Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Next up in conspiracy week: Atheists plan to take over America through subliminal messaging in Hollywood movies.

Obama, an illegal alien from another galaxy. His plan for global conquest revealed.

Obamacare. Healthcare or a communist plot to undermine America? The doctors who saw the mind altering agent reveal all.

ROFL!

Hey LOOK KIDS! It's a pitiful reduction to the absurd, offered up as an obscurant attempt to imply that there is no reason to worry about fire, just because of a little smoke.

You really are caught up in your own propaganda.

In the 1950s you would be right up there with Joe McCarthy, before he got censored of course.

You're speaking of the guy that warned the US that the US Culture and more specifically the US government was crawling with communist subversives?

Which we know through the remarkable clarity of history... that he was 100% correct?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are truly helpless.

ROFLMNAO!

That is ADORABLE!

 

[Skylar]

Yes they do

No, they don't. You've been lied to, as usual. Want to find out, use Google images and search for "scat sexual fetish", but not from work. The shit-eaters are straight, and seriously fucked-up.

IT's known as corophillia, and like like Homosexuality, beastiality, necrophilia and other sexual perversions - it's the activity of a diseased mind.

That's what they used to think about straights going down on each other, but no longer since it's normal. Ask your dad what he prefers, mommy's mouth is probably top of the list.

So what you're saying is that corophillia should be promoted amongst children like homosexuality is and while they're at it perhaps a few lessons - good idea go eat shit and let us know how it works out

What I saying is when you scream the fags are bad, you'll soon discover the straights are worse and what was Sexual Perversion changes over time, just like rug-munching and blowjobs are now considered NORMAL, since they are.

Yup. Oral sex was considered Sodomy for quite a many years. Oddly, republicans aren't coming out of the wood work to denounce the abomination that is the blowjob.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

 

[Skylar]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex.

But what if someone doesn't subscribe to your religious interpretations? You are using your faith as the basis of your assessment of immorality. And faith is about as subjective as it comes. And of course, religion is ridiculously subjective. You speak of the harm of adultery.......the Puritans killed adulterers and those committing sodomy. The founders only killed for sodomy. Modern day Christians in the US don't kill either.

So who is right? Did God's law change over the last 500 years? Or did the interpretations change? Or is it possible that you *all* got it wrong? And these are merely changes in the same faith, in the same cultural tradition, in the same general area, using the same language and the same religious texts.....separated merely by time.

If you go between cultures, between religions, between regions, between languages, between texts, you get even more radically diverse differences. And almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH Jesus and the Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that only one can of these mutually exclusive religions can be right. Which in turn means that ALL others are wrong.

Which means that by default, almost all religion is wrong by the very logic of theism.

And its so much worse than that: there's nothing that mandates that ANY religion got it right. And even if one managed it, religion is subject to time, personal interpretation, culture, society and personal context.

So how do you know that your interpretations and beliefs are correct? Especially when there are equally devout people that claim to speak for God (or Gods) that contradict you? You can't all be right. And there's nothing that requires that any of your are.

Which is why your 'God said so' basis of the immorality of homosexuality is so uselessly subjective. If I don't accept that you speak for God......you've got nothing. And I don't accept that you speak for God.

So why would homosexuality be immoral barring your Appeal to Authority?

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Yeah, but old people having sex after passing their reproductive years can't produce any children. So wouldn't any sex they have be solely for pleasure, incapable of producing children, and thus an abomination before God? Or at the very least, sexual deviancy?

But you carve out a special exemption for yourself. Demonstrating that you don't really buy your own 'unproductive sex is immoral' claim. And if you're unwilling to follow your beliefs consistently, surely you can understand why I don't put much credence in them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex.

But what if someone doesn't subscribe to your religious interpretations? You are using your faith as the basis of your assessment of immorality. And faith is about as subjective as it comes. And of course, religion is ridiculously subjective. You speak of the harm of adultery.......the Puritans killed adulterers and those committing sodomy. The founders only killed for sodomy. Modern day Christians in the US don't kill either.

