Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
To the majority of people, Christian or otherwise, homosexual sodomy has always been a detestable act, frequently punishable by death.

I guess heterosexual sodomy is okay then?

Forcing the citizens to give their tacit approval/seal to something they detest is one of the worst of wrongs--but for some, it is "the right side of history

I absolutely detest cigars. Cigars are nasty. I don't approve of them. I want cigars to be banned everywhere - even in people's homes. They offend me greatly. I don't want anyone to own them. Just knowing they exist bothers me greatly. Do I have the right to detest them? I think we agree that I do. Should they be banned everywhere just because of my personal views about them? You tell me.

The appropriate question would be "should I be forced to give my approval--via "State subsidy, protection, and seal of approval" for the production and sale of cigars-- without at least getting a vote in the matter?

reply to post by WaterBottle

They actually have a reason to since they are gay and all

I'm glad to see that you finally agree! Now I'm curious about your "and all" reference. What are you NOT telling us?

See ya,
Milt

Plenty of hypocrites in those marches I bet. Lots of closet gays in France who probably don't think they're gay if nobody finds out.

I found out about three locals who were gay and I previously had a conversation with them in a bar and they were anti-gay at the time.

Two faced seems to be the norm round here.

I was going to post something witty but will just say that people have focused on the wrong issues to get all bent out of shape about.

Economy
Disease
What the Kardashians are doing
Does Snookie have a new tattoo

even the Zombie Apocalypse ranks higher on my give-a-poop meter than caring what people are doing in their own bedrooms.

Originally posted by ollncasino
I admire the French. They get off of their asses and do something about things.

Sometimes, usually for their own benefit, otherwise they just shrug their shoulders. This is a country of mainly farmers and bureaucratic staffers who don't understand much about the outside world except what is fed to them on TV.

This anti gay protest is partly the result of a sheltered communal lifestyle that is afraid of anything that doesn't fit the traditional mould, eg: family units....which is why gays don't come out of the closet much round here although there are quite a few.

There IS a new gay bar in town but it looks like any other bar, you would however find out when things got wierd.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak



The appropriate question would be "should I be forced to give my approval--via "State subsidy, protection, and seal of approval" for the production and sale of cigars-- without at least getting a vote in the matter?

What does personal approval or personal views have to do with equality under the law?

reply to post by BenReclused


That I'm a communist propagating pro-gay marriage rhetoric to corrupt society of course.

reply to post by nerbot

There IS a new gay bar in town but it looks like any other bar, you would however find out when things got wierd.

In the United States, people are often considered to be homophobic if they insinuate the actions of "gays" weird.

On a side note:
Your signature tickled the Hell out of me! Perhaps you might consider a possible improvement by adding "As Often And" between "It" and "As".

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by WaterBottle

That I'm a communist propagating pro-gay marriage rhetoric to corrupt society of course.

I knew that... After all, I AM an old fart! LOL

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak



The appropriate question would be "should I be forced to give my approval--via "State subsidy, protection, and seal of approval" for the production and sale of cigars-- without at least getting a vote in the matter?

What does personal approval or personal views have to do with equality under the law?

Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And both society in-general and the major religions of the world have means of offering their approval/sanction via recognition of marriage as the best way to raise a family for the benefit of the children and the State. There is no family purpose in homosexual "marriage'. By definition, children can not be produced by such a union..Such a marriage is a sham produced to engender acceptance of behavior generally regarded as inappropriate, criminal, or simply disgusting to the majority of the population.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And both society in-general and the major religions of the world have means of offering their approval/sanction via recognition of marriage as the best way to raise a family for the benefit of the children and the State. There is no family purpose in homosexual "marriage'. By definition, children can not be produced by such a union..Such a marriage is a sham produced to engender acceptance of behavior generally regarded as inappropriate, criminal, or simply disgusting to the majority of the population.

But only certain people have the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.

There was no family purpose in Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage either. There is no family purpose in a heterosexual marriage that does not end up with children either. There is no family purpose in two senior citizens getting married, or in a marriage where one or both partners are infertile/sterile. Two really, REALLY obese people having sex may be disgusting to the majority of the population, and yet... if they are heterosexual, they can get a marriage license.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Kudos to the French for sticking up for morale and values. Folks in the US detest homosexual marriage far more than everyone thinks but most people will not speak up for fear of losing a friend or being "PC" or hurting someone's feelings. Two thumbs up to France!!

It is always nice to see that other countries have problems with backward thinking bigots as well. Of course considering the French tend to protest over just about anything we should not think that their bigots are any worse than our own. We have the Wesboro idiots and they have these people. All you can do is be happy to know they are quickly passing minority that history will judge harshly.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And both society in-general and the major religions of the world have means of offering their approval/sanction via recognition of marriage as the best way to raise a family for the benefit of the children and the State. There is no family purpose in homosexual "marriage'. By definition, children can not be produced by such a union..Such a marriage is a sham produced to engender acceptance of behavior generally regarded as inappropriate, criminal, or simply disgusting to the majority of the population.

But only certain people have the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.

There was no family purpose in Kim Kardashian's 72-day marriage either. There is no family purpose in a heterosexual marriage that does not end up with children either. There is no family purpose in two senior citizens getting married, or in a marriage where one or both partners are infertile/sterile. Two really, REALLY obese people having sex may be disgusting to the majority of the population, and yet... if they are heterosexual, they can get a marriage license.

I am not arguing for denial of the ability of anyone to live with whomever they wish. I am arguing against forced approval of State or church for such a "union" without a vote of the citizens or church members That is the gist of the matter.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


So, should we put it up for a vote on whether we should allow disgustingly (yet heterosexual) obese people to get a marriage license from the state?

