Home - List All Discussions

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

by: Faramir

In another thread there was an assertion that the opposition to gay marriage is primarily a religious issue and putting religious beliefs aside, those who oppose it are left with nothing, but I disagree.
However I do dispute the idea that somehow a "religious belief" must be discarded or has little merit. There are plenty of laws that are perfectly in alignment with my religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of others.
Anyway, I was going to see if I could come up with some better thinking than what I posted there, so to get some ideas I did a google search on "a secular case against gay marriage," and found the article copied and pasted below.
I normally do not like or resort to lenghty copy and pastes, but I do make exceptions, and I'm feeling particularly lazy this evening, and this article covers a lot of what I would have said (but better) anyway, so why reinvent the wheel?
">http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html[/q

reply from: Yuuki

Making fertility a case for STRAIGHT marriage means that straight infertile people have no right to marry either, which is of course nonsense.

reply from: xnavy

homosexualty is not considered a healthy life style, look at the red cross, they will not accept blood from homosexuals or anyone that
has slept with one. they ask questions about your sexualty when you go to donate blood. i have donated over 38 pints and answered the
questions all those times.

reply from: Faramir

What percentage of heterosexual marriages are fertile and what percentage of gay marriages are?

reply from: Faramir

All citizens are permitted to marry the opposite sex. That is not discrimination.
In a world in which abortion is illegal, only females would be required by law to sustain the life of another person. Is that discrimination?
Even though I am pro-life, I can admit that a law restricting abortion would not be treating everyone "equally."
But if we want to nitpick the "equality" issue, ANYONE may marry the opposite sex, regardless of whatever religious beliefs they have, or whether they have a liking of the same sex, both sexes, or themselves.

reply from: Faramir

And in ALL cases homosexuals cannot by their union with each other produce more citizens.

reply from: Faramir

I'm still seeing this as more as a privilege conferred by the state because it benefits the state.
By encouraging and providing a framework for couples to unite and produce offspring in a stable environment, it benefits the state.
It does not benefit the state to provide the same situation for couples who cannot possibly do likewise.
The state might also give someone a benefit for using solar power, and it is not necessarily discrimination if someone using electrical power does not get the same tax break or credit.
ALL citizens whether single, married, gay or straight benefit from the current system of marriage and family.
Is it discrimination if only women would be forced to sustain the life of another person?

reply from: kd78

since gays and lesbians generally choose to have sex with the same gender, we do not know what percentage may or may not be infertile or unable to have a child due to a compromised uterus.

reply from: Faramir

I think if we outlawed abortion, we would be coming close. What do you think?

reply from: Cecilia

since it's in the states financial interest to deter couples who cant financially care for their children too they need to annul all marriages who rely on welfare in any form to raise the kids, right? and discourage further procreation.
someone also needs to explain why its not in the states interest to encourage gay couples to adopt children out of welfare situations, too. which is more beneficial to the state; keeping children from mother + father homes, or adopting children out so that the state no longer has to provide financial back for the kids?

reply from: Faramir

I think this would be a separate issue.
I think the state would recognize that some fail and some need help. This doesn't change the fact that most people support the state, and most heterosexual marriages produce more citizens. The benefits to the still exceed the liabilities, and many who are relying on welfare are not married anyway.
What would be a good way to "discourage future procreation," btw?

reply from: Shenanigans

Straight couples who can't have children should take the hint from nature. It's not to say they shouldn't marry as marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Its pretty damn clear, actually. A woman's parts where made for a man's parts, even if one or both parts don't work fully.
If there was a nuclear war tomorrow, or a giant EMP blast, you think gays are going to be the top priority at the fertility specialist clinics or remnants of the medical profession.
Nature made man to go with woman.
You do not sick a man's manness up another man's arse! The arse was not made for that. Its an OUT hole!!!

reply from: Faramir

But you will find homosexuality in nature in other animals, so how can you say it's not natural?
It's nature's way of stabalizing the population, or so I am told.

reply from: Shenanigans

Animals are idiots.
they're completely over run with the urge to mate. I grew up on a farm, I can tell you all about the homosexual antics of livestock. You put a bunch of bulls or rams in a paddock and theyr'e all horny, well, they're going to get it on with each other.
And another thought along these lines, if we legalise gay marriage, why not poly-marriage, why not a man and a dog? Or a man and his hand? Where do we draw the line? If people are going to argue that two gay guys aren't hurting anyone, and they're conscenting adults, then what about a guy and three women? who are they hurting if they get married?
Seriously?
Why not legalise marriage between a 50 year old and a 14 year old? If a 14 year old can get abortions and have sex without any interferance, who are we to judge her and her sugar daddy, who are we to judge her maturity?
THis is one great big slippery slope of debauchery.
And semantically, marriage is from a latin word meaing "of/join to woman", meaning a man joins a woman. If two gay guys are going to "legalise it" then don't call it marriage!!
Why can't people leave the lexicon alone!!??!!

reply from: Shenanigans

Oh, and the difference between "gay" animals and gay people, you introduce a ewe or a cow into a field of bulls or rams getting it on with other bulls and rams, well, the bulls and rams will no longer be interested in each other. They'll be off after the female.
You put a naked lady in a room full of gay men they'll probably tell her she looks fine the way she is, shouldn't listen to her jerk arse husband and say "Oh yes! You're hair would be faaaabulous with blond highlights".
And sterility it natures way of controlling population, or at least attempting to keep damaged genes out of it.

