Does anyone else see the irony here?

[jerome1232]

With your premise about homosexual couples not able to produce viable offspring, are you going then to ban heterosexual couples who wish to marry but they are unable to have children or perhaps choose not to have them at all?

If you feel that's appropriate feel free to campaign for it. It wouldn't be totally unprecedented, some states do allow cousins to marry if they undergo genetic counseling etc..

It kinda sounds like revenge for not bending current marriage law to the will of a minority though if you ask me.

[Lakumi]

I already DID. Homosexual intercourse is a sexual and moral deviancy,

Homosexual marriage, in turn, is a moral deviancy because it seeks to legitimize a moral deviancy.

deviancy to who?

your church?

that's fine and well but what about those who don't share your beliefs. some religions don't see homosexuality as a sexual and moral deviancy.

why are your beliefs more important and stand higher then mine

[selek]

With your premise about homosexual couples not able to produce viable offspring, are you going then to ban heterosexual couples who wish to marry but they are unable to have children or perhaps choose not to have them at all?

Asked and answered by Anatess above.

Heterosexual marriages are normative to our society, both as a matter of moral law and as the nucleus unit of a functioning healthy society.

Homosexual marriages are not. It is a matter of both historical record and scientific fact that where such unions are sanctioned by the State, normative marriages decline sharply, with the corresponding long-term effects on society.

You keep trying to phrase this in terms of human rights; namely, that all individuals in the United States are to be treated equally before the law. No one disputes that this is the ideal for which we strive.

Contrary to the myth being propagated by the homophile lobby, however, not all RELATIONSHIPS are equal under the law.

That the State refuses to recognize one relationship while sanctioning the other is not unjust, nor is it a violation of human rights- it's simply a matter of moral discernment, and sound policy.

In point of fact, there IS no inalienable, Constitutional right to have your personal predilections sanctioned or endorsed by the State- and that's what this is really all about.

No one is denying homosexuals the right to form life-long commitments, or to pretend that their deviancy and fornication are someone a genuine marriage rather than a counterfeit of the eternal model.

We simply resist being forced at gunpoint to play along with their self-deception.

Edited May 4, 2013 by selek

[jerome1232]

deviancy to who?

your church?

that's fine and well but what about those who don't share your beliefs. some religions don't see homosexuality as a sexual and moral deviancy.

why are your beliefs more important and stand higher then mine

Why are you bringing religion into this, this was about morality, not religion. Religion is a source of morality, not the only source.

Some people don't view stealing as immoral, shall we bend on that law as well since not everyone see's it as immoral?

[Lakumi]

Why are you bringing religion into this, this was about morality, not religion. Religion is a source of morality, not the only source.

Some people don't view stealing as immoral, shall we bend on that law as well since not everyone see's it as immoral?

who decides what morality is?

[selek]

deviancy to who?

Ummm...how about the full weight of recorded human history?

In point of fact, until the last decade or so, there has never been a human society which accepted homosexual unions as the moral or societal equivalent of a normative heterosexual marriage.

The closest you can come would be the Greeks and Romans, but even they did not accept homosexual unions as legal. They were also by-and-large, big on pederasty, as well, so perhaps they're not your best example.

your church?

that's fine and well but what about those who don't share your beliefs. some religions don't see homosexuality as a sexual and moral deviancy.

why are your beliefs more important and stand higher then mine

Objectively? Because my moral standards have stood the test of time over the last couple of thousand years.

Not one of the denominations currently embracing homophilia and sodomy can demonstrate that their doctrine/practice/policy extends back more than a decade or two.

Your question, however, gets to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.

The only way in which homosexual marriage can become the legitimate law of the land is if the people themselves choose to make it so.

Not imposed on them by a black-robed cabal of false priests.

Not forced down their throats by unelected a/o unaccountable bureaucrats.

ONLY by a plebescite of the people.

As I stated above, the Constitution and all of our laws are predicated on a collective moral standard.

