I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DRAZIW

 

Is this issue about taxes, or 2 people of the same sex getting married? After all you are bringing up more and more issues that do not seem to be relaxed with in that topic. After all where did the single person tax breaks come into play, as taxes are only part of the entire advantages of marriage, and that those same sex couples are seeking to enjoy.

The gays bring up the tax breaks. They want them. And point to taxes as "one" of the major differences between "marriage" and "gay unions" that they would like to fix.

But, the tax breaks were put there to help with the formation of "families", not for "sex". So, what gays really want, is the tax break a family would get because of the possibility and hope they will produce children, and apply that tax break to gay unions which can't produce.

In this respect, the gay couple is no different from any two single people who aren't building "families". And if the gay couple is granted the tax break, we must grant that tax break to single people too, since we no longer "expect" any children from either group.

Where did the point of single mothers come up? After all, there has been several politicians out there that has brought up that issue and have sought to limit the amount of aid a single mother could get.

Single mothers could be helped by the same tax break, they actually have kids to feed. So, at least, they are closer to the original intent of the tax break for married couples than the gay couple.

It makes no sense to give a gay couple a tax break, and deny the single mother who would be better served by it to feed and clothe her children.

The kids are what the society want, not just lusting couples. The lusting couple already get their benefit from copulating and feeding on the sexual sugar. Nobody wants to pay them to do that !

Yet the original argument still stands, that there really is no reason why 2 people of the same sex can not get married within the full context of the law.

And if that is so, there really is no reason why 3, 4, or more people of either sex can not get married too.

Marriage is about choice and the pursuit of happiness, would you deny such to people?

I wouldn't deny it to anybody, not the swingers who form foursome, not the platonic couples who have no sex, not the single person who marries Jesus instead and chooses to live in a nunnery.

What I don't understand, is why gays want to deny these same rights to all the other groups and peoples in the society.

And ultimately you bring up the very point that many here have been stating, that the law should be equal across the board for all of those seeking to get married, that if it creates a separate favored class, it is then discrimination.

Right. Don't discriminate against anyone, regardless of gender or number in the union.

Give all peoples the same equal rights.

There is no evidence to support that gay marriage would lead to polyamourous marriages, as that issue has been discussed, debated and been through the courts.

There were laws against homosexual activity too. Also, previously settled in the courts. They have now been overturned. New attitudes today exist, so all these things need to be revisited and resettled once again. No civil law is permanent. The law only exists until some other ruling overturns it.

When it comes to issues that are similar, we would agree, but this is a new issue. And here you prove my point that the law needs to be equal no matter if it is between a straight couple or a gay couple.

And the mere fact that it's new, tells us that attitudes have changed, and all the old is once again new in the eyes of the current courts.

No one is stating abolish marriage, rather it is being stated to allow for 2 people of the same sex to get married within the full rights of the law.

Well you must abolish marriage, in order to establish a new type of marriage. The "word" is the same, but the union implied by that word is different.

There is no indication that the marriage is heading in that direction. The only reason to abolish marriage is only if it can not be equal to all those seeking to be married, and within the full constrained of the applicable laws of the US. Now can you provide evidence to what all you are stating?

A homosexual couple can never be made the same as an heterosexual couple.

The biology in the situation keeps them different.

To make them equal, we must cut off parts, and/or add parts here and there.

Gays have no good argument for why only they should get equal rights under the law, and nobody else.

Originally posted by spw184

I understand parables, but i didnt know that having eyes that see and ears that hear meant twisting scrpiture to fit your needs.

The "wheat" are those that are fruitful and multiply. The "weeds" are those that don't and choke the growing wheat instead.

How hard is that to understand?

Originally posted by spw184

1. Says who? Many gays live full, long, healthy lifes.

Not true.

It's sad that the gay community don't reveal all the medical problems they have.

e.g. When men have sex with other men, they tear the muscles in the back-channel and have to wear plugs, or have surgery to restore the sphincter muscle in order to prevent their feces from just falling out while they walk down the road. A terrible condition, that alters the quality of life significantly for all gay men. Try to swim in a pool, and plop plop, it all comes out in the water, don't swim in the same pool with them. Mark those hotels that are gay oriented, and find a straight bearing hotel if you want safe swimming in the hotel pool...etc..

They don't "advertise" their problems. But, there are many.

2. Many heterosexual actions lead to disease and finally death, HIV and STDS go both ways.

Yes. This is true. Promiscuity has it's risks. A straight person having sex with a bisexual person risks spreading AIDS to the straight community, just as the homosexual spreads it among the gay club.

