Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Same-sex marriage can hinder the HIV virus from spreading.
Usually, homosexual men have many alternating sex partners. Marriage also obliges gays to be faithful.

Personally, I'm disgusted with gays, but my pragmatism is stronger.

 

Definitely agree.

So back to the question I was asking you and I'm not trying to be rude about it I just don't know how else to ask this question.

Seeing that same sex couples can do pretty much exactly the same thing as marriage but just don't call it marriage seems like lip service.

Why do you want lip service

 

Polydectes.....words matter! That's why. Perhaps if it was officially called "gay marriage" I'd have no problem. Personally, I wish government had never gotten in the marriage business. Because of them we have no fault divorce. When a couple engages in a contract and that contract is violated, someone is damaged. I would agree if both decide to part ways....that would be "no fault". When the Church oversaw marriage, it was called a Covenant, not a Contract. That is because their oaths involved a third party, God. I've gotten away from the point. I disagree that same sex couples do the same thing as marriage. They don't build family. It usually is a dead end. There is a big difference. When I hear the word marriage, I immediately think of "family". I am about to have my 8th grandchild. That is a modest amount compared to a lot of families.

 

words charge meaning all the time. So we need a ministry of language to dictate meaning?

Again that's just lip service why do you want that?

Government has been involved in marriage since before the Bible was written. Marriage is a civil status that was the entire point of it from the beginning. A governing body controls it.

That hasn't been the case in the US since the constitutional Congress. First Amendment.

How is this anything but prejudice against families that don't form like yours did?

so that 8th grand child wouldn't be a grandchild if you adopted your daughter, or married a widow with a daughter?

 

Same sex couples can and do have children, your definition of marriage is your own

So your entire argument stems from religious belief; why can you not answer such a simple question as to why other peoples religious belief should not be codified in the law as to your rights. Do you support your daughters and grand daughters having to cover their hair under the law? Why not?

 

Not in America. You were married in a Church by a Pastor who was licensed.
Families are mostly blood related with exceptions for adoption. You completely ignore that so you come up with a big " What if?" What you are talking about is like Hillary's "village" which is not family at all. Why don't you just go all in and go the way of the American Marxists.....they just want to do away with family and inheritance all together. Maybe you should just come clean on this!

 

So my argument stems from my faith.....so what? Your argument stands from your secular belief. We're just different. Let it go.

 

My argument stems from the law and equality under the law. Harm reduction. Not belief

Why do you feel your religious belief should be codified into law and not Muslim belief?
Or the belief of the majority of Christians that support same sex marriage?

That you cannot even acknowledge these questions shows how fragile your narrative is

As to me “letting it go” — never — you are the one calling for the disenfranchisement of entire groups that you dislike personally.
People like you — that their religious fanaticism is justification for legal ramifications — are the reason that gay people were once arrested, tortured, harassed and murdered.

 

yes in America who licenses pastors? When they do the wedding they always say the line by that power invested in me by the state by God not by the church not by the clergy the state that is government and they were involved from the beginning.

Utterly and totally false. Your families are created specifically by people who have no blood relation to one another anything other than that would be a violation of biblical law and many countries laws.

The what if scenario is called stabbing holes in your definition and it was so easy to make such a gaping hole in it it's the way people argue. Good thing what someone would do normally in your position when they realize they're wrong is change their position.

You seem to think blood relation is necessary a man and his wife are not related by blood so they can't be family unless they are so related by blood, then it's a biblical crime and often times a crime against the state.

It's not really a big what if do you not think that women who get married women and have a child ever experienced the loss of their husband? Do they never remarry?

I've actually knew multiple people in my life that have a family like that. So it's not a big what if it is an actual reality that is inconvenient to your cultural Marxism.

considering a child of a widow I married family is Marxism?

You are the one complaining about cultural appropriation of family and marriage that is a Marxist thing. It's what we see 20-year-old so-called socialists saying all the time.

 

That is a phrase a bigot would use. So you go on about your business, confusing the genders in our National institutions, weakening the family structure of America. You are outspoken and proud that you are a homosexual and you flaunt what you believe. Perhaps you want to cancel me and my beliefs but it ain't happening. I think you are surprised that someone stands up to you in this era of wokeness. You must realize there are an untold number that feel the same way about marriage. Think it's time to call this to an end. You and your likeminded friends can just party all by yourself!

 

I don’t have to cancel you — Time is doing that

Enjoy indoctrinating the children around you, I guess they make less counterpoints for you to dodge… Hopefully none of them are permanently damaged because of your hate.

 

I'm not sure you're in a position to throw stones.

Nobody is trying to dictate meaning to you. Believe whatever you want.

Standing up against non traditional families? That's fighting wokeness? Seems like it's trying to cancel the family because you don't like it.

I don't think there are too many people that want lip service.

 

Evidence that always solely that method? Pretty sure you could always be married by the justice of the peace.

What?

 

You want legislation to be based off of your interpretation of the Bible. That's the main issue here.

 

And let's not forget that the pastor States clearly that he's performing a function for the state and it's the state that has vested in him the power to declare people married at the church not God the state only the state.

he's trying to tailor the definition of family precisely and strictly so that it excludes people that he wants excluded from it by his definition.

It's kind of like that argument where you're talking about building a family with the same sex couple and you point out that gay people can and do have kids and someone makes this stipulation but not between the two people involved in the couple. It's just arbitrarily picking a standard precisely because they want it to exclude same-sex couples.

As far as the Marxist stuff goes I think people just say that because they've run out of things to say

 

Taking everything else aside, this is a clear example of "moral majority" thinking. I've seen this a lot over my many years on this planet. Even among my own family members. Well, the more controlling ones at least.

People often overestimate the level of support for their own positions, especially if they are in a situation where they are surrounded by people who think like them or are, perhaps, too afraid to say that they don't.

Then something happens, a law gets passed or an issue vote doesn't go their way. Then they feel a bit lost at sea wondering what changed?

It's often generational and creeps up unexpectedly.

Either way, the number isn't actually "untold". Fact is, 70% of US Persons polled this year support same-sex marriage. That number raises to 84% among younger demographics. Even if you allowed for some polling error and there's no reason to suggest that you should, the trend-line is absolutely clear.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

 

And when abortion was legalized....they were all for it. Now we see the trends slipping as the trends for convenience and the devaluing of life become apparent. Personally, I realize people are gonna do what their gonna do. You call it "Same sex marriage" and I'm ok with that. Just don't confuse it with "real marriage". I guess if it were put to a poll, a majority would agree to that.

 

Abortion polling has actually trended with very little difference between 1995-2021:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...bortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

So we don't really see the trends slipping.

Guessing's a fun game isn't it?

Again, how you feel (and how you think others feel) about numbers don't change what the numbers actually are.

 

Not really important figures never lie but liars often figure. I'm out of this game of you justifying your behavior!

 

I'm not sure what behavior you're referring to. I was just discussing how people perceive support despite opposing statistics.

 

Thats ironic seeing that all of your opinions are based on what you “figure” — from polling to what your interpretation of faith is. Guess what that makes you as per your own definition?