The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

So having laws that only said one man & one woman, and changing those laws to say only one man & one woman of the same race, is not changing the definition?

not the definition, no....I don't think Funk and Wagnalls made any changes.....

why do you think they passed a law saying it was illegal to be married to a person of a different race if it weren't possible for persons of different races to be married in the first place.......they didn't have to pass a law saying it was illegal to be married to a person of the same sex because it wasn't possible to be married to a person of the same sex......that is, in fact, the very change that gays are seeking to obtain.....changing the definition of marriage so it would be possible to be married to a person of the same sex......
 
Last edited:
No mate, i answered this question.



You may have meant to ask a different question with geographical restrictions but didn't.

Pedantry is great isn't it?

lol....okay, just so we're both on the same page then......do you have any evidence that the definition of marriage has changed IN THE UNITED STATES, since THE UNITIED STATES became a nation.....(every one else but you already knew that was the question).........
 
You can't deny it, WB.

Ever since those black folks got this 'equality' bidness into their heads and women started asking for property rights and voting rights and even the right not be raped by their husbands (as if such a thing were even possible) the world has become a much bleaker place.

Whatever happened to the good old days, where a man was free to burn a witch, spit at an unmarried mother and rape a slave before church. Things definitely aren't what they used to be.

Change? Communism more like.

/shrugs.....black men could never marry black men, black men could never marry white men, white men could never marry asian men, polynesian men could never marry hispanic men........British men were known to marry British men, but only because they couldn't tell them apart from the women.......
 
lol....okay, just so we're both on the same page then......do you have any evidence that the definition of marriage has changed IN THE UNITED STATES, since THE UNITIED STATES became a nation.....(every one else but you already knew that was the question).........

I'm not familiar with this 'UNITIED STATES' of which you speak.
 
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone
and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured. Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled “Gay, Proud and Healthy.” Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality.

The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.
.http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/APAHomosexualUrbanLegend.pdf

And now, to tie in homosexuality with pedophilia:

In fact, there is a growing battle looming involving LGBT activists and those who will be updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. A group of LGBT psychiatrists and psychologists want the APA to remove a wide range of paraphilias (sexual orientations/disordered desires) from the DSM when the new version is published in 2012. These activists want pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, tranvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism removed from the DSM!
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3646/lgbt-lies-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/
 
no....I'm also puzzled why you think you're right.....

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Almost every poster here is convinced they are right, while simultaneously being thought of as both correct and crazy by the other inhabitants.

You'll probably get used to it eventually.
 
It's called "The Colonies" on your side of the pond.


Not since Paul Revere warned the British.


"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."



 



Not since Paul Revere warned the British.


"He who warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."




The Brits on the other side of the pond couldn't hear him.
 
Not even when he yelled really, really loud?



Wasn't Revere the one who fired the shot heard 'round the world? That was in New Hampshire, right?




michele_bachmann_crazy_eyes.jpg
 
First of all, you were the one setting the standard here, that attacks on the messenger were legitimate. Second, my "attacks" on the APA are focusing purely on facts. The facts show that their decision to de-list homosexuality as a malady was political forced on them by militant gays. Now it looks like they are being pressured, again by militant gays to de-list pedophilia as a malady.

Not only have I dismissed your references as hogwash I've now provided further evidence that homosexuality is related to pedophilia.

Yet you want these deviants to get married, which is the next step for legitimacy to adopt kids.

Why do you want kids to be exposed to potential pedophiles?
 
First of all, you were the one setting the standard here, that attacks on the messenger were legitimate. Second, my "attacks" on the APA are focusing purely on facts. The facts show that their decision to de-list homosexuality as a malady was political forced on them by militant gays. Now it looks like they are being pressured, again by militant gays to de-list pedophilia as a malady. Not only have I dismissed your references as hogwash I've now provided further evidence that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. Yet you want these deviants to get married, which is the next step for legitimacy to adopt kids. Why do you want kids to be exposed to potential pedophiles?

Why did Mittzie Romney?
 
Interesting article. I'm in favor of gay marriage, but it's nice to see an opponent who puts some serious thought into their position, rather than, say, quoting a religious text.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

Breeding really isn't in the interest of modern society. It's at best neutral, since we don't have any need of an increased population.

To be completely fair under this logic, you would also have to make the benefits of marriage conditional upon having children. It would make more sense to only grant civil marriages to people who had already had children (marriage as a private matter, as always, being up to the individual). And what about gay couples who adopt? Shouldn't taking it upon themselves to raise children who would otherwise go without a home count for something?
 
My position has been clearly stated on this issue. I don't give a shit what you and your boy toy do in private, as long as you are both consenting adults. Just don't expect me to call it normal moral natural and healthy, because it ain't.

And keep it away from the kids, dammit.

Something is only an unhealthy illness if it harms the individual in question. Merely being abnormal isn't enough. Homosexuality doens't harm the individual in question, and generally only causes someone mental harm in the discrimination other people place upon them. Therefore, it's not an illness. You are objectively wrong in calling it unhealthy.

And anything that is is natural. Homosexuality is natural, bestiality is natural. Fairies, on the other hand, are not natural. You are objectively wrong on this point.

It is not normal, so you're right here, but being abnormal isn't bad.

Morality is subjective, so that's where the objective analysis stops.
 
Back
Top