[Finger Laker]

Originally Posted by Goodpasture

But doesn't this mean that the gay conspiracy is going to promote the gay agenda and we will be inundated by dogs marrying cats and none of them will be baptized??????

Unfortunately yes.

Not only are dogs and cats going to cross breed amongst their own kind, they are going to start crossing with each other.

Pretty soon you'll have plural relations where a pair of gay dogs marry a straight cat just to keep up the image that they are getting some feline tail

Once the children see this, they will become sad and confused and why won't anyone think of the children!!!!!

After that, they will grow up without any moral direction or compass and the world will collapse upon itself

[Goodpasture]

So you are saying it isn't just priests and preachers who are after a little "cat" on the side?

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by danielj72

I think my posts have made my position clear but you keep asking for me to answer specific questions so here you go.
1. How will gay marriage help push this country to the breaking point. ------ There already is a lot of anger in this nation over the liberal vs conservative thing. Issues like Gun control, Abortion, expensive socialist programs, Obamacare etc. Gay marriage is a big issue adding to that anger and division. Having the progressives use courts to thwart the will of the people of the states, this in my opinion pushes this country closer to a division that cannot be healed. The divisions in this nation my eventually end up being solved in a civil war or rebellion, it happened once and it can happen again. Our divisions are as serious if not more serious than they were in 1860.

2. How will it affect my marriage, or anyones marriage?----- Marriage is a gift from God, Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Only a man and woman can be married, no matter what any government says. Christians will never recognize a gay marriage. Directly it does not affect each married couple, but it affects marriage as an institution. Society will take marriage less seriously if it is cheapened by legal gay marriage. Modern morals have already damaged marriage, adultery and divorce have taken their toll, and now the next step, gay marriage.

3. Can you point to any example where a negative result has occurred from gay marriage in any nation where it is legal?
THe first place that comes to mind is the Roman Empire. Homosexuality was accepted in general in the Roman Empire, although admittedly it was just one part of the decadent immorality that plagued Rome. This immorality is often credited with being part of what weakened the empire making it vunerable to the barbarian invasions. In modern times most nations that legalized homo marriage are in Europe, a place where drugs are often legal, prostitution is legal, so it is just one issue among many they have. From what I have read Europe has lost its Christian foundations, atheism is common and marriage rates are low. Gay marriage has been around longer there than it has in any US state, but it is still a new thing there. Its full effect on society there will take decades to revel itself. One thing is true without doubt. Moral decay will bring harm to our society, and open and accepted homosexuality is moral decay.


4. Why do I keep lumping you in with progressives and Obama?--- Ok I guess I have no idea what your position is on fiscal issues, or other issues dealing with government involvement in our lives. However most people who are rabidly pro-gay are usually Kool-Aid drinking libs on other issues as well. Maybe your on the right side when it comes to socialism, I don't know. Now you keep suggesting im not a real conservative. This I want to address. I am a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. I do not advocate for more government involvement in anyone's life. Just because I don't believe the state should allow gay marriage does not make me a "nanny stater". I am asking government to do nothing here, literally nothing on the issue. I am an ardent states rights advocate so I believe if gay marriage is to be allowed it should only be when the people of a state support this. I personally despise the idea of gay marriage but I support the right of a liberal state to enact its laws according to its value system. In same I expect red states to be allowed to do the same. Anything else is violation of the constitution and "we the people" should not stand for it.


These are my answers, and I have no doubt you will still claim I did not really answer them the way you want, and they will be dismissed as "baseless nonsense". In fact I suspect that anything that opposes your viewpoint on this issue would always be considered baseless nonsense.

Religion is totally and completely IRRELEVANT when it comes to public policy. I'll make a deal with you. You keep religion out of the lives of everyone that's not a member of your church and I won't push to tax your religious organizations.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008

To your assertion in bold, sadly I'd have to say you're right on the money. We can't argue against what's obvious in society: in general, a very low view of the marriage bond/commitment.

And adding to that... look at how many same-sex couples don't want to get married until it's legal in their home state. Obviously, these couples not only feel so much of an attachment to their home states that they want it to be special, but these couples value the institution of marriage so much that they're willing to wait until it's legal. A good example are two lesbians who were with each other for quite some time, and I first read about them in a history book: Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. The two women became activists during the massive civil rights movements happening in the latter 20th century. These two met each other in 1950, lived together in San Francisco and didn't marry each other until it became legal in California in 2008. They valued marriage so much they wanted it to be special. Furthermore, same-sex couples in New York could have married in neighboring Connecticut, but chose to wait until it had more meaning and became legal in their home state.

