1. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8578
    06 Jul '15 18:26
    The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

    Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.

    YouTube
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    06 Jul '15 19:03
    Originally posted by sonship
    The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

    Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afDZPivGIo4
    Allowing gay marriage does not in any way effect 'strait' marriage.

    What giving rights and protections to minorities [of all kinds] does do is stop a bigoted majority
    from discriminating against them.

    So if you want to discriminate against black or interracial marriage by making it illegal or by refusing to
    serve interracial couples then you are stuffed because people have worked out that this is morally wrong
    and hateful and passed laws against it.

    We are slowly passing such laws protecting other groups such as homosexuals.

    If you, or anyone else is upset that you can no longer discriminate against these people then you are the
    bad guys, you are promoting evil, and we don't give a [insert appropriate expletive here] whether you are upset
    about it or not.

    I'm utterly not sorry that you are but hurt that you can no-longer discriminate as much as you want to and
    that your ability to make other people miserable has been curtailed.

    Your rights to hold your religious beliefs do not allow you to impose those beliefs on anyone else.
    And the fact that you are supper sad that you can no longer bully people as much as you want
    frankly just makes you pathetic.

    The Young Turks: [The religious right whining they cover is hilarious]

    Attorney General Backs Bigots Who Refuse To Marry Same Sex Couples
    YouTube

    Fox Host Ends The Gay Marriage Argument Forever
    YouTube

    Catholics Are Super Sad Gay People Can Get Married Now
    YouTube
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Jul '15 20:07
    Originally posted by sonship
    The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

    Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.
    I agree. Legalizing homosexual marriage will make for a better fairer society, and everyone will be impacted as they live in that society. I see that as a good thing.

    YouTube
    I watched a little bit and the speaker seems to be claiming that allowing homosexual marriage will result in Christians having their freedoms curtailed. Do you agree with that?
    Do you generally agree with the speaker?
    If I go through the video and comment on it, will you address any of my concerns?
  4. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    06 Jul '15 20:19
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Allowing gay marriage does not in any way effect 'strait' marriage.

    What giving rights and protections to minorities [of all kinds] does do is stop a bigoted majority
    from discriminating against them.

    So if you want to discriminate against black or interracial marriage by making it illegal or by refusing to
    serve interracial couples then you ar ...[text shortened]... olics Are Super Sad Gay People Can Get Married Now
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFt9WuseoJo
    The problem with redefining marriage is not limited to homosexuality or between two of the same sex, but before I proceed, let me say I have homosexual friends. I love the person, just hate the sinful act.
    It will eventually destroy them.
    But redefining marriage between a male and a female is not only sinful and wrong, but it opens wide the door for more hideous changes.
    How about a person who wants to marry their dog? Or horse? Or how about a marriage between 5 men and 3 woman? Where does it end?
    You are looking at this through the eyes of a carnal human, an unbeliever, but the one behind this is Satan. What he wants is to destroy the family unit. He would like to twist and confuse all that good and decent.
  5. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8541
    06 Jul '15 20:24
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    The problem with redefining marriage is not limited to homosexuality or between two of the same sex, but before I proceed, let me say I have homosexual friends. I love the person, just hate the sinful act.
    It will eventually destroy them.
    But redefining marriage between a male and a female is not only sinful and wrong, but it opens wide the door for m ...[text shortened]... ants is to destroy the family unit. He would like to twist and confuse all that good and decent.
    Satan doesn't exist; accept in bigotry and intolerance, and only then figuratively. .
  6. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    06 Jul '15 21:08
    Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
    Satan doesn't exist; accept in bigotry and intolerance, and only then figuratively. .
    Your unbelief is exactly why he is so successful....
  7. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8578
    06 Jul '15 21:35
    Originally posted by sonship
    The claim of the homosexual community includes. ie. "If homosexual marriage goes into law and adoption rights go into law, it won't have an impact on everyone else."

    Cases around the globe where this clearly was not true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afDZPivGIo4
    The above Video is much more about Legal issues than spiritual ones, I think. I was surprised at the growing number of cases around of people losing jobs or doing jail time for voicing disagreement with the homosexual ideology.

    We've had the standard reaction by those who probably did not watch the video (or much of it).

    YouTube[/b]
  8. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    06 Jul '15 22:061 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    The problem with redefining marriage is not limited to homosexuality or between two of the same sex, but before I proceed, let me say I have homosexual friends. I love the person, just hate the sinful act.
    It will eventually destroy them.
    But redefining marriage between a male and a female is not only sinful and wrong, but it opens wide the door for m ...[text shortened]... ants is to destroy the family unit. He would like to twist and confuse all that good and decent.
    The slippery slope of marriage as an institution began when men and women started choosing whom they married, instead of it being done by the patriarchs.

    It continued when men and women began marrying outside the true faith. Of course, there being only one true faith, any such marriage would have at least one infidel in it. Some religions, eg the RCC, required that the infidel spouse agree to raise any children in the RCC, and then the marriage could be conducted in the church. But then, many couples wed somewhere else, meaning their marriage didn't count.

    We need to straighten this out.
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8578
    07 Jul '15 03:032 edits
    A number of times we were assured by Gay activists that a certain step would not result in a further step. IE. "If A is made legal, B will not automatically follow."

