Posted on 04/30/2015 7:06:42 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
How I answer gay questions, hell no drop your fetish.
An “asstatistic”? ;-) Perhaps my religious circles are far different from yours but of all the local pastors and those that I know of with a national ministry, I know one who is divorced and he resigned from the ministry. We are quite conservative so have never been part of a “country club church” and divorce is not accepted or overlooked. In our church it disqualifies a man from serving as an elder.
How does one obey the Lord while ignoring the normalization of sin?
How does gay marriage affect or my family in a negative way?
Every time my kids were exposed to gays (usually media, but every now and then on the streets showing public affection) I had to go into an explanation of biblical sin. Even without any specific exposure I had to make sure my kids knew it is a sin. I had to inoculate my kids as they were growing up, to prepare then for the onslaught of the perversion that was going to be thrust in their face day in and day out.
So how does the perversion truly affect me? Greatly!! And I am sick of it. And I am sick of them for forcing me to have to deal with their perversion with my children.
Here's the problem, Regal: You may believe in "Live and Let Live," but the LGBT activists won't LET you live and let live. They'll come after you.
Don't you realize that if a marriage predicated on sodomy is legal, it cements in homosexuals a "protected class"? (It has already happened.)
Don't you realize that if homosexuals are a "protected class," it is ILLEGAL to do or say anything that might offend or exclude them -- that is, anything that is less than celebratory of their sexual proclivities?
ILLEGAL to sell goods or services related to weddings, carry on any kind of matrimonial ministry, do counseling related to marriage, educate kids about sex and decency, unless you positively portray and promote sodomy and lesbianism as the equivalent of true marriage?
You wanted it, you got it. Good and hard.
Why would I need a link, if i were a resident of that area, at the time?
It was becuase of them, and that very activity, that i stopped giving blood.
“Don’t you realize that if a marriage predicated on sodomy is legal, it cements in homosexuals a “protected class”?”
_____________
Just not true.
Are heterosexual marriages predicated on the use and manipulation of penises and vaginas? (Heterosexuals also perform sodomy, by the way.) Would you consider homosexual marriage ok, if they were forbidden to have intercourse?
This is getting way out of control. We should not be basing policy on genitals and sexual positions. Everything about your argument is based on hyperbole and fear.
“Don’t you realize that if homosexuals are a “protected class,” it is ILLEGAL to do or say anything that might offend or exclude them — that is, anything that is less than celebratory of their sexual proclivities?”
I have studied protected classes in law school, and this is just not true. They are getting you riled up over nothing and that is exactly what they hope to do. Don’t let them!!!!
No; homosexual marriage should be legally established only if they are able to perform PIV intercourse. So gay marriage would have to be between a gay man and a gay woman. One might argue about mixed trannies, though I consider that a no-go since that would not involve an actual male and an actual female.
Marriage is inherently "about" lawful sexual union. That's what defines marriage and distinguishes it from any other kind of affiliation, partnership, or social unit.
What defines it is intercourse which is procreative in form, if not always in outcome. The infertile can marry; the impotent cannot. If from the beginning, and permanently, the male cannot penetrate and deposit sperm in the vagina of the female, the marriage is null because it lacks sexual (PIV) consummation.
Law cannot, enforceably, prevent sodomy in any kind of pairing, heterosexual or homosexual. The law should, however, refrain from valorizing sodomy as a legally recognized constituent element of marriage. Permitting couples to do whatever kind of herky-jerky they want to do in bed, is fine: I suppose it's inevitable, since it's outside of the scope of enforcement (unless the sexual practice provides evidence of wrong-doing: beatings that leave marks, forcible entry that damages internal organs, for instance.)
That is quite different from legally-recognizing deviant intercourse, as an integral or defining aspect of marriage.
Answer me this: why does the State have any public interest in marriage at all, any more than it has a public interest in any other form of friendship? What business is it for the State to license people who want to grind shoulders, give foot-rubs, or specialize in mutual back-massages? Or share some couple-y kind of intimate ping-pong, or gourmet cooking, or bonsai?
The State has no interest in regulating any personal association unless it has, at the very least, some relationship to procreative potential. If the kind of intercourse you do, is the kind of intercourse that can make babies: then, yes, there is a public interest, because of the potential of generating a small person whose interests are to be protected.
Absent that kind of intercourse, the State has no business whatsoever reaching its long arms into our lives and loves.
"Everything about your argument is based on hyperbole and fear."
Bollocks. Everything I listed is aggression against our liberties, and is already happening. I'm not a paranoid predicting these aggressions: I am an observer reporting them. "What's already happened" is not hyperbole, it is real: and fearing incursions into liberty is realism. I fear tyranny. I hate it. It is a righteous fear and hate.
As I said,
“Don’t you realize that if homosexuals are a “protected class,” it is ILLEGAL to do or say anything that might offend or exclude them — that is, anything that is less than celebratory of their sexual proclivities?”
You responded: "I have studied protected classes in law school, and this is just not true."
Wrong-o. LGBT are a protected class (LINK). Perhaps you didn't realize this. This is a terrible situation. It must not be extended and advanced. It must be rolled back.
You can answer on this thread, or in a Personal Message if you wish. Thanks.
Wow. A Freeper who agrees with Bill Clinton. I guess he really DIDN’T have sexual relations with that woman. Never thought I’d see the day...
I’d just as soon end the discussion now, because as I said earlier, this much detail of anyone’s life, I don’t want to know.
Don't you think there's a reason I specified PIV intercourse? It's the only kind of intercourse that's relevant to marriage, precisely because it has the procreative form.
The only relevance to your comment (and this is tenuous) is that if all Bill Clinton did was squirmy frottage and oral-genital contact, those would not be "marriage acts." In wedlock they would not constitute consummation; in extramarital hijinx (at least in some legal systems) they would not constitute adultery.
Though morally it was certainly infidelity, unreasonable behavior, sexual exploitation of a subordinate, and conduct unbecoming his office.
If he were my employee doing this on the job, I would have fired im. Wouldn't you?
Your argument can only be described as lunacy, because I am too polite to call them stupidity.
Don’t bother to reply. I’m allergic to ignorance and have too much to get done today to have to take a Benadryl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.