I don't understand how these fundamentalist nuts can be so passionate about something that represents love, yet be so full of hate on the same issue. I know they view themselves as valiant warriors of God... but to logical people they just sound insane. I mean, look at this:

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." - Pat Robertson

That is just insanity. It's quite the opposite too... actually Christians went on witch hunts for gays and lesbians through the 1970s and would commit atrocities to them. Hmm... which one sounds more like Nazi behavior? I can't even go into the rest of that quote, because I could write a thesis on how ludicrous that statement is. And just as insane:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."-Jerry Falwell, in response to the 9/11 attacks.

When these kooks post this vitriol, and dedicate their lives to trying to make others miserable, it makes them look mentally disturbed. So to wrap this up with a couple of apt quotes that apply to a number of people posting on this thread:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions." -Blaise Pascal

[lrmsd]

I've read through about half of this thread...and I'm a little confused: Civil marriage is a contract, a government contract. It is not an act of god or religious. So, I don't really follow the argument that federal recognition of the rights of consenting adults to enter into a legal contract, is somehow related to god's will. If the second amendment is constitutional, and therefore legally enforceable, the same holds true for civil rights-all men are created equal, blah blah blah. Though, of course, when that was written, only land owning white men, for the most part, were of that 'created equal' status.

I think people will always congregate around like minds/lifestyles, with or without federal mandate. But you cannot have it both ways-ie, government protects only the rights you think are important. It's illogical at best.

Also, there is no 'set' reality in a libertarian mindset. Or in actual reality. Of course there will be discussion, debate, arguing. Letting a book or a law take the place of thinking and dynamic discussion is just lazy. They're meant to be guides, not absolutes. Unless one does not want to be a sovereign human being; in that case-live by the book, but the world around you will continue to change. It's inevitable.

And someone on this thread said 'think of the children', tongue in cheek. Actually, I hope we do---age of consent for marriage should be 18. And we should devote considerable resources and attention towards childrens' rights and prevention/intervention regarding abuse of all kinds. The same resources that are being usurped to fight marriage between consenting adults.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

Religion is totally and completely IRRELEVANT when it comes to public policy. I'll make a deal with you. You keep religion out of the lives of everyone that's not a member of your church and I won't push to tax your religious organizations.

Yea, I know. It's perplexing, really...I mean, separation of church and state: Hello! Kind of a key factor in the founding of the U.S. and all...I don't get how one could argue that gun control is second amendment and is a 'totally separate thing', but civil rights and separation of church and state are not relevant to the constitution.???? I'm sure non protestant folks whose ancestors came to the US from England, for example, are really happy that their forefathers fought for their right to worship as they please, so why is this so hard for them to grasp? It's confusing to me....

[Rubi3]

Originally Posted by Chelito23

When I said YOU and addressed your biggotry directly, it was obvious I was speaking to you. You were obviously confused, but I forgive you for not being able to keep up with the exchange.

So back to the issue, how is it again that gay marriage is affecting YOUR marriage?

***********Crickets***************

I'm not against gay marriage.

[lrmsd]

Originally Posted by danielj72

I think my posts have made my position clear but you keep asking for me to answer specific questions so here you go.
1. How will gay marriage help push this country to the breaking point. ------ There already is a lot of anger in this nation over the liberal vs conservative thing. Issues like Gun control, Abortion, expensive socialist programs, Obamacare etc. Gay marriage is a big issue adding to that anger and division. Having the progressives use courts to thwart the will of the people of the states, this in my opinion pushes this country closer to a division that cannot be healed. The divisions in this nation my eventually end up being solved in a civil war or rebellion, it happened once and it can happen again. Our divisions are as serious if not more serious than they were in 1860.

2. How will it affect my marriage, or anyones marriage?----- Marriage is a gift from God, Adam and Eve were the first married couple. Only a man and woman can be married, no matter what any government says. Christians will never recognize a gay marriage. Directly it does not affect each married couple, but it affects marriage as an institution. Society will take marriage less seriously if it is cheapened by legal gay marriage. Modern morals have already damaged marriage, adultery and divorce have taken their toll, and now the next step, gay marriage.