So who is right? Did God's law change over the last 500 years? Or did the interpretations change? Or is it possible that you *all* got it wrong? And these are merely changes in the same faith, in the same cultural tradition, in the same general area, using the same language and the same religious texts.....separated merely by time.

If you go between cultures, between religions, between regions, between languages, between texts, you get even more radically diverse differences. And almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH Jesus and the Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that only one can of these mutually exclusive religions can be right. Which in turn means that ALL others are wrong.

Which means that by default, almost all religion is wrong by the very logic of theism.

And its so much worse than that: there's nothing that mandates that ANY religion got it right. And even if one managed it, religion is subject to time, personal interpretation, culture, society and personal context.

So how do you know that your interpretations and beliefs are correct? Especially when there are equally devout people that claim to speak for God (or Gods) that contradict you? You can't all be right. And there's nothing that requires that any of your are.

Which is why your 'God said so' basis of the immorality of homosexuality is so uselessly subjective. If I don't accept that you speak for God......you've got nothing. And I don't accept that you speak for God.

So why would homosexuality be immoral barring your Appeal to Authority?

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Yeah, but old people having sex after passing their reproductive years can't produce any children. So wouldn't any sex they have be solely for pleasure, incapable of producing children, and thus an abomination before God? Or at the very least, sexual deviancy?

At least according to the one interpretations of the one sect of the one religion of one god that you subscribe to.

You still haven't noticed that I don't respond to your "but how do you know there's a God" posts. If that's what you choose to believe, then according to the Scriptures, you're a fool

And I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's call them what they are:

Fecal Faggot Fiends.

Death and Decay, they worship it, even in their sexual rituals.

 

[Skylar]

You still haven't noticed that I don't respond to your "but how do you know there's a God" posts. If that's what you choose to believe, then according to the Scriptures, you're a fool

And I don't suffer fools gladly.

Or my 'what if I don't share your religious interpretation' questions either.

Can you see why your subjective faith that 'homsexuality is immoral' would be meaningless objectively? That unless someone already agreed with you, your reasoning would be equally meaningless?

This is the folly of the opponents of say, gay marriage. As most opponents are motivated as you are: by religious faith. But religious faith means exactly nothing in court. You'll need an objectively rational and logical reason for your opposition.

And you don't have one. You simply choose to believe that homosexuality is immoral. And we're not denying anyone any right because you make such an arbitrary choice.

And I don't suffer fools gladly.

That assumes that anyone who doesn't think exactly like you do is a fool. Whereas I assume that its possible for principled men and women to disagree without insulting each other.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex.

But what if someone doesn't subscribe to your religious interpretations? You are using your faith as the basis of your assessment of immorality. And faith is about as subjective as it comes. And of course, religion is ridiculously subjective. You speak of the harm of adultery.......the Puritans killed adulterers and those committing sodomy. The founders only killed for sodomy. Modern day Christians in the US don't kill either.

So who is right? Did God's law change over the last 500 years? Or did the interpretations change? Or is it possible that you *all* got it wrong? And these are merely changes in the same faith, in the same cultural tradition, in the same general area, using the same language and the same religious texts.....separated merely by time.

If you go between cultures, between religions, between regions, between languages, between texts, you get even more radically diverse differences. And almost all religions are mutually exclusive. It can't be BOTH Jesus and the Greek Pantheon of Gods. Which means that only one can of these mutually exclusive religions can be right. Which in turn means that ALL others are wrong.

Which means that by default, almost all religion is wrong by the very logic of theism.

And its so much worse than that: there's nothing that mandates that ANY religion got it right. And even if one managed it, religion is subject to time, personal interpretation, culture, society and personal context.

