I said that to point put that I KNOW these people exist, there are other undesirable traits, you dont think a murder3er everr held a door for some old woman? A rapist didnt go to school & get along with his classmates? You want an aberration to be accepted by society & youve been taught thast its okay to be "gay" because theyre not bad people..Well,, I dont have a problem saying, what they DO is not right, they can do it, Im njot gonna try to stop them, Ive known them, I worked with them,even in the oilfield, I know they arent limp wristed, I am not willing to be lectured to on WHY I should so happily accept this as the next thing society WILL embrace &

WITH respect to The wrong Side of History,, Everybody should have a look back at a few of the great empires that have risen & fallen & how their societal Mores decayed,,

Think back to the first time you heard that there were boys who wanted to be with boys.. really,, your first reaction?

It was a disgusting idea, wasnt it?

It still is. It sounded Wrong then, it still does sound wrong, I will never agree with a legally sanctioned marriage for it. I also dont agree with bad treatment for them,Im not out to hurt anyone, not gonna stone anyone, but for a country to legally sanction it is inviting the wrath of God. You dont believe in God? Not my problem,,

I, 100% believe Jesus was gay.

For Web, so how is homosexual love different than a man and womans love? And please do tell me how it is diminished? Cause YOU and YOURs won't allow them to marry? And when two people love each other marriage is usually the next step, not a civil union.. I don't remember ever asking any of my three wives for a civil union...

Because it’s not normal. When viewing something as primary to the human state as attraction towards another person for the purposes of lifelong companionship; if 98% of the population acts one way and 2% act another, the 2% is not normal.

Again, you have such a disdain for religion and since marriage is primarily a religious event, what’s wrong with a civil union that gives you the same legal rights? Why the need to call it a marriage? Could it be this is a way to ‘normalize’ what you instinctively know to be abnormal?

If you believe in Jesus, then you should know there is no more "Wrath of God"...

Where did you get that idea?

Good point, Web... I would say "Choice"... but, I suppose by "affect me"... you mean men in general, or in this case, the man that impregnated the woman...

So,.. given that,... good point...
Now,... how does gay marriage effect you?... or men, or women in general, or in anyway,... other than the two parties involved?...

I still say, the solution is to get government out of the religion business, and make all unions civil...
Marriage is a religious ritual... it should have no legal bind, or government sanction, or endorsement......
There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State... ...

WebsterMark wrote on 08/07/12 at 10:31:17:


2% of the population says the Earth revolves around the sun.
98% say the Earth is the epicenter and the sun revolves around it.

2% say the world is a sphere.
98% say the world is flat and you can fall off the edge of it.

Take suffrage as not the best example. I'm sure there were a lot of men who didn't want women to vote but I'm sure there were also a few women who didn't want the right to vote. This is a poor example because men could have their votes countered or supported but I'm sure someone else can build on that.


--Steve

  I hear a lot of whats normal and whats not.. So to a gay man the relationship we have with a woman is not normal.. If you live in an all white community and a black man moves in, is he normal? If you have a one black swan in a large group of white, is it a normal swan?

  Yes, if you believe in Jesus you are saved, there is no wrath of God. So old testament...

  Yes, if you believe in Jesus you are saved, there is no wrath of God. So old testament...
okay, I see your point and agree.

If you live in an all white community and a black man moves in, is he normal?

On one hand, I'd say no, but this is poor example for you to use because I think homosexuality is defined by behavior, not color. That's why civil rights and gay rights are not the same.

however, on the other hand, lets say you are looking a a big pile of white poker chips  plus one black chip mixed in. Someone ask you to consider only the chips in front of you and to select the chip that is abnormal. Clearly, everyone would select the black chip.

I think we're going around and around in circles. i concede that my side will ultimately loose this fight and we will have gay marriage. Shortly after that, we will face the issue of multiple partner marriages, one man two women for example, and it will be kind of funny to watch the gay rights people object to equating this cause with their cause.

But if gender is removed as a barrier to marriage and if the definition of who can get married is changed to any two people who jointly agree to be married, then it’s a easy jump to simply say any 3 people.

Any objections to that would be…….. bigoted?    

I guess I chose the wrong word,, It would be normal to walk with a limp if the King had every childs right leg broken & wouldnt allow it to be set properly, but it wouldnt be Natural. Yea, there are some homosexual behaviors in many species, none of them have a concept of right & wrong, except people.
Was a time when society was intolerant of teenage pregnancies. Society was better back then.
There really is a right & wrong. Being a root hugger is wrong.