Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

page: 29
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by kthxbai
 

What does interracal marriages have to do with this discussion? That indeed was a civil rights issue. This, however, is not. A group of people wish to invoke special privledges based on lifestyle and behavioral choices to redefine the institution of marrage.

Now, a person can not change their race, age, or XX chromosomes to XY chromosomes, but homosexuals can change to heterosexuals and visa versa. Why? Because it is a lifestyle, a behavior.


Interracial marriage IS a choice, homosexuality isn't. There isn't a black person alive that is attracted ONLY to white people or a white person alive that is attracted ONLY to black people. It's definitely a choice. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Gay men are NOT attracted to women, gay women are NOT attracted to men. You're thinking of the "bisexuals" who can "go either way". ... maybe that's what you are if you feel it's a choice. Just because you are able to resist your own homosexual tendencies due to being bisexual, doesn't mean those who aren't bisexual can do the same ya know.

... so how long have you been resisting these homosexual urges of yours? What type really turns you on and makes it difficult to resist and remain heterosexual? You MUST have homosexual urges since you say it's a "choice" right?

...such a bigot....




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


Your link doesn't work. And I did do an Internet search. I couldn't find one. You made the claim, I'm asking you to back it up... that's all.


I don't think churches should have to perform any marriage that they don't want to. But as I said, keeping gay marriage illegal will not prevent the church from being sued. So your argument, even if true, doesn't hold water.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by kthxbai
 


Just my opinion.

I believe it's an illness, a maladjustment.

I believe that science will soon discover what causes it and then a cure will be just around the corner.

I can't agree that a condition which causes men to engage frequently in anal intercourse is 'natural', healthy or desirable.

A cure will become available; and frankly it deserves to be cured.


Let me know when they find a cure for bigotry.


It has got to be the high point of hubris here to call someone a bigot that finds no meaning in anal intercourse.




Really. Well, considering that:

1. There are heterosexuals who enjoy anal sex

2. There are homosexuals who do not engage in anal sex

3. It is possible to have safe anal sex

And probably most importantly,

4. It is nobody's business what kind of sex anyone has, as long as it's consenting adults.

I think bigot is the perfect word.


Again, Its got to be the high point of hubris here to call someone a bigot that does not enjoy anal sex. Your mind is to warped to see it.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
Interracial marriage IS a choice, homosexuality isn't. There isn't a black person alive that is attracted ONLY to white people or a white person alive that is attracted ONLY to black people. It's definitely a choice. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Gay men are NOT attracted to women, gay women are NOT attracted to men. You're thinking of the "bisexuals" who can "go either way". ... maybe that's what you are if you feel it's a choice. Just because you are able to resist your own homosexual tendencies due to being bisexual, doesn't mean those who aren't bisexual can do the same ya know.


I think your logic deserves a run through of some devil's advocacy.

You are saying without a doubt, that people who engage in a relationship only do so under choice; but with sexual orientation it is not a choice? Are you questioning the biological draw that some have for certain types of the opposite (or even same-sex) sexes? I have never been biologically attracted to many different types of women and I have a definite 'calling' when it comes to a very specific type.

Is that merely choice or a biological function of my brain that draws me to those types? What if a gay man has no interest in black gay men because they are, as you stated, "not attracted" to that type of person? Is that a choice or biological function of their brain?


... so how long have you been resisting these homosexual urges of yours? What type really turns you on and makes it difficult to resist and remain heterosexual? You MUST have homosexual urges since you say it's a "choice" right?


Speaking of bigot; so anyone who opposes the logic of yours must be a closeted homosexual? I can see the equation of your logic here: If homosexuality is a choice, then all heterosexual persons must be oppressing that choice in some form or another. It just doesn't quite follow though.


...such a bigot....


Says the equally bigoted person....



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 



Again, Its got to be the high point of hubris here to call someone a bigot that does not enjoy anal sex.


It's not that I don't enjoy it.

The truth is I've never done it.

If I should ever do it, I may discover that I enjoy it; but that's not the point.

The point is this is pretty much what gay men do when they have sex.

Oh I know there are options, but anal sex is the main one.

And the main sex act amongst heterosexual couples is vaginal sex.

So straightaway gay men are in risky territory.