reply from: Faramir

Doesn't count. These are domesticated animals thrown together. What happens in the wild with squirrels and kangaroos?
Is anyone clamoring for man-dog marriages or poly-marriages? Maybe we draw the line at same sex marriages. What's going on in other countries that have had gay marriage for years? Any of their citizens demanding marriages of more than two, or to their dogs?
Who says it's not legal? I think it is with parental consent--at least in some states.
The main problem is one of discrimination. A woman may marry a man and a man may not, and that's not fair, is it? Why should only a woman have such a privilege?

reply from: Shenanigans

Pecking order.
Shagging something up the arse is completely dominating something. IN the animal kingdom when something comes along and does "that" its their way of saying "you're beneath me in the food chain". Its kinda like what happens in prison.
What about what's going on in America, what's that state that all the Mormons live in, there's sects of that religion who practice and desire legal recognition of their poly-marriage.
As for marriage of dogs and animals - there are some crazy people out there. You just have to search the Internet to see that.
Okay, that's disgusting. I made that comment not thinking any state anywhere would be twisted enough to allow themarriage of minors. Maybe in some third country.
You can't vote till your 18. Isn't that discrimination against under 18s? You can't join the army till your 18, isn't that discrimination? You can't work until you're a certain age in some places.
Men can't go to "women's" gyms, women can't be members of the offical Masons.
I could go on and on and on.
The point is, there is nothing discriminatory about preventing gay marriage. Instead, its about protecting the rights of straight people, not letting to gays get married doesn't stamp a triangle on their shoulder or lead them into a camp or hang them from a tree or give them less money.
Give them civil union, but don't use marriage because it is NOT marriage.

reply from: Faramir

What is a "civil union"?
I think that's all they really want, and I think there might be some confusion about the word "marriage."
As a Catholic, you know that we would consider a lot of heterosexual marriages to be "civil unions" only (especially those involving divorce and remarriage).

reply from: Cecilia

I think this would be a separate issue.
I think the state would recognize that some fail and some need help. This doesn't change the fact that most people support the state, and most heterosexual marriages produce more citizens. The benefits to the still exceed the liabilities, and many who are relying on welfare are not married anyway.
What would be a good way to "discourage future procreation," btw?
no, its not a separate issue. since it's all about children, money, and the state's best interest it should be annulling marriages that result in kids on welfare, not allow disabled individuals to marry (either physical or mental) as to not pass on faulty traits that could keep people from being productive and rely on state aid, and annul marriages that are childless after so many years. and pass laws so unmarried couples can't live together (because that produces children and many times places those children in welfare situations).
here is what it really comes down to. it's not about marriage to people like you it's about anal sex between men.
what business is it of yours what two consenting adults want to do with their bodies in their bedroom?
your stereotyping and reference to anal sex says alot about the kind of person you are.

reply from: Cecilia

what "right" of straight people are you talking about? i don't feel like any of my rights are threatened by gay mariage.
you minimize and mock the struggle gays go through. your comments are expecially insensitive as they are references to what Nazi's did to homosexuals.
nazi's did this because they were unlikely to have children and contribute to the state! SOUND FAMILIAR?

reply from: Yuuki

And in ALL cases homosexuals cannot by their union with each other produce more citizens.
So what? Is marriage ONLY about procreation to you? Clearly, if you believe this babble. Not only is SEX only about making babies, but now marriage is only about putting a male and a female together so they can have said sex just to make more babies. You do realise that unmarried sex makes babies too right? A golden ring isn't part of the reproductive cycle.

reply from: Yuuki

What percentage of heterosexual marriages are fertile and what percentage of gay marriages are?
Why does that even matter?

reply from: Yuuki

Actually it's only MALE homosexuality they discriminate against, and it's wrong either way.

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
No one's MOUTH was designed for sex, either.
OUTLAW ORAL, SHENANIGANS!
It is technically fornication!

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

"Anyone who destroys his body, him will God destroy." If a person is so mentally dreanged that they engage in anal sodomy they will suffer eternal death. I believe the same thing about smokers who smoke two packs a day.
The mentally deranged and perverts will not inherit eternal life.
People have been given an important responsibility to care for their own bodies. If they are about the business of destroying it, don't expect God to make things better.

reply from: Cecilia

Parrots are great pets for controlling priests.

reply from: BossMomma

Parrots are great pets for controlling priests.
Tonight at work we are having a dinner spread full of fattening cajun food, I fully intend to over indulge..maybe I should suffer eternally too.

reply from: scopia19822

Actually it's only MALE homosexuality they discriminate against, and it's wrong either way.
No it is not wrong, they also discriminate against those who have been or are IV drgu users as well. Although they check all blood donated for AIDS and HEP B they have been more successful a keeping it out of supply be refusing to let the two highest risk categories donate. I have a second cousin who is HIV postive and is gay. Sadly gay men as a group have a tendency to go to the bars or other clandestine places and have anonymous sex with many people over a span of time and without protection. And the way the anus is designed makes transmission of HIV even more likely.

reply from: scopia19822

"ere is what it really comes down to. it's not about marriage to people like you it's about anal sex between men.
what business is it of yours what two consenting adults want to do with their bodies in their bedroom?"
I think anal sex whether between homos or hetros is disgusting. Thats where shyte comes out for Gods sake. Im not going to go poke my nose in peoples bedroom windows, but it is sick to me.

reply from: Yuuki

It's not for you and that's fine. I personally find hagus or brain cheese to be disgusting but would not work towards laws to outlaw them.

reply from: scopia19822

"It's not for you and that's fine. I personally find hagus or brain cheese to be disgusting but would not work towards laws to outlaw them. "
I dont care what they do behind closed doors. I just think that marriage should be made a mockery of by allowing gays to marry. When it comes down to it is a state rights issue. If the people vote in favor of gay marriage than let them have it, but do you really think it is right to have some activist judge tell the people they have to accept gay marriage when most people in the state do not? What ever happened to majoritiy rules?

