"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[martybegan]

What is your reasoning for opposing gay marriage if not the Bible?

I oppose the use of the courts to force states to recognize gay marriage. It should be done by the legislature in each State.

No because it was already recognized at the federal level with the writing of the Constitution.

Where? i don't see the word marriage in the constitution at all.

 

[Silhouette]

From the OP:

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

You should have issues with gays tying the knot. Marriage is the ultimate societal icon of what we hold out to our young to aspire to. Have you seen the spiking numbers of new HIV cases in young boys and young men ages 13-24? Gay is a behavior. Behaviors are inherited socially because we "ape" or mimic others older than us. When you remove the taboo of gay via allowing them to be married as "fully equal husband/wife characters" [which of course they aren't and never will be], you shatter a golden icon that has kept the wayward ship of humanity more or less moored for thousands of years.

Does gay marraige affect you personally right now today? Probably not. But this isn't about YOU. It's about OUR COLLECTIVE CULTURE and how it morphs into the future.

Look up the HIV statistics for youth in just the years gay marriage has been being forced on various states by seditious judges. They took an exponential leap. And it's not a coincidence. Gay has become a fad. It is the new religion. They are not born that way anymore than the Ancient Greeks were. Their culture promoted a plethora of gay men who sodomized younger and younger boys as the years went on, only returning to their wives for what their culture considered "the sordid duty of procreation".

Is this the legacy you want for your kids and grandkids?

EDUCATE YOURSELVES. Only then make a decision whether or not you are for gay marriage. Don't do it from cheap sentiment, a wish to "fit in with the crowd", or some lacking viewpoint or from fear of being blackmailed, ridiculed or fired from your job.

SCREW THEM. Make up your mind from the facts, not the new religion's/cult's unexamined dogma..

Here's what you're normalizing for future generations. And by the way, HIV/AIDS is going to be the nation's singly most expensive form of illness treatment as the numbers rise. It takes on average $500,000 per patient once they are diagnosed until they die their early lingering horrible death. The colon was not designed for sex. It allows fluids and large dissolved particles such as the HIV virus to pass directly into the bloodstream. Anal sex and those who practice it should be discouraged at all costs from that behavior. That goes for everyone. The heroic treatment for late stage AIDS patients is also creating superbugs that the general population are having trouble also fending off even with good immune systems. They overtreat with antibiotics to buy another few weeks or months for the wasting emaciated patient and in so doing don't quite kill off all the bacteria. Then those remaining few grow out to be super-resistant to ever more rare antiobiotics. Promoting gay marriage is actually promoting a health epidemic when you trace the breadcrumbs backwards..

 

[KNB]

"Christian moral compass"? What the fuck does that even mean? The Vatican runs a global child sex racket. Is that traditional Christian morality?

What did Jesus say about the morality of homosexuals?

 

[KevinWestern]

But why do you think valuing only opposite sex marriage is a "religious opinion"? I don't think it is. Again, if it were just a biblical principle - for example - gay marriage would exist in every non-Judeo Christian society. Is that the case? No! The belief that Jesus is the son of God IS - on the other hand - a biblical principle. See the difference?

Again, do I think you should be able to use the bible to justify a law? Of course not! And again, I'm pro-gay marriage.

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

So may question is why gays? why not polygamists? incest, ect?

Personally I'm against incest because it can generate children with severe physical/mental deformities. That hurts a third party.

Polygammy? Sure go ahead. I can care less. If no one is impeding my free will, why should I impede theirs???

 

[martybegan]

There are gay people in every non-judeo-christian society, as there have been since the invention of homosexuality (which predates Christianity by several thousand years). Those people want the same rights and privileges and basic human dignity that is afforded to everyone else. It is time to give them that dignity.

People who oppose gay marriage in the US have to give a valid reason for wanting to stifle gay and lesbians' rights to pursue their own happiness that does not include religious teachings. Since none of them can do that, it stands to reason that their opposition to gay marriage is based entirely on the Bible and therefore cannot be forced into US law no matter how many millions of Christians vote for it.

So may question is why gays? why not polygamists? incest, ect?

Personally I'm against incest because it can generate children with severe physical/mental deformities. That hurts a third party.

Polygammy? Sure go ahead. I can care less. If no one is impeding my free will, why should I impede theirs???

so you would be OK with homosexual incestuous marriages?

 

[KNB]

From the OP:

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

You should have issues with gays tying the knot. Marriage is the ultimate societal icon of what we hold out to our young to aspire to. Have you seen the spiking numbers of new HIV cases in young boys and young men ages 13-24? Gay is a behavior. Behaviors are inherited socially because we "ape" or mimic others older than us. When you remove the taboo of gay via allowing them to be married as "fully equal husband/wife characters" [which of course they aren't and never will be], you shatter a golden icon that has kept the wayward ship of humanity more or less moored for thousands of years.