I'm not talking about forcing churches to participate in marriage ceremonies, by the way. Churches are private organizations (clubs, if you will), and they should be able to choose who they want in their church/"club".

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

So, should we put it up for a vote on whether we should allow disgustingly (yet heterosexual) obese people to get a marriage license from the state?

I'm not talking about forcing churches to participate in marriage ceremonies, by the way. Churches are private organizations (clubs, if you will), and they should be able to choose who they want in their church/"club".

In every society and major religon, heterosexual marriage has always been the only kind. It is the only union that needs acknowledgement of certain legal obligations of raising children, and providing for the woman and children if dissolution occurs. The only requirements in most of the West for marriage are that it be between a man and a woman, that neither be currently married to another, and that certain untreated diseases are not present. The man/woman part has been around as long as written history--has never required a vote, and has always been accepted as the only legitimate marriage.

The modern attempts to legalize homosexual marriage are part of the plans to reduce population, and to decrease the moral uprightness of the populations, and to destroy Christian beliefs in general. Of course people of that sexual persuasion, and those under the thrall of the modern media/education misappropriation, gladly agree with those attempts/teachings.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


In every society and major religon, heterosexual marriage has always been the only kind. It is the only union that needs acknowledgement of certain legal obligations of raising children, and providing for the woman and children if dissolution occurs. The only requirements in most of the West for marriage are that it be between a man and a woman, that neither be currently married to another, and that certain untreated diseases are not present. The man/woman part has been around as long as written history--has never required a vote, and has always been accepted as the only legitimate marriage.

The modern attempts to legalize homosexual marriage are part of the plans to reduce population, and to decrease the moral uprightness of the populations, and to destroy Christian beliefs in general. Of course people of that sexual persuasion, and those under the thrall of the modern media/education misappropriation, gladly agree with those attempts/teachings.

In every society and major religion, slavery was accepted as the norm. It was illegal for blacks to marry whites. It was believed that the children of such unions would be imbeciles. It was considered going against God to mix the races. We don't follow such ignorant beliefs any more. It was a great struggle to get this point, and many went kicking and screaming. But, we survived it.

Believe it or not, in spite of homosexual marriage, heterosexual marriages will keep on happening, just like they always have. Population will not be reduced. "Christian" beliefs are actually to love your god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself -- at least that's what Jesus preached. And many Christians are fine with gay marriage.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak


In every society and major religon, heterosexual marriage has always been the only kind. It is the only union that needs acknowledgement of certain legal obligations of raising children, and providing for the woman and children if dissolution occurs. The only requirements in most of the West for marriage are that it be between a man and a woman, that neither be currently married to another, and that certain untreated diseases are not present. The man/woman part has been around as long as written history--has never required a vote, and has always been accepted as the only legitimate marriage.

The modern attempts to legalize homosexual marriage are part of the plans to reduce population, and to decrease the moral uprightness of the populations, and to destroy Christian beliefs in general. Of course people of that sexual persuasion, and those under the thrall of the modern media/education misappropriation, gladly agree with those attempts/teachings.

In every society and major religion, slavery was accepted as the norm. It was illegal for blacks to marry whites. It was believed that the children of such unions would be imbeciles. It was considered going against God to mix the races. We don't follow such ignorant beliefs any more. It was a great struggle to get this point, and many went kicking and screaming. But, we survived it.

Believe it or not, in spite of homosexual marriage, heterosexual marriages will keep on happening, just like they always have. Population will not be reduced. "Christian" beliefs are actually to love your god with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself -- at least that's what Jesus preached. And many Christians are fine with gay marriage.

Even in societies that accepted slavery, the slaves, when allowed to marry, could marry only someone of the opposite sex. Inter-racial marriage has considerably more problems, and a much higher incidence of divorce than does the usual marriage--between members of the same race, similar religious backgrounds, similar social class backgrounds (although a few such inter-racial marriages may work-out OK). The children of bi-racial (black-white) marriage usually end up hating the white race for reasons that should be obvious upon reflexion.

Certainly we are encouraaged to love one another in Christianity. We are not encouraged to applaud or approve activities or sanctions which lead to the death of the family or to actions that are ultimately harmful to the individual.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

Certainly we are encouraaged to love one another in Christianity. We are not encouraged to applaud or approve activities or sanctions which lead to the death of the family or to actions that are ultimately harmful to the individual.

Certainly, but it seems we are drifting way off topic now. What does any of these factors have to do with extremists protesting gay marriage laws? Unless, perhaps you are suggesting those protesters may be inciting actions that would harm individuals?

Some good points.

In South Africa we've had same-sex marriage since 2006.
Since then nothing unusual has happened.
The Christian churches are still rocking and cheating people, and possibly even expanding.
Gay people are more vocal, but there hasn't been an increase in homosexuality.

In SA we made a new Constitution around 1994 which barred discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Many religious people say we should vote on same-sex marriage, but they also want to vote on the death sentence, but God forbid the majority should vote on whether white people should keep their land ... or perhaps we should vote on whether we must pay taxes and can smoke tobacco?

Despite certain sentiments, some rights should not be decided by the majority.
That would be disastrous to minorities.
Although it does seem one can vote for certain candidates who are either pro or anti same-sex marriage in various countries, and gay marriage was actually voted for in some countries.

It's easy to see people demanding that things should be denied others, when they forget that their rights are also just fairly recent constructs.

Human rights do change with the times.

Families change with the times, and can become more inclusive.

Science, which allows more people procreation and safer pregnancies, changes with the times.

Not everyone can stay stuck in the 1950s.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Its 2013 no one cares about gay marriage but old people and religious nutcases

Just because you want to believe that, doesn't make it true. I know several atheists (ranging from twenty something up to their forties) who are against gay marriage because it goes against "natural law". So nice try demonizing an entire group of people.