So how do you know that your interpretations and beliefs are correct? Especially when there are equally devout people that claim to speak for God (or Gods) that contradict you? You can't all be right. And there's nothing that requires that any of your are.

Which is why your 'God said so' basis of the immorality of homosexuality is so uselessly subjective. If I don't accept that you speak for God......you've got nothing. And I don't accept that you speak for God.

So why would homosexuality be immoral barring your Appeal to Authority?

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Yeah, but old people having sex after passing their reproductive years can't produce any children. So wouldn't any sex they have be solely for pleasure, incapable of producing children, and thus an abomination before God? Or at the very least, sexual deviancy?

At least according to the one interpretations of the one sect of the one religion of one god that you subscribe to.

You still haven't noticed that I don't respond to your "but how do you know there's a God" posts. If that's what you choose to believe, then according to the Scriptures, you're a fool

And I don't suffer fools gladly.

Well, they're doin' the very BEST they can... and besides, such is the nature of evil. It's illegitimate and there's nothing that can be done to make it so. But they CRAVE IT! Which is why they demand that the marriage standard be lowered to accommodate them, in the foolish hope that they will find legitimacy in that which is rinsed of legitimacy, the instant they become affiliated with it.

 

[Skylar]

Well, they're doin' the very BEST they can... and besides, such is the nature of evil.

Only if we use you as our arbiter of morality. Which I certainly don't. And I don't know of anyone who does.

You have an intimately subjective belief that you insist I follow....or I'm evil. And I don't put much value in your subjective beliefs. That you believe that your beliefs are universal and objective doesn't change the fact that they are intensely personal.

And I don't find your subjective beliefs to be any better than my subjective beliefs. And in many cases, I find your beliefs to be far worse.

It's illegitimate and there's nothing that can be done to make it so. But they CRAVE IT! Which is why they demand that the marriage standard be lowered to accommodate them. in the foolish hope that they wil find legitimacy in that which is rinsed of legitimacy, the instant they become affiliated with it.

If you were our arbiter of legitimacy, perhaps. But much like morality, you don't define that either. In 36 of 50 states, gay marriage is quite legal. That you disagree is irrelevant. As we don't use you as the basis of our laws either.

Get used to the idea.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

 

[Silhouette]

...that the U.S. has ever seen, Bryan Fischer claims.

On his "Focal Point" radio show, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer recently claimed that the "active, aggressive homosexual lobby" represented a threat to U.S. democracy.

As Right Wing Watch first reported, Fischer, who is no stranger to anti-gay declarations, told listeners, "I firmly believe the homosexual agenda represents the greatest single threat to religious liberty we have ever seen in the history of our existence as a nation."

Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty That The U.S. Has Ever Seen Bryan Fischer Claims

I also believe homosexuality is wrong. I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

I think this is a preamble for the new Congress about to be seated in a couple of weeks.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Homosexuality is the manifestation of a diseased mind. It is unhealthy both physically and psychologically. It is counter productive both on a personal level as well as a societal level. TRying to portray it "an alternative lifestyle" to society - in particular adolescents is criminal

Says who? Again, the pronouncement of immorality is arbitrary. Its wrongness is because its the product of a diseased mind. And its the product of a diseased mind because its wrong. That's an argument best measured in units of pi.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation. Or oral sex. Or old people fucking. But we don't hear the weeping and wailing a gnashing of teeth related to grammy and pop pop getting it on. Demonstrating just how arbitrary the value judgment against homosexuality actually is. On a societal level, what's the issue? Gays and lesbians have kids. They adopt. They work. They pay taxes. They contribute to society.

What's the big deal? What's the point of this bizarre obsession with how they get their nut? Why the value judgments? It seems a bizarre place to hang your moral hat.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation.

Celibacy and masturbation do not breed disease , they are normal and healthy. Homosexuality , being unnatural as well as abnormal is not healthy. It is a sexual perversion most frequently having its roots in early childhood trauma.

