Secular Support For Banning Gay Marriage

[Pah]

Promoting homosexuality endangers civilization as a whole, endangers creation. All this talk about how marriage is all about love is bunk. This nation will 1) never have a homosexual president and 2) never have an athiest president. Homosexuals and athiest are growing in numbers so I feel the downfall is already at hand.

Ah, another unsupported assertion..How about you give us some facts about the endangerment of civilization by homosexuals and then go on and give us facts about creation.

Unfortunetly, you don't speak for those that are in love - either homosexual or heterosexual. Your opinion is out on the fringe.

I can remember Protestants saying we would never have a Catholic president.

I think you will find that homosexuals and atheists probably have the same numbers 100 years ago but they, being tired of the arrogant oppression by some small minded people, are coming "out of the closet" and standing upright in defience of that oppression. We are asserting our rights under the Constitution.

Actuall, the largest and fastest growing group today is the "unchurched" - those of faith who are tired of the dogma of organized religion.

Bob

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Or the intolerant, small-minded bigots ....

TVOR

 

[kreeden]

Promoting homosexuality endangers civilization as a whole, endangers creation. All this talk about how marriage is all about love is bunk. This nation will 1) never have a homosexual president and 2) never have an athiest president. Homosexuals and athiest are growing in numbers so I feel the downfall is already at hand.

Already had a head of the CIA who liked to dress in women's cloths .... And that is one that we KNOW about ....

 

[Pah]

Already had a head of the CIA who liked to dress in women's cloths .... And that is one that we KNOW about ....

It wouldn't have been J. Edger Hoover would it? He, of course was FBI and outed post-mortem.

Bob

 

[Mr Spinkles]

In fact, laws are made to refine and define human desires.

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." ~Abraham Lincoln
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." ~Thomas Jefferson

"The basis of a democratic state is liberty" ~Aristotle

In fact, American laws are made to secure liberty. Comments like yours cause many of our founding fathers to spin in their graves with enough r.p.m. to power a large generator.

 

[Druidus]

In fact, American laws are made to secure liberty. Comments like yours cause many of our founding fathers to spin in their graves with enough r.p.m. to power a large generator.

You've stumbled across something big, Spinkles! No wonder so many people say things like that! They're paid to do so! They run the United States by obtaining the energy produced by spinning past presidents!

 

[kreeden]

It wouldn't have been J. Edger Hoover would it? He, of course was FBI and outed post-mortem.

Bob

Ooophs , my mistake . You guys have so many FBIs , CIAs , DDDs and whatnot . But yea , I was talking about Hoover .

 

[Pah]

Ooophs , my mistake . You guys have so many FBIs , CIAs , DDDs and whatnot . But yea , I was talking about Hoover .

Hehehe, I used to work for the DIA and NSA so have a few more!!

Bob

 

[skills101]

Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the "piece of paper." Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why?

Cohabitating heterosexuals still have the right to get married. Homosexuals do not. That's is the whole point to all this.

Homosexuality as a form and pattern of sexuality does not promote the general welfare. It generally harms it.

Where do you get this from?

As to the excuse making, it is absurd. Men are born with a strong desire to have sex with more than just one woman. Yet, the institution of marriage is not defined by that fact. In fact, laws are made to refine and define human desires.

I agree. But homosexuals are not defined by sexual interactions, but by the love that connects them, just like any heterosexual.

When laws begin to be defined by people who self define by their own sexual desires in order to define the laws the way they want them then you know that a civilization is approaching its end.

The same way heterosexuals define the law to revolve around our sexual desires. Phew, we should have been gone centuries ago.

 

[Pah]

I'm really tired of hearing that marriage has to be defended from homosexuals who comprise 10 or less percent of the population.

It's heterosexual Christians in this country that are the largest threat for they are the overwhelming portion of the population

The divorce rate - who exactly are those that have 50% of failed marriages. Heterosexuals and Christians.

Co-habitation - what is the faith and orientation of the largest group to live together without benefit of marriage. Heterosexuals and Christians.

Adultery - you have to have one married participant to commit adultery. And who does that? Heterosexuals and Christians.

Babies out of wedlock - let's see, that would be the unmarried, reproductive segement of the population. And the largest group that does this? Heterosexuals and Christians.

Defense of marriage is only a code word for the disgusting fear and loathing of homosexuals some people of faith have as core motivation.. Millions of dollars and hundreds of Christian organization do not have "defense of marriage" in mind - they want to selectively stop the sin of homosexuality.

I'm tired of it.