reply from: Yuuki

I don't see how letting two people who are in love and ready to be committed to each other for life is a mockery of marriage, yet Brittany Spears is not... Marriage is about love and devotion and the union of body and heart.
The majority is very slowly voting state by state in approval of gay marriage.

reply from: Cecilia

I think you should sit down and figure out what you mean when you make that statement. one is that how does it make a mockery, and the other is why do you care? do you feel like you marriage is less substantial if a gay couple marries, and why is that?
i guess you think that 'majority rules' we should vote on abortion, too. or is that different?
i would like to think people more concerned about abusive marriages making 'mockery' of marriage but that is never mentioned.

reply from: scopia19822

"The majority is very slowly voting state by state in approval of gay marriage."
Then let the poeple of each state decide what marriage should be in their state. The state of VA has a constitutional amendment that says marriage is a man and a woman.

reply from: Cecilia

do you want abortion voted on too?
or is that one of those issues that to you is not even something to be voted on because the correct way is plain to see? that is how I feel about gay marriage. it is not something to be voted on, you don't vote to discriminate against people.
you didn't respond to my other questions either.

reply from: scopia19822

I do think as it stands now that the issue of abortion should be remanded to the states for now. My state of Va has laws on the books prohibiting abortion except to save the mothers life. If the people were actually giving the chance to vote on it by electing people to their state legislatures or by referedum you will find that abortion will at the very least be heavily restricted if not outright abolished. It is not discrimination to restrict marriage between a man and woman. If gay people want to get married them let them move to where it is legal. Do you think it is discrimination not to allow first cousins to marry in some states, what about siblings? I mean if they really love each other why not let them get married as well? In Iowa it was decided by the state legislature not an activist judge with an agenda. Now those who voted in favor of it might not get re-elected next election and the people can petition to have a bill reintroduced to define marriage between a man and woman. It was decided through the proper channels.

reply from: Yuuki

Yeah that would work out great for abortion and slavery too right?

reply from: scopia19822

"Yeah that would work out great for abortion and slavery too right?"
Abortion and slavery are clear human rights violations. Marriage even in polygamous societies has been strictly between a men and women. Comparing opposition to gay marriage and abortion is comparing apples to oranges. Many states have prohibitions against siblings and cousins marrying along with other close relatives. Isnt this discrimination, I mean if they really love each other should they not be allowed to marry as well?

reply from: scopia19822

They cannot do that under the first amendment spinny sorry. The 10th amendment gives states the right to make laws. Why is nobody wants to answer my question about incestous marriages? These are people who because of blood or marriage relationship are prohibted from marrying, why is that not considered wrong?

reply from: scopia19822

The 10th amendment covers the issue of states rights. They can make laws that are not in the constutution as long as they are no prohibted by the constitution.

reply from: scopia19822

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Because it costs society millions. When the gene poow gets as shallow as a stain on the sidewalk, BAD things happen.
Why do you think Mormons started keeping those geneological records?
The rate of congenital deafness and other birth defects is HUGE among Mormons, thanks to family trees that didn't branch.
But spinny if you want to give one group of people a right to marry, you have to give it to others as well. It is only fair. I live in Appalachia. Carter County Tennessee which is about 40 minutes from me is the incest capital of America. I see it just about everyday the results of multigenerational incest. States have marriage laws and criteria for a reason. As you said before if marriage is more than about crotches, it is about love than people should be allowed to marry whom they please regardless of sexual oreintation or close kinship.

reply from: scopia19822

"What was the question? You want to know why some of us oppose prohibitions against same sex "marriage," yet are not objecting to restrictions based on familial relationship? Aren't you the one who is on about "apples and oranges?" I can only speak for myself, but I don't think cousins should necessarily be prohibited from marrying. If there were millions of cousins wanting to marry, but unable to because of the law, that would be an issue for me."
I do not condone marriages between family members. I live in a region where incest is a problem both between linear and lateral relations. All states prohibit linear kin from marrying, some do permit cousin marriages, others do not. The point is that states do have restrictions on who can marry whom and it does not just pertain to gays. The point is that states have a right to set their own criteria for marriage and make laws pertaining to it. That can be permitting or prohibiting both same sex unions and kinship unions.

reply from: Cecilia

CP has "owned" people here of late. maybe i really should start listening to his view on abortion more.

reply from: Faramir

CP is truly a legend in his own mind.
(He does make some good points, and his persistence has caused me to think about the possibility of civil unions for all, though I was not pursuaded by his argument about discrimination).

reply from: scopia19822

"Loving et ux v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult...law/loving.html----

This covers Virginias law against interracial marriage. The ruling stated that marriage was a civil right for the purpose of procreation. It is talking about marriage in the context of being between a man and a woman. No where does it cover gay marriage.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Same sex is not consistent with God's Will, goals, purpose and design. His Will is to be done, not some perverts. Yes, the Bible says we are slaves, made to perform His purposes.
No, anarchy is not in accord with the coming Government.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Same sex is not consistent with God's Will, goals, purpose and design. His Will is to be done, not some perverts. Yes, the Bible says we are slaves, made to perform His purposes.
No, anarchy is not in accord with the coming Government.
So did God give us all free will? Does he allow us to choose whether we will serve Him or not, whether we will "sin," etc? Does that apply only to heterosexuals? If it's "not consistent with God's Will," does that mean no one should be allowed to do it? Should everyone be forced to do "God's will?"
You are free to live your threescore and ten and then pass forever from the scene. Your choice. Eternal life is a gift. If you don't want to love God or neighbor, that is your call. Obedience, choosing love is the only Way to eternal life. Christ has made that point.

