Today is a sad day in American history

[Cedar Park Dad]

If your brother dies, you're supposed to marry his wife too.

That's what I remember.

We are starting down a slippery slope.

sarcasm on/ Why is the age of consent so high? Shouldn't "marriage" be allowed once puberty has been reached, isn't that what nature intended. sarcasm off/

People used to get married at 14 or so.

[DEB]

If your brother dies, you're supposed to marry his wife too.

That's what I remember.

We are starting down a slippery slope.

sarcasm on/ Why is the age of consent so high? Shouldn't "marriage" be allowed once puberty has been reached, isn't that what nature intended. sarcasm off/

This I was not going to get involved with this conversation as I believe that this whole Homosexual activity is a farce and I will never agree to its becoming normalized. Throughout all of history, what Nation until 2005 allowed/authorized Homosexual marriage? It wasn't to very long ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental illness, now it is mainstream? And this comparing Homosexuals with skin color? They are a minority for a reason, they cannot reproduce. So what is next, Pedeophilia? Bestiality? Everyone scoffs, but I tell you again, it wasn't too long ago when people scoffed about Homosexuals getting married legally through the state. Were there always Homosexuals? Probably, but they have never been permitted to legally marry, even in those cultures that actively promoted the practice. I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

[anygunanywhere]

There sure is a lot of scripture being referred to out of context in this thread.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

[TxA]

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

I've seen this asked a few times in this thread, so let me see if I can add some clarity since the concept of a counterfeit is something that's not getting across.

Evidence abounds that traditional marriage enhances an individual’s life span, physical and psychological health, and financial security. As individuals go, so goes the culture; that which stabilizes one benefits all. When considering same-sex marriage, then, the question becomes whether it will weaken the marriage institution, strengthen it, or have no impact on it or the culture that benefits from it. I would argue that it would have a significant weakening effect to marriage, thus having direct impact to my marriage.

You mention divorce and remarriage. One reason for this is more culturally acceptance of adultery. However, no one can reasonably argue that a broader acceptance of adultery and its resulting domestic instability can ever be in the best interest of couples, children, or society at large. Thus, over time, this has a direct impact on all marriage, yours and mine included.

[RoyGBiv]

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I completely understand the religious objections to gay marriage, and would not endeavor to change anyone's mind in that regard. HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties). The notion that a gay marriage somehow diminishes the value of my heterosexual marriage is simply an opinion. I could just as easily argue that when two men enter into a committed relationship, the value of MY marriage goes UP, as my marriage will have the benefit of offspring.

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

The notion that two people who have spent their lives together, investing in their communities, in their friends and families cannot have a simple, civil remedy for achieving the same legal status and privileges (Estate law, health care, tax law, etc.) as their hetero counterparts is, in my opinion, counter to the 14th Amendment. My union should be recognized under secular law not because it fits the religiously-defined notion of marriage, but because my wife and I signed a contract entering into the relationship (you married folks recall signing that legal document, don't you?). My marriage has the added blessing of my religious organization. This religious blessing is far more sacred to me, but is not the basis under which my marriage is recognized under secular law. At least not for people married in this country.

YMMV

[baldeagle]

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

There's an old expression that aptly describes how any change in society affects you as an individual. You can't get in a pig sty without getting some on you. You may not notice the smell, because you're in the middle of it. To an outside observer it's obvious. Every societal change either strengthens or weakens society. Often there are complex interactions, both positive and negative, that these changes have on society.

A simple example. At one time in America, if a young girl got pregnant, she was whisked off to another town or city to have the baby which was then given up for adoption. Now pregnancy out of wedlock is celebrated and even sought after. This has a direct impact on how your children view marriage and childrearing, and that impact is clearly negative.

So when one takes the attitude live and let live or I don't care what other people do in their private lives, one has simply chosen to ignore how much more difficult it has become to live one's own life in a way that doesn't accord with the new societal norm. It's like when a child asks their parent, did you have sex before you married? If they answer yes, what grounds to they have then to ask their children to abstain until marriage? Even if they say no, the child can respond, well you're just old fuddy duddies, because, after all, no one lives by those rules any more.

Does that clarify it for you?

[baldeagle]

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction. Now that that goal has been accomplished, marriage is already on the road to extinction. If you don't think that affects you and your children, you're crazy or blind. If you don't think that affects society as a whole, then you're even more crazy or more blind.