    Actually it has been the opposite. B did follow A which concern was promised as a slippery slope fallacy. It has not been a slippery slope fallacy. It has been a slippery slope.

    And many suspect that the downward slide will continue.
    Assurances of "slippery slope fallacy" are only temporary sedatives to pacify. And if this is not true of the same activists, it is true for close colleagues of them who are standing by to make the next move.

    We can expect polygamy and group marriage to appear before the US Supreme Court probably in our lifetimes.
  10. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    07 Jul '15 05:01
    Originally posted by sonship
    A number of times we were assured by Gay activists that a certain step would not result in a further step. IE. "If A is made legal, B will not automatically follow."

    Actually it has been the opposite. B did follow A which concern was promised as a slippery slope fallacy. It has not been a slippery slope fallacy. It has been a slippery slope.
    ...[text shortened]... ect polygamy and group marriage to appear before the US Supreme Court probably in our lifetimes.
    So do you object to bridal partners choosing one another on the basis of love, or do you want the patriarchs to choose, and do you object to or deny the validity of marriages outside the one true faith? These are two questions.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    07 Jul '15 06:071 edit
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    The problem with redefining marriage is not limited to homosexuality or between two of the same sex, but before I proceed, let me say I have homosexual friends. I love the person, just hate the sinful act.
    It will eventually destroy them.
    But redefining marriage between a male and a female is not only sinful and wrong, but it opens wide the door for m ...[text shortened]... ants is to destroy the family unit. He would like to twist and confuse all that good and decent.
    What if an entire country wants to get married, following that logic. What business is it of yours if you are not in that country? How would that effect you and your loved ones in your own country? If 4 men want to get married or 3 women and 54 men so what? What business is it of yours? Will it destroy your marriage? Will your kids be forever tainted? No. It is their business and none of your own who sleeps with who, who is married to whom. It is all about civil rights. If a dude wants to marry his camel, so what, how is that going to effect you?

    Like Dylan said, "The times they are a changing" and there is not a thing you can do about it so live with it. It is going to be a different planet a hundred years from now, the number of people objecting to gay marriage gets smaller and smaller as time goes by.

    Just like racism, there are less and less racists as time goes on, for one thing because of inter-marriage, the tendency is for everyone to be brown skinned.

    So gay marriage will spread, the legality of it will spread and there is ZERO you can do about it except grouse and it is none of your business EVER to say who marries whom.

    Get over it.
  12. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    8541
    07 Jul '15 07:15
    Originally posted by sonship
    A number of times we were assured by Gay activists that a certain step would not result in a further step. IE. "If A is made legal, B will not automatically follow."

    Actually it has been the opposite. B did follow A which concern was promised as a slippery slope fallacy. It has not been a slippery slope fallacy. It has been a slippery slope.
    ...[text shortened]... ect polygamy and group marriage to appear before the US Supreme Court probably in our lifetimes.
    I was born 'straight' and am happily married. I didn't however 'choose' to be straight, i was just made that way. Similarly, somebody who is 'gay' didn't 'choose' to be gay, They were also 'made that way.'
    Now if you are going to put forward the proposition of a 'Creator God' then surely you have to concede that God created both straight and gay human beings? And if this is the case, why should only straight people enjoy the sanctuary of marriage? That seems illogical. That seems hateful.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 07:25
    Originally posted by sonship
    We've had the standard reaction by those who probably did not watch the video (or much of it).
    I rarely watch YouTube videos posted on this forum. I am however willing to do so given some preconditions:
    1. The poster must agree with the contents of the video, or specify beforehand which parts he disagrees with. There is simply no point writing out all my complaints just to be told the poster doesn't agree either.
    2. The poster must be willing to discuss the contents of the video.

    Are you ready to agree to those conditions, or is this a hit and run thread?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 07:331 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    Some religions, eg the RCC, required that the infidel spouse agree to raise any children in the RCC, and then the marriage could be conducted in the church. But then, many couples wed somewhere else, meaning their marriage didn't count.
    Some of my ancestors were 'Quakers' so I know a little about them. At that time record keeping of births, marriages and deaths was conducted by the Church. Because Quakers didn't go to Church, they instead had to keep their own records. I do not know how this affected the legality of their births marriages and deaths, but I would think there were some legal implications given that marriage certificates were produced by Churches.

    [edit]
    I discovered this on Wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_wedding
    Quaker marriage has been subject of special law in England and Wales from the 18th century to the present day. The first Marriage Act 1753, which regulated the legal and civic recognition of marriage, recognised only marriages conducted by the "Society of Friends", Jews and the Church of England, and removed recognition of common law marriage or marriage conducted by any other religious group. Thus, Quakers' marriages were legally recognised at a time when marriages within other non-conformist traditions were not legally recognised.

    Interesting.

    [edit]
    According to this:
    http://www.hitchin.plus.com/Quakers/Marhist.htm
    There were some problems in the early years with Quaker marriages not being officially recognised.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '15 07:38
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    The problem with redefining marriage .....
    Do you accept marriage between two atheists as being within the definition of marriage? If so, why?
Back to Top