But they are also far more promiscuous than their straight counterparts.

Women have lower sex drives, and their partners can't have sex with them any more than they allow it....which generally isn't that often. This puts a natural and essential check on men's sex drives, for without it they would be screwing around a heck of a lot more than they are.

Gay men have sex with gay men, and they lack this natural check on their sex drives.

Not surprisingly, HIV and other STDs are far more prevalent amongst gay men than heterosexuals.

If you needed evidence that homosexuality is an illness in urgent need of a cure....

Voilá.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I think you are a fool for thinking that that is the main scenario for your argument. Just because a few women have low sex drives, that is not the main rule for ALL women. There are exceptions to that rule and a woman may even have a higher sex drive than their male mate. I'm female and I have a high sex drive, I would not be keeping anyone "in check" .

Your argument is also degrading to males, so good job there too. Like they need to "control" their sex drives as if they're not human beings. Your argument almost makes it sound like if they do not contain some beast, they'll turn into rape monsters. Almost like insisting that all men are rapists.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


Wrong more hetrosexual people are getting HIV..
Do you even know any gay people? or do you think you will catch their "gay disease"?
I wish I could type how I feel about people like you but I would get banned.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,



hmmm regarding Timothy:men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from certain foods. The first thing which springs to my mind is Agenda 21 telling everyone not to eat beef because cows fart methane gas and contribute to global warming. As far as men who forbid marriage; I suppose that could be taken to mean making rules against various types of marriage, however, in the context, people have always been allowed to eat meat in Biblical times, so I would say it is far more likely that forbidding traditional foods would be regarded as radical, and the same with marriage. What kinds of marriage were traditional in those days? In your interpretation, legislation regarding interracial marriage would have been an indicator of end times. What I hear you suggesting is a liberal interpretation of biblical passages rather than a contextual one. Even if Timothy were to time travel, same sex marriage would be not considered traditional. For that matter, in Biblical times, Kings were allowed many wives and concubines. Some cultures still allow that. For instance, the Quran says it is allowed as long as the man gives each wife an equal attention. In the USA we see it as an arrogant misogynistic machismo, as we have just come out of the romantic period of Elizabethan and Victorian times.


Nothing liberal about it, the quote from Timothy speaks for itself. As for what qualifies, I think beyond the United States. Why should we assume that the bible was written about the United States. As for traditional marriage, when and when are we talking. Would and could are two different concepts, if I point out that in England they outlawed eating bone in meat for a time because of Mad Cow disease, it does not mean that is what the bible was referencing. My point is simpler. I always found it fascinating that the two things mentioned would ever be outlawed.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Very long thread. probably mentioned but simply put constitution says specifically rights not enumerated belong to the states and people respectively.

Who marries whom is no business of the federal government period! nor its courts.

It is up to each states legislature and its voters.

I personally see much issue on the federal side with equal treatment under law which should in essence say again - butt out of people personal lives.

BTW, this comes from someone who labels and posts as a conservative, just so you know not all are religious nuts nor do we all pick and choose which amendments and constutional language we like or dislike.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I'm seeing the Supreme Court's inclusion as more of a protection of prospective rights more than anything. That and trying to do away with segregation etc. You could've argued that the Supreme Court had no place in ending separate but equal as well. Blacks could still be in the back of the bus and using their own water fountains. They wanted to ride the bus just like anyone else and wanted to be equal, and because the states apparently couldn't handle what was best, it was handed over to the supreme court.


It is the same issue here. The blacks could not choose to be white just as the gays cannot choose to be straight. It is not an illness, nor does it need to be cured. If someone were to tell a black individual in this day and age that their skin tone is an illness and that they needed a cure, they'd probably be decked in the face for being an utter moron. Fact is, everyone deserves rights that they are entitled to and this one is a long time coming.

Plus, whenever this passes and I promise you, it will, the issue can finally die and we can go about life normally worrying about the real issues such as the new GMO bill or North Korea. The sooner a decision is made, the better.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





Nothing liberal about it, the quote from Timothy speaks for itself. As for what qualifies, I think beyond the United States. Why should we assume that the bible was written about the United States.


