Homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic.
Also, you might note the many black civil rights leaders who recoil at the comparison.
[/quote]
Even if homosexuality is genetic/biological/&c. marriage is not based as a wide spread institute on particular biological factors such as attraction and color of skin. Those are mere accidents they are not substantial to the persons or marriage. The matter, which makes up part of the nature of the marriage, is one man and one women. If someone doesn’t understand this I can go further.
However, I’ll assume this is understood completely and everyone has spent many years studying Western Civilization and understands philosophical language.
Under this institution people of the same sex can tether their lives together and recieve benefits very similar to marriage. The institution of marriage remains untouched and SS couples cannot legally refer to themselves as married only smarried. [/quote]
You can call it “bacon-wrapped deliciousness” for all anyone cares, but there’s no reason to dole out benefits and privilege for no social benefit in return, so no.
Does separation of church and state play a part in this at all?
We have marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution and marriage as a LEGAL institution.
Isn’t the main thing here religious people arguing against it because of their religious beliefs? But as a LEGAL institution, wouldn’t that be pretty much irrelevant since there’s a separation of church and state? As a legal institution, why does it matter what the gender of both individuals is?
I’m really asking, not sure if this has been touched on in previous pages or if it makes sense in the first place.
The modern pro-pedophilia movement has its roots in the controversial work of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey’s 1953 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male has been a major resource for this movement. Kinsey collected data from pedophiles, including ex-Nazi commandant Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who offered his victims a choice: rape or the gas chamber.
With Dr. Balluseck’s “research,” and the information from other pedophiles, Kinsey charted the length and frequency of infants’ and children’s orgasms. He stated the children and infants reacted with “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among the younger children).” That was how he measured their orgasms.
Abridged - original source: √ MANGGA2BET: Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Terpercaya Indonesia
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?
^^should say^^^
Pedophiles aren’t gay and vice versa. This link isn’t really helpful at all. Do you really think this is what’s going on, or are you using a spoon made of hate and misunderstanding to stir this pot of shit?
Does separation of church and state play a part in this at all?
We have marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution and marriage as a LEGAL institution.
Isn’t the main thing here religious people arguing against it because of their religious beliefs? But as a LEGAL institution, wouldn’t that be pretty much irrelevant since there’s a separation of church and state? As a legal institution, why does it matter what the gender of both individuals is?
I’m really asking, not sure if this has been touched on in previous pages or if it makes sense in the first place.[/quote]
No, because the public policy of marriage - as distinguished from the private side - does not exist to fulfill a religious mission.
And, the objections to gay marriage in this thread (are overwhelmingly) unrelated to religious reasons. You should consider reading the thread.
[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Does separation of church and state play a part in this at all?
We have marriage as a RELIGIOUS institution and marriage as a LEGAL institution.
Isn’t the main thing here religious people arguing against it because of their religious beliefs? But as a LEGAL institution, wouldn’t that be pretty much irrelevant since there’s a separation of church and state? As a legal institution, why does it matter what the gender of both individuals is?
I’m really asking, not sure if this has been touched on in previous pages or if it makes sense in the first place.[/quote]
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. If 50% + 1 of the voters are influenced by church that gay marriage is wrong then guess what side will win at voting time.
[quote]ephrem wrote:How the Christian Right’s Homophobia Scares Away Religious Young People http://www.alternet.org/belief/155462/how_the_christian_right’s_homophobia_scares_away_religious_young_people/?page=entire
[/quote]ALL that the Father gives the Son will come Ephrem. It is not the place of the creature to pervert the Word of the creator so as not to offend “young religious” people". If there are 4 people left in church in America after the truth has been preached then that’s how many there’s supposed to be. There has not ever, nor can there ever be, for all time and eternity, one single unrepentant openly gay Christian. It is an abominable perversion of the created order of the living God and no person in whom dwells His Spirit will defy Him to His face by declaring good what He has condemned as evil.
I do not and will not hate them, in fact what I just said is the most loving thing anyone could say to them. I will befriend them and be kind to them. I will give them food if hungry, clothes if naked and whatever of my meager substance I could to show my love and care for them. I will not kick their doors in and I will not ever view them as any more deserving of the same damnation I would be headed for without Christ, but relationships between members of the same sex cannot, by definition, EVER be a marriage or a family regardless of what you or any of these false disciples in this article choose to call it.
It is irrelevant if homosexuality housed a trillion children, cured cancer, fed the world’s poor, brought global peace, gas to 5 cents a gallon, made the United States the most prosperous nation for one thousand generations OR filled our church buildings. It would still be an abomination in the sight of the God who alone defines right and wrong. I am not trying to win the younger generation or anybody else to some pseudo hippified modernist gospel. I am trying to obey the God of the universe.
This will be your perfect ammunition Ephrem. Copy and paste this post somewhere and you have my blessing to use it wherever you go as an object lesson in how demented us fundamentalist nutcases are. I’d be honored actually.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
I don’t get what is wrong with Steve & Bob getting those privileges? It does not take away privileges from anybody, there is no “victim”.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
I don’t get what is wrong with Steve & Bob getting those privileges? It does not take away privileges from anybody, there is no “victim”. [/quote]
It would be bigoted to give them privileges above 3 or 4 lovers in a polyamorous or friendly arrangement. Their relationships are no more special.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?
[/quote]
The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?
[/quote]
The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]
Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Conversely, people could mind their own business and not tell others what to do.
Oh, right. I forgot.[/quote]
If Bob wants to put a ring on Steve’s finger and tell everyone they’re married, I’m not sending in a SWAT team. If Bob want’s to open up and access a public (state recognized/privileged) institution that is supposed to serve an IMMENSELY critical function, we’re going to have a little conversation.
[/quote]
So in your mind what would happen to society if the government stopped recognizing marriage altogether and people just had private ceremonies where they declared they were married?
[/quote]
The more orthodox would continue to marry and reproduce. The rest of society would become even more barren and old. The economy would collapse. The entitlements depending on the economy would collapse. Starvation, lack of medical care, housing, food and ignorance. chaos. Religion reasserts order and shared values after rapidly outbreeding the atheist and secular. But only after a long and nasty slide. But, since heterosexual orderly pairing of the reproductive sexes is HUGELY critical, we recognize it. Now we need to reinforce it’s status.[/quote]
Translation: My religious views are superior to yours therefore they should become part of the law so you will be forced to follow them too.[/quote]
LOL…this is not a religious arguement. But where exactly were all the atheists when this country was first formed?
WHERE!
(I was wondering when you would get around to attacking religion since you are a religious bigot)