3. Can you point to any example where a negative result has occurred from gay marriage in any nation where it is legal?
THe first place that comes to mind is the Roman Empire. Homosexuality was accepted in general in the Roman Empire, although admittedly it was just one part of the decadent immorality that plagued Rome. This immorality is often credited with being part of what weakened the empire making it vunerable to the barbarian invasions. In modern times most nations that legalized homo marriage are in Europe, a place where drugs are often legal, prostitution is legal, so it is just one issue among many they have. From what I have read Europe has lost its Christian foundations, atheism is common and marriage rates are low. Gay marriage has been around longer there than it has in any US state, but it is still a new thing there. Its full effect on society there will take decades to revel itself. One thing is true without doubt. Moral decay will bring harm to our society, and open and accepted homosexuality is moral decay.


4. Why do I keep lumping you in with progressives and Obama?--- Ok I guess I have no idea what your position is on fiscal issues, or other issues dealing with government involvement in our lives. However most people who are rabidly pro-gay are usually Kool-Aid drinking libs on other issues as well. Maybe your on the right side when it comes to socialism, I don't know. Now you keep suggesting im not a real conservative. This I want to address. I am a social conservative and a fiscal conservative. I do not advocate for more government involvement in anyone's life. Just because I don't believe the state should allow gay marriage does not make me a "nanny stater". I am asking government to do nothing here, literally nothing on the issue. I am an ardent states rights advocate so I believe if gay marriage is to be allowed it should only be when the people of a state support this. I personally despise the idea of gay marriage but I support the right of a liberal state to enact its laws according to its value system. In same I expect red states to be allowed to do the same. Anything else is violation of the constitution and "we the people" should not stand for it.

These are my answers, and I have no doubt you will still claim I did not really answer them the way you want, and they will be dismissed as "baseless nonsense". In fact I suspect that anything that opposes your viewpoint on this issue would always be considered baseless nonsense.

I don't even know why Rome should be a pinnacle or reference point. Sure, they had power and came up with a few good inventions [many of which were originally celt or greek, but whatever...]..but the fact that their decadence brought them down is often brought up like we should be sad they eventually were sacked. I don't aspire to be Rome and unfortunately the US has far too many parallels, with gay marriage/rights being far down the list. Rome was not something to aspire to as far as human culture, human dignity/intelligence or, in my view, from a religious/spiritual point of view.. Not exactly full of great humans or equal rights, if you read the books (throwing people to the lions for entertainment, gladiators...].

It's funny, even in my kids' school books today, they tout the Roman prowess, spend an inordinate amount of time covering it and its fall [with nothing about Ancient Greece, save for the myths]-over and over again, and discuss how the 'poor romans had a hard time handling the celts and everyone around the romans wanted a piece of their land' etc. It's so bizarre. Of course people did not like the romans taking their land, telling them how to live their lives, how to dress, taking their women as property, etc. Ahem.

So, no, I do not think that rome falling due to decadence as ONE SMALL FACTOR, is a reason to believe that gay marriage is some huge force that is taking down western culture/civilization. Nor was it representative of the main reasons that rome fell, such as too rapid expansion, corrupt leadership siphoning wealth, unequal rights of citizens/slaves, etc. If anything, decadence relevant to today's world would be rampant materialism and living beyond means, credit over extension to buy toys and large homes/cars, vacations, etc.

I don't think anyone should be sad, nor happy, that rome fell. It's history and we could learn from it-that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. but the Romans are not to be glorified, worshiped or a model for future societies, in my view. No, not a good example. I think we can take positives (though personally I like a celtic-like decentralized lifestyle a little better than huge cities that all but require many laws and control over the individual, due to their size and scale. So yea, nice roads, but I'd rather have rights, thanks.) from any past civilization and learn from the negatives.

I don't think it's a good 'source' for backing up your argument that gay marriage has been responsible or an influence on the downfall of past societies. Industrialization, technology and capitalism and urbanization are huge influences on the breakdown of institutions, including family and church. I think if you check a little further into that Europe thing, you might find a correlation or two there. (:

side note: A few years ago I was researching my geneology in NE Canada---interesting that from my grandmother's time and backward, births and marriages were only registered with the catholic church. With government registration came further breakdown of the influence of the church. From the frying pan to the fire, perhaps...