Of course the bible wasn't written for the US. I would say though that the mindset was of that in the Middle East and particularly in Egypt/Jerusalem, and wherever the Hebrews lived. Given that the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah was of a certain quality, I think it highly likely that Timothy cannot be interpreted as barring gay marriage to be a wicked judgement. Perhaps you think differently, but we may never know.
And yes because the judgements of God should be worldwide, I would say that it is more likely to be something from the World Totalitarian movement which would capture the meaning of the end times. One has to view the activities of the fallen angels wishing to enslave mankind to be the foundation of judgements, and what is the most enslaving of mankind today? That would be the One World Totalitarian government.
What is the most current manifestation of that today? It would be the UN and Agenda 21 in all of its forms, manifestations, and organizations, including NGOs.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

I agree that it may very well be enforced through International Law, I think Agenda 21 is a good example of how this could be imposed. It still amazes me. Imagine outlawing marriage because it is viewed as a form of slavery and outlawing the eating meat on certain days to protect the planet. I find it amazing that this was predicted 2,000 years ago and while it appeared completely insane at the time, it is now being called for. While I personally do not believe the government should have any involvement in marriage (gay or straight or black or white), I find it amazing that there are christians who believe that gay marriage in America would signal the end of the world, as if somehow we are more important that the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


Here is a letter of an ex-homosexual to a radio show call "love talk".

When I was 16, I became sexually active with another teen-age boy. Our sexual relationship continued for the next two years. He introduced me to pornography and to the gay "cruising" scene. By this, I mean that I became actively involved in meeting other men anonymously in parks and public bathrooms for sex. When I started college at age 18, I believed that my homosexual activity would stop. However the stresses of life became greater, and my acting-out increased to an addictive level. At this point, I realized that my homosexual attractions and behavior were not just a "passing phase." I realized that I was truly a homosexual.

For a few years thereafter, I continued to have anonymous sexual encounters with other men. However it became a very emotionally painful way to live. I began to seek help. I did not want to be a homosexual, or to continue my sexual activity with men.

I began to work with a therapist who taught me a lot of cognitive coping skills and social skills. I also found a men's organization that sponsored weekend men's retreats and on-going men's support groups. I joined a men's group and continued to work with therapists to heal my homosexuality. Over the course of three to four years, I engaged in a major life-changing transition. Through the use of powerful therapeutic techniques, such as thought-process reframing skills, transactionary analysis (inner child work), bioenergetics, core energetics, reparenting and psycho-dramatic role playing, my homosexual attractions diminished and my true being as a heterosexual man has emerged.

Through my therapeutic experiences, I learned that my homosexual attractions and behavior were symptoms of a deeper need. This need is to receive love from other men in a non-sexual way. Early childhood sexual abuse, an emotionally distant and detached father, unhealthy relationships with my mother and grandmothers and a feeling of non-acceptance from other boys and men all caused my homosexual attractions. Because I was wounded at such an early age, I shut down emotionally to protect myself. This kept out more pain from coming in, but it also kept me from receiving same-sex love that I so desperately needed.

Through the course of my healing, I have received a lot of non-sexual touch from other men. This touch and my release of so much emotional pain has helped heal my wounds.

I am now 26 and have been free from homosexual acting-out for three years. I am no longer sexually drawn to other men, and my previously non-existent heterosexual attractions have emerged. My urge to seek sexual change was based on my internal emotional pain, not societal pressures to "become straight."

I tried living a gay lifestyle, and in my experience, it is unfulfilling and empty. The healing is not about suppressing the homosexual attractions. It is about embracing them for what they are, and for what they truly symbolize.

I believe that homosexuality is a symptom (such as alcoholism or drug abuse) of deeper wounding. The very fact that 90% of gay couples are not monogamous, and that most gay men report early childhood sexual abuse, clearly states to me that homosexuality is inherently a developmental issue. There are too many environmental common denominators among homosexuals to conclude that the causes are random or biological.

I have heard you make the connection between sexual abuse and later homosexual behavior in many of your callers. Acting on these homosexual attractions symbolizes an urge to connect with other men and to connect with masculinity. But two men who are looking for masculinity outside themselves cannot find it sexually through other men. In my judgment, that is why living in a gay relationship is ultimately unsuccessful.


Kthxbai, if as you say homosexuality is not a choice, please explain what happened to the man who wrote this letter?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


As to what you wrote about me and the label you so boldly placed on me, I will respond.