3. Good job for showing your arrogance again!!!

Who can be more arrogant than the gay individual that demands equal rights for unequal activities?

I love how the minute we steryotype you, you have a s***fit, yet you say horrible things about us and think we are all one congeled being all the time.

You're welcome to say whatever you like about me. I don't mind one bit.

As Jesus says,

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven." -- The Gospel of Thomas #44

Source: www.gnosis.org...

Man only has to worry about the holy spirit, since that is what lifts him out of the pit. Jesus and the Father don't mind what you say about them, so why should I?

reply to post by DRAZIW

All sex is sin. Like I said. Lustful thoughts are also sin.....There is one qualifier, if lustful thoughts cannot be eliminated, then it is better to have sex to express them, than to try to be celibate.

Do you not consider this incredibly sadistic? A little like a parent telling a kid he is not allowed a sweet, then placing that sweet in front of him saying he can make his choice, walk away and spy on him, he curiously picks up the sweet, looks around and eats it, the parent then comes back in and beats him telling him it is wrong.

It seems these rules are incredibly arbitrary. To make sex okay you must both agree to this idea.

Sitting down, and burning with thoughts of lust, and avoiding sex, because you're trying to be celibate, is worse than just getting married and having lots of sex to get it out of the system.

Is that not belittling the sanctity of marriage? You are advocating somebody marrying someone simply to have sex with them and "get it out of the system". It is okay to simply marry somebody you have no feelings for except lust simply to have lots of sex with them? Do you see why this makes marriage seem a little arbitrary?

Man only has to worry about the holy spirit, since that is what lifts him out of the pit. Jesus and the Father don't mind what you say about them, so why should I?

So what exactly is the holy spirit and how would you blaspheme against it? If the trinity is three parts to make one then how can one part have different rules to the others? Is this another test, like many others, to lull people into insulting/ allowing someone else to insult god or Jesus and then punish them severely?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

What I don't understand, is why gays want to deny these same rights to all the other groups and peoples in the society.

No one is stating abolish marriage, rather it is being stated to allow for 2 people of the same sex to get married within the full rights of the law.

Well you must abolish marriage, in order to establish a new type of marriage. The "word" is the same, but the union implied by that word is different.

There is no indication that the marriage is heading in that direction. The only reason to abolish marriage is only if it can not be equal to all those seeking to be married, and within the full constrained of the applicable laws of the US. Now can you provide evidence to what all you are stating?

A homosexual couple can never be made the same as an heterosexual couple.

The biology in the situation keeps them different.

To make them equal, we must cut off parts, and/or add parts here and there.

Gays have no good argument for why only they should get equal rights under the law

since when have we denied ANYONE equal rights?
Since when have we ever said "Oh, S & M couples shouldn't marry"
Since when have we ever said "Black people shouldn't marry"
Since when have we ever said "Catholics shouldn't marry'

We dont, so i dont see how your trying to make this argument because it is flawed, we are not denying equal rights. You are.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

1. Says who? Many gays live full, long, healthy lifes.

Not true.

It's sad that the gay community don't reveal all the medical problems they have.

e.g. When men have sex with other men, they tear the muscles in the back-channel and have to wear plugs, or have surgery to restore the sphincter muscle in order to prevent their feces from just falling out while they walk down the road. A terrible condition, that alters the quality of life significantly for all gay men. Try to swim in a pool, and plop plop, it all comes out in the water, don't swim in the same pool with them. Mark those hotels that are gay oriented, and find a straight bearing hotel if you want safe swimming in the hotel pool...etc..

They don't "advertise" their problems. But, there are many.

2. Many heterosexual actions lead to disease and finally death, HIV and STDS go both ways.

Yes. This is true. Promiscuity has it's risks. A straight person having sex with a bisexual person risks spreading AIDS to the straight community, just as the homosexual spreads it among the gay club.

3. Good job for showing your arrogance again!!!

Who can be more arrogant than the gay individual that demands equal rights for unequal activities?

I love how the minute we steryotype you, you have a s***fit, yet you say horrible things about us and think we are all one congeled being all the time.

You're welcome to say whatever you like about me. I don't mind one bit.

As Jesus says,

Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven." -- The Gospel of Thomas #44

Source: www.gnosis.org...

Man only has to worry about the holy spirit, since that is what lifts him out of the pit. Jesus and the Father don't mind what you say about them, so why should I?

1. That also happens to heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, and the only way your tearing your anal sphincter is if he has a 8 inch ***** and is going pornstar hard.

