Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, I don't care about the words I use or the words someone else uses. You consider gays a political interest group. Politics shouldn't even be part of the discussion. I just consider them as a group of people wanting equal rights.
I don't necessarily "consider gays a political interest group." You know, there are gays who do not want "gay marriage." And there are many straights who do want it. Those who are pushing for "gay marriage" are by definition a "political interest group." They're a group, they have a common interest, and it has to do with politics. Rights and politics are inextricably linked.
We're talking about gay marriage right? As soon as you say gay you're bring sodomy into the discussion. I said sodomy is a perversion. I agree, it makes no sense to be talking about marriage and sodomy together but that is what we are doing. Gay marriage makes no sense.
The institution of marriage is this - he who made them in the beginning made them male and female. It is for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The idea that God will join together two men or two women is a false. Gay marriage is a perversion. Remember God destroyed the men of Sodom because of their wickedness.
That is not the original meaning of marriage. It had to do with property. The church made it religious. If god created us then he created gays as well.
It's simple. Redefinintion of words in the context of politics is a very bad idea. "Marriage" is an English word that has had a pretty clear definition for a long time. Now we've got a political interest group that wants to alter the definition.
The scary thing to me about the newspeak strategem is how effective it is. Consider the term "assault weapon," which was never used by firearms makers, but was coined by gun control advocates. Since it entered the lexicon, Americans have mostly supported banning them in polling, although doubtless few could define what it meant. Likewise with "partial birth abortion" on the right side of the aisle. It was a term never used by abortion providers, but coined by pro-life advocates. And likewise, poll data shows more often than not that Americans support a ban, even though most could not define it.
I am old enough to recall how the Nixon admin was famous for the use of newspeak. When caught in BS, they backtracked by terming said BS as "inoperative." The Obama admin is equally skilled at this game. Blowing billions of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of cronies is termed "economic stimulus" and the MSM buys it hook, line, & sinker.
If lefties and gay activists wanted to call it "civil unions," I would be on board in a heartbeat, as I think would 99 percent of Americans, even evangelicals. But that's not enough; the left insists that they must have the power to redefine a word. That makes me nervous.
who cares if you are on board? It's going to happen. This should be quite obvious by now. America is becoming a socially liberal society.
And by the way. This wouldn't be the first time we had to redefine marriage in this country. There was a time where inter-racial marriage was banned. What was the argument by the bigots back then? YOu guessed it...we shouldn't redefine the definition of marriage.
1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.
2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and
4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."
On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:
The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.
Interracial marriage is as old as the hills. "Gay marriage" is less than a decade old.
Hills are only 46 years old?
"The United States Supreme Court held laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional in the case Loving v. Virginia, (1967). At that time 16 states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriages. That decision ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage."
Nice try trying to say that we never banned interracial marriage in this country.
Originally Posted by MarkT3 We're talking about gay marriage right? As soon as you say gay you're bring sodomy into the discussion. I said sodomy is a perversion. I agree, it makes no sense to be talking about marriage and sodomy together but that is what we are doing. Gay marriage makes no sense.
Right, because heterosexuals NEVER engage in sodomy......
We're talking about gay marriage right? As soon as you say gay you're bring sodomy into the discussion. I said sodomy is a perversion. I agree, it makes no sense to be talking about marriage and sodomy together but that is what we are doing. Gay marriage makes no sense.
So you are cool with lesbians getting married?
Also, anal ain't just a gay thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