Placing a sexual activity onto a person whom you do not know, is a means to attack the person and not the message. This is a typical response from the homosexual agenda as a means to silence or anger the opponent by use of literary weaponery. It is a "strawman" fallacy to help strengthen a weak and inadiquate stance. This type of attack has been so overly used that at this point, it can not be taken seriously. However, this should be a concern to all, as the use of this type of "hate" talk only shows glairingly the intollerence and ingnorance of the one using it.

The use of the term "Bigot" is a psychological buzz word used by the "agenda" to also be used as a weapon against opposing views. It is meant to place one in an inferior position, while artifically creating a sort of victimhood onto the agenda. As I have said in a previous post, I have not used such tactics on you or anyone else, do not do so to others. It weakens your position and shows the rest of us your lack of interest in a civilized discussion.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by kthxbai
 


So gays have absolutely no choice but to not only engage in marriage but also marry another gay? As a straight man, if someone gave me a few million dollars, I'd probably marry a gay dude. I aint sayin I'm gold digger but...

Jokes aside, I've known people both gay and straight during my life that have both turned in the opposite direction. The person you were responding to is correct. You can't change your race or sex, but you most definitely can, be it for money or whim, change your orientation.
edit on 29-3-2013 by Theimp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kthxbai


... so how long have you been resisting these homosexual urges of yours? What type really turns you on and makes it difficult to resist and remain heterosexual? You MUST have homosexual urges since you say it's a "choice" right?


Speaking of bigot; so anyone who opposes the logic of yours must be a closeted homosexual? I can see the equation of your logic here: If homosexuality is a choice, then all heterosexual persons must be oppressing that choice in some form or another. It just doesn't quite follow though.


I don't believe his logic is entirely out-of-whack in that regard, though it may likely not accurately fit or represent every person or situation. He may be on to something though. Having originally been from California and being involved in the entertainment industry I have had plentiful occasion to make observation of many inclinations in these regards, and conversation with many that were very open to discuss these matters.

There would appear to be a preference scale in most people ranging from hetero- to bi- to homo- with all points in-between - coupled with a strength of libido scale as well, making the whole matter easier or more difficult to manage for some. While a majority may appear to lie at the extreme ends of the scale, mostly on the hetero- side, a large number of individuals do find themselves at some point in-between, and with persistent apprehensions about it. A person who has only acted upon their hetero- urges may rightfully stake claim to that "high-ground" of being purely hetero- but many find they have repressed ambiguous desires that could lead them to consider exploring the other side, perhaps only in thought, but may very likely have briefly had such encounters in their adolescence that they now regret and find shameful. Such individuals are the ones most likely to to be the ones most adamant and "phobic" in their anti-gay rhetoric, and also the ones most likely to view it as a choice. That TV minister who pounded his pulpit with virulent anti-gay preaching and was later discovered involved in a gay call-boy scandal comes to mind, and there have been many others as well.

Some strongly homosexually inclined individuals have also not had bi-sexual experiences and find opposite-sex interactions equally repugnant. I do not see a point or need to limit their lifestyle options from how they require or desire to find happiness. Also, I can understand a situation, among heterosexual men or women, who may have no children or family remaining, perhaps are now in their twilight years, and have re-united with a lifelong childhood friend whom they share interests and can trust and may wish to make them "family", next-of-kin, and beneficiary of their economic holdings as a marriage union contract so bestows so that they are situated with a trusted individual when old-age security is most needed. I see no reason two consenting individuals, regardless of gender, should be excluded from the benefits of marriage if that is their desire - it really is a matter of Equal Protection under the Constitution, IMO. Raising a family and having children is a benefit that may be better served from a marriage union, but is not a requirement of it - and neither are sexual relations required.

edit on 29-3-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Most arguments I see are along the lines of, "Marriage is not a constitutional right," and then, "Yes it is, and here's why." When in reality, at least in my opinion, it should go more like this.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Alright. Then why are heterosexual couples allowed to marry? It's not a right, but they're allowed to get a marriage license. If it's not a right, but people are allowed to do it with state sanction and certain privileges and benefits extended to those with said license, then it's a government sanctioned set of privileges. If so, then it becomes an issue of equal protection (14th amendment.)

