Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

page: 22
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 






Legally it is not so simple. Was this surviving spouse the widow or the widower? See what I am getting at? The issue is more complicated then you attempt to lead others to believe.

Furthermore, I have said this so many times it is beginning to hurt. I see no concern whatsoever from the homosexual community in regards to how redefining marriage would emotionally damage the millions of people who see marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously the gay community does not take that into consideration. You like to throw the phrase "there is no compromise in EQUAL" around liberally. It is obvious that you do not care one iota of how the redefining of this term will affect others. No....you want your precious equality and you will steamroll over anyone who stands in the way of your goal. You have said as much in not so many words. "Screw their beliefs! I am being oppressed and I will not stand for it!"

Forgive my dramatic interpretation of the way you present your situation. I am a vocal supporter of homosexual "marriage" if----and only if---that community agrees to compromise on the terminology of the word "marriage". Sorrowfully, that is unacceptable to the homosexual community. For some reason unknown to me this community views a compromise on TERMINOLOGY as an attack on their equality. I have asked this question many times and the only retorts that I receive are nonsense like "There is no compromise on EQUALITY!!!!!!!".

I will ask again. How does compromising on the terminology of your desired union infringe on your equality? Furthermore, how can the homosexual community defend the practice of forcing others to conform to their view of equality be considered equality in the first place? That is oppression. The community seems to have learned very well how to exercise that trait.

I fear that what I am pointing out will fall on deaf ears once again. Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others. Hypocritical indeed. Once again I will offer a compromise -- Redefine what you seek with a word other than marriage. Far more importantly, create your own institution that provides you with all the legal & financial benefits of a legal marriage. Not only does the community receive what they have been struggling for; the religious folk get to preserve their institution of marriage.

That will never happen, unfortunately. The rabidness of the extremists will not compromise on "equality". In actual fact, the compromise is in TERMINOLOGY as I stated above. Impossible for the zealots to even consider. This is the dilemma -- the homosexual community does not want to give an inch to receive a mile. In this way they alienate potential allies that could greatly benefit their cause. But no, we moderates are infringing on their equality. I'm sorry, their IMAGINED inequality.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

edit on Tue Sep 11 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 




I fear that what I am pointing out will fall on deaf ears once again. Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others.


You keep stating this, yet totally ignore that many in this thread advocating for equality happen to be straight, so clearly this isn't a belief restricted to the homosexual community.

There may be some people (straight and gay) stuck on the word 'marriage' but many others are not and seek only the protection marriage affords a straight couple. I'm of the latter. Why do I as a straight woman feel so strongly? Because I am human, because I can't stand to see another suffer, while I may not be a savior myself that can end all human suffering, this issue is a no brainer... it really is.

There's a few reasons I have chosen the approach I have in this thread.

1) Gay people are not abnormal and do not deserve to be treated as such.

2) The government has no business regulating society based upon the religious views of only some of it's citizens, it has no business dealing with any religion at all.

3) Denial of equal access to any group, however small or large, can translate at a later date into denial of access to anyone for any reason, that is a form of tyranny.

4) With this thread I have proposed a solution. A vocal majority of Christian Fundamentalists have claimed marriage as the domain of their God, okay fine they can have it... they can keep it but they must in turn hold true to their beliefs and give up the status the government grants them and leave their marriage with God.

5) In simple but extremely profound terms our government is not supposed to have the authority to deny citizens anything that does not harm another.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

4) With this thread I have proposed a solution. A vocal majority of Christian Fundamentalists have claimed marriage as the domain of their God, okay fine they can have it... they can keep it but they must in turn hold true to their beliefs and give up the status the government grants them and leave their marriage with God.


You and I both know the majority of Christians would NOT give up what comes with Legal marriage.

All this - - - "It's only between me and God"- - put to the test - - - would fail.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
I see no concern whatsoever from the homosexual community in regards to how redefining marriage would emotionally damage the millions of people who see marriage as between a man and a woman.


Like whites had to give up Whites Only Restrooms? Oh wait - - they actually had to give up something.

Marriage is defined by those in it.

Emotional damage to Christians? What? Gays are supposed to care about the emotional feelings of Christians? The sad part here is you're being serious.

How about the Fundamental Christians care about the emotional damage they do to gays.

Here a beautiful site for you: Christian Gays - - - Gay Wedding Resources

christiangays.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others.


Their beliefs? What exactly would that be?

Their sexual orientation is NOT a belief. It is how they were born - - it is how their body is made.

