Originally posted by Surtur
You simply should have been accurate and described it as the side that wants equality for all when it comes to marriage.
I was, anyone following the convo saw that. You chose to strawman and attack instead.
Originally posted by Bentley
"Yep, I tried to rape you with my strawman but it was your fault because you wore such a short skirt of an argument"
Bingo.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?
Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing
Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?
I'd argue how hard "virtue" factored into marriage historically speaking opposed to it being more of a financial exchange, but it's a minor point.
Overall, I give your post a 馃憜
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's a question for those against same sex marriage.Would you rather gay people be allowed to mirror heterosexual activity and commit to that kind of long term commitment which requires the inculcation of mutual sacrifice and responsibility? Or would you rather offput them from that kind of relationship towards a more promiscuous lifestyle?
Which is less palatable to you? Because you're not gonna stop gay people from ****ing
Something I appreciate about the institution of marriage is that it has long been a social mechanism for the inculcation of virtue and the organization of society. Is it wise to remove it from a portion of society that isn't going away?
As someone who is completely opposed to same-sex marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, yes, I realize making it illegal won't stop homosexual activity but that's not the point. The point is standing up for truth no matter the consequences or repercussions (getting called "bigot" or "homophobe" or whatever). The reality is marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman. Period.
It also pisses me off when preachers, priests, pastors, or other men of God are forced to violate their own religious beliefs to wed same sex couples. It infuriates me just thinking about it so I tend to avoid doing it as much as possible. Just like the fact that nearly a thousand unborn children are murdered in this country every single damn day while those who support abortion ***** and whine about gun violence and pretending to "care about the children" infuriates me.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
As someone who is completely opposed to same-sex marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, yes, I realize making it illegal won't stop homosexual activity but that's not the point. The point is standing up for truth no matter the consequences or repercussions (getting called "bigot" or "homophobe" or whatever). The reality is marriage is between a biological man and a biological woman. Period.
I'm appealing this argument to you in much the same way that even in moral disapproval of casual sex, it is better for people to know how to safely practice sex so that the consequences of inevitable behavior will be mitigated.
Also on the subject to your religious beliefs to you really believe the state determines marriage in the eyes of God? If not, then by pursuing this legalistically rather than merely having a moral view on it, you are fighting a political battle that will set back the electability of the right, and in the long term likely ceding far more legal and cultural ground than merely marriage.
Do you think it is worth it to fight the battle, and as a consequence lose the war?
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It also pisses me off when preachers, priests, pastors, or other men of God are forced to violate their own religious beliefs to wed same sex couples.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And so you would fight the battle and lose the war by taking actions that would further encourage a culture of promiscuity by denying them the institution built on commitment and responsibility?I'm appealing this argument to you in much the same way that even in moral disapproval of casual sex, it is better for people to know how to safely practice sex so that the consequences of inevitable behavior will be mitigated.
Also on the subject to your religious beliefs to you really believe the state determines marriage in the eyes of God? If not, then by pursuing this legalistically rather than merely having a moral view on it, you are fighting a political battle that will set back the electability of the right, and in the long term likely ceding far more legal and cultural ground than merely marriage.
Do you think it is worth it to fight the battle, and as a consequence lose the war?
I agree with you, it is not the place of the state to compel non-consensual economic transactions of this sort, and it is definitely not the place of the state to compel religious service.
I think you may still seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. The war I'm fighting is for truth... truth at all costs... so no, I'm (or rather 'we' [those of us who will never accept that marriage is anything rather than between a man and woman]) are not losing the war because the truth doesn't change based on whether or not homosexuals engage in homo activity.
When we give up on the fight for absolute truth then our "victories" aren't really victories at all, imo.
What you're asking me to do is abandon what I know to be absolute truth and what is morally just. That's akin to people on the left who try to force others to "accept" that there are over five dozen genders lol. I will never submit to a lie of that magnitude no matter the costs.
Originally posted by Surturcome on surt. "Man shall not lay with males as they lie with woman" u should know this.
Why do they need gay marriage to be legal? They can just identify as married couples. Problem solved.Man I love that feelings solve literally every problem.
Identity politics have no place in this discussion. We already have clear cut instructions from an almost 3,000 year old fairy tale that tell us how we should be living our lives today. 馃槈
Originally posted by Robtard
Have priest, pastors, pedos, preachers etc. actually been "forced" to perform a same-sex marriage against their will?
I posted on this topic, before.
The UK, yes. And hosting weddings on "church property", in the US, yes. But in the US, I don't think they were forced by law to marry people: just had to allow it on their property.
I posted the articles about them and it made Ushgarak so mad, he banned me. He couldn't handle being wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted on this topic, before.The UK, yes. And hosting weddings on "church property", in the US, yes. But in the US, I don't think they were forced by law to marry people: just had to allow it on their property.
I posted the articles about them and it made Ushgarak so mad, he banned me. He couldn't handle being wrong.
In regards to the US: Since no gay-hating priest is being forced to perform a rite against his will, I have no problem with church property being used for same-sex weddings, if other marriages are already allowed to happen, considering churches are tax exempt in part for 'giving to the community' reasons.
Originally posted by Robtard
In regards to the US: Since no gay-hating priest is being forced to perform a rite against his will, I have no problem with church property being used for same-sex weddings, if other marriages are already allowed to happen, considering churches are tax exempt in part for 'giving to the community' reasons.
It was NJ and it was a property dispute where the church peeps didn't want to let people use their property to hold gay weddings.
Some gay people, or as I call them, progressive social terrorists, wanted to make a point and got to do wedding stuff on the property to show the bigoted Christians that they could win. Something about mixed public property/church property and a technicality on NJ laws made it happen.
Also, the gay peeps tried super super hard to do that same stupid crap to the Mormons back when Prop 8 was being considered because the Mormons got involved with politics too heavily.
Originally posted by cdtm
That goes the same for synagogues, mosques, or any religious building that gets rented out for public functions.Either offer space to all, or to no one (Except a strict members only policy, which would exclude non members.)
Hey...now that sounds familiar. I think there was another case like that, too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It was NJ and it was a property dispute where the church peeps didn't want to let people use their property to hold gay weddings.Some gay people, or as I call them, progressive social terrorists, wanted to make a point and got to do wedding stuff on the property to show the bigoted Christians that they could win. Something about mixed public property/church property and a technicality on NJ laws made it happen.
Also, the gay peeps tried super super hard to do that same stupid crap to the Mormons back when Prop 8 was being considered because the Mormons got involved with politics too heavily.
The bigoted Christians lost it seems, good, good.
Your homophobia though, work on it.