2. HETEROSEXUALS ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT AIDS AND HIV TO THE GAY COMMUNITY!!!!

3. Not unequal, sorry

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TOPIC CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From here on I want all posts to target bisexuals and marrige for bisexuals.
We have bashed gays enough, I want to hear if they have any arguments against bi-s

Originally posted by spw184


We dont, so i dont see how your trying to make this argument because it is flawed, we are not denying equal rights.

Yes you are. Gays don't want 3 people to marry. Gays are against plural marriages. Every time anyone mentions a marriage with 3 or more people in the union, some gay poster jumps on it and says they shouldn't get equal marriage rights because the courts have decided this already.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


We dont, so i dont see how your trying to make this argument because it is flawed, we are not denying equal rights.

Yes you are. Gays don't want 3 people to marry. Gays are against plural marriages. Every time anyone mentions a marriage with 3 or more people in the union, some gay poster jumps on it and says they shouldn't get equal marriage rights because the courts have decided this already.

Thats not the "Gays" that dont want plural marrige, that is an individual choice. Just like not all catholics do not want gay marrige, that is an individual choice Mr. Stereotype

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


We dont, so i dont see how your trying to make this argument because it is flawed, we are not denying equal rights.

Yes you are. Gays don't want 3 people to marry. Gays are against plural marriages. Every time anyone mentions a marriage with 3 or more people in the union, some gay poster jumps on it and says they shouldn't get equal marriage rights because the courts have decided this already.

Thats not the "Gays" that dont want plural marrige, that is an individual choice. Just like not all catholics do not want gay marrige, that is an individual choice Mr. Stereotype

No gay has supported the plural marriage. Whenever a gay poster attacks plural marriage, all other gays are silent. Silence is approval. So, the gay poster speaks for all gays. It's not just individual choice.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by ELEVATOR7

 

The problem is gay people want the religious to sanctify their "marriage". They're not content to be gay and stay out of church. A sin is a sin, and the bible declares homosexual actions are sins. Why can't they leave religion out of it if they refuse to repent? Rather they try to twist scripture to have freedom from the calls to repentance.

So sinners should stay out of church? According to the church that would be perfect place for sinners to be.

/TOA

Hello,The post you are replying to is a quote Originally posted by 547000 . Just want to clear this up.

Originally posted by Partisanity

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by ELEVATOR7

 

The problem is gay people want the religious to sanctify their "marriage". They're not content to be gay and stay out of church. A sin is a sin, and the bible declares homosexual actions are sins. Why can't they leave religion out of it if they refuse to repent? Rather they try to twist scripture to have freedom from the calls to repentance.

I know many heterosexuals who have been wed even though they are not virgins. According to the Bible, this "sin inside the sanctity of marriage" is addressed in full as a stoneable offense and an unforgivable sin. However, it never mentions gay people being married.... at all... ever.

You bring up the same flawed arguments at any time you want to regurgitate your anti-homosexual tripe on any thread you please, and quite frankly, you fail every single time only to show up on the next thread saying the exact same thing.

Your "arguments" are far from intelligent, I think it's time you gave up on the ignorant tirades that you seem to think are even remotely logical or based on any real biblical knowledge -- they are not.

There seems to be a problem where I am being quoted as writing something I have not. The post you are replying to is a quote Originally posted by 547000 . Just want to clear this up.

Just look at how the two lesbians adopted that 8 year old boy and gave him a sex change to turn him into a woman. Homosexuality is caused by strange insecurities and dominance issues imho. They ruined that kids life

Originally posted by Godschosen7
Just look at how the two lesbians adopted that 8 year old boy and gave him a sex change to turn him into a woman. Homosexuality is caused by strange insecurities and dominance issues imho. They ruined that kids life

Link please.

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184


We dont, so i dont see how your trying to make this argument because it is flawed, we are not denying equal rights.

Yes you are. Gays don't want 3 people to marry. Gays are against plural marriages. Every time anyone mentions a marriage with 3 or more people in the union, some gay poster jumps on it and says they shouldn't get equal marriage rights because the courts have decided this already.

Thats not the "Gays" that dont want plural marrige, that is an individual choice. Just like not all catholics do not want gay marrige, that is an individual choice Mr. Stereotype

No gay has supported the plural marriage. Whenever a gay poster attacks plural marriage, all other gays are silent. Silence is approval. So, the gay poster speaks for all gays. It's not just individual choice.

