Why in the blue blazes are they posting this kind of stuff?
Why? Because they have been properly indoctrinated.
And why, pray tell, are you passing it along?
Ok, so while we’re there, let’s take it even further....
So why do we discriminate against people who want to have sex with children? Or Animals? Don’t they deserve the same rights as everybody else? What if I want five wives, who are you to deny me my rights to have as many wives as I want.......
Gays can marry, just like anyone else.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
Even normal people can’t marry certain other people. You can’t marry someone already married, you can’t marry close blood relatives, you can’t marry people deemed to young to give consent to marry, and you can’t marry someone who doesn’t want to marry you.
Further I’d say gays have in the past followed the rules and have married opposite sex partners, even having kids with them. They were able to live with the rules everyone else has to follow, equal treatment. Now they just want special treatment.
What would the SPCA or PETA say about that?
There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL right to marry. The US Constitution does not touch marriage. Is is NOT discussed. It has always been a STATE regulated privilage. Now, I know liberals do not believe this. I know the USSC did intervene to say inter-racial marriage was a right. Olsen is already plannin to take this to the USSC under equal protection. Will they screw with the Constitution again with their living Constitution clap trap. You Betcha. I would agree to civil unions. But, I draw the line with the name marriage being used. But, civil unions is not good enough for the homosexuals cause the real end in total social acceptance of homosexuality. I belive it is too late. The younger generation has been propagandized and their parents generation allowed it to happen. So goes the World. Everyone had their eyes closed while the whole plan was hatched decades ago. Just like Roe vs Wade took decades of building the case in the courts.
Do we have to discriminate against someome or some thing?
Yes we do! We must discriminate against evil! We cannot serve two masters (one being evil, the other being righteous) we will love one and hate the other!
Those that promote same sex marriages, hate opposite sex marriages! They discriminate against heteral-sexual marriages!
Every day life is full of choices, some choices have eternal consequences!
As humans we cannot love righteousness and evil at the same time.
Even Moses made a conscious choice:
“Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt: for he had not respect unto the repompence of the reward.” (Hebrews 11:25-26)
Might even be one of the few conservatives that will openly cede that homosexuals are discriminated against in America, and it’s truly a shame
No its not. We discriminate against rapists, pedophiles,beastilists, and homosexuals. ALL were crimes until a few short years ago.
More to the point, why are we posting this stuff?
I may not live that many more years, but I can't imagine ever accepting that there are no moral absolutes.
I shudder at the thought that such a simple simple scenario as a rabid bugs and bunny fanatic living next door and embracing the sanctity of all life to the boint of allowing rats, cockroaches, mosquitos etc. to explode unchecked on his property, should be mandatory for the sake of pure libertarianism.
Unfortunately, reflecting on the mindless "no harm no foul" platitude creates the untenable scenario that is impossible to resolve.
One man's total licence is another man's oppression, illness or death.
First, rights are granted by God, not the Constitution. If that strikes you as "being religious" or being too harsh and judgmental, its not. I am pointing this out because it is correct, and a little thought about the matter will show it is. Moreover recognizing that rights are God given helps the cause of gay marriage more than it hurts it. So I am helping you out by the correction (although I think you wrong on other grounds). Its just a recognition that rights are God given rather than granted by a groups of people who write a Constitution which it is to be hoped will not trample on peoples rights. Suppose there were no God or any transcendent moral law, then it would follow there were no rights except by the consent of those with the power to enforce their own view; also if ou Constitution could grant rights, then an amendment could take them away. A materialist view implies that owning a slave was just as much a right before the 14th amendment as the freedom of speech was at the time. But after the civil war settled the issue, the right to own a slave was revoked. This is nonsense though. Whatever men say and whatever they agree to, the slavery of the old South was never a right.
Secondly, the contention is not whether or not gay people can associate freely with each other it is whether or not the rest of society shall be forced by law to change the definition of marriage to make gay people feel better about their associations. I will allow, and hope that others would agree, that gay couples ought be afforded some form of legal domestic partnership status for administrative purposes, and they are just as free to call it a marriage as anyone is to claim that pi is 3 or that 2 plus 2 is 16. There are no laws against talking nonsense.
Perhaps unintentionally, you are never the less asserting that the Constitution compels a free people to change the definition of marriage to make gay people feel better. Certainly this will be news to those that wrote it. Perhaps next week you will find it granting a right of siblings to change the definition of marriage to include brother and sister couples. Who knows what might be in there when one is guided by fear of offending those who make it their business to be easily offended rather than reason.
Not to turn this into an exercise in semantics, however you can't simply say I'm a conservative that believes in gay marriage. The terms conservative and liberal have had their meanings changed over time to be almost unrecognizable, however some tenets of the two meanings remain in the area of morality. A conservative is one who holds to traditional moral values as opposed to liberals who are more willing to see change. This much is true even back to the period of the classic liberals (Locke etc). At that time a liberal was one who stood for Liberty. Modern liberals have kept the lose moral ideas of the enlightenment and continued to march on with them while at the same time embracing large government. Libertarians, the group to which your argument really belongs, are in many ways the modern version of the classic liberals. So, based on his position and argument the author is not a conservative.
Plumbing 101 Fail