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by lrmsd

I don't even know why Rome should be a pinnacle or reference point. Sure, they had power and came up with a few good inventions [many of which were originally celt or greek, but whatever...]..but the fact that their decadence brought them down is often brought up like we should be sad they eventually were sacked. I don't aspire to be Rome and unfortunately the US has far too many parallels, with gay marriage/rights being far down the list. Rome was not something to aspire to as far as human culture, human dignity/intelligence or, in my view, from a religious/spiritual point of view.. Not exactly full of great humans or equal rights, if you read the books (throwing people to the lions for entertainment, gladiators...].

It's funny, even in my kids' school books today, they tout the Roman prowess, spend an inordinate amount of time covering it and its fall [with nothing about Ancient Greece, save for the myths]-over and over again, and discuss how the 'poor romans had a hard time handling the celts and everyone around the romans wanted a piece of their land' etc. It's so bizarre. Of course people did not like the romans taking their land, telling them how to live their lives, how to dress, taking their women as property, etc. Ahem.

So, no, I do not think that rome falling due to decadence as ONE SMALL FACTOR, is a reason to believe that gay marriage is some huge force that is taking down western culture/civilization. Nor was it representative of the main reasons that rome fell, such as too rapid expansion, corrupt leadership siphoning wealth, unequal rights of citizens/slaves, etc. If anything, decadence relevant to today's world would be rampant materialism and living beyond means, credit over extension to buy toys and large homes/cars, vacations, etc.

I don't think anyone should be sad, nor happy, that rome fell. It's history and we could learn from it-that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. but the Romans are not to be glorified, worshiped or a model for future societies, in my view. No, not a good example. I think we can take positives (though personally I like a celtic-like decentralized lifestyle a little better than huge cities that all but require many laws and control over the individual, due to their size and scale. So yea, nice roads, but I'd rather have rights, thanks.) from any past civilization and learn from the negatives.

I don't think it's a good 'source' for backing up your argument that gay marriage has been responsible or an influence on the downfall of past societies. Industrialization, technology and capitalism and urbanization are huge influences on the breakdown of institutions, including family and church. I think if you check a little further into that Europe thing, you might find a correlation or two there. (:

side note: A few years ago I was researching my geneology in NE Canada---interesting that from my grandmother's time and backward, births and marriages were only registered with the catholic church. With government registration came further breakdown of the influence of the church. From the frying pan to the fire, perhaps...

That guy you're responding to has a poor grasp on history... and reality.

Is "moral decay" also the reason for the collapse of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Arabia, Khmer, the Ottomans, Byzantium, Carthage, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Sumeria, the Hittites, Incas, Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs, Mayas, Cahokia, Hohokam, Songhai, Tibet, Indus Valley Civilization, Maurya, Majapahit, Ayutthaya and who could forget the Holy Roman Empire? Also, does "moral decay" explain how nations still in existence have lost an amount ranging from a bit to a lot after their imperial days, such as England, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Japan, Mongolia, Mexico, Korea, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Colombia and Portugal?

Note: neither list is by any means comprehensive.

Or does he aspire for America to reach the piety and glory of other theocratic nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? Places where religion rules, and freedoms/liberties in people rank amongst the world's lowest.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by danielj72

1. How will gay marriage help push this country to the breaking point. ------ There already is a lot of anger in this nation over the liberal vs conservative thing. Issues like Gun control, Abortion, expensive socialist programs, Obamacare etc. Gay marriage is a big issue adding to that anger and division.

As well it should be as long as there is a significant group of consenting adults in our country who are the victims of systematic bigotry and discrimination which, as pointed out several times, is precisely what opposition to same sex marriage is.

There has always, and will ever be, divisions in society, People of differing views and opinions. That does not mean one group gets to dictate what freedoms and rights another group can engage in.

You do not have the right to NOT be offended, nor do you have the right to dictate how others live based on your own opinions and biases.

Using a previous example, some people really fear and dislike guns. They would like to severely restrict access to them, or attempt to eliminate them or illegalize them altogether. Does that give them the right to prevent you or I from owning guns? No! And it shouldn't. Nobody is forcing them to own a gun or deal with guns.

Some people are anti-hunting. Fine for them. They don't have to go hunting then. Should they have the power to prevent you or I from hunting? Certainly not.

By the exact same principle, just because someone is offended or disgusted by homosexuality or opposes same sex marriage, should they be able to prevent other consenting adults who love each other from marrying and having the same privileges as other consenting adult couples? No, of course not. Those people don't have to enter into a same sex marriage.