The religious definition of marriage then becomes irrelevant as well, because we're not talking about religion. We're talking about government sanctioned privileges and benefits associated with marriage licenses issued to people entering into unions.

Just my opinion. Peace.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

I agree that it may very well be enforced through International Law, I think Agenda 21 is a good example of how this could be imposed. It still amazes me. Imagine outlawing marriage because it is viewed as a form of slavery and outlawing the eating meat on certain days to protect the planet. I find it amazing that this was predicted 2,000 years ago and while it appeared completely insane at the time, it is now being called for. While I personally do not believe the government should have any involvement in marriage (gay or straight or black or white), I find it amazing that there are christians who believe that gay marriage in America would signal the end of the world, as if somehow we are more important that the rest of the world.



In looking at Timothy, I found some notes on this passage that make sense. Your interpretation of it being for "end times" could be erroneous, as "later times" is the actual reference, and later times does not necessarily mean end times. It would seem that the entire passage may have more to do with the papacy than with outlawing gay marriage. You probably knew that when you posted it, but you thought you would hoax me with your bogus "end times" statement.
So here are the notes that are relevant.


Forbidding to marry - That is, "They will depart from the faith through the hypocritical teaching - of those who forbid to marry;" see notes on 1 Timothy 4:2. This does not necessarily mean that they would prohibit marriage altogether, but that it would be a characteristic of their teaching that marriage would "be forbidden," whether of one class of persons or many. They would "commend" and "enjoin" celibacy and virginity. They would regard such a state, for certain persons, as more holy than the married condition, and would consider it as "so" holy that they would absolutely prohibit those who wished to be most holy from entering into the relation. It is needless to say how accurately this applies to the views of the papacy in regard to the comparative purity and advantages of a state of celibacy, and to their absolute prohibition of the marriage of the clergy. The tenth article of the decree of the Council of Trent, in relation to marriage, will show the general view of the papacy on that subject. "Whosoever shall say that the married state is to be preferred to a state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be joined in marriage; let him be accursed!"

bible.cc...

You see, because the Holy Family is a biblical teaching, and was exemplified by Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. A more recent theory is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and lived after the crucifixion.

So there ya go. I rather suspect that you want it to reference gay marriage now, as some others in high profile keep wanting to make the bible appear to support their agenda and arguments. Let it be between you and your God.
edit on 29-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat
reply to post by kthxbai
 


As to what you wrote about me and the label you so boldly placed on me, I will respond.

Placing a sexual activity onto a person whom you do not know, is a means to attack the person and not the message. This is a typical response from the homosexual agenda as a means to silence or anger the opponent by use of literary weaponery. It is a "strawman" fallacy to help strengthen a weak and inadiquate stance. This type of attack has been so overly used that at this point, it can not be taken seriously. However, this should be a concern to all, as the use of this type of "hate" talk only shows glairingly the intollerence and ingnorance of the one using it.

The use of the term "Bigot" is a psychological buzz word used by the "agenda" to also be used as a weapon against opposing views. It is meant to place one in an inferior position, while artifically creating a sort of victimhood onto the agenda. As I have said in a previous post, I have not used such tactics on you or anyone else, do not do so to others. It weakens your position and shows the rest of us your lack of interest in a civilized discussion.


Yes, and I think a bit of Delphi technique and Group Think going on here too, as suddenly everyone was flame throwing the term bigot around like it was a pool party and people were getting thown in the water. Kind of funny in a way watching the usual arguments being used that the media has been using ad nauseum.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Siberbat
 



Easy, he's lying to himself and to everyone else. Do you know what the Kinsey scale is? Do you know what a bisexual is? Bisexuals CAN choose, but they're attracted to both, homosexuals can NOT choose. They are attracted ONLY to their own gender just like heterosexuals are. They can't CHOOSE to be with someone of the opposite sex any more than YOU could choose to be with someone of the same sex. Think about it for a minute. How hard would it be for YOU to be attracted to someone of your same gender? Think about it hard. Now, transfer those feelings to someone on the "other side of the fence". It's just as hard for them to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

...then you have the bisexuals who are attracted to just about everything, just like the guy in your little post.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 26  27  28    30  31 >>

log in

join