reply from: scopia19822

You know, I went back and reread the decision 4 times, and I still can't find where "the ruling stated that marriage was a civil right for the purpose of procreation." I can't find the word "procreation" anywhere in the decision.... Isn't that odd?
I mispoke about the ruling I admit my mistake. I tried to go to the link you posted but it did not work. Can you provide another one?This ruling was talking about interracial heterosexual unions. Another case dealing with gay marriage would have to be brought before the court. This one cannot be used to justify gay marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Future_implications

reply from: Shenanigans

But how does one determine what case can be justified as something that shouldn't be granted marriage rights? If the state can say "marry whoever, but not your brother", how can another American insititution turn and say "states can't set criteria for marriage".
This is one of those "can't have your cake and eat it too", if a state can't set criteria like marriage only between a man and a woman, then it can't set criteria for familial relationships legalised through marriage.
Because, genetically, incest isn't that bad, the problem only arrises if there is a dodgy recessive gene in the mix somewhere, and the govt. doesn't interfer in letting Jewish people with Tay Sacs genes marry, or older woman marry when the risk of downs is higher. So why cousins?
If gay marriage is legalised so must all other forms of "marriage", including incest, polygomy, kids, animals et cetera et cetera.

reply from: Yuuki

Oh please, that slippery slope is nonsense. Marriage is for two CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS. Animals can't consent, period, plus they're not human. Children can't consent and aren't adults. As for polygamy I could care less how many wives or husbands you want. I personally want one.

reply from: scopia19822

"Oh please, that slippery slope is nonsense. Marriage is for two CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS. Animals can't consent, period, plus they're not human."
What about laws forbidding familal marriages? Do you oppose two CONSENTING adults who are cousins or even siblings marrying?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

concernedparent said:
So, my question, which none of you has yet even attempted to answer, is: Can anyone tell me what possible legitimate interest the state might have in prohibiting same sex marriages?
We don't want the state teaching our kids to be freaking perverts, to honor, consider and respect such mentally deranged behavior.
Same sex is a deviant perverse behavior injurious to the body. It is a sexual immorality for which death is decreed, the destruction of Sodom specifically being set out as an example of the eternal cosequences of such self-indulgent perverse behavior. Sex outside of marriage between man and woman is illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Bestiality is illegal. Adultery is illegal.
Go sit by the bedside of someone wracked with AIDS or hepatitis. Feces is a mainstay of sodomy. How perverse. You are mad cp.

reply from: scopia19822

CP your are beating a dead horse. You support gay marriage, fine if it comes up in your state by referendum or through your state legislature by all means lobby for it. But most Americans think that marriage is to be between a man and a woman and it is a state rights issue not a federal one. Marriage has been building block of the family and the family has traditionally been the cornerstone of society for eons. What is that gays hope to gain by marriage, inhertiance and property rights? Medical decisions? If a person makes an iron clad will they can leave their property to whom they please and their family unless their are minor children involved cant touch it. In the case of medical decisions that is what a power of attourney is for, you can name anyone you want it does not have to be a blood relative. The solution would be to close loopholes in property and inheritance laws.

reply from: Cecilia

you clearly don't understand. gays hope to gain by marriage the same things you do. gay relationships and love are just as legitimate as heterosexual relationships and love. regardless of your personal opnion it is basic discrimination to deny someone the right marriage based on gender or sexual orientation.
it is matter of time, just like your laws against racial marriages. or womens voting rights. it is not something to be voted on-- you don't get to vote to discriminate against people.

reply from: Shenanigans

When you call a dog and it comes, is it not consenting? Obediance can be considered a form of consent.
And children can consent to abortions without parental knowledge, so why not marriage?
As for slippery slope, look at abortion, 30 years ago how many of those feminists thought they were marching for a cause that would result in over 60 million dead unborn, millions of hurt women, essential complete legality at all stages for all reasons, a procedure like PBA and a president who sees no problem in allowing children who've survived an abortion to be left to die?
Slippery slopes are in all moral aspects of society, this is just another example. In 30 years what will our society look like if we allow this slight crack in the door?

reply from: Shenanigans

I know what you're saying, I read your post, but the thing is, if the state is looking after the potential interests of health by banning familial marriage, then why not ban those who are known carriers of Tay Sachs or prevent over 30s from marrying for risk of Downs et cetera?
Frankly, I think this whole debate is shaky - on one hand you have those arguing against based on religious belief, you have those who are using the shaky arguments of state intervention for health or procreation, and then you have those arguing that this is about preventing people having full person rights.
The thing is, its one of those topics where people are going to have opinions based not on logic or reason or studies because there's just not enough to provide either way, this boils down to people's thoughts and feelings on that the matter and that's never a good idea.
I mean, people could site studies about how long the average gay relationship lasts - I read somewhere once that it was 7 years, and how could anyone inflict that on a child? But I also read the average hetrosexual marriage only lasts three years!!!
I for one have a sore brain after thinking about all this.

reply from: BossMomma

Arkansas ain't got nuthin against it and look how gud they dun.