Bob

 

[true blood]

First of all, I would never formally vote for a ban on gay marriage. I have and will continue to take my stand that homosexuality is indeed dangerous to civilization in that it is not innate. It is a practice that is taught or entered in by choice. Legalizing it would promote it and teach our children's children that it is normal therefore increasing the numbers who opt for that lifestyle which in turn would decrease the number of heteros and birth rates would drop. Our future generations will become smaller and smaller. Of course we can get our children from labs and possibly human cloning but that's another debate of our liberty and rights, no? I am somewhat a radical at times and a part of me welcomes a major change in society. Alot of people are screaming to turn the next page. And alot of peoples assumptions that I have some type of "fear" of homosexuals is bogus. I have Christ with me always, so I have no need to fear anything. I do not even fear, fear. He who is within me is greater then he who is in the world. Remember that. All true chrisitans do not have the spirit of fear like alot of the homosexuals and athiest are so quick to suggest.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I do not even fear, fear. He who is within me is greater then he who is in the world. Remember that. All true chrisitans do not have the spirit of fear like alot of the homosexuals and athiest are so quick to suggest.

True blood, this discussion has nothing to do with being an atheist. In fact, many theists support gay marriage. This is about rights, not theology.

 

[true blood]

Well Spinkles its my right to say no so why are most of the homosexuals and athiest infringing on my rights by calling those who oppose of being "fearful" or a "bigot". If anyone has infringed upon someone's rights on these boards it is those in favor of gay marriage.

 

[Druidus]

I have and will continue to take my stand that homosexuality is indeed dangerous to civilization in that it is not innate. It is a practice that is taught or entered in by choice.

First of all, it is innate. It is genetic, and there are a number of reasons to believe so, such as evidence. Secondly, is marriage innate? Would two children, left on a deserted island, marry, due to an innate need? No? Then I guess marriage damages society. Is wearing clothing innate? No? Then I guess it damages society. We see homosexuality in nature, all the time. Insects, reptiles, mammals, almost any animals has been observed to practice homosexual behavior.

Now, imagine this scenario:

You are twelve years old. During the night, your sexuality was developed. You wake up. Your first thought is: "I think I'm going to be gay. It doesn't matter that I will be ridiculed and mocked for my "choice". I'm gonna be gay.". No line of thinking can say that that is reasonable. No child thinks like that. Social acceptance is the biggest concern of almost all adolescents. By not conforming to the norm, they go against this. Homosexuality is not a choice.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Well Spinkles its my right to say no so why are most of the homosexuals and athiest infringing on my rights by calling those who oppose of being "fearful" or a "bigot". If anyone has infringed upon someone's rights on these boards it is those in favor of gay marriage.

You certainly have the right to say whatever you wish. Just as others have the right to call someone that is bigoted a bigot. If you make bigoted statements, and demonstrate an abnormal fear of homosexuals, other people will tend to point that behaviour out to you.

From Webster's Dictionary:
Bigot (n.) A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Tell me honestly, Trueblood - can you see why others apply this definition to you? If you never respond to another post on this site, please answer this question.

TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

First of all, I would never formally vote for a ban on gay marriage. I have and will continue to take my stand that homosexuality is indeed dangerous to civilization in that it is not innate.

Wait--you think it is dangerous to society, yet you wouldn't be willing to vote against it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well Spinkles its my right to say no so why are most of the homosexuals and athiest infringing on my rights by calling those who oppose of being "fearful" or a "bigot".

How have your rights been infringed upon? I'm confused here.

A few more relevant quotes:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" ~James Madison
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of the perfect seperation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
~James Madison

 

[Pah]

Well Spinkles its my right to say no so why are most of the homosexuals and athiest infringing on my rights by calling those who oppose of being "fearful" or a "bigot". If anyone has infringed upon someone's rights on these boards it is those in favor of gay marriage.

It is more like we infringed on your sensibilities (and justifiable, I might add). Your rights are intact.

Bob

 

[Quoth The Raven]

As to the excuse making, it is absurd. Men are born with a strong desire to have sex with more than just one woman. Yet, the institution of marriage is not defined by that fact. In fact, laws are made to refine and define human desires.

When laws begin to be defined by people who self define by their own sexual desires in order to define the laws the way they want them then you know that a civilization is approaching its end.

I'm sorry...I was unaware that marriage stopped men(or women, for that matter) from having sex with anyone else. I was also unaware that it's illegal to commit adultery. In fact I'm pretty sure in a lot of places it's not even grounds for divorce anymore.
When laws begin to be defined by twisted people who self define by their own desires to hunt down people engaged in their own non-Christian religious pursuits and tie them to a stick and burn them, in order to define the laws the way they want them then you know that a civilization is approaching its end.

Except that's been done, and we're all still here. Next argument?

 

[true blood]

Tell me honestly, Trueblood - can you see why others apply this definition to you? If you never respond to another post on this site, please answer this question.

TVOR

I do see why others throw those labels around so much. Any chance they get and they will. Most of the people opposing homosexuality do not think the homosexual is a wicked person but rather view it[the homosexuality] as wrongful teaching and wrong believing. Therefore those labels are getting old. We believe that when a baby is born it is neither homosexual nor heterosexual. As a child grows it is acquiring information through their five senses. This is when a person develops their a)homosexuality b)heterosexuality c)others. Everyone has the ability to use their free will. Not all have the rights to do so. Anyways, most christians will set aside their own will and do the will of God and His will is for a woman to cleave unto a man. God's blessing for man is to have a loving wife and loving children. It all is just a learning process.