Gay Marriage: We cannot afford to indulge this madness

Has anyone noticed,

the RC church historically is set up to CONDEMN open homosexuality,

yet homosexuality in priests seems to go hand in hand, yet they preach against what they are behind doors ajar,

Sheesh. It's pretty obvious most of those against GAY marriage have insecurities with their own sexuality, one way or another.

Live and let live.

BTW, How is it MADNESS?

LOL.. the BS

reply to post by ollncasino

Marriage is a social institution that serves to produce and protect children. Society needs children.

Should a guy that got his baby makers blown off be prevented from marriage because he can't have children? Is it better to have a child living in foster care instead of allowing a loving committed gay couple adopt? Is this actually about children? I thought it was about gay marriage. Gays adopting is another thread.

reply to post by deepankarm


You can get married and never have children, the whole having children thing is what we have created and related to it through out the years! After all, isn't that the reason we have opposite partners so you can pro-create? But you don't need to be married to do that!

Marriage is just a way of saying "I HAVE OWNERSHIP OF YOU"

Originally posted by Domo1
I always ask this, and will ask it of you. How does it hurt you if a homosexual couple marries?

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, then that will be the legal norm.

The problem is, gay are already pushing, successfullly for homosexuality to be taught in schools.

California set to teach gay history and rights in schools

California is set to become the first US state to require the teaching of gay history and rights.

California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labour activists. The new bill will also add the disabled to the list.

The Telegraph

Parents' group revolts against gay education in schools

In what they call a parents' directive, Parents' Voice says forcing their kids to take sex ed lessons or any class that refers to homosexuality will cause undue hardship.

www.news1130.com...

Compulsory gay education in Dutch schools?

Dutch primary and secondary schools should be required to provide sex education, including information about homosexuality. That was the message coming from parliament on Tuesday

www.rnw.nl...

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Voters? What the hell does anyone's vote count in an intimate matter like one's union with another? What gives anyone the right to validate or *invalidate* your love and commitment to another?

Gays changed the private nature of their intimate love and commitment to each other when they demanded that the vast heterosexual majority give public moral and legal support for gay marriage.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Voters? What the hell does anyone's vote count in an intimate matter like one's union with another? What gives anyone the right to validate or *invalidate* your love and commitment to another? Just exactly when and where do we draw the line on our own arrogance?

I think that line is drawn here. Intimate relationships are just that and are not to fall under the realm of *any* authority. It is intimate.

Maybe you'd like a community vote on who you're allowed to marry and when and perhaps you'd like your virginity tested and maybe you'd like to surrender your firstborn to the church or the government for their purposes...and maybe then you'll see how bloody absurd your comment there really is.

Vote, indeed.

Well then the ''union'' will be called a UNION not MARRIAGE because my sweet friend MARRIAGE is a SOCIAL INSTITUTION not your PERSONAL PROPERTY.
And my sheep friend, society consists of people and people have different views.
Marriage was always recognized as a ''UNION BTW A MAN AND WOMAN'' throughout history by every member of the society.
You can't force any change legally through legal process as again COURTS AND STATE DO NOT OWN MARRIAGE.
So dear, its down to society to recognize your union as marriage or not.
So you may be married for certain fraction of society but you can't force your MARRIAGE on other fraction as again MARRIAGE IS THE PROPERTY OF SOCIETY.
Everyone in the society has the right to call your 'UNION'' marriage or not.
Certainly, i will not recognize you as married, get over it.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by ollncasino

 

Voters? What the hell does anyone's vote count in an intimate matter like one's union with another? What gives anyone the right to validate or *invalidate* your love and commitment to another? Just exactly when and where do we draw the line on our own arrogance?

I think that line is drawn here. Intimate relationships are just that and are not to fall under the realm of *any* authority. It is intimate.

Maybe you'd like a community vote on who you're allowed to marry and when and perhaps you'd like your virginity tested and maybe you'd like to surrender your firstborn to the church or the government for their purposes...and maybe then you'll see how bloody absurd your comment there really is.

Vote, indeed.

Well then the ''union'' will be called a UNION not MARRIAGE because my sweet friend MARRIAGE is a SOCIAL INSTITUTION not your PERSONAL PROPERTY.
And my sheep friend, society consists of people and people have different views.
Marriage was always recognized as a ''UNION BTW A MAN AND WOMAN'' throughout history by every member of the society.
You can't force any change legally through legal process as again COURTS AND STATE DO NOT OWN MARRIAGE.
So dear, its down to society to recognize your union as marriage or not.
So you may be married for certain fraction of society but you can't force your MARRIAGE on other fraction as again MARRIAGE IS THE PROPERTY OF SOCIETY.
Everyone in the society has the right to call your 'UNION'' marriage or not.
Certainly, i will not recognize you as married, get over it.

reply to post by ollncasino


M'kay. Does allowing gay people to get married mean that a homosexual agenda will be taught in schools? That seems like a different thread. Gay people should have all the rights the rest of us do. Equal rights. Not I get to marry a scorpion and a beach towel, but I get to marry the person I love. Arguing about what is taught in schools is a different thread and you would probably see me agreeing with you there.

10% or 1 in 10 isnt a tiny minority at all.

it's like not allowing lefties to be openly lefties,

because righties are the majority.. and "right"

Originally posted by Domo1
Gay people should have all the rights the rest of us do.

Actually, Cardinal Keith O'Brien is Scottish and in Scotland, gays already have all of the civil rights that hetrosexuals do.