reply from: Yuuki

When you call a dog and it comes, is it not consenting? Obediance can be considered a form of consent.
And children can consent to abortions without parental knowledge, so why not marriage?
As for slippery slope, look at abortion, 30 years ago how many of those feminists thought they were marching for a cause that would result in over 60 million dead unborn, millions of hurt women, essential complete legality at all stages for all reasons, a procedure like PBA and a president who sees no problem in allowing children who've survived an abortion to be left to die?
Slippery slopes are in all moral aspects of society, this is just another example. In 30 years what will our society look like if we allow this slight crack in the door?
I'm not getting into a dicussion on animal consent. If you actually think animals can consciously consider the implications of sex with a human, the love and connection it brings, and all of the other stuff that goes with marriage, then I think you need to be in a mental hospital.
Consent during sex involves FULL KNOWLEDGE of what sex is, which is why children cannot consent either, nor drunk people, or unconscious people, etc. Hell, some adults are pretty ignorant, but that's the law.
I don't think it's right that teens can "consent" to abortion, so that argument just flew out the window.
And someone mentioned marrying your siblings... I already went over my views on that.

reply from: yoda

Still waiting for an answer, Cecilia:
Do you consider the elective taking of innocent human life (like an unborn baby) to be an act of "control"?

reply from: scopia19822

We have "discrimination " already with marriage laws. We have age requirments, some states require medical and blood test. A person cannot help being born a man or a woman or being born black or white. However I do not believe that all gay people are "born" that way. By your logic then there should be no prohibitons on incestous marriages either, after all that is a form of discrimination. I oppose gay marriage not only because it is wrong and against the laws of nature, it will open up pandoras box. If we allow gays to marry then we have to allow incestous marriage, we have to allow group marriage, where does it end?

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

BTW, since obama has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage (didn't obama and biden both state they were anti-gay-marriage durign the campaigning),
are their reasons for opposing gay marriage religious, non-religious, or a comination?

reply from: scopia19822

Spinny your ridiculous extremes never cease to amaze me. Marriage is a human institution and has always been between men and women and that is the way it should be. I read somewhere that about 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage. Tolerating what gays do is one thing and I believe that they should be left in peace to go about their business, but what you and others want people to do is accept homosexuality as normal and ok. There is a differance between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate alot of things I dont approve of, but I am not going to accept them as ok. Are religious groups going to be forced to perform and recongnize gay marriage and if they refuse have their tax expemtions status revoked?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
If we allow men and women to get married, then we have to allow orangutans to get married. Then we'll have to allow pieces of patio furniture to married. Then individually-wrapped cheese slices will want to get married.
When will it end?!
You didn't think she would get that, did you?
When will it end is a question in Canada at this time. People are fighting for group marriage there now. Why should marriage be limited to a couple they say? State your reason why not, as Concerned Parent would say. Let a roomful of swingers marry and engage in group sex orgies, swaps and exchanges. Let them have the advantages and benefits of marriage they say.
The endgame is the destruction of marriage.
When you get away from God's commanded Will and purpose, men can create anything; even the abomination of men assaulting each other's anus and lower intestine; destroying their life sustaining body. God has decreed death for such perversion.
Concerned parent is as perverted as baby killing spinny. Anything goes.

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
If we allow men and women to get married, then we have to allow orangutans to get married. Then we'll have to allow pieces of patio furniture to married. Then individually-wrapped cheese slices will want to get married.
When will it end?!
You didn't think she would get that, did you?
When will it end is a question in Canada at this time. People are fighting for group marriage there now. Why should marriage be limited to a couple they say? State your reason why not, as Concerned Parent would say. Let a roomful of swingers marry and engage in group sex orgies, swaps and exchanges. Let them have the advantages and benefits of marriage they say.
The endgame is the destruction of marriage.
When you get away from God's commanded Will and purpose, men can create anything; even the abomination of men assaulting each other's anus and lower intestine; destroying their life sustaining body. God has decreed death for such perversion.
Concerned parent is as perverted as baby killing spinny. Anything goes.
Why shouldn't people be able to have orgies if they want to?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
If we allow men and women to get married, then we have to allow orangutans to get married. Then we'll have to allow pieces of patio furniture to married. Then individually-wrapped cheese slices will want to get married.
When will it end?!
You didn't think she would get that, did you?
When will it end is a question in Canada at this time. People are fighting for group marriage there now. Why should marriage be limited to a couple they say? State your reason why not, as Concerned Parent would say. Let a roomful of swingers marry and engage in group sex orgies, swaps and exchanges. Let them have the advantages and benefits of marriage they say.
The endgame is the destruction of marriage.
When you get away from God's commanded Will and purpose, men can create anything; even the abomination of men assaulting each other's anus and lower intestine; destroying their life sustaining body. God has decreed death for such perversion.
Concerned parent is as perverted as baby killing spinny. Anything goes.
Why shouldn't people be able to have orgies if they want to?
Does this mean you are pro-choice or do you have it figured out which "dad", governmental unit, or whatever, should pay and care for the child that may be conceived?
Or is your attitude: "Who cares about babies? Put them in a trash bag and dump them in the woods."

reply from: Yuuki

Does this mean you are pro-choice or do you have it figured out which "dad", governmental unit, or whatever, should pay and care for the child that may be conceived?
Or is your attitude: "Who cares about babies? Put them in a trash bag and dump them in the woods."
How the hell does being ok with orgies have anything to do with opposing abortion? Sex isn't the problem, killing babies is the problem. There are many ways to prevent pregnancy, and I listed many of them on the other thread. It doesn't matter who the "dad" is. The baby is still a person.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

