The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

And thus begins the process of coming to understand that gays are not monolithic, and this you gleaned from informal associations with gay men you don't know well. My friends are also NOT members of LGBT, despise gays who sue bakeries, florists, and photographers who exercise their conscience, and believe that tolerance is a two way street. Knowing them as close friends has given me an inside view on the redemptive qualities that exist among gays.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.
.

Or it could be because Conservative Christians often condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals, and people tend to avoid people who do that?

On the other hand- if you live in a particularly conservative part of the United States, there is a reasonably good chance you have a gay friend that you just don't know is gay. We have a close friend who lives in the South that only a few friends know he is gay- certainly not his family or church- because he believes if they did, they would reject him- and cast him out of their lives.

Which is really sad.

We Christians are quick to say we're not perfect. With that said, however, there's no excuse not to strive to be better. The dissolution of Exodus International should have proved to be a humbling experience since many Christians had been of the belief that being gay was a demon or condition that could be discharged through prayer and spiritual warfare. To hear Christians talk among themselves about gay people is embarrassing because it's clear that talking about people is no substitute for talking TO them to gain a more correct perspective. I've been blessed to know the women I described in the OP and I feel my views are better grounded in truth because of them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

Yeah, but well, here's another quandary for you:

The only people who like talking TO homosexuals are their fellow homosexuals.

Just sayin'.

Sounds like you're readily admitting you shun them and therefore are not a follower of Christ. And that goes only for you because I am not at all homosexuals and I talk to them. Many of us do.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

Interesting that you should mention naturists because my family is a naturist family. How do you think we're being disenfranchised?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The OP's original conceit is flawed. I am agnostic, by the way. I don't believe homosexuality is comparable to Heterosexuality. The concept of "GAY rights" implies that gays are being denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they can love anyone they want, they can live anywhere they want, vote, drive etc... I think a lot of people buy that gay agenda logic that says gays MUST be allowed to marry in the name of EQUALITY. There is an underlying dream logic to this, backed up with opinions and presumptions, that some of us just wont accept until it is logically explained. The first conceit is that Heterosexuality IS exactly the same as Homosexuality, and how people came to that conclusion. I am not seeing this jump in logic.

The question posed is an easy one and one that anti marriage equality types can't seem to answer. If the right to live in an unofficial domestic structure is enough and there's no need to grant it social recognition by calling it marriage, can you do without the title as well?

It's an important question because we're told over and over that gays should be grateful to have a contractual relationship and shouldn't be coveting an official document, yet those same married couples clutch their own marriage licenses like it's the air in their lungs. They perish the thought that they should be made to settle for what they propose gay people settle for. There's really no more obvious abridgment of the golden rule than this.

"Why do gays have to have the status of marriage?"

Why do you?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

As a Christian, I have done all those things. I have two gay friends I met in 2011, another in 2012. But what I cannot do is see the world "through their eyes" nor they through mine. We can reach a mutual understanding about what we believe, but I know in my Christian beliefs that same sex marriage is sinful; but I also know I have no place telling them whom to marry. They understand those beliefs, yet still they are my friends and vise versa.

Well, that is for the exception of the lesbian.

To this day she still takes any amount of criticism against homosexuality as a capital offense, will attack you at the drop of a hat for doing so, and will not stop until you agree "not to be a bigot." I know I was a victim of her wrath. We were Facebook friends at one point (and still are). When I previously stated my opposition to same sex marriage on my Facebook page a couple of years ago, she was the first to attempt to tear me down. We unfriended each other for a while, all because I stood up to her, and made her understand that she couldn't bend me to her will. She saw me as her enemy, but I flatly told her, "I want to be your friend, not your enemy."

I am now the only conservative (at least that I know of) that can get away with voicing my opinion on the subject. "What kind of friend would wrap you so far around her finger as to not allow dissenting opinions of homosexuality?" you ask. By all rights, I shouldn't even have her as a friend, agreed. But! I'm trying to be an ambassador of good will. Not a political or social opponent.

Difference is, I support gay marriage now. Even still, I have problems with it. I wonder if any gay person could understand the conflict in conscience that occurs within the minds of Christians who disagree with their way of life, but want to be as tolerant and accepting of them as they can without compromising their closely held religious beliefs?