On the other hand, if gays should have all the rights that hetrosexuals have, does that mean that hetrosexuals should have all the righst that gays have?

Does that mean that hetrosexuals can expect to have hetrosexual history and rights taught in school?

California set to teach gay history and rights in schools

California is set to become the first US state to require the teaching of gay history and rights.

California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labour activists. The new bill will also add the disabled to the list.

The Telegraph

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
reply to post by deepankarm

 

You can get married and never have children, the whole having children thing is what we have created and related to it through out the years! After all, isn't that the reason we have opposite partners so you can pro-create? But you don't need to be married to do that!

Marriage is just a way of saying "I HAVE OWNERSHIP OF YOU"

In my personal view, any opposite sex couple which choses against having a chilld isn't married.
The main purpose of marriage is natural growth of a child and maintaining social order.
Otherwise, marriage is just a ''sex licence'' .

We cannot afford NOT to indulge this madness

You see when a country wants a loan from the international bankers they have to meet certain conditions and one of them is to allow more immigrants in so corporations can get slave labour and the other one is to promote gays as a means to reduce the earths population.

No gays = No loans from zionist bankers and this is social engineering at a global level

LOL about the rights... I'm allowed to use my left hand openly, although in my mom's culture it is frowned on and seen as an evil curse, and many Salem women were killed for being Lefties, cause it was considered madness.. or witchdom or whatever...

I dont need left handedness history taught in class to be aware of my dextrous orientation/rights. Same goes for sexual and pairing orientation.

Gay Marriage simply shouldn't be limited to opposite genders. Hello thats why its called GAY marriage. lets gays have their gay marriage. It's gay, let it be.

Seriously.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
10% or 1 in 10 isnt a tiny minority at all.

it's like not allowing lefties to be openly lefties,

because righties are the majority.. and "right"

Wow, first from where you got the 10% data???
Now, now no one is stopping you from being openly left.
But left isn't equal to right.
Again, homosexual sex isn't equal to heterosexual sex.
We are just trying to point out the difference to people like you.

You know, obvious religious (and not just Christianity) incompatibility aside, what is the problem really?

Okay, most of us believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and is a union blessed by God. But what about atheist marriages for example? Are they shams too because God has not condoned them?

I think we need to firstly distinguish between marriage in religious terms and a committed relationship that is permitted certain rights by secular law.

The latter is what I think the gay community are on about. I doubt whether many of them would even want to set foot in a church to be married by a man (or woman) of the cloth. The church is very good at making it known that they are not welcome.

Whether it is 'natural' or not is a matter of opinion, once again that opinion is oft (but not always) formulated by relgious belief. But there are hundreds of unnatural things we do every single day that are far worse to our society and the long term prospects of the survival of man on a daily basis.

Take for example our addiction to oil here in the West. The society and level of luxury we are all accustomed to living in is looking more and more precarious every single day with the ever growing demand for oil. New reserves being discovered are dwindling in numbers and are in places with dangerous regimes that are profiteering off our greedy lifestyles. Then there is the whole issue of the pollution it is causing our planet....

This abovementioned topic is one of just many far more serious topics we should be concerning ourselves with instead of resistance to a small percentile of our population wanting to 'normalise' their relationships.

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
Sheesh. It's pretty obvious most of those against GAY marriage have insecurities with their own sexuality, one way or another.

The word "marriage", in the English language has never applied to homosexual relationships.

Why should its natural meaning be re-written to suit the social engineering of the PC brigade?

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
10% or 1 in 10 isnt a tiny minority at all.

it's like not allowing lefties to be openly lefties,

because righties are the majority.. and "right"

What about incest or kiddy fiddlers because one day this minority will make up 1-10% of the population if the word goes out from the NWO to encorage them and i'm sure they could both argue that it is not harming anyone and can produce examples in nature to back up these claims.

Stop acting like sheep and letting the state propaganda machine tell you how to think because the arguments being put forwards will soon allow people who comit murder to walk free by saying it's not their fault, nothing is anyones fault right.

What about incest or kiddy fiddlers because one day this minority will make up 1-10% of the population if the word goes out from the NWO to encorage them and i'm sure they could both argue that it is not harming anyone and can produce examples in nature to back up these claims.

How does being gay = paedophilia? My very own mother was molested at the age of 10 years old by her heterosexual brother in law (She was the youngest in a large family) He has molested several girls, but never boys. Gay men are not interested in females, that is what makes them gay in the first place. It is true that some as in very few (thank God) heterosexual men are paedophiles and it is true that some as in very few gay men are too. But some does not mean all. If it did, then all straight men are paedophiles too.

I therefore find this argument senseless and offensive. All kiddie fiddlers, especially the one that ruined my own mother's life are definitely social deviants. I think we can all agree it will be a cold day in hell before we let a man marry a child! I know I would be out there being militant with the best of them if this change was ever proposed.

Two consenting adults on the other hand, well who are we to tell someone who they can and can't live with and love? After all, if you have read the bible like me, then you know that God gave us free will so we could choose whatever path we want. Granted the intention is that we will find our way back to our creator, but even the first humans managed to get that one wrong in the garden of eden.

The bible itself makes it pretty clear that we are all not going to make it into his kingdom, but does that mean we should scorn people while they spend a short time on this earth?

www.buzzfeed.com...

Originally posted by markosity1973
Two consenting adults on the other hand, well who are we to tell someone who they can and can't live with and love?

If those two consenting homosexuals can get "married", then who would be the wife in such a "marriage"?

Both of them? Or would both be "husbands"?