They are People - - just People - - - like everyone else.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality

Furthermore, I have said this so many times it is beginning to hurt. I see no concern whatsoever from the homosexual community in regards to how redefining marriage would emotionally damage the millions of people who see marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously the gay community does not take that into consideration. You like to throw the phrase "there is no compromise in EQUAL" around liberally. It is obvious that you do not care one iota of how the redefining of this term will affect others. No....you want your precious equality and you will steamroll over anyone who stands in the way of your goal. You have said as much in not so many words. "Screw their beliefs! I am being oppressed and I will not stand for it!"



What if a gay couple gets married in a church? There are churches who are ready and willing to marry two gays in the eyes of God. Are they allowed to call it "married", then? So, a church wedding is all it takes to be called "married"? Different churches/religions believe different things. Who is right? If an atheist couple wants to get married, can they call it a "marriage" if they don't do it in a church? What about a satanist couple? They certainly are not going to get married in a church. Can they call their union a "marriage"?

Do you see how you can't start denying people the right to call their union a marriage, regardless of their beliefs/non-beliefs? The word "marriage" is not owned by any religion or group. There is no copyright on the word "marriage". No one group can tell other groups whether they can use the term. Even people in common-law unions use the term "marriage", when they haven't had a religious ceremony, or gotten a license from the state.

"Emotionally damage millions of people" - LOL, that is hilarious. Did you know that gay marriage is legal, right at this very moment, in certain U.S. states, and in several countries? Please show me all the damaged people right now. Man/woman marriages are in no worse shape, emotionally, then they were before any gay marriage was legal. Life will go on as usual when gay marriage is accepted everywhere.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
edit on 11-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yes I do know this and it proves the point, that for most it isn't about God... it is about suppression. If 'they' can't hold to their own beliefs then 'they' shouldn't expect anyone else to.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I fail to comprehend a shred of sensibility to

ignoring all of recorded history about the priority of a man and a woman in marriage forming the basic family unit for the rearing of children.

Nor, for that matter does it pay any attention to the abundant anthropological evidence that NO civilization has long lasted more than some decades after homosexuality became widely practiced and approved.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by My_Reality
Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others.


Their beliefs? What exactly would that be?

Their sexual orientation is NOT a belief. It is how they were born - - it is how their body is made.

They are People - - just People - - - like everyone else.



Really?

1. You say . . . perhaps, according to summaries of most research . . . at most 20% inherent difference whether genetic or hormonal during gestation/ at birth.

2. Which means . . . drum roll . . . that they ARE DIFFERENT.

3. Yet, your claim is that they are NOT different so they should not be treated differently.

4. So, if someone comes to your home . . . say a shirt-tail relative . . . and insists on eating with his personal spoon or fork out of the communal serving dish . . . and demands to be treated THE SAME as everyone else who does not--that you'd comply? And if you knew he had some horrible communicable disease . . . would you comply? He, is, after all, merely demanding to be treated 100% equally . . . regardless of his BEHAVIOR.

5. Regardless . . . even alcoholics with a predisposition toward alcoholism . . . no one holds a gun to their heads daily forcing them to drink themselves into alcoholic oblivion. Behavior is still a choice.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by My_Reality
Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others.


Their beliefs? What exactly would that be?

Their sexual orientation is NOT a belief. It is how they were born - - it is how their body is made.



Ohhhhhh? Hmmmmmmmm.

Yet . . . the issues are

BELIEFS

about therefore what!

The homosexual lobby BELIEVES certain cultural, social priorities are their entitlement according to whatever other BELIEFS.

Those on the other side BELIEVE DIFFERENTLY based on their priority other beliefs about entitlements and nonentitlements.

The homosexual lobby is demanding that the social constructs in this society be CHANGED to THEIR preferences.

Whereas, IF, man is nothing more than a rock a pigeon, a radish or a rock, there's NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE . . . it's all social whim of no substance. Political MIGHT wins . . . as the homosexual lobby has proven.

Whoop T Do. What a hollow victory.

Does that victory make orgasms more intense?

Does that victory protect children in such homes from having their sexual identities mangled according to the whims of the couple heading the home? The more solid research in recent years is rather clear on the hazards on that score.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by My_Reality
Seriously, how can the homosexual community expect everyone to accept their beliefs when they will not even consider the beliefs of others.


Their beliefs? What exactly would that be?

Their sexual orientation is NOT a belief. It is how they were born - - it is how their body is made.

They are People - - just People - - - like everyone else.



Really?

1. You say . . . perhaps, according to summaries of most research . . . at most 20% inherent difference whether genetic or hormonal during gestation/ at birth.

2. Which means . . . drum roll . . . that they ARE DIFFERENT.

3. Yet, your claim is that they are NOT different so they should not be treated differently.

4. So, if someone comes to your home . . . say a shirt-tail relative . . . and insists on eating with his personal spoon or fork out of the communal serving dish . . . and demands to be treated THE SAME as everyone else who does not--that you'd comply? And if you knew he had some horrible communicable disease . . . would you comply? He, is, after all, merely demanding to be treated 100% equally . . . regardless of his BEHAVIOR.