This is from Chuck Colson's Break Point commentary:
Why They Can't Coexist- GAY MARRIAGE & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
As more states - like Iowa - approve same-sex "marriage," conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril. Same-sex "marriage" supporters accuse them of engaging in hysterical gay-bating. Who's telling the truth?
Let me share some stories with you from an excellent news broadcast produced by National Public Radio. Then you decide.
Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not "marry" in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle - that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman - was at stake.
The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption - a move that cost them $20,000.
Then there's the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn't good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors' religious beliefs didn't give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly - get out of the business.
In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor's employers fired her - a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school's orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway - even though New York has no same-sex "marriage" law.
In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony - and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.
Convinced? Clearly, homosexual "marriage" and religious liberty cannot co-exist - because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex "marriage" advocates claim that religious faith "itself is a form of bigotry."
Tune in tomorrow, for I want you to learn how you can help protect both our religious rights and marriage itself. I know this may sound alarmist, but it's true. If we don't work to stop this juggernaut, we may soon find ourselves hunted down at work, at school, and even at church - as others have been - by those determined to force us to accept as a moral good what God calls evil.
Gay Activists and Religious Freedom - DEMANDING TO BE SERVED
eHarmony is a popular online dating service designed by Neil Clark Warren, an evangelical Christian psychologist. The site claims that, on average, 236 eHarmony members marry every day. That's good news.
The bad news is that, in 2005, a man claimed the company violated his rights by not offering a matchmaking service to homosexuals. He lodged a complaint with the New Jersey attorney general, who found probable cause that eHarmony had violated state anti-discrimination laws. eHarmony vigorously disagreed.
Nevertheless, last year, eHarmony agreed to develop a matchmaking service for same-sex couples - and pay $55,000 in fines.
As I said yesterday on BreakPoint, we've seen this scenario over and over again. Christians or Orthodox Jews open up a business, ministry, or school, and sooner or later, a same-sex couple shows up demanding services that conflict with the sincerely held religious convictions of those they confront. When the same-sex couple is turned down, they promptly sue - even if others offer to accommodate them for the same services. And too often, they are winning their cases.
It's as if the First Amendment no longer exists. I can't help but suspect that radical gays deliberately target outfits run by religious believers in order to force them to accommodate their political agenda - or go out of business.
So what can we do about this? How can we protect our First Amendment rights - and marriage itself?
First, if you are victimized by a gay activist group or same-sex couple demanding that you throw out your religious beliefs, contact the Alliance Defense Fund. They have spent many years defending the First Amendment right of religious believers - rights now under brutal attack.
Second, we've all got to work together to protect the integrity of marriage. Learn how by contacting the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. You'll also learn why we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. I know you're getting fatigued, but it's time to stiffen our spines.
College students who want to learn how to defend traditional marriage should go to the Ruth Institute website and sign up for a summer conference. The Ruth Institute also offers a list of people who will speak to your group about marriage. Or, you can purchase a same-sex "marriage" home party kit, which includes DVDs, bumper stickers, and wrist bands. Have your friends over, and use the kit to teach them how same-sex "marriage" will harm everybody.
The issue is critical. We all must learn how to answer the charge of "bigotry," and winsomely explain why marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples; and how same-sex "marriage" will not broaden marriage, but radically and dangerously change its nature.
We must learn, as the apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 10:5, to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God."
If we don't make the case for natural marriage - or fight attempts to shut us up or shut us down - sooner or later, we will all find our most sacred liberties sacrificed on the altar of the gay agenda.

reply from: Yuuki

I don't think it's right to force a private business to accept gay parents as couples. Just like I wouldn't find it right to force a specific church to marry a gay couple. There are enough churches around that do accept homosexuality that there's no sense in forcing it.

reply from: Cecilia

We have "discrimination " already with marriage laws. We have age requirments, some states require medical and blood test. A person cannot help being born a man or a woman or being born black or white. However I do not believe that all gay people are "born" that way. By your logic then there should be no prohibitons on incestous marriages either, after all that is a form of discrimination. I oppose gay marriage not only because it is wrong and against the laws of nature, it will open up pandoras box. If we allow gays to marry then we have to allow incestous marriage, we have to allow group marriage, where does it end?
i like how you didn't quote my entire comment but picked a piece of it.
did you know cousins can petition the state and be married? that there are exceptions? That certain states will recognize first cousin marriages performed in other states? that Maine will allow first cousin to marry if submit to genetic testing? Did you know that in all US states it is legal to marry your second cousin? That in Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C you can marry your first cousin no questions asked? DO YOU FEEL THREATENED? HA HA!
you need to forget about this unrelated irrelevant nonsense now.
Your "beliefs" on etiology of homosexuality is not a legitimate basis to discriminate and has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marraige. your references to this, the 'slippery slope' nonsense, and your lack of understanding ->"what do gays hope to gain by marriage" shows that you have NO IDEA about this topic and talk out your behind. maybe you should get to know a gay couple so you arent so afraid of them and how they "threaten" marriage.

reply from: scopia19822

[
"
"

"
did you know cousins can petition the state and be married? that there are exceptions? That certain states will recognize first cousin marriages performed in other states? that Maine will allow first cousin to marry if submit to genetic testing? Did you know that in all US states it is legal to marry your second cousin? That in Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C you can marry your first cousin no questions asked? DO YOU FEEL THREATENED? HA HA! "
How mature to add you Haha, I thought you were supposed to be a grown woman? I am aware that some states prohibit cousin marriage all together. Kentucky I believe not only forbids it, but will not reconginize such unions performed in other states. New Hampshire will not consider marriages performed out of state for its residents if it was done to dodge the requirments of that state. In Arizona first cousins may marry provided that if the woman is under 55 she proves she has been sterilized or is infertile. These acts can be considered forms of discrimination, yet you will not hear too many people holler about it. These restrictions are there for a reason. I think cousin marriages should be banned all together because of the effects that incestous unions can have on the offspring.
"you need to forget about this unrelated irrelevant nonsense now."
It is not irrelvant. First it will be the gays, than if we must allow that than you will have people wanting to have polygamy, incest and God knows what else.
maybe you should get to know a gay couple so you arent so afraid of them and how they "threaten" marriage."
I am hardly afraid of gay people all though you would like to flatter yourself . I have been sexually involved with both sexes in my past so I am hardly afraid. I have known many single and committed gay couples in my life. One is a good freind of my moms and her partner of 20 years. I have a 2nd cousin who is HIV postive and gay. He got it because his partner cheated on him while he was faithful the whole 10 years or so they were together. They know my views on gay marriage and are not "threatned" by it at all. You are not wanting me to be "tolerant" of homosexuality, you want me to accept it as ok and give my stamp of approval of same sex marriage. It is not good enough that people are tolerant, you have to force acceptance and that is going to come back and bite the liberal lobby in the ass.