It sounds like you need better gay friends. If the women I described in the OP were anything like the militant shrew you described, they would not be my friends, facebook or otherwise. You don't need to countenance such abuse in the name of being an ambassador of goodwill. There are lots of decent gay people out there who think of tolerance as a two way street and respect the beliefs and disagreements of others; that people don't always see things the same. I'm glad you came around on the issue of gay marriage. I've been perturbed by the power grab that the Supreme Court decision represents, but lately I've been feeling peace about it....as if God were telling me everything is going to be ok. And I'm looking forward to this marriage between my friends and my family will be honored to be part of the most joyful event in their lives.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

Now I think you are projecting about yourself.

Really, stooping to slanders and innuendoes. I told you before, I am not trying to hurt anyone, not being hateful or personal. Can we be adults here?

You are not trying to be 'hurt anyone, not being hateful" when you say Gays "so hateful, they can be like bitter spoilt rich brats"?

Hmmmm what would you call that then?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The concept of "Gay Rights" implies that they want to be treated under the law equally.

And they have not been. When "Gay Rights" movement started- it was illegal for homosexuals to have sex together in many states- there were laws mandating the firing of homosexuals.

Your first conceit is overlooking that homosexuals have not been treated equally.
Your second conceit is saying that we are saying the homosexuality is exactly the same as heterosexuality- which is as false as saying that men are the same as women.

What we are saying is that homosexuals should be treated equally before the law as heterosexuals are- just as men and women are treated equally before the law.

They already HAVE all the rights everybody else does. That was my original point. And you didn't answer my question, buy what logic, valid provable fact, does homosexuality equate to Heterosexuality? we all have opinions. I don't need to prove or disprove anything, since gays and their supporters are the ones asserting that opinion as fact. Prove it, and I am on the bus. (By the way I have LGBT relatives). I don't want to hurt anyone, just the facts, Ma'm.

I am not sure that they do have all of the rights everyone else has now- certainly before Friday's ruling they did not.

They had to fight for all of those rights you so cavalierly assume.

I did not say that homosexuality 'equates' to heterosexuality- any more than men 'equate' to women'

But Americans deserve equal rights whether they are gay or straight- men or women.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Technically I am right. Gays already have THE same rights as the rest of us. Voting, freedom of speech, and they already hade the right to marry. With one exception most of us though made perfect sense. So your point is...misleading as the gay right agenda. Those fool on the supreme court made a mockery out of this issue.

Technically you were wrong.

Gays now have most of the same rights as the rest of us- as I am not gay I will not proclaim that all is fixed- but compared to 20 years ago- yes now they have most of the same rights.

Homosexuals did not have the same right to marry- which was the point of the Supreme Court ruling.

Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling- Americans now have the right to marry regardless of the gender of the person that they want to marry.

As important a ruling as Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't wish to annoy you or be contrary, but you are wrong, and misapprehend that simple little point. You are splitting hairs here. ALL Americans had the right to marry, in principle, And the only qualifier was ONE man ONE woman. Not three men and a wide screen TV, not two women and a vibrator. And the limitations make sense. It theoretically ideally promoted coupling with viable reproducing people, society creating a sanctuary for them. That's it. It wasn't meant as a symbol of sexuality or superiority of breeders. I am familiar with that derogatory gay slang. So hateful, they can be, like bitter spoilt rich brats.

I don't want to sound like a hypocrite so I'll be quick to offer that I've argued the exact same thing repeatedly, that gays already have equality because state marital laws are applied equally and without reproach to sexual orientation. But lately it's been a revelation to me as I think of it further that the right to marry ought by all right to include the right to marry somebody you can be physically and emotionally attracted to as a critical ingredient to a lifelong commitment. Any law that denies such a basic right introduces an intolerable element of disparity. Me marrying a woman is simply not the same as a gay man marrying a woman. I can enjoy my wife on every level, a gay man cannot.

This is why I am for marriage equality. I can think of no reason to deny everyone the right to enjoy who they marry sexually and in every other aspect.

 

[Idadunno]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

What it boils down to with the people against same sex marriages and relationships is that those people cannot stop thinking of these people naked and having sex. They do not see love or devotion or loyalty--they are focused on some porn movie they watched once. If those nay-sayers would get their minds out of the toilet and stop dwelling on sex and think logically, they might have a change of heart and mind, but chances of that happening are slim. It's really quite ironic... it's the anti-ssm people who are the perverts.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Not a religious discussion, a discussion on cultural perspectives.

I do mix it up in our discussions about gay culture and to me it's largely sport, but there's another part of me that attempts to see these social issues through the eyes of gay people. Two of the closest friends of my family happen to be gay, a woman I've known since I was in Junior High who was a teacher of mine and her partner. They are getting married this month and we will be enthusiastic attenders. My trust in them is implicit to the point they often babysit our 4 kids and are called Aunt by them. Yes they are that close.