ONLY the voice of the people can legitimately alter that standard in so fundamental a fashion.

Note, however, that such a vote changes only the social contract- it does not change the fundamental morality of the act, nor does it change God's eternal standards.

We, as a society, are warned repeatedly about the dangers of such "tinkering"- and the consequences which occur when the people choose iniquity over virtue and deviancy over morality.

Those agitating for homosexual "marriage" may delude themselves by pretending that because it is fashionable, it is just, or that because it is legal that it is moral, but that will not change eternal truths.

They may quite happily sacrifice obedience to eternal law on the pagan altar of "hip, cool, and non-judgemental", but all of their piety in the worship of Babylon, all of their itching ears, and all of the sweet words of their false prophets will not avail them when they stand before God.

Edited May 4, 2013 by selek

[Lakumi]

There is a lot of things humans once did-lets use America as an example

Slavery, that's certainly immoral. Wasn't always so.

Back in the day it was accepted, like polygamy or that women were less then men.

Things like that, just examples of things changed in our semi-modern day which we look back on and wonder how we could ever think that way.

I really don't know how to respond to the whole "God's eternal standards" I don't believe what you do.

I'm not an Athiest, but I don't believe I will be judged for belieivng in gay marriage.

Thowing beliefs like that will get us no where, as I said, we're not at all on the same page and it will only amount to "you'll be judged" and me replying with "I don't believe in that"

Edited May 4, 2013 by Lakumi

[jerome1232]

Something going through my head, a part of the argument for ssm is the pursuit of happiness.

I believe my union with my Wife to be recognized by God, and I don't need California, or Washington to further sanction it, it is nice however for them to do so.

While I would never deny someone the right to from a consenting bonding relationship, I don't see state sanctioned unions and all the legal benefits granted herein as a right, I view that as a privilege. What are your thoughts, is it your right to have the state sanction and bestow legal benefits onto your union? Does the state only sanctioning specific relationships equate to unequal protection under the law?

edit:

A review of history, and you'll find that slavery was always controversial.

[selek]

There is a lot of things humans once did-lets use America as an example.

Oh please, let's not be quite so jingoistic, shall we?

There are plenty of sins to go around- there's no need to single out America as an example.

Slavery, that's certainly immoral. Wasn't always so.

Hmmm... America fought a brutal civil war (a couple of hundred thousand of her own dead) over a century ago to settle that question and others.

Yet slavery was practiced well into the 20th century by other "enlightened" nations...

Abolition of slavery timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we consider the sex-trafficking and other slavery going on in the world, the United States (with its backwards and regressive moral code) comes out near (if not at) the top of the heap in trying to prevent such evils.

Methinks that might not be so useful an argument as you'd hoped.

Back in the day it was accepted, like polygamy or that women were less then men.

Ironically-hoary old stereotypes and bigoted caricatures notwithstanding- Mormon polygamists (boo, hiss) were nearly always at the forefront of women's equality.

Women in Utah were among the first to enjoy universal suffrage- though, ironically, the Federal government stripped them of those rights in their campaign against the LDS faith (in the name, of all things, of equality and justice).

Once again, it was the State imposing its standards of morality on the people that led to hardship and suffering.

Why, then, having studied history, should we assume that the State imposing this new standard upon the people will be anymore successful or productive?

Things like that, just examples of things changed in our semi-modern day which we look back on and wonder how we could ever think that way.

I happen to agree- presentism (and its associated hubris and arrogance) are one of the greatest modern sins.

Very insightful, that.

[selek]

I really don't know how to respond to the whole "God's eternal standards" I don't believe what you do.

I'm not an Athiest, but I don't believe I will be judged for belieivng in gay marriage.

And if you can get enough like-minded people to agree with you, you are free to change the social contract (the laws and Constitution) to reflect your belief.

Until that happens, however, you do not have veto authority over the rest of us.

[Lakumi]

You make good points, but seem not above insulting me (least thats what I got from some of that) but then it always seems like debates devolve into insults

[Lakumi]

And if you can get enough like-minded people to agree with you, you are free to change the social contract (the laws and Constitution) to reflect your belief.

Until that happens, however, you do not have veto authority over the rest of us.

All I said is I didn't know how to respond to that

not that I had athority over anyone and btw, where I live, Canada, same sex marriage is legal

[carlimac]

We are not living 30 years ago.

So we need to figure out what has changed and are we in a better place as a society now than we were 30 years ago?

[carlimac]

I stand corrected. I meant incestuous marriages, not siblings specifically.

With your premise about homosexual couples not able to produce viable offspring, are you going then to ban heterosexual couples who wish to marry but they are unable to have children or perhaps choose not to have them at all?

This is the oldest argument in the book and so obviously inane that I'm surprised that some still try to use it. It's twisting the issue and trying to come through the back door to trick the opponent.

Conceiving children isn't the only purpose of marriage. Goes without saying that some won't be able to conceive. But it is impossible to perpetuate the species in the ways that are determined by basic biology without each gender participating. Not exactly a news flash.

[carlimac]

deviancy to who?

your church?

that's fine and well but what about those who don't share your beliefs. some religions don't see homosexuality as a sexual and moral deviancy.

why are your beliefs more important and stand higher then mine

It's biologically deviant. Men are not physically constructed to have sex with each other. Nor are women. Can they do it? sure but not without using parts that weren't meant to be used for that purpose. Sexually/biologically physically deviant.

[bytor2112]

I don't believe I have the right to impose my perceived views on morality, my personal views on what is perverse lifestyle and my opinion of the Adversary to other people who do not believe as I do.

But of course we already do...thou shall not steal, thou shall not murder, etc. And, yet, others morality or lack of is imposed, nay thrust upon us like abortion or G/L marriage without consideration of the impact on society.

It is more than our personal view that homosexuality is perverse or unnatural. It is against nature itself and definitely not normal. 3% percent of the population or so claim to have same sex attraction and we do some hand wringing and next thing you know, they are "marrying".

The Devil was at the gate and now he is knocking at the door with a a toothy grin and oh so many are saying "come on in...".

[selek]

You make good points, but seem not above insulting me (least thats what I got from some of that) but then it always seems like debates devolve into insults

If you'd care to specify what you perceived to be an insult, I'll happily take the time to confirm or deny the charge.

As others here can attest, I am NOT a subtle individual.

When I choose to deliberately insult someone, there's very little gray area about it.

As to the "veto" notion, I was referring to the more general "you can't impose your morality on others" nonsense.

In point of fact, we do it every day- even in a den of libertines such as Canada.

From the speech codes with which your broadcasters are forced to comply, to the campaign of low-level terrorism and harassment which your government inflicts on those who won't drink the homophile koolaid, that is precisely what is being done.

Whenever you tell a child, "Don't hit other people", "Apologize", "Be nice", or even "Don't pee in the fishbowl!", you are imposing your moral vision on others.

There is not a single law you can name which does not have someone's personal moral vision at its root, and our collective assent as its justification.

As much as they'd like to, the prohomosexual marriage lobby doesn't get to dismiss our voice a priori just because they don't agree with what we have to say.

Edited May 5, 2013 by selek

[Wordnerd]

even in a den of libertines such as Canada.

Please tell me that was hyperbole. Canada is as diverse in opinions and morals as the US. However we have a strong centralized government giving the PC crowd only one target to have to take over. The federal government legalized same sex marriage, leaving the provincial governments little choice in the matter. (Alberta was going to attempt a legal challenge but found it too precarious a position). Be thankful that your government is structured differently because your forefathers fought to make you citizens of your country, rather than subjects of the crown, or you would probably be kowtowing to the PC crowd like we are. Its only a matter of time for the US as well, unless the trend is reversed. Obviously my feelings are clear, I don't agree with same sex marriage or with how it has been shoved down our throats here. While I love my country and have no desire to leave, I recognize that we are legally and actually less free than US citizens, due to the structure of our government and our constitution. So please don't judge our collective morals based on what our government does, and I won't judge yours based on your president's opinions:)

[selek]

Please tell me that was hyperbole.