reply from: scopia19822

Oh Spinny your sick twisted sense of humor never ceases to amaze me. I am no longer a practicing Catholic, not only for this reason but for others as well. The state of Virginia says we have a civil marriage, which gives us rights as far as property rights and inheritance laws and medical decisions.. On the federal level I can get benefits from my husbands Social Security and we can file a joint tax return. My husband is a practicing Catholic so I told him that he is no longer my "husband", we just have a civil union type thing which all a civil marriage really is. Since he seems to be a good little sheep and not use the brain the God gave him.

reply from: Cecilia

your response is all a joke. you attempt to justify your discrimination and make it seem like someone is forcing you to accept stoning children.
the issue is gay marriage, not group marriage or incest. they are completely irrelevant. cousins are allowed to marry and the point of that is to show you that the world hasn't ended and "traditional" marriage is intact. if people start advocating or caring about first cousin marriage then it's different.
Besides, gays getting married is apples to oranges to cousin getting married.
what do you have to lose here? what are you afraid of? why do you want to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation?

reply from: scopia19822

"our response is all a joke. you attempt to justify your discrimination and make it seem like someone is forcing you to accept stoning children."
You do not know the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate that there are gay people and they should be allowed to live in peace without harrassment or physical harm. But I still do not approve of what they are doing. That is tolerance. "
Acceptance is where I say that homosexuality is ok and I personally approve of it, which I do not. If anyone is discriminating it is you saying that I must ACCEPT homosexuality as ok and normal. You are discriminating against my religious beliefs. Who are to force anybody to ACCEPT anything they believe is wrong? Isnt the fact that I am tolerant of gays enough, I guess not since you think that if I thinks homosexuality is wrong that I need to be re educated to think it is fine and normal.
"he issue is gay marriage, not group marriage or incest. they are completely irrelevant. cousins are allowed to marry and the point of that is to show you that the world hasn't ended and "traditional" marriage is intact. if people start advocating or caring about first cousin marriage then it's different."
It is relavant. It opens up pandoras box. If we allow gay marriage than we have to allow incest and group marriages, it is DISCRIMINATION not to allow the latter two. Most people in America thinks first cousin marriages are sick. If you ask a group of people if they favor gay marriage and about 40% of them say yes, you cannot discriminate. Then you ask that same group if siblings, cousins and other relations can get married that rate would drop to maybe 1-2% at most. The next question I would ask them is are they a hypocrite, if you say we cant discriminate against same sex marriages we most certainly cant discriminate against the rest.
"esides, gays getting married is apples to oranges to cousin getting married.
what do you have to lose here? what are you afraid of? why do you want to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation?"
Marriage is between a man and woman that is the laws of nature if you want to leave God out of the equation. I think gay people should be able to have the same access to job, education , medical care etc as everyone else. I just dont think they should be allowed to get married and you will find more people who agree with me than you.

reply from: scopia19822

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/1558361,CST-NWS-samesex05.article

According to this poll from the Chicago Sun Times 54% of American oppose same sex marriage.

reply from: Cecilia

no one is asking you to ACCEPT anything; they are asking that discrimination based on sexual orientation be recognized as the WRONG that it is.
no you bloody do not need to allow incest or group marriages because that is completely different. you are desperately grasping to hold onto this to justify your beliefs.
What did you say that you have to lose?
marriage is not a "natural" thing anyways. it isn't "natural" to mate for life; lookat other animals. handful are monogamous.
I just dont think they should be allowed to get married and you will find more people who agree with me than you
yes, most people are stupid. and what, might makes right?
Every single "argument" against gay marriage is easily refuted. i think it comes down to people being against anal sex or sex between women..."it's icky" they whine...i really think that's all it is, not base in logic.

reply from: scopia19822

"no one is asking you to ACCEPT anything; they are asking that discrimination based on sexual orientation be recognized as the WRONG that it is. "
Yes you are asking me to ACCEPT same sex marriage as ok and normal.
no you bloody do not need to allow incest or group marriages because that is completely different. you are desperately grasping to hold onto this to justify your beliefs. "
You are a hypocrite. How dare you think it is ok to DISCRIMINATE against people who fall in love with a relative or who want to enter into a polygamous union. Forbiddening this people to marry is a form of DISCRIMINATION. I do not need to justify my beliefs. I am firm in what I believe is right and wrong. Isnt this the pot calling the kettle black, hypocrisy. You say I want to DISCRIMINATE when you think it is ok for the state to set restrictions on familal and group marriages. If you beleive that we should not discriminate and that people should be allowed to marry whoever they choose than you cannot DISCRIMINATE against gays, polygamist and incestous marriages.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God has shown us what will happen to a nation if they become a Sodom. The nation that embraces sodomy faces destruction raining down from heaven destroying it's cities (nuclear weaponry or worse). Sodom is a prophecy of what will happen to Western nations after they embrace sodomy. Judgement begins at the House of the Lord. Western nations are the ones who have first been called. To whom much is given, much is expected. Islamists are sharpening their swords (Iran, Pakistan Jihadists, etc) and one day will be ready to destroy Western nations for the very reason that they are engaging in indecent behavior.