So their up and coming wedding has gotten me thinking about the issue of gay marriage in the Christian church. They are Christians and church goers, attending a Reconciling congregation, the kind more accepting of gays and gay marriage.

I'm extremely happy for them, so is my wife and my in laws who are somewhat to very progressive. It occurs to me to wonder why happily married Christians would deny nuptial bliss to any couple that love each other. Here's the issue gays are put in by Christians. They're told that the lifestyle is sinful and that they should either abstain from sex altogether or get married to a person of the opposite sex. Many men have done that, living a lie until the lie gets too great and they revert back to their sexual set point, often cheating on their wives in secretive dalliances or outright abandoning their family.

Exhibit A:

Option B is not any better. St. Paul himself said that it is better for a man to marry than to burn with desire. Since Exodus International has demonstrated to us that it's not possible to "pray the gay away" or use therapy to change one's sexual orientation, what choice do they have? Let's review the choices again:

1. Marry a person of the opposite sex and live a lie with disastrous results that hurt an innocent wife and children.

2. Burn with sexual desire until the desire becomes to great and men hook up with other men, often multiple partners increasing the chances for STD's and drug abuse.

3. Same sex marriage; marrying a person they are attracted to and can love for the rest of their lives in a committed manner.

I'm going to be honest, though I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide, I'm also not of the opinion that our civilization is imperiled because people who love each other are getting married. I'm just not.

So here I am, a Christian, telling my fellow Christians that the solution may be to start talking TO homosexuals instead of about them; to forge friendships like I have and gain a new perspective and try to see the world through their eyes.

I have and I got no regrets about it.

What it boils down to with the people against same sex marriages and relationships is that those people cannot stop thinking of these people naked and having sex. They do not see love or devotion or loyalty--they are focused on some porn movie they watched once. If those nay-sayers would get their minds out of the toilet and stop dwelling on sex and think logically, they might have a change of heart and mind, but chances of that happening are slim. It's really quite ironic... it's the anti-ssm people who are the perverts.

Having seen both sides of this issue to the degree I have and having had many discussions among those who oppose SSM....as I have for a long time too.....I disagree that they are perverted, obsessed with prurient sexual imagery, or have their minds in the toilet. It's time both sides stop trying to smear each other with such distortions. Again, this isn't an intellectual exercise to me, it is personal because it involves two very dear women who are close friends of the family. Having talked to them, I've seen the solution to our problem, that we stop talking about each other and start talking TO each other and see other points of view we were previously estranged to. Ignorance breeds spite, the tendency to pose the other in the worst possible light.

So what I'm asking my fellow Christians to do, I'm also asking you to do....befriend Christians, talk to them, and stop guessing what they're reasons are and find out how they really feel.

 

[Pop23]

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.

You just keep dancing- and not addressing the issue- but how can you- because your argument is Failure.

IF your only argument against sibling marriage is 'procreation' then that argument failed long before SSM was decided.

As I pointed out- States allow First Cousins can marry- as long as they prove that they cannot procreate.

States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirement- but they do not.

IF you cannot come up with any argument why States should allow First Cousins to marry(if they cannot procreate) but should not allow Siblings to marry(if they cannot procreate) then once again- your problem is you have no argument against sibling marriage.

Fight all you want, the gay cousins would NOT HAVE TO BE 55 nor PROVE anything. The straight would.

Giving gays easier access to the institution.

 

[Pop23]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Pity you had to blemish an otherwise rare cogent post with the following errant nonsense:

“I don't like the Supreme Court circumventing the constitutional and republican form of government that clearly puts this issue to the states to decide.”

The Supreme Court did not 'circumvent' the Constitution, it appropriately followed and applied settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence consistent with a republican form of government, recognizing that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not 'majority rule,' where residents of the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

Otherwise, your post reflects the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence apples only to the states and local governments, not private citizens or organizations such as churches, who are at liberty to decide the matter for themselves in accordance with religious doctrine and dogma concerning marriage rituals.

It's also appropriate and important to understand that for gay Americans they are infinitely more than just their sexuality, and to focus only on that aspect of who they are is unwarranted and unproductive.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

 

[Pop23]

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

They are, for the most part, simply acknowledging the reality made with this decision and recent legal moves that make marriage a right. I agree with the idea and implementation but I also believe that it must be followed to its conclusion. It is hypocritical to demand that the right must be protected for gay couples and then suddenly support other couples being barred from marriage.

Marriage has been a right all along- the courts recognized that right about 80 years ago.

This is the fourth time the Supreme Court has overturned State laws based upon that right of marriage.

The hypocrisy comes from those on the right- who oppose same gender marriage- suddenly arguing on behalf of sibling marriage and polygamy- even though they actually don't support any of them.

Irrelevant. Hypocritical behavior by one side does not negate hypocritical behavior on another.

When marriage became a right is also irrelevant - there is literally no argument left for marriage to be denied for virtually anything. 2 weeks ago you COULD have mounted a procreation/family argument even if it was wrong (it really was the last bastion of those that want government to control marriage) but that is now no longer an option.

I am not here to argue for or against polygamy or sibling marriage.

But there are arguments against each that existed before- and existed after last Friday's ruling.

Last Friday's ruling is as unrelated to the issues of sibling marriage and polygamy as Loving v. Virginia was.

The arguments did/do exist, but the legal arguments now do not include the limiting factors when marriage was between one man and one woman.
It is now open to anyone in any number.

That limiting factors ended with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

That is undeniable

 

[Coyote]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

Why do gays want to adopt conservative values?

I predict that as gays start marrying and having children they move to the conservative side.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

 

[Pop23]

Gay men cannot have children. They have to depend on lesbians child-trafficking (after they've had sex with a man) to get the boys they want to adopt.

As odious as it is to blame children for the sins of the parents, the children of gays must be ostracized just as much as the parents. Any form of acceptance is wrong.

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

The children should not, but it IS THE parents that but them in THAT SITUATION. No child should be born from an incestuous MARRIAGE. The parents of THIS CHILD will likely carry defective bloodlines that DOES NOT JUST EFFECT THIS CHILD, but generations to follow.

The recent USSC ruling opened the door to just that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Seriously? What the fuck have the children done wrong and what choice do they have in who their parents are? Are you one of those who pretend to be Christian?

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

The children should not, but it IS THE parents that but them in THAT SITUATION. No child should be born from an incestuous MARRIAGE. The parents of THIS CHILD will likely carry defective bloodlines that DOES NOT JUST EFFECT THIS CHILD, but generations to follow.

The recent USSC ruling opened the door to just that.

Read up on children created by incest. You need an understanding before you can make a sane argument: Kissing Cousins Everything You Didn t Want To Know About Incest And Why Inbreeding Isn t Actually As Dangerous As It Sounds

 

[Pop23]

Polygamists have children. Same sex siblings can have children exactly how you did.

So what exactly is your problem?

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

The children should not, but it IS THE parents that but them in THAT SITUATION. No child should be born from an incestuous MARRIAGE. The parents of THIS CHILD will likely carry defective bloodlines that DOES NOT JUST EFFECT THIS CHILD, but generations to follow.

The recent USSC ruling opened the door to just that.

Read up on children created by incest. You need an understanding before you can make a sane argument: Kissing Cousins Everything You Didn t Want To Know About Incest And Why Inbreeding Isn t Actually As Dangerous As It Sounds

It seems his research ends with cousins? Distant relatives?

Where's the info on siblings? You Dili realize that is wide open as well, right?

 

[Freewill]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you saying then that children of these relationships should be ostracized? Because THAT is "my problem" - regardless of the parents, the offspring have no choice in the matter.

What is your problem?

You want children of incestuos marriage? I find the relationship repulsive in the first place, but I guess now it will be a legitimate relationship because there is no reasonable legal argument NOW that can stop government sanctioned incest.

What choice did the children of those relationships have - did they get to choose their parents? Why should those children be ostracized?

The children should not, but it IS THE parents that but them in THAT SITUATION. No child should be born from an incestuous MARRIAGE. The parents of THIS CHILD will likely carry defective bloodlines that DOES NOT JUST EFFECT THIS CHILD, but generations to follow.

The recent USSC ruling opened the door to just that.

Read up on children created by incest. You need an understanding before you can make a sane argument: Kissing Cousins Everything You Didn t Want To Know About Incest And Why Inbreeding Isn t Actually As Dangerous As It Sounds

It seems his research ends with cousins? Distant relatives?

Where's the info on siblings? You Dili realize that is wide open as well, right?

You know how to use Google, so, use it. And the reproduction argument against incestuous marriage is the only bucket to be found, and it doesn't hold much water according to biology.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I'm going to a wedding in August of two dear friends who happen to be women and strongly Catholic

They may say they are "strong" catholics but I don't see how a person disagree with the teachings of the RCC and still consider themselves a strong catholic. Just another religion being watered down.

Most Catholics, aren't. That's why I like this pope, he's damn near a Christian...