Silence is not approval, silence means we dont want to discuss it and get off topic, which you are doing a most wonderful job in doing. Not only that by your " the gay poster speaks for all gays. It's not just individual choice" theory is SO wrong in SO many ways.

Originally posted by spw184

Silence is not approval, silence means we dont want to discuss it and get off topic, which you are doing a most wonderful job in doing. Not only that by your " the gay poster speaks for all gays. It's not just individual choice" theory is SO wrong in SO many ways.

I don't want to get off topic either. I want to stay on the topic of equal rights for all.

BUT...I don't want to "exclude" some peoples from this battle for equal rights.

If we're serious that we don't want to discriminate against any people as a principle, then we must embrace all groups of peoples in our support for equal rights.

That's why I "include" the threesome, etc..and even the lonesome individuals too.

Whenever we write a law that says you can have because you are X, but he over there can't because he is Y, that's a discrimination that's unfair.

Tax breaks for all, or tax breaks for none.

Visitation rights for all partners, or visitation rights for none.

Protection from testifying in court against any of your partners, this must be for all, or for none, again.

These are the kinds of things that all peoples should have regardless of gender or number in their partnership.

Treat people groups like corporate partnerships, and have one set of laws for all, making all groups equal under the law, just like all corporations are equal under the law, regardless of how many people are in the corporate partnership--all partners are treated equally in a corporation, why not in a civil marriage too?

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by spw184

Silence is not approval, silence means we dont want to discuss it and get off topic, which you are doing a most wonderful job in doing. Not only that by your " the gay poster speaks for all gays. It's not just individual choice" theory is SO wrong in SO many ways.

I don't want to get off topic either. I want to stay on the topic of equal rights for all.

BUT...I don't want to "exclude" some peoples from this battle for equal rights.

If we're serious that we don't want to discriminate against any people as a principle, then we must embrace all groups of peoples in our support for equal rights.

That's why I "include" the threesome, etc..and even the lonesome individuals too.

Whenever we write a law that says you can have because you are X, but he over there can't because he is Y, that's a discrimination that's unfair.

Tax breaks for all, or tax breaks for none.

Visitation rights for all partners, or visitation rights for none.

Protection from testifying in court against any of your partners, this must be for all, or for none, again.

These are the kinds of things that all peoples should have regardless of gender or number in their partnership.

Treat people groups like corporate partnerships, and have one set of laws for all, making all groups equal under the law, just like all corporations are equal under the law, regardless of how many people are in the corporate partnership--all partners are treated equally in a corporation, why not in a civil marriage too?

edit on 3-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)

The problem I have with polygamy is this: Polygamy has no limit to how many people.

If 2000 people wamted to get married, they could, and in turn, none of those 2000 people would be able to testify against any of those 2000 peoople, some criminal groups would use this to their advantage.

Originally posted by spw184

The problem I have with polygamy is this: Polygamy has no limit to how many people.

If 2000 people wamted to get married, they could, and in turn, none of those 2000 people would be able to testify against any of those 2000 peoople, some criminal groups would use this to their advantage.

I don't see the problem.

In the bible, King Solomon had 800 wives.

You'd have to be rich to afford that many wives.

The muslims allow up to 4 wives, provided the man can "afford" to keep them. He must keep them "equally" also, he can't just favor one and deny the others.

Of course, today, women work too, and bring in their own income. So, it's a bit different. The woman might keep the man today.

Nevertheless, the good thing about not limiting the number of partners, is that we won't then create laws that are so favorable to the partnerships that people want to seek larger numbers in the group.

By nature, the more people in a union of any sort, the more disagreements develop among them. So, partnerships split up quite often. It's hard to keep many people together. If the law is so advantageous to partnerships that these people will put aside all their differences just to benefit from the law itself, then they are not benefiting from their relationships with each other, only from the law. At that point, we'd replace that law with a better one. So, things will work out in the end.


If we found that only criminals benefit from the law, we just remove that particular law.

Right now, the laws against illegal drugs are very beneficial to the drug dealers. It keeps the product scarce, and the profit margins high. If we strike down all laws against illegal drugs, then anybody could grow crop in their back yard, and there would be no crime at all. Who would kill for something that was essentially free? See? We create our own problems with these laws. We make it profitable to commit crime by introducing a law that prevents "most people" from doing a thing. Once we allow everybody the same equal rights, we automatically get the solution to all problems.

Or problems from all the solutions....

Originally posted by spw184
Or problems from all the solutions....

Right. Like two men getting married just so that they can rob a bank without being forced to testify against each other if one is caught.