5. Regardless . . . even alcoholics with a predisposition toward alcoholism . . . no one holds a gun to their heads daily forcing them to drink themselves into alcoholic oblivion. Behavior is still a choice.



Sexual orientation is not a choice. How you act on that orientation is a choice.

Being left-handed is not a choice. A left-hander could try and force themselves to only use their right hand to fit in with everyone else, but why should they? They're not hurting any of the right-handers by using their left hand, and it is most natural for them to do so.

If a left-hander came to my house for dinner, he would be welcome to use his left hand when holding his fork/spoon. It certainly won't offend me, nor will it affect my meal.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I fail to see any rational discussion of this issue in such threads . . .

Let's say . . . winning at traditional chess has become a test for government and university administrative office holding.

Then someone comes along who's born with a brain defect that renders their spatial mental processes virtually dysfunctional. They demand a different SPATIALLY FREE CHESS GAME test for winning a high level position.

Pretending that could even be rationally possible, the point is, we're no longer TALKING ABOUT NOR WORKING WITH CHESS. Chess is inherently spatial.

Even IF a suitable alternative NON-SPATIAL test could be devised, IT WOULD NO LONGER

BE CHESS.
.

So, the homosexual lobby !DEMANDS! marriage rights equal to heterosexual couples.

Then what?

Then it proceeds, wholesale, to trash all standard notions of marriage.

1. Homosexual marriages typically last a relatively short time--in terms of the majority of those so married.

2. Even with those who remain married--it's an "open marriage" with partners humping with others outside the marriage with uhhh gay abandon.

3. So what's left? Some sort of legal agreement that's been mangled, shredded into some form exceedingly foreign to the whole concept to begin with and for endless millenia of recorded history.

4. Yet all manner of emotional intensity is sparked by such a hollow victory.

Go figure.
edit on 11/9/2012 by BO XIAN because: addition



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Kali74
 


I fail to comprehend a shred of sensibility to

ignoring all of recorded history about the priority of a man and a woman in marriage forming the basic family unit for the rearing of children.

Nor, for that matter does it pay any attention to the abundant anthropological evidence that NO civilization has long lasted more than some decades after homosexuality became widely practiced and approved.


Well - - let me get in my Viking boat and go pillage and plunder.

Maybe I can find a virgin to sacrifice.

Oh wait - - I live TODAY!



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

The homosexual lobby BELIEVES certain cultural, social priorities are their entitlement according to whatever other BELIEFS.



I've never considered EQUALITY an entitlement.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I believe that

it is YOUR BELIEF

that sexual orientation is not a choice.

That's like saying that someone who's 20% left handed has no choice about being left handed.

The best summaries of the hard, WELL DONE research suggests that the TOTAL predisposition toward homosexuality from gestational hormonal factors to whatever genetically determined predispositions--THE TOTAL IS MERELY contributes 10-20% of the variance contributing to homosexuality.

Any BELIEFS to the contrary are NOT BASED on SCIENCE,

BUT ON DOGMA, BELIEF.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN

The homosexual lobby is demanding that the social constructs in this society be CHANGED to THEIR preferences.


OMG - - an evolving society. And here I thought we were still burning witches.

Preference? OH! You mean RIGHT OF CHOICE - - like everyone else. Gays can choose Legal marriage or not.

edit on 11-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


Well - - let me get in my Viking boat and go pillage and plunder.

Maybe I can find a virgin to sacrifice.

Oh wait - - I live TODAY!


Evidently, it is your conviction that we should NOT LEARN

from all of recorded history

anything about the priority of heterosexual marriage.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Kali74
 


I fail to see any rational discussion of this issue in such threads . . .

1. Homosexual marriages typically last a relatively short time--in terms of the majority of those so married.

2. Even with those who remain married--it's an "open marriage" with partners humping with others outside the marriage with uhhh gay abandon.

3. So what's left? Some sort of legal agreement that's been mangled, shredded into some form exceedingly foreign to the whole concept to begin with and for endless millenia of recorded history.

4. Yet all manner of emotional intensity is sparked by such a hollow victory.

Go figure.
edit on 11/9/2012 by BO XIAN because: addition


You could substitute "hollywood marriages" or "famous athlete marriages" in each of those points. But because they are heterosexual marriages, we should allow them? Can we tell Brittney Spears that she is never allowed to get married because she can't seem to function in a long-term marriage? How about Kim Kardashian? Or Tiger Woods? Or Kobe Bryant? I have friends who have been in gay unions for 20 years. They can't get a marriage license, but Kim Kardashian can just because she's heterosexual????

Your argument makes no sense.





top topics
 
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join