APP - Homosexuality Now, Pedophilia Next

I will post this again, since you pro-gay-marriage people seem to be ignoring it...

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?
 
Marriage has always been, in part, about sex. For decades having sex outside of marriage was a crime in most states if not all of them. The ONLY way you could have sex legally was within the confines of marriage. For decades, sodomy, even inside a marriage, was a crime in many states. It was deviant and legislatures did not want ANYONE doing it. It is dishonest to say that marriage was not traditionall about sex. One of the prime reasons, historically, to get married was to have children. That is at its very core about sex. Sex is a vital aspect of every marriage, at least in the early years of marriage. Your argument about deviant sex, especially since you so accurately define deviant as ANYTHING that deviates from the norm, is dishonest because many many married heterosexuals engage in deviant sex. Anal, BDSM, swinging, are all deviant and we would NEVER attempt to define marriage between a man and a woman as excluding any deviant sexual behavior.
 
Dixie said:
I will post this again, since you pro-gay-marriage people seem to be ignoring it...

I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?
Click to expand...
This is exactly what should be done. I would have no problem with this.
 
Dixie said:
I support a measure to remove state and federal government from recognizing any "marriage" of any individuals in America. In place of the government recognizing marriages, which have an inherent foundational religious history and tradition, the "state" would only be involved in issuance of "civil union contracts." The specifications would be simple, any two individuals of contractual age, can obtain a "civil union contract" without regard for their gender, sexuality, religious belief, relationship, or personal reasons for the contract. It would be available to gay couples, traditional married couples, moms and sons, brothers and sisters, BFFS, roommates, monks, nuns, midgets, whatever! Any tax, insurance, property, health, or other issue which is currently available to 'married couples' will now be available to civil union partners. From the governmental perspective, this removes them from any moral, religious, or cultural endorsement of any kind, and allows people the freedom to utilize this contract to fit their personal circumstance. At the same time, it protects the sanctity of the religious institution of traditional marriage, churches can decide for themselves (freedom & liberty) whether to marry gay couples, and the homosexuals can acquire every single benefit of a current 'traditional married couple', with zero inequality, all the way down the line.

So tell me, what part of my idea are you opposed to?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've been saying the same thing for years.
 
Dixie said:
If gay activists continue to push, and courts continue to overturn the will of the people, a Constitutional Amendment will be the ultimate result. It needs ratification by 3/4 of the states, and we know Gay Marriage has failed in 31 states already, and failed miserably.

I think you misunderstand how this works, if a Constitutional Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution itself, and supersedes any past decision of the courts. So it is impossible for the court to rule something unconstitutional, and prevent it from becoming a Constitutional Amendment... in fact, that is precisely how most Constitutional Amendments came about. The court made a ruling that something couldn't be done under the constitution, and we amended the constitution. This is different from an act or a law, those can be found unconstitutional by the court.
Click to expand...


You just keep believing that it's going to happen; but have your family prepared for the meltdown your going to have, when you finally realize that you jumped on a bandwagon that failed. :good4u:
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
And thus wouldn't it follow that the morals in the Bible are natural? Thus the Bible is an outgrowth of our own sense or morality and not the other way around?
Click to expand...
I think the Biblical morals are natural, since they were created by God. I also think that God had, influences over some folks who lived before Biblical times and in different parts of the world.
 
Southern Man said:
I think the Biblical morals are natural, since they were created by God. I also think that God had, influences over some folks who lived before Biblical times and in different parts of the world.
Click to expand...

what did god say about looking at another woman? lusting...just looking....

what did he say? are you going to deny those sinners the right to marry under the US government standards?
 
Southern Man said:
I think the Biblical morals are natural, since they were created by God. I also think that God had, influences over some folks who lived before Biblical times and in different parts of the world.
Click to expand...

And I think otherwise. I think it is innate in our species not to be a prick, especially since we as humans are communal in nature.
 
Yurt said:
what did god say about looking at another woman? lusting...just looking....

what did he say? are you going to deny those sinners the right to marry under the US government standards?
Click to expand...

The US government doesn't have standards for marriage; States do.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
Oh please do go on.
Click to expand...
He has a point. Most folks here are pricks to those who they disagree with.

Then there's the animal kingdom, where animals steal each other's stuff all the time, have multiple sex partners, kill weaker males , etc. It seems that "natural" and "moral" have no correlation.
 
Southern Man said:
He has a point. Most folks here are pricks to those who they disagree with.
Click to expand...
Not so much so that they would break the law or their own moral code over it.

Then there's the animal kingdom, where animals steal each other's stuff all the time, have multiple sex partners, kill weaker males , etc. It seems that "natural" and "moral" have no correlation.
Click to expand...

In my last few posts natural would be the same as 'logical'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top