Abortion? Same principle again. Don't like them? Then don't have one. But it's none of your business if someone else chooses to, and you shouldn't have the power to restrict someone else's rights to private, individual decisions such as these. This is what we call liberty.

How will it affect my marriage, or anyones marriage?----- Marriage is a gift from God, Adam and Eve were the first married couple...

Well, this is merely your opinion and not based on any fact whatsoever, rather ancient myths. Beyond that, as has been pointed out, even in The Bible marriage is not limited to one man/one woman.

More importantly, who cares? We do not, nor should we, use ancient holy texts, be they Judeo-Christian or those of any other culture, as the basis for our legislation. If you want that, you can go to the Middle East or someplace living under Sharia Law.

Only a man and woman can be married, no matter what any government says.

This is truly ridiculous, as there are many, many married couples who aren't composed of a man and a woman.

Christians will never recognize a gay marriage.

And yet there are many gay Christians, and married same sex couples who are Christian.

For those Christians who "will never recognize a gay marriage"--more power to them! They don't have to like it, they don't have to engage in it, they don't have to accept it or recognize it as a "real" marriage based on their religious biases if they don't want to. This has nothing to do with actual law.

Directly it does not affect each married couple, but it affects marriage as an institution. Society will take marriage less seriously if it is cheapened by legal gay marriage. Modern morals have already damaged marriage, adultery and divorce have taken their toll, and now the next step, gay marriage.

Other than your personal biblical views, what exactly is there about gay marriage that is "immoral?"

Would you consider gay marriage more or less "immoral" than divorce, adultery, etc.?

Can you comprehend how silly and weak it sounds when someone essentially says "We need to keep marriage strong! I know how to do it--let's prevent thousands of loving, committed, consenting adult couples from being able to marry each other!"

Honest question: how would you feel if you had been born into a society where, for whatever reason, heterosexuals were a minority and were not allowed to marry while the majority of homosexuals were allowed to? Try putting yourself in someone else's place for once.

...The first place that comes to mind is the Roman Empire.

Apparently this isn't just the first but the only place that has come to your mind, and your "argument" here has already been validly picked apart several times in this thread. You know, a person is free to be wrong in their opinions; they can't be wrong in their facts and expect to be be taken seriously on any level.

In modern times most nations that legalized homo marriage are in Europe, a place where drugs are often legal, prostitution is legal, so it is just one issue among many they have.

This doesn't really answer the question. For one thing, what do drugs and prostitution have to do with same sex marriage?

From what I have read Europe has lost its Christian foundations, atheism is common and marriage rates are low.

So? Again, what does this have to do with same sex marriage? And how, specifically, has the legalization of same sex marriage anywhere had any kind of negative impact? You do realize you haven't come up with a single example, don't you? And you even admit same sex marriage has no impact on anyone else's individual marriage.

One thing is true without doubt. Moral decay will bring harm to our society, and open and accepted homosexuality is moral decay.

And yet, aside from your personal religious opinions and biases, which you would seek to impose on everyone in our society, you can't come up with a single reason why anyone should find homosexuality or same sex marriage "immoral." And this only underscores the fact I have stated previously--that there IS no reason to be offended or disgusted by homosexuality or to oppose same sex marriage that isn't born of hate, fear, bigotry, ignorance, or some combination thereof. Not one reason.

Why do I keep lumping you in with progressives and Obama?--- Ok I guess I have no idea what your position is on fiscal issues, or other issues dealing with government involvement in our lives. However most people who are rabidly pro-gay are usually Kool-Aid drinking libs on other issues as well.

Actually, the issue has little to do with political ideology. Instead, it concerns those who are against systematic bigotry and discrimination and those who endorse it. Those who promote equal rights and those who oppose it.

These are my answers, and I have no doubt you will still claim I did not really answer them the way you want, and they will be dismissed as "baseless nonsense". In fact I suspect that anything that opposes your viewpoint on this issue would always be considered baseless nonsense.

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to try to post your answers. It is, however, a little difficult to have a rational, grown-up discussion on this topic with someone who seems to literally believe in Adam and Eve, believes their personal religious opinions should be enforced onto society at large, who equates homosexuality with "immorality" and who tosses around phrases like "homo marriage."

Incidentally, if your god Yahweh created Adam and Eve and is omniscient and omnipotent as he is alleged to be, then why did he create homosexuals? Or are they just the work of the equally fictional, legendary Devil?