More than that, it was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

So please don't judge our collective morals based on what our government does, and I won't judge yours based on your president's opinions:)

Seems like an equitable arrangement to me.

[Guest]

I'm adopted and was raised mainly by males. I am very feminine, heterosexual and I am very healthy. So I don't believe you necessarily need both genders to raise a child. However, I do understand your point on the influence of both genders.

Fact remains that you grew up disadvantaged and was able to make something out if it. That doesn't mean that disadvantage should become accepted as normal. A child cannot choose the family he grows up in, unfortunately.

When the US accepted divorce and single parenthood as normal, it had a great impact to society that you are reaping the fruits of today.

[carlimac]

Fact remains that you grew up disadvantaged and was able to make something out if it. That doesn't mean that disadvantage should become accepted as normal. A child cannot choose the family he grows up in, unfortunately.

When the US accepted divorce and single parenthood as normal, it had a great impact to society that you are reaping the fruits of today.

We're all reaping those fruits.

[Echo2002]

I don't understand why the President congratulated this guy, like Vort said, "coming out" is all the rage now days...who cares?

I bet that football player feels left out.

[Guest Godless]

While I would never deny someone the right to from a consenting bonding relationship, I don't see state sanctioned unions and all the legal benefits granted herein as a right, I view that as a privilege.

A privilege on what grounds?

What are your thoughts, is it your right to have the state sanction and bestow legal benefits onto your union?

I believe that it is the right of two consenting adults to love and marry whomever they choose, and to reap the legal benefits that come with state-sanctioned marriage.

Does the state only sanctioning specific relationships equate to unequal protection under the law?

Yes. Same sex couples not only have a right to be together, but they also have the right (not privilege) to the same legal protections and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

And you're right, a large part of the argument surrounding this issue comes down to the individual right to the pursuit of happiness. I've always argued that people have the right to do what makes them happy, on the sole condition that another person's rights and/or happiness are not compromised as a result.

[Guest Steph1ani1e]

I might never remarry and/or end up marrying someone who isn't any better and I will have destroyed my family for nothing.

[selek]

I believe that it is the right of two consenting adults to love and marry whomever they choose, and to reap the legal benefits that come with state-sanctioned marriage.

The operative words, of course, are "I believe".

You have stated no rational basis in support of that belief.

If memory serves, you have previously expressed support for prohibitions on incestuous and polygamous marriages. By definition, those qualifiers limit your claim of "whomever they choose".

So, we are left with a binary solution set: either you are being dishonest and hyprocritical in your claims, or you are the living embodiment of the "slippery slope" argument which same-sex advocates routinely dismiss as "unrealistic" and "ludicrous".

Which is it?

Yes. Same sex couples not only have a right to be together, but they also have the right (not privilege) to the same legal protections and benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Assertion is not proof. Allegation is not reason.

You have offered no rational or legal basis for your claim.

Moreover, you are begging the question.

I've always argued that people have the right to do what makes them happy, on the sole condition that another person's rights and/or happiness are not compromised as a result.

Ironically, you just destroyed your own argument.

It is a matter of historical record that the same-sex "marriage" cause celebre has had deleterious effects on the freedoms of others: notably, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and the right to be secure in person, houses, papers, and effects.

The pro-sodomite lobby has aggressively interfered in the right to worship as people see fit, in their rights to speak their mind without fear of reprisal, or harassment, and has waged an aggressive campaign of low-level intimidation and terrorism.

People have been assaulted, their businesses disrupted, their careers and livelihoods destroyed, their homes and places of worship invaded and profaned, and their right to educate their children denied.

By the standard you yourself just announced, the same-sex "marriage" agenda is unworthy of your support.

Edited May 7, 2013 by selek