Why is gay marriage part of the anti-Christian movement….

I think he (jb) knows better; certainly, most other people in America realize what you are saying is correct.

 

A child needs to first be conceived. Two women or two men can't do that. A physical impossiblity. And, of course, two men or two women can't provide the child the benefit of both their biological parents and requires that at least one of those biological parents be excluded.

 

Marriage is a civil right issue, it's part of a legal equality movement.

If States don't like that, they should disband all marriage and let it be entirely private.

 

This isn't about making a "baby", it's about love, marriage and families.

 

Actually modern medicine can determine the fertility of a couple with a high degree of accuracy. Have you never heard of a sperm count? However, if our government ever tried to stop heterosexual couples from getting married because they were infertile there would be a backlash that would make the backlash against Obamacare look like the voice of support. Why? Because people do not want the government to tell them who they can or cannot marry. The gay community wants the same thing.

It is so frustrating to see people take away the rights of others because of their own fears and prejudices. What happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal". It is starting to look more like, to paraphrase George Orwell, "all men are equal, but some men are more equal than others" .

 

Janet Reno is transgendered sort of. She ran out of money half way through the operation.

 

No one is taking away rights. Governmental entitlements and tax breaks aren't rights. Nearly every entitlement and tax break is specifically extended to one classification of people while denied to others, to serve some specific purpose. The benefits of marriage have never been extended to homosexuals, because they are incapeable of fulfilling that purpose, so they cannot be taken away.

 

Ok, "improperly withholding" rights then. Does that suit your sense of precision better?

 

just like MOST heterosexual households. Or were you not aware that over 50% of marriages end in divorce?

 

Not even close. At best they can detect the inability to give birth to a child when it is obvious. Many couples cannot conceive and science has no explanation as to why. Many couples who science had determined cannot conceive a child, did so conceive a child.

 

I suppose you have evidence of this claim?

 

Even so, the baby-making is essentially 'optional' in ALL marriages.

Allowing homosexual couples to marry legally is not predicated upon conceiving and raising children. It's not truly relevant, nor would most people view that to be anti-Christian. I have known of ZERO heterosexual couples' marriages to be challenged (religiously especially) concerning having a child or not.

 

Correct, homosexuals are unrelated to the process of conception. They have nothing to do with it and are antithetical to that process.

 

Actually, most births are the result of unplanned pregnancies. Thats why they encourage heterosexuals to marry before they become pregnant.

 

the ability/intention to procreate has nothing to do with marriage. it is not required in order to marry. since it is not required, the inability to procreate can't be used as a reason to deny marriage to anyone.


dixon, we've been through this before.

 

Childbearing is essentially irrelevant to the topic (of gay marriage).

Don't start this foolishness again, please.

 

Okay. So why don't you start a discussion in the proper threat on that matter? After all, a LOT of heterosexual people either have babies out of wedlock OR bail-out of their marital relationships, even after being married with children. It's an issue, but it's nothing to do specifically with gay marriage rights in America.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but it's irrelevant here.

 

Equal application of them across protected classes certainly is.

 

Correct, it is only relevant in the case of heterosexual couples, thus the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples. Thats why you call it "gay marriage" because it certainly isnt a "marriage".

 

Homosexuals aren't a protected class.

 

incorrect. it has no relevance to marriage at all. that's why the ability/inention to procreate is not a requirement for marriage. which is also why the inability to procreate does not exclude people from marriage.

 

Your commentary is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage, but you keep trying to make it so. Why?

That some straight and some gay marriages produce children is a fact... that ANY of those marriages hinge upon creating or raising children, isn't the case.

So now I ask, what is the main or primary and relevant point that you wish to make by mentioning childbearing in this topic?

 

Based on what? Your own prejudice? Can you point me to anything Jesus said that supports you?

Well, the evidence is clear that same-sex marriage has already been good for business in general in NYS, but I don't directly benefit from it. My personal business has nothing to do with marriage or family law, and my church doesn't perform same-sex weddings.

Post #1 says you don't. Why else would you insist on pretending like the word Jesus does not appear in the OP, thus "invoking" Christ in this thread?

 

Are you saying a same-sex marriage in the United States can't produce new Americans (who would presumably then benefit American society)?

They are in the majority of situations in the United States, in various state and federal laws and cases.

More importantly, gender is a protected class, and outlawing same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of gender.

 

That's all very understandable within the 'traditions' of Christianity. Even so, everyone is not and never has been "Christian", especially not in the exact same sense of that word.

Today, there are Christians who believe different things about many things (and there likely were in Jesus' time as well). Is gay marriage anti-Christian? Some would say yes and others would say no. And certainly, the marriage rights of ANYONE should NOT be predicated upon what the 'religion' of others says about it.

After all, you don't see religion standing in the way of all types of people marrying, even having children together. Personally, I agree with much of what "Christianity" espouses, but I am by no means a biblical-listeralist (I've found that to be untenable overall).