Quiet please....The ultra conservative, fundamentalist religious racist bigot is trying to speak!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Your point is moot though.

I oppose gay marriage not gay people.

Get over the homosexual issue. The government needs to stop running our lives. If you are so against same sex marriage then the only fair thing to do is take away every government benefit that married people get. Take away credit score benefits on joint credit apps. Let's see how fast people shut up then because their god is money and not truth.

And I suppose I should give over my children too. Just to prove Im not a homophobe.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Just curious -- what is your feeling on divorce? Specifically, heterosexual divorce? Do you think it should be illegal? Nothing breaks apart a family more than divorce, no? Do you believe that once a couple marries, they should never be allowed to divorce/split up, no matter the reason (especially if there's children)?

I have thoughts on divorce, but they are irrelevant. Its what happens after divorce that worries me.

I guess I am wondering why you single out gay marriage as such a detriment to the traditional family, when there are so many other things that REALLY are a detriment -- such as infidelity, abuse, abandonment, divorce. Not to mention all the nefarious reasons some people get married (trophy wives, sugar daddies, business deals, citizenship, etc., etc.) Don't these other things hurt the traditional family way, way worse than gay marriage ever could? Gay marriage is a positive thing -- unlike the other things I mentioned. It involves love and commitment -- unlike the other things I mentioned.

You say that you don't have a problem with gays having relationships. If you saw two gay men walking down the street, how would you even know whether they were just in a relationship, or married? Even if you saw those two men walking with a couple of children? Two gay men who don't have a marriage license can still raise children together. You don't have a problem with two unmarried gay men raising a child? I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, because I really don't.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I dont fault them for wanting to spend a live together. But because the laws of marriage are to protect a man and woman in the interest of raising a child, a birth born blood child, I oppose gay marriage and the threat it poses on the traditional and biological family unit that nature provided for us.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I dont fault them for wanting to spend a live together. But because the laws of marriage are to protect a man and woman in the interest of raising a child, a birth born blood child, I oppose gay marriage and the threat it poses on the traditional and biological family unit that nature provided for us.

I'm still not getting to the root of the issue. It sounds like you are not against gay marriage, per se -- you are against gays raising children, because you think only heterosexuals should raise children? So, you are in fact, against a single gay raising a child, or two unmarried gays raising a child, as well? And you are against this because.....? Are you afraid they will raise more gay people? And this is a bad thing because....?(even though it's not true)

Are you afraid that everyone will eventually become gay, and we will become extinct? Or, is it a religious thing, because you think it will anger God and he will strike down upon us with great vengeance and furious anger? If a very small minority of the total population engages in same sex marriage, what exactly do you think will happen to all other marriages?

reply to post by Koros


Tell me how does that makes him a bigot/homophobe ?

the only way those people would be able to comment on your thoughts and opinions, is if you were to tell them, if you dont want people making opinions of your opinions, keep yer mouth shut, simple rule in life, i never keep my mouth shut, so i too would have millions of dollars, but i dont b$%^ about thier opions heh.

reply to post by Koros


On most of those, I can see where your stance inspired inaccurate representations of you as a person. However, I am curious, how can one oppose same-sex marriage and not be a homophobe or bigot?

I'm not trying to start a fight here. I honestly want to know how those are reconciled.

i can see someone not wanting gay mariage just based on the fail of human race, not saying i believe that, but you wanted a serious answer.

and i agree , this is a rant post lol

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Your point is moot though.

I oppose gay marriage not gay people.

Get over the homosexual issue. The government needs to stop running our lives. If you are so against same sex marriage then the only fair thing to do is take away every government benefit that married people get. Take away credit score benefits on joint credit apps. Let's see how fast people shut up then because their god is money and not truth.

And I suppose I should give over my children too. Just to prove Im not a homophobe.

edit on 17-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

Karma generally deals with that part of the issue. You don't "give over your children" at all, but it is highly possible that one of your children may be gay. When your child comes out of the closet (not saying they will, but it's possible) your views will change a great deal as you want happiness for your child.

We'll see in the next decade or so...

reply to post by kaylaluv


The only people KNOWN to raise gay children have been the heterosexual parents of the present gay people out there.

Does this mean we shouldn't allow heterosexual people to raise children since it can produce gay offspring?

Thankfully, this will be the next discrimination that will be removed from our society. My question is who will be next? We've seen a great deal of taunting and dislike towards "Gingers" in the past few years, will they be the next group of people discriminated against? If not, who will that group be?

...if the next group is fundamentalist evangelical "Christians" (I put quotes around Christians because that particular group in no way represents Christianity), how are they going to defend their stance since they have historically been the aggressor? It should be interesting...

Originally posted by davjan4

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by davjan4

 

Who is persecuting you? Who is denying your fundamental right to worship as you see fit?

Why do so many Christians feel as though they are being persecuted when they are prevented from imposing their moral convictions upon non-believers?

Isn't it more accurate to say that non-believers are being persecuted by Christians imposing their moral standards upon them? Christians who would deny certain segemnts of the population fundamental Constitutional rights based upon their own beliefs are the ones commiting the persecution.

Again, no one is saying that gay people should be allowed to marry in a Church. No one is saying that Church doctrine needs to change to accomadate the changing attitudes in the US regarding same sex civil unions. No one is persecuting you.....

No more "Christmas vacation" for schools, it's "winter break". That's one example.

Google "Christians persecuted in America". I'd list links to dozens and dozens of articles, but anyone who wants to read them can Google them. There's even a website devoted to that subject.

To believe that there isn't any persecution of Christians in this country hasn't looked around. It's naive to think it's not going on.

So... you think that everyone should conform to your Christian agenda? In case you haven't "looked around", not everyone in America practices your religion. Would you be willing to recognize Pagan, Muslim, and Jewish Holidays as well? If you were a business owner, would you be willing to allow your non-Christian employees to take holidays for non-Christian holy celebrations?

What's naive is thinking that you are entitled to special dispensation because you are Christian. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Christians, I'm Baptised in the faith myself. What I do have a problem with is the intolerance and dis-respect of others who are not Christian. I also have a problem with Christians who think their way is the only way and that they are entitled to special treatment because of it.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Koros

 

My views against gay marriage are deeply rooted in the family. That would be how the state treats the family, or in many cases, enjoys playing the role of breaking it apart.

I am not opposed to gay people having relationships, or sharing the same health coverage or insurance for example.

Hope that helps.

True. But here's an honest question for that I have posed many times to people on the right and I've never gotten a really good answer for. I'm not trying to start a fight either...I'm just truly interested in your viewpoint on this.

The Right often cites that "family" and especially the nuclear[/i ]is the basis of civilization as it is the most "fundamental" or "elemental" social group/unit. On the surface this sort of makes sense to me...but doesn't history tell us a much, MUCH, different story?

The "default" setting so-to-speak of human relationships IS NOT a mother, father, and the little munchkins. Every single civilization or cultural heritage on planet earth has it's roots in TRIBES or CLANS. On of the most defining characteristics that separates a tribe/clan from a more "modern" civilization is that they are NOT rigidly broken up into tiny little familial units.

Sure...their are still "husbands" and "wives"...but in many tribes these terms were not necessarily ever life-long commitments. In many traditions (including both Native American and Norse) a "divorce" occurred when the woman put all of the mans belongings outside the teepee/wigwam/longhouse/hut/etc. Typically speaking after she put all of the guys sh^t on the curb she was often free to take another husband who was in turn expected to raise the "stepkids" as his own.

Regarding homosexuality, indeed it's ironic that most tribal societies have VERY LOW rates of homosexual behavior. Conversely, we see much, much HIGHER rates of homosexuality in the more "complex" or "civilized" cultures. The ancient Romans, Greeks, Mayans, and Chinese ALL had varying degrees of homosexual cultures and/or subcultures. The most dramatic probably being the Spartans who were perhaps the most fierce and best trained hand-to-hand warrior that the human race has ever seen....and a culture in which ALL MEN were expected to molest little boys...with their consent or without. Strange. Disturbing. And 100% true.

Indeed, even as late as the 1800's in THIS country the word "family" didn't imply a husband, wife, and their 2.2 kids (or 5.2 in the 1800's, I suppose). Instead the word "family" implied something much bigger like "The Hatfields" or "The McCoys"....in much the same way as Europe has historical identified it's royal bloodlines like "The Tudors" or "The Habsburgs". People identified themselves based not upon the SMALLEST unit they could be divided into...but rather worked hard to be perceived as a LARGER AND MORE COMMUNAL unit.

So...can we REALLY say that the nuclear family is the basis of civilization...or is the basis of civilization much more accurately tribes, clans, extended relations, and even (gasp!) community? It seems that right up until the 1900's or so the latter was much more true than the former...right?

Am I missing anything here that you see and I don't?