Homophobia is unnatural- it is caused by being born with extraordinarily small penises, and the subsequent trauma of being unable to find a woman who would stop laughing at them the first time the penis was exposed.

Homophobes roll in shit.

 

[Syriusly]

Says who? Again, the pronouncement of immorality is arbitrary. Its wrongness is because its the product of a diseased mind. And its the product of a diseased mind because its wrong. That's an argument best measured in units of pi.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation. Or oral sex. Or old people fucking. But we don't hear the weeping and wailing a gnashing of teeth related to grammy and pop pop getting it on. Demonstrating just how arbitrary the value judgment against homosexuality actually is. On a societal level, what's the issue? Gays and lesbians have kids. They adopt. They work. They pay taxes. They contribute to society.

What's the big deal? What's the point of this bizarre obsession with how they get their nut? Why the value judgments? It seems a bizarre place to hang your moral hat.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation.

Celibacy and masturbation do not breed disease , they are normal and healthy. Homosexuality , being unnatural as well as abnormal is not healthy. It is a sexual perversion most frequently having its roots in early childhood trauma.

[..., men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.....{gay} men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.

• HIV;
• Syphilis;
• Hepatitis B;
• Hepatitis C among gay men born from 1945 to 1965 or with risk behaviors;
• Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the rectum if you’ve had receptive anal sex, or been a “bottom” in the past year;
• Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the penis (urethra) if you have had insertive anal or oral sex in the past year;
• Gonorrhea of the throat if you’ve performed oral sex (i.e., your mouth on your partner’s penis, vagina, or anus) in the past year;

CDC - Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Gay and Bisexual Men s Health

In addition gay males are the most common victims of shigelosis - shigelosis comes from ingesting Human feces - basically Gay men are shit eaters

The shit eater is you little man. People present shit that reinforces your fears of gay men, and you swallow it right down, and smile.

You say that like shit eating is a bad thing. Gay men love it.

No, they don't

Yes they do

Perhaps that is your specific thing you do with your gay lovers.

but you are not speaking for all homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Says who? Again, the pronouncement of immorality is arbitrary. Its wrongness is because its the product of a diseased mind. And its the product of a diseased mind because its wrong. That's an argument best measured in units of pi.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation. Or oral sex. Or old people fucking. But we don't hear the weeping and wailing a gnashing of teeth related to grammy and pop pop getting it on. Demonstrating just how arbitrary the value judgment against homosexuality actually is. On a societal level, what's the issue? Gays and lesbians have kids. They adopt. They work. They pay taxes. They contribute to society.

What's the big deal? What's the point of this bizarre obsession with how they get their nut? Why the value judgments? It seems a bizarre place to hang your moral hat.

On a personal level, its no less 'productive' than say, celibacy. Or masturbation.

Celibacy and masturbation do not breed disease , they are normal and healthy. Homosexuality , being unnatural as well as abnormal is not healthy. It is a sexual perversion most frequently having its roots in early childhood trauma.

[..., men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. MSM often are diagnosed with other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections.....{gay} men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.

• HIV;
• Syphilis;
• Hepatitis B;
• Hepatitis C among gay men born from 1945 to 1965 or with risk behaviors;
• Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the rectum if you’ve had receptive anal sex, or been a “bottom” in the past year;
• Chlamydia and gonorrhea of the penis (urethra) if you have had insertive anal or oral sex in the past year;
• Gonorrhea of the throat if you’ve performed oral sex (i.e., your mouth on your partner’s penis, vagina, or anus) in the past year;

CDC - Sexually Transmitted Diseases - Gay and Bisexual Men s Health

In addition gay males are the most common victims of shigelosis - shigelosis comes from ingesting Human feces - basically Gay men are shit eaters

The shit eater is you little man. People present shit that reinforces your fears of gay men, and you swallow it right down, and smile.

You say that like shit eating is a bad thing. Gay men love it.

