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.
All these loving conservatives spewing their hatred in a safe place where you are anonymous. Very courageous. Wonder if this is how you were raised? Ever hear of live and let live? Nobody forces you to be around people you don’t like in your personal life.
I think it's more of Americans being fed up with the nonstop barrage of in your face petty drama and intolerance shown by the LGBTQ community than being uncomfortable with their lifestyles.
Is that really the ridiculous revisionist history that the Left is going with?
Marriage is specifically a religious function. It was more recently made into a government function.
Unless you are claiming that Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and Muslims placed heavy religious emphasis on a government function throughout their histories.
All that needed to be done was to make civil unions legally equivalent to marriage, and then allow gays to engage in civil union. Instead, they weren't satisfied until they corrupted the religious function of marriage. And, no, no matter what anyone says the deeper metaphysical-religious concept of marriage does not allow for same sex unions. Though, I'm also sure that most know nothing about it.
How does the consummation function of marriage, which is a legally and metaphysically significant act, work in a gay marriage anyhow? Do lesbians consummate it by licking one another and men consummate it by invading one another's colons? Neither act would fall within the definition (nor could it).
The entire situation is a farce forced on the public by un-elected judges. Don't expect widespread public satisfaction with it, no mater what meaningless names anyone can come up with. phobic this, phobic, that. Who cares... avoiding name-calling isn't worth what is given up. We know that you are plenty phobic as well, if that's the only tack and argument you have.
If you are speaking in terms of the metaphysical, why do you care what the relationship is called? The churches that didn't recognize the validity of gay marriages before they became legal undoubtedly still don't recognize it now, anymore than they recognize the validity of divorce and remarriage without an annulment.
If you are speaking in terms of the metaphysical, why do you care what the relationship is called? The churches that didn't recognize the validity of gay marriages before they became legal undoubtedly still don't recognize it now, anymore than they recognize the validity of divorce and remarriage without an annulment.
Because the religious and the government roles became unfortunately mixed in the institution of "marriage", thus making the government the gatekeeper of the religious institution.
At its core, religious marriage is a social function with a metaphysical foundation rooted in the act of opposites coming together to create. Its foundational to civilization. Anything that corrupts that definition, within the social institution of marriage and whether by government or not, corrupts "marriage".
Again, in order to stay out of the hair of the religious folk all that was needed was to make civil unions legally equal to marriage and then to allow gay civil unions. That would have satisfied every single practical requirement of pro-gay marriage advocates.
But that wasn't good enough. What they wanted was an incursion onto the religious territory of the religious people whom they despise, claiming that only gay "marriage" was equal and ignoring the practical solution that would have given everyone the same rights and legal status while preserving the religious sanctity of the institution.
So, that puts the question back to you. Why do gays care what the relationship is called?
They could have had legally equal civil unions, but instead deeply cared what it was called and chose to stoke the ire of the religious in this nation for as long as the law stands.
Do you think there won't be significant legal push-back in the perhaps distant future? There will be. Something will change in this nation and gay marriage will be significantly challenged in spite of the supreme court ruling.
The gay community could have won their game for legal rights and have been free of this battle for eternity. Instead, they chose to play poor chess. And after all of that struggle. It's a pity.
All these loving conservatives spewing their hatred in a safe place where you are anonymous. Very courageous. Wonder if this is how you were raised? Ever hear of live and let live? Nobody forces you to be around people you don’t like in your personal life.
Exactly. And they're trying to justify their hatefulness with flimsy assertions such as "if only they didn't flaunt their gayness in our faces" or "if only they weren't so loud about it". Kind of like how racist white people used to talk about "uppity Negroes" back in the 1950s.
Because the religious and the government roles became unfortunately mixed in the institution of "marriage", thus making the government the gatekeeper of the religious institution.
At its core, religious marriage is a social function with a metaphysical foundation rooted in the act of opposites coming together to create. Its foundational to civilization. Anything that corrupts that definition, within the social institution of marriage and whether by government or not, corrupts "marriage".
Again, in order to stay out of the hair of the religious folk all that was needed was to make civil unions legally equal to marriage and then to allow gay civil unions. That would have satisfied every single practical requirement of pro-gay marriage advocates.
But that wasn't good enough. What they wanted was an incursion onto the religious territory of the religious people whom they despise, claiming that only gay "marriage" was equal and ignoring the practical solution that would have given everyone the same rights and legal status while preserving the religious sanctity of the institution.
So, that puts the question back to you. Why do gays care what the relationship is called?
They could have had legally equal civil unions, but instead deeply cared what it was called and chose to stoke the ire of the religious in this nation for as long as the law stands.
Do you think there won't be significant legal push-back in the perhaps distant future? There will be. Something will change in this nation and gay marriage will be significantly challenged in spite of the supreme court ruling.
The gay community could have won their game for legal rights and have been free of this battle for eternity. Instead, they chose to play poor chess. And after all of that struggle. It's a pity.
Do you really think all gay people are anti-religion, or that they all hate religious people? I guarantee you that is not the case.
As for the question of who cares what legal partnerships are called, fine: it's a draw. I ask you, you ask me, and neither of us has an answer that will satisfy the other.
I still think you are wrong. If marriage really is a holy thing, no mortal power can destroy its sanctity - not even lying, cheating straight people with multiple divorces under their belts.
Exactly. And they're trying to justify their hatefulness with flimsy assertions such as "if only they didn't flaunt their gayness in our faces" or "if only they weren't so loud about it". Kind of like how racist white people used to talk about "uppity Negroes" back in the 1950s.
These people who talk about "flaunting" will only be satisfied with complete invisibility.
Homosexuality, in a shockingly short amount of time, went from "The love that dare not speak its name" to "The love that won't shut up."
Moral qualms aside, most people tend to adopt a "live and let live" attitude, in general. But the LBGT "lobby" isn't content with having everyone else tolerate their orientation, or even accepting it. No, they want to shove it down our throats, like it or not. For example, there are numerous cases where Christian florists or bakers or photographers have been financially ruined and driven out of business because they didn't want to provide their services to a gay wedding ceremony. Would it have really hurt the offended parties to just go and find someone else to provide them the services they want? Is it really necessary to destroy someone who disagrees with you?
Yet the Left wants to force Christians to violate their own consciences and participate in gay weddings, on pain of losing their livelihoods. Double standard, much?
Pretty funny, mentioning the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is a right expressly granted by that amendment. Freedom of orientation is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Why then, when the positions of gays and Christians clash, do the gays get preference?
Being Christian is a choice, being gay is not a choice.
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.
