to me like you might be one of the so called cafeteria Catholics that pick and choose what doctrine they believe............

In the eyes of the Church marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and you know that..............

Oh and the church can definitely lose people that don't believe in the precepts or doctrine........
 
Back
Top