Does gay marraige affect you personally right now today? Probably not. But this isn't about YOU. It's about OUR COLLECTIVE CULTURE and how it morphs into the future.

Look up the HIV statistics for youth in just the years gay marriage has been being forced on various states by seditious judges. They took an exponential leap. And it's not a coincidence. Gay has become a fad. It is the new religion. They are not born that way anymore than the Ancient Greeks were. Their culture promoted a plethora of gay men who sodomized younger and younger boys as the years went on, only returning to their wives for what their culture considered "the sordid duty of procreation".

Is this the legacy you want for your kids and grandkids?

EDUCATE YOURSELVES. Only then make a decision whether or not you are for gay marriage. Don't do it from cheap sentiment, a wish to "fit in with the crowd", or some lacking viewpoint or from fear of being blackmailed, ridiculed or fired from your job.

SCREW THEM. Make up your mind from the facts, not the new religion's/cult's unexamined dogma..

Here's what you're normalizing for future generations. And by the way, HIV/AIDS is going to be the nation's singly most expensive form of illness treatment as the numbers rise. It takes on average $500,000 per patient once they are diagnosed until they die their early lingering horrible death. The colon was not designed for sex. It allows fluids and large dissolved particles such as the HIV virus to pass directly into the bloodstream. Anal sex and those who practice it should be discouraged at all costs from that behavior. That goes for everyone:

Because legislating against gay marriage is going to stop anal sex, right?

Didn't one of you stupid fucks try to say that heterosexual vaginas have a natural protective barrier against the spread of HIV?

Yeah, "educate yourselves".

 

[Silhouette]

Because legislating against gay marriage is going to stop anal sex, right?

Didn't one of you stupid fucks try to say that heterosexual vaginas have a natural protective barrier against the spread of HIV?

Yeah, "educate yourselves".

The vagina did evolve to "wash out" STDs as much as possible. The colon evolved, in contrast, to absorb as much as possible back into the bloodstream. In fact, the two organs in this regard are polar opposites.

The colon evolved not to be had sex with. It's function is to resorb large dissolved vitamins and fluids directly into the bloodstream in case of famine or dehydration. In case you didn't know or weren't aware, the anus and colon are part of the digestive system and are in no way related to the reproductive system. The colon is basically defenseless. It cannot tell the difference between it's own vitamins and solids from digestive materials and the HIV virus suspended in semen.

It's a sitting duck when it comes to HIV transmission. It is not an exaggeration to say that having sex with the colon is like taking HIV infected semen and injecting it straight into a vein in your arm.

The vagina at least has a fighting chance, though if HIV makes it through the cervix or into a rupture in the vaginal wall, it's bad.

Teaching kids by the example of marriage that this type of behavior is condoned is probably the most irresponsible action a human being can take.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Christian moral compass"? What the fuck does that even mean? The Vatican runs a global child sex racket. Is that traditional Christian morality?

What did Jesus say about the morality of homosexuals?

Western culture is basically Christian culture....Christianity has had the greatest civilizing influence in the history of man...in philosophy, art, and science...and just about everything else...our country and its Constitution was founded in the context of Christian belief...

maybe they don't teach that fact in the schools anymore...

 

[KNB]

So you oppose oral sex, as well?

"The vagina has a fighting chance"........

 

[KNB]

"Christian moral compass"? What the fuck does that even mean? The Vatican runs a global child sex racket. Is that traditional Christian morality?

What did Jesus say about the morality of homosexuals?

Western culture is basically Christian culture....Christianity has had the greatest civilizing influence in the history of man...in philosophy, art, and science...and just about everything else...our country and its Constitution was founded in the context of Christian belief...

maybe they don't teach that fact in the schools anymore...

If that was anywhere near true then why did the Christian founders make the very first law a prohibition of any religion from taking over the nation's laws?

 

[High_Gravity]

There should be the death penalty for all Queers!

You are an idiot.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Christian moral compass"? What the fuck does that even mean? The Vatican runs a global child sex racket. Is that traditional Christian morality?

What did Jesus say about the morality of homosexuals?

Western culture is basically Christian culture....Christianity has had the greatest civilizing influence in the history of man...in philosophy, art, and science...and just about everything else...our country and its Constitution was founded in the context of Christian belief...

maybe they don't teach that fact in the schools anymore...

If that was anywhere near true then why did the Christian founders make the very first law a prohibition of any religion from taking over the nation's laws?

because back in those days there were many different denominations of Christian religion (as today) many of which wanted to dominate a country....religion back then was part and parcel of politics...

to establish a secular government under which all religions could co-exist was part of what made the U.S. exceptional in the world....

 

[Clementine]

What is the opposition to gay marriage? Please be succinct. Why is there so much outcry over gay marriage?

Do you oppose gay marriage for religious reasons? If so, then you need to be reminded that your religious beliefs are not US law. You are NOT allowed to pass laws defending your religious beliefs over all others. It is the very first national rule set by the First Amendment.

Do right-wing Republicans want to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution in order to favor their religious beliefs above all others?

I think Hillary's quote in the OP sums it up for many. What don't you get? Many are religious and have their beliefs, which they are entitled to. Just because some stick by that instead of changing according to political winds, you criticize.

I have no problem with people holding convictions and speaking out. The only thing I have problems with are hypocrites who do things for political reasons. And I have issues with those who aren't content to merely state an opinion and go as far as to harm others. Speaking out against gay marriage is acceptable. Beheading gays is unacceptable. I still can't understand why the left ridicules religious people who merely object to gay marriage, yet remain silent on the senseless and brutal murder of gays by a certain other religion.

 

[Flopper]

Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

We must have laws against murder and stealing, not because of a religious belief but because civilized society can not exist without such laws. The only justification why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry is because it goes against some people's religious beliefs or it's unnatural and that's not going to be good enough in the courts.

Defenders of gay marriage in court, avoid any reference to religion as justification or traditional values arguments but rather fall back on states rights. That's exactly what defenders of segregation did over 50 years ago and we know how that turned out.

 

[martybegan]

Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

We must have laws against murder and stealing, not because of a religious belief but because civilized society can not exist without such laws. The only justification why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry is because it goes against some people's religious beliefs or it's unnatural and that's not going to be good enough in the courts.

Defenders of gay marriage in court, avoid any reference to religion as justification or traditional values arguments but rather fall back on states rights. That's exactly what defenders of segregation did over 50 years ago and we know how that turned out.

This is about the method used to achieve a desired result. There is no compelling reason to make up a right and use the courts to force states to modify the marriage contract to allow for same sex marriage if the State does not want to.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

We must have laws against murder and stealing, not because of a religious belief but because civilized society can not exist without such laws. The only justification why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry is because it goes against some people's religious beliefs or it's unnatural and that's not going to be good enough in the courts.

Defenders of gay marriage in court, avoid any reference to religion as justification or traditional values arguments but rather fall back on states rights. That's exactly what defenders of segregation did over 50 years ago and we know how that turned out.

those values came directly from the Bible....gosh what'll we do now...get rid of them....?

since gay defenders avoid religion they should also avoid the use of the term 'marriage'...since marriage and religion have been interlinked for eons...

since when does a whole working-well together civilization need to change their belief system to accomodate a strident minority...?
toleration is one thing but forced acceptance is another...

should we next accomodate Islam and allow them to string up gays...?

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD'S WORD on the sick abomination og sexual perversion==God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32

 

[Flopper]

Prohibitions on Murder and stealing are in the bible, so I guess laws against both are 1st amendment violations. By your logic they are and must be repealed.

We must have laws against murder and stealing, not because of a religious belief but because civilized society can not exist without such laws. The only justification why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry is because it goes against some people's religious beliefs or it's unnatural and that's not going to be good enough in the courts.

Defenders of gay marriage in court, avoid any reference to religion as justification or traditional values arguments but rather fall back on states rights. That's exactly what defenders of segregation did over 50 years ago and we know how that turned out.

This is about the method used to achieve a desired result. There is no compelling reason to make up a right and use the courts to force states to modify the marriage contract to allow for same sex marriage if the State does not want to.

The constitutional argument for same sex marriage may not hinge on rights but rather the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However, whether the advocates for same sex marriage win may depend more on the weakness of the argument of the opposition than their own argument. It can be very difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible.

 

[martybegan]

We must have laws against murder and stealing, not because of a religious belief but because civilized society can not exist without such laws. The only justification why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry is because it goes against some people's religious beliefs or it's unnatural and that's not going to be good enough in the courts.

Defenders of gay marriage in court, avoid any reference to religion as justification or traditional values arguments but rather fall back on states rights. That's exactly what defenders of segregation did over 50 years ago and we know how that turned out.

This is about the method used to achieve a desired result. There is no compelling reason to make up a right and use the courts to force states to modify the marriage contract to allow for same sex marriage if the State does not want to.

The constitutional argument for same sex marriage may not hinge on rights but rather the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However, whether the advocates for same sex marriage win may depend more on the weakness of the argument of the opposition than their own argument. It can be very difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible.

it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.

 

[GISMYS]

This is about the method used to achieve a desired result. There is no compelling reason to make up a right and use the courts to force states to modify the marriage contract to allow for same sex marriage if the State does not want to.

The constitutional argument for same sex marriage may not hinge on rights but rather the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. However, whether the advocates for same sex marriage win may depend more on the weakness of the argument of the opposition than their own argument. It can be very difficult to come up with a legal argument against same-sex marriage without relying upon religious doctrine which is inadmissible.

it shouldn't be in the courts at all. Equal protection does not apply as marriage between opposite sex and same sex couples is not equal. This is an issue for the state legislatures to figure out, as the constitution is neutral on the topic.

"civilized society can not exist" with the sick minded abomination of sexual perversion!!!