Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
why aren't you out there asking your political leaders to ban or outlaw those types of marriages? why only do you voraciously speak out against homosexual marraige? why do you feel you get to disallow gay marriage with yoru vote?

SM...as you can see....allowing homosexual marriages isn't really going to anything to hetrosexual marriage....nor are they goign to damage it any more than has been done....

the government needs to get out of marriage and call it a union for everyone
The line must be drawn somewhere.
 
The line must be drawn somewhere.

so then you admit you're only drawing an arbitrary line...

if that is the case, you should really consider your belief that you have a right to tell same sex couples they cannot get the legal benefits of marriage and the recognition of marriage. it is goign to do nothing to hetrosexual marriage. this is not a theocracy. if homosexual sex has been deemed legal (anti sodomy laws illegal), then there really is absolutely no excuse for the government not to marry them and give them the benefits that you enjoy.

as a conservative, you should tell the government that since scotus has ruled that we have no business in their bedroom, anti sodomy laws, then we have no business telling them they cannot marry.
 
Allowing someone to be married in a satanic ritual has not effected you in the least. Those weddings have happened numerous times. Has your life changed? Have you been forced to accept satanism?

The gov't recognizes Wicca as a religion, and even has military chaplains trained in the beliefs. Has this effected you? Have you been forced to accept Wicca?

first, Wiccan is not a satanic religion, second I have seen no law requiring that we consider any particular religious ceremony, including Satanism, as "normal".....are you aware of any laws which describe what type of ceremony is necessary to accomplish a 'marriage'?........
 
The liberals had reasons for taking their stand. They were against our soldiers dying and against an invasion.

The bridge to nowhere wastes large sums of your tax dollars.

That is what you are be protesting, not the actual act of building a bridge or fighting a war.

I used those as examples of the fact that gay marriage would not force you to accept anything. And it proved that point.
the fact you see a difference proves mine....
 
first, Wiccan is not a satanic religion, second I have seen no law requiring that we consider any particular religious ceremony, including Satanism, as "normal".....are you aware of any laws which describe what type of ceremony is necessary to accomplish a 'marriage'?........

good point....then allowing homosexuals to marry are not going to create any laws that consider homosexuality or homosexual marriage "normal"...

if you accept a wiccan marriage, you have no legal or moral standing to deny homosexual marriage, period
 
good point....then allowing homosexuals to marry are not going to create any laws that consider homosexuality or homosexual marriage "normal"...

if you accept a wiccan marriage, you have no legal or moral standing to deny homosexual marriage, period

/shrugs....no law changes or definition changes are necessary to permit a Wiccan man and a Wiccan woman to marry.....the definition of marriage needs to be changed to permit two men to marry......I consider that legal standing....
 
The line must be drawn somewhere.

How about a line based on rational thought? Say, limiting it to consenting adults over the age of 18 who are not related and not currently married.

Sounds rational and reasonable to me.
 
first, Wiccan is not a satanic religion, second I have seen no law requiring that we consider any particular religious ceremony, including Satanism, as "normal".....are you aware of any laws which describe what type of ceremony is necessary to accomplish a 'marriage'?........

I have seen no suggestion of any laws that would require you to consider gay marriages as "normal" either.
 
/shrugs....no law changes or definition changes are necessary to permit a Wiccan man and a Wiccan woman to marry.....the definition of marriage needs to be changed to permit two men to marry......I consider that legal standing....

But, by the definition you have given, you are forced to accept wicca, since the gov't recognizes their marriage. And the same goes for marriages performed in satanic weddings.


BTW, I did know that wicca is not a satanic religion.
 
/shrugs....no law changes or definition changes are necessary to permit a Wiccan man and a Wiccan woman to marry.....the definition of marriage needs to be changed to permit two men to marry......I consider that legal standing....

really....please point out the definition of marriage in the US constitution.....you ran away from the fact that FMA, which tried to define marriage failed....so pray tell....where is your authority for the definition of marriage?

and as i showed you before, which you again ran away from, in CA the law needed to be changed to NOT allow gays to marry.

try learnign the law before you spout such nonsense
 
You are again confusing my marriage with the institution of marriage.

The "institution of marriage is an imaginary thing. There is no actual "institution of marriage". You are just using that phrase to describe several hundred years of loosely similar ceremonies.
 
But, by the definition you have given, you are forced to accept wicca, since the gov't recognizes their marriage. And the same goes for marriages performed in satanic weddings.

again, no changes in law are involved.....a Wiccan man and a Wiccan woman are simply marrying.....the law doesn't require, acknowledge, or recognize their method or Christian's methods of marrying....
 
really....please point out the definition of marriage in the US constitution.....

not until you tell me why you think the definition of marriage has to be found in the Constitution?.....I consider the question to be irrelevant.....no changes in the Constitution are necessary to prevent gay marriage....the only changes in the Constitution considered were to change the full faith and credit provisions so that if Massachusetts approved gay marriage, the rest of the country wasn't stuck recognizing them.....
 
Last edited:
then we agree....no law changes are necessary.....

Not quite what I said. I, and numerous, others have suggested we allow gays to marry.

Just as you would not consider satanism "normal", you would not have to consider gay marriage as "normal". The fact that the gov't recognizes them does not mean you have to see them as "normal".
 
Not quite what I said. I, and numerous, others have suggested we allow gays to marry.

Just as you would not consider satanism "normal", you would not have to consider gay marriage as "normal". The fact that the gov't recognizes them does not mean you have to see them as "normal".
I don't consider Satanism normal, I don't consider gay marriage as normal.....a proposal has been made that would grant government sanction to gay marriage....nobody has made a proposal to grant government sanction to Satanism......
 
again, no changes in law are involved.....a Wiccan man and a Wiccan woman are simply marrying.....the law doesn't require, acknowledge, or recognize their method or Christian's methods of marrying....

But the point is, you do not have to accept wicca just because the gov't considers their marriage valid.

Just as you would not have to accept gay marriages just because the gov't considered their marriage valid. So no one is forcing you to accept gay lifestyles.
 
I don't consider Satanism normal, I don't consider gay marriage as normal.....a proposal has been made that would grant government sanction to gay marriage....nobody has made a proposal to grant government sanction to Satanism......

They certainly did. In order to be recognized by the US Military, have sections in the chaplains training materials, and be recognized by the IRS and other gov't agencies, they must request gov't recognition and sanction.

All of this has already happened, and it did not effect you.
 
Back
Top