I won't provide the cites because those who disagree won't bother to read them, and those who are aware of this already don't need to see them. If you are sincerely open minded, then use Google and prepare to be shocked.

[philip964]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22710662/u ... z2XWbSXhyE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Creating babies with dna from 3 people.

[anygunanywhere]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22710662/u ... z2XWbSXhyE

Creating babies with dna from 3 people.

Evil.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/22710662/u ... z2XWbSXhyE

Creating babies with dna from 3 people.

Evil.

Anygunanywhere

Well, you know what physicist Richard P. Feynman said? That the world would ultimately be destroyed by geneticists operating beyond their understanding.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

I've seen this asked a few times in this thread, so let me see if I can add some clarity since the concept of a counterfeit is something that's not getting across.

Evidence abounds that traditional marriage enhances an individual’s life span, physical and psychological health, and financial security. As individuals go, so goes the culture; that which stabilizes one benefits all. When considering same-sex marriage, then, the question becomes whether it will weaken the marriage institution, strengthen it, or have no impact on it or the culture that benefits from it. I would argue that it would have a significant weakening effect to marriage, thus having direct impact to my marriage.

You mention divorce and remarriage. One reason for this is more culturally acceptance of adultery. However, no one can reasonably argue that a broader acceptance of adultery and its resulting domestic instability can ever be in the best interest of couples, children, or society at large. Thus, over time, this has a direct impact on all marriage, yours and mine included.

Again, please note a specific impact on your marriage, my marriage, or anyone else's. Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

[Cedar Park Dad]

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I completely understand the religious objections to gay marriage, and would not endeavor to change anyone's mind in that regard. HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties). The notion that a gay marriage somehow diminishes the value of my heterosexual marriage is simply an opinion. I could just as easily argue that when two men enter into a committed relationship, the value of MY marriage goes UP, as my marriage will have the benefit of offspring.

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

The notion that two people who have spent their lives together, investing in their communities, in their friends and families cannot have a simple, civil remedy for achieving the same legal status and privileges (Estate law, health care, tax law, etc.) as their hetero counterparts is, in my opinion, counter to the 14th Amendment. My union should be recognized under secular law not because it fits the religiously-defined notion of marriage, but because my wife and I signed a contract entering into the relationship (you married folks recall signing that legal document, don't you?). My marriage has the added blessing of my religious organization. This religious blessing is far more sacred to me, but is not the basis under which my marriage is recognized under secular law. At least not for people married in this country.

YMMV

[Cedar Park Dad]

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

There's an old expression that aptly describes how any change in society affects you as an individual. You can't get in a pig sty without getting some on you. You may not notice the smell, because you're in the middle of it. To an outside observer it's obvious. Every societal change either strengthens or weakens society. Often there are complex interactions, both positive and negative, that these changes have on society.

A simple example. At one time in America, if a young girl got pregnant, she was whisked off to another town or city to have the baby which was then given up for adoption. Now pregnancy out of wedlock is celebrated and even sought after. This has a direct impact on how your children view marriage and childrearing, and that impact is clearly negative.

So when one takes the attitude live and let live or I don't care what other people do in their private lives, one has simply chosen to ignore how much more difficult it has become to live one's own life in a way that doesn't accord with the new societal norm. It's like when a child asks their parent, did you have sex before you married? If they answer yes, what grounds to they have then to ask their children to abstain until marriage? Even if they say no, the child can respond, well you're just old fuddy duddies, because, after all, no one lives by those rules any more.

Does that clarify it for you?

Yes. It means you can't think of something to show where it has an impact on your marriage.
Unless you want to go down the nice collectiveist route of course. Sorry but that doesn't work for me.

[cb1000rider]

It wasn't to very long ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental illness, now it is mainstream?

It was added to the DSM-I as personality disorder (sociopathic) the 50s and removed from the DSM-II 1973. The DSM-V was just released in 2013.

Personally, I'm happy to see how far medicine and psychology has come in 50 years, aren't you?

They are a minority for a reason, they cannot reproduce.

That statement indicates that it's a genetic defect and can be passed through DNA. Sure you don't want to argue that it's a choice? Alternately, if it is genetic, you're advocating unequal treatment due to the way a person was born. And yes, that strongly compares to racial issues. It's not very fair is it?

It's really too bad that straight couples keep having gay kids! Maybe we should make it illegal for people with the gay gene to reproduce. That might solve the problem!