reply from: scopia19822

"Wow. Sounds like your marriage really blows - or not...
Maybe that's why you're trying to spare gay couples your own unholy Hell on Earth - you know - marriage.
I've always avoided it, and others should do the same!"
We were actually making progress before I left to go visit my uncle in his last days, not something hubby really was happy about as it meant he had to care for our son. I was told before I left, 2 days in fact that they could not find the paperwork to validate my baptism they had known about this since last year and because of that I would have to wait until my husbands annullments came through which given he has 2 can take years. Meantime he can still stay in good standing. He is not happy I left but realizes it is my choice. In his eyes I should play by the rules and that is just the way things are. I told him that since the RCC says we are not in a valid marriage he is no longer my husband. Of course then he wanted to invoke the state marriage liscence and say that I am his wife . He cant have it both ways either I am his wife or I am not. No gray areas here. Since the RCC trumps the State it would be inappropriate for him to call me his wife. I told him concubine would be more appropriate and that to introduce me as his wife to anyone from church would be in appropriate. Marriage can be hell it can also be good.

reply from: iCelebr8Life

This is a pro-life forum. I am confused as to why there are so many homosexual threads.
I don't get all worried about the homosexuals. They do have the fewest abortions and thankfully the fewest babies.
The world will look and act like the world. I am called to make the womb a safer place for babies and the world a nicer place for children.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Sexual perverts are out to force acceptance of their warped abnormal behavior. This abomination will be taught in the schools to the little kids. Our job is to save and protect the little kids. Indeed, if our nation becomes Sodom, it shall receive the same judgment Sodom did. We must fight against death. Sodomy is death.
Sodomites are sick mentally ill individuals. Their perversion should not be allowed to spread and infect children. Sodomy is not pro-life; it is a pro-death choice.

reply from: 4choice4all

Bigots are sick mentally ill individuals. Their perversion should not be allowed to spread and infect children. Bigotry is not prolife...it's brought us lynchings and genocides..the holocaust...it's pro-death.
How ironic that your sig says "everyone who hates his brother is a murderer".....so please tell me you lump yourself in with the prodeath camp, murderer.

reply from: Cecilia

no, again, with reality please join us; you nee to recognize discrimination base on sexual orientation is WRONG. and you know what , regardless, same sex marriage is okay and normal. you have no reason to think otherwise but some kind of odd fixate on anal sex.
Did we even talk about what I believe in regards to incestuous relationships or polygamy?
No we did NOT. You want to call me names but you can't even follow the conversing.
I have no problem with consent adults doing whatever they want with their private parts. if you want to marry your brother i don't care. I don't know you or your borther and I have no idea how that could possibly impact my life. i don't have some fixate on what people do in their bedrooms.
you never did answer what you have to lose. on second thought, you actually don't respond to anything I say you continue plowing on with your ignorant beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. and you want to tell people what they should or should not be able to do...it's joke.
and your own marriage sounds terrible. you of all people have no business giving orders to others.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

What are you doing on this forum murderer? On the thread about killing babies, putting their bodies in garbage bags and tossing them you said you were in full support of a mother's "choice" to kill her growing child. Some things are intolerable. That includes murderers like you.
It is good to be a discriminating person and narrow your views to those that do not include murderering babies and destroying the human body through sodomy. A person who assaults his own anus and lower intestine is mentally ill.

reply from: Yuuki

Precisely. You have your priorities in order!! We have some whackjobs on here though who are so obsessed about sex that they just can't let it drop.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Precisely. You have your priorities in order!! We have some whackjobs on here though who are so obsessed about sex that they just can't let it drop.
Sex and abortion are intimately related. In fact, I think I once heard the conception of a new living human being is the result of sex.
To make sure the whole process turns out right, laws and obligations have to be examined and enforced from the time before a person is conceived all the way through natural death. Protections for living human beings start before conception and continue until the person completes their appointed years of life.
All sexual excesses outside of the legal contract of a marriage between man and wife is illegal and contributes to degradation to the life supporting marital union.

reply from: Yuuki

What are you doing on this forum murderer? On the thread about killing babies, putting their bodies in garbage bags and tossing them you said you were in full support of a mother's "choice" to kill her growing child. Some things are intolerable. That includes murderers like you.
It is good to be a discriminating person and narrow your views to those that do not include murderering babies and destroying the human body through sodomy. A person who assaults his own anus and lower intestine is mentally ill.
I guess you're against colonoscopies as well.

reply from: 4choice4all

Well color me sicko because sometimes I enjoy nothing more than a little anal assault from the old man.

reply from: Cecilia

ha ha! i like your style, welcome here.

reply from: BossMomma

Because sadly most pro-lifers are religious extremists who'd rather blabber on about whose in a same sex relationship than the problem at hand which is abortion. Personally I feel that the right of gays to marry should be granted as gay marriage hurts nothing and it would help people realise that marriage is not an exclusively christian concept but a legal institution.

reply from: BossMomma

What are you doing on this forum murderer? On the thread about killing babies, putting their bodies in garbage bags and tossing them you said you were in full support of a mother's "choice" to kill her growing child. Some things are intolerable. That includes murderers like you.
It is good to be a discriminating person and narrow your views to those that do not include murderering babies and destroying the human body through sodomy. A person who assaults his own anus and lower intestine is mentally ill.
I guess you're against colonoscopies as well.
Why shouldn't polyps have a right to privacy?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics