Gay Marriage is a Lie: Honest or Disagree?

[Peterf]

Gay marriage is allowing two gay adults the same equality before the law that my wife and I had, when we paid $25 for a License from the State, a Marriage License, that changed our lives forever and so far, until death.

a civil union would do exactly the same thing, for you or a gay couple. The word "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

The gay agenda is not about equality or justice. Its about forcing the acceptance of the word marriage to describe a homosexual union.

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

Gay' marriage' is a fiction. Imo a pretty harmless fiction that will please some and harm almost no one but nevertheless a denial of reality.

It's news to me that big E Equality is a key American value. Do all citizens of your great nation spend an equal amount of time in jail? own an equal number of guns? have the same health care? are equally attractive to the opposite sex (or, in this context, to the same sex)? or even have the same income and identical shares of the national wealth?

 

[Redfish]

how many times need it be answered? men are XY and women are XX.

you are not making sense---must be a liberal thing.

Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?

Can anyone tell my why this is such a hard question to get an answer to?

no one is interested in playing your game with the trick question. the real question has been answered several times. now, either grow up or go away.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why did Christians risk being fed to the lions?

Well they must have felt something profound wouldn't you say, something they just couldn't ignore even though it put their very lives in grave danger? And they would have known that but done it anyway. Maybe something willed them to be that way?

And yet, folks like you repeatedly piss on religion and religious objection to same-gender "marriages" because of their belief in a "make-believe sky-god". Hypocrite much?

Not at all. If I feel very strongly that blue teapots dance on the moon should my beliefs be protected? Could I say I don't support gay marriage because the Big Blue Teapot on the Moon told me so and therefore I couldn't sell a wedding cake, or any cake for that matter, to these gay men?

 

[Redfish]

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

I apologize if the concept is too mentally challenging for you.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Millions of married people have no children, never had any children. Should they not be "married" unless they plan to have children? How long should we give them to make one if that's true?

There is nothing unique about the union of same sex. The unique aspect on a union only exists between males and females.

As far as the ability of a couple to have a child:

Some are too old. We do not discriminate due to old age
Some male/female couples cannot. We do not discriminate based on disability
Some male/female couples do not want to have children. Roe v Wade prohibits us from getting involved in their procreation

Male/male couples cannot procreate

Female/female couples cannot procreate

You fail to see this? How?

I don't fail to see it. He said Marriage was for making babies? Do you agree? Based on the above I think you wouldn't agree.

Unfortunately, government has afforded married couples additional monetary benefits. The benefits so provided can still be equally distributed to same-gender couples by making government certification of paired unions an official partnership using other means than "marriage". But gays are incapable of accepting the slight difference in semantics. Therefore, the only conclusion any sane person can draw is that their demand for equality under the law has less importance than forcing their choice of lifestyle down someone else's throat.

 

[Redfish]

a civil union would do exactly the same thing, for you or a gay couple. The word "marriage" applies only to the union of one man and one woman.

The gay agenda is not about equality or justice. Its about forcing the acceptance of the word marriage to describe a homosexual union.

That's just dumb. You are hung up on a word while missing a key American value, Equality. What matters more, the word or the value?

Gay' marriage' is a fiction. Imo a pretty harmless fiction that will please some and harm almost no one but nevertheless a denial of reality.

It's news to me that big E Equality is a key American value. Do all citizens of your great nation spend an equal amount of time in jail? own an equal number of guns? have the same health care? are equally attractive to the opposite sex (or, in this context, to the same sex)? or even have the same income and identical shares of the national wealth?

good points, it is a fiction. but one that garners way too much attention in this country. of all the problems we have, it amazes me that the media and the administration spend so much time on something so meaningless.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?

Can anyone tell my why this is such a hard question to get an answer to?

no one is interested in playing your game with the trick question. the real question has been answered several times. now, either grow up or go away.

"Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?"

That's a trick question? How do I know what a gay marriage is then if I don't say it's between two men and two women, not a man and a woman? If one of them says they're a woman and they marry a man now it's okay? What if they are male and female but they both think they are male, then it's a gay marriage?

It's a simple question. By law, if there are no gay marriages, does XY marry XY or XX?

 

[gallantwarrior]

As long as any straight couple who gets joined in a civil ceremony is said to have had a civil union, I have no problem with it.

But there are religions, recognized by the gov't, that have no problem with gays being married. Why can't they be married in that faith?

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You speculate all you like. The fact remains that people will risk death to engage in certain behaviors.

Let's say that you really wanted to have sex with a dog, but you knew we'd burn you at the stake if we caught you, you'd actually seen it happen before, would you still do it? Wouldn't you say to yourself, man I want to but if I get caught I'm dead, it's just not worth it? Now I'm sure a few would, but 1, or 2, or 3 out of a 100, year after year, age after age? That would be crazy wouldn't it?

Does that make having sex with dogs (or other animals) OK in your book? I guess having sex with children is OK, too. After all, it must be natural for some people to be "minor attracted".

The question is, if millions of people knew they were going to have a rough life, maybe even be killed because of it, why would they choose such a thing when all it is is a sex partner?

 

[Redfish]

Can anyone tell my why this is such a hard question to get an answer to?

no one is interested in playing your game with the trick question. the real question has been answered several times. now, either grow up or go away.

"Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?"

That's a trick question? How do I know what a gay marriage is then if I don't say it's between two men and two women, not a man and a woman? If one of them says they're a woman and they marry a man now it's okay? What if they are male and female but they both think they are male, then it's a gay marriage?

It's a simple question. By law, if there are no gay marriages, does XY marry XY or XX?

so now you want to get into transgender people? before or after the operation?

you get dumber with each post.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That church could sanctify their union, but their union is not a marriage.

What is so critical to you gays about the word "marriage" ? I know the answer, just want to hear one of you honestly admit it.

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no one is interested in playing your game with the trick question. the real question has been answered several times. now, either grow up or go away.

"Okay, so XX should always marry only XY, by law, correct?"

That's a trick question? How do I know what a gay marriage is then if I don't say it's between two men and two women, not a man and a woman? If one of them says they're a woman and they marry a man now it's okay? What if they are male and female but they both think they are male, then it's a gay marriage?

It's a simple question. By law, if there are no gay marriages, does XY marry XY or XX?

so now you want to get into transgender people? before or after the operation?

you get dumber with each post.

Why is it that you can't tell me, using genetics, how to figure out who is allowed to marry each other if there is no gay marriage allowed? Is it XX and XX, or XX and XY? This isn't rocket science here kids.

 

[Pop23]

If you get that from what I posted then you have quite an imagination.

No one is forcing acceptance of anything. I am not forced to accept Christianity, Judaism, Wicca, or Islam. The federal gov't recognizes them as religions. I see them as delusions.

You can still be bothered by gays, think their lifestyle is a sin, and not want to be gay. That is not a problem.

What IS a problem is that you demand that YOUR beliefs be the only ones validated by the gov't.

There are plenty of gay couples now. If they are joined in marriage, nothing that effects you is changed. But they gain the benefits bestowed by the federal gov't on consenting adult couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

No it recognizes the unique difference between the two institutions. If you can't see the difference then it is I that laughs my ass off.

 

[OKTexas]

Marriage is a word.
Equality is an American Founding Principle (people say).

Which one matters more?

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

 

[WinterBorn]

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

I apologize if the concept is too mentally challenging for you.

Mentally challenging?? lol

You are against gay marriage because of the word? How challenging is that? And it shows, quite clearly, that you are more interested in control of what people think than in actual issues.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Good question. If "civil union" accomplishes the same purpose and yields the same legal results?

You're a GOP voter right? If we pass a law that says we have Americans, who are Democrats, and we have Reprobats, who are Republicans, would that cause you any problem, as long as we treat you the same but you get called different things? It's the same right, just different words, like Puma and Mountain Lion? They're no different so there should be no issues correct?

Now you retreat to semantics, the last bastion of a loser, Good job.

Semantics is the issue when someone says marriage is for straight people and civil unions are for gay people. If they are the same, why do I need two words? And what's more important, a value, equality in this case, or a word? Let's see how honest you, don't play semantics just answer the questions.

 

[Iceweasel]

But what if it is part of the "natural" order? Will you accept it then?

It can't be because it takes heterosexuals to create them. They can't reproduce. Accepting it is one thing, I think most people do. But the problem is that we are told it is an alternative that's equally valid. It may be to the individuals but not to society as a whole. Opposite genders is how mankind exists. Homosexuality may be an interesting side note but it adds nothing to man's existence.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"Gay" marriage is a lie ?

Well, certainly the traditional definition of a marriage is one male and one female joining together in a union.

Obviously, we see it now being expanded to include two males, and or, two females joining in a union.

Eventually that will be further expanded to include more than two individuals.

Once it's all said and done, marriage will simply be so flippant, that the institution will fall by the wayside.

Progress, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the slow decline of humans on planet earth.

 

[WinterBorn]

I want gay couples to have equal rights. I want them to be able to make a committment to each other. I want the govt to recognize that committment.

But the gay agenda is not satisfied with that. Their agenda is not about equality and rights. Its about shoving their lifestyle in everyone else's face and having the govt sanction that shove.

its like the "hate crime" legislation, that its somehow worse if you are killed because you are gay than if you are killed in a theft.

Its about thought control-------Orwell and Rand saw it coming and wrote about it.

YOu are against gay marriage, but are fine with it as long as another word is used for the institution.

And you have the audacity to claim gays are about thought control? lmao Too funny!

No it recognizes the unique difference between the two institutions. If you can't see the difference then it is I that laughs my ass off.

I recognize that both involve Americans joining in a union because they love one another. That you choose to ignore that and focus solely on the sexual aspect shows your own issues. Laugh away.

But know that my side is winning.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But what if it is part of the "natural" order? Will you accept it then?

It can't be because it takes heterosexuals to create them. They can't reproduce. Accepting it is one thing, I think most people do. But the problem is that we are told it is an alternative that's equally valid. It may be to the individuals but not to society as a whole. Opposite genders is how mankind exists. Homosexuality may be an interesting side note but it adds nothing to man's existence.

So, straight people who can't have children, for whatever reason, or maybe even just don't have children, should be treated like gays? I mean, they aren't adding anything to man's existence now are they?

One could even say that they were worse, at least the ones that could have children but don't, since they are letting the species die right?