No, they don't, but plenty of straight men do. Scat is a straight thing, for the most part.

As usual , you're talking through where your partners dine -your ass. Scat or scatology is a science of feces identification and like you is irrelevant..

yet that is all you seem to be able to talk about....makes one go hmmmmmmmm

 

[Syriusly]

Let's call them what they are:

Fecal Faggot Fiends.

Death and Decay, they worship it, even in their sexual rituals.

Another homophobe obsessed with anal sex.

Is it because they fear being anally raped?

Or fear that they will never have anal sex?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

 

[Syriusly]

The shit eater is you little man. People present shit that reinforces your fears of gay men, and you swallow it right down, and smile.

You say that like shit eating is a bad thing. Gay men love it.

No, they don't

Yes they do

No, they don't. You've been lied to, as usual. Want to find out, use Google images and search for "scat sexual fetish", but not from work. The shit-eaters are straight, and seriously fucked-up.

IT's known as corophillia, and like like Homosexuality, beastiality, necrophilia and other sexual perversions - it's the activity of a diseased mind.

Yet you seem so much more familiar with it than any of us do.....makes one go hmmmmm.......

 

[Syriusly]

.

I'm still trying to work through the post pointing out that if I continue to support gay marriage I'll lose my house and car.

.

Let me know what you're getting hung up on.

Okay.

Let's take the gay couple across the street. Great guys, excellent neighbors, snappy dressers, moved into the neighborhood a little after us about 15 years ago.

Walk me through how their marriage would result in me losing my house and car.

.

That's the problem, you're not looking far enough down the future, which is how most mistakes are made. When states no longer have any powers and the federal government presumes preeminence in all matters whether it be an enumerated power granted by the Constitution or not, then no refuge avails against unbridled federal power. Marriage is a state prerogative by default. Every federal court decision finding a "right" that doesn't exist in the Constitution aggrandizes federal power and makes states rights more irrelevant. This may go swimmingly for you when it's an issue you agree with, but a government big enough to grant rights is also big enough to take them away.

So the issue isn't about who moves into your neighborhood, the issue is whether or not your vote means anything on a state level because its in the states that our founders, in all their wisdom, invested reprieve from federal tyranny.

Still no answer on how allowing gay marriage would cost him- or me- my house and car.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pretty Lame argument dumbass -in fact you're simply attempting to deflect the heat away from homosexuals - sorry pal - it doesn't work.

It works perfectly well if you apply the 'productive sex equals morality' standard consistently. If unproductive sex is evil, then it would follow that productive sex would be good.

You say it 'doesn't work'. Why?

And if you're just going to arbitrarily ignore any non-productive sex that doesn't fit your model or ignore the 'productive sex equals morality' model whenever it breaks.....then your standards are hopelessly subjective and superb examples of cherry picking.

Either the 'productive sex equals morality' standard works. Or it doesn't. Its one or the other. It isn't valid when you think it works and then suddenly becomes invalid when its inconvenient to your argument.

Immorality attaches itself to any sexual activity outside of the Divine design to create a family, whether children are possible or not. In Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" the case is made that sin enters when the pleasure of sex is made into an exclusive objective for sex. That's the driving fault behind contraceptives, homosexuality, and other forms of deviant sexual behavior. It's not to say that even when the right framework is sought, the marrying and attempt to create a family, children are guaranteed. But sex with the intent of creating a family is always considered sacrosanct and the model and purpose for which sex was created.

Old people having sex have often already produced children who grew to adulthood.

Homosexual unions by design cannot possibly lead to the creation of a family under any circumstances. It's the creation of such a union with the centerpiece of sexual pleasure rather than creating a family that is sinful.

So then we should stop all individuals who have ever had sex without intending to produce children from being able to marry. Well, that's a large part of the adult population then.

Nearly all marriages are predicated on the desire to have children eventually, so much so as to render negligible those few marriages forged in an agreement to forgo children.