"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
Got Natural Law?
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
"Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
FAIL.
Posted on 02/17/2012 4:43:39 AM PST by Kaslin
1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism). If someone asks you why you oppose gay marriage, the only thing you really have to say to explain it is, "I'm a Christian."
God doesn't condemn anyone for who he is; so if you're attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn't make you bad, evil or "un-Christian." On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively "un-Christian" behavior. As Billy Graham has said, “God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.” However, God has drawn a clear line in the sand when it comes to homosexual acts. If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." -- Leviticus 18:22
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah could tell you how serious God is about that -- if there were any of them left. So as a Christian, you can no more condone gay marriage than you could give the thumbs up to prostitution or wife swapping. That means if you're a Christian standing in favor of gay marriage, then you're a Christian who's standing directly in opposition to the God whom you claim to worship.
2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.
3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does. Gay marriage is not about "rights;" it's about special privileges. After all, every right conferred upon a couple via marriage could be just as easily conferred on a gay couple via a civil union, which is a compromise that could probably be had if gay activists wanted it. In fact, the biggest objection conservatives have had to civil unions is that there's a fear they'd be used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. So, let's be clear: there are actually no "rights" whatsoever at stake in the push for gay marriage.
Instead, what gay activists are looking for is a special privilege of the worst sort because it's as much about dragging everyone else down as it is about raising everyone up. To accommodate gay marriage, the whole meaning of marriage has to be warped and twisted. The religious content has to be taken out and marriage has to become just one more reason to file paperwork with the government.
So, this isn't really so much about marriage per se as it is an attempt to force society and religion to accept gay unions as every bit as normal and healthy as straight relationships, which will never truly happen. You might be able to intimidate some people into silence with political correctness, but the truth is still there and people know it, even if they don't want to be screamed at and accused of being bigots for pointing out the obvious.
4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there's no chance it's going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it's more consistent with religious values, it produces children -- there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.
Furthermore, once that door is opened, where does it stop? How about brother and sister? Marrying the dead sound any better? How does man and dog strike you? Adults marrying children? How does marrying a tree or a clay urn hit you?
People get outraged by this sort of comparisons, but this isn't just speculation; these are unions that have occurred in other countries. So, if it has happened somewhere else, you can be sure some wacko will want to do it here, some lawyer will decide marrying your sister is a civil right, and some liberal judge will agree with him. Next thing you know, anyone who opposes it is accused of being George Wallace and trying to stop the progress of civil rights. Sound farfetched? Well, isn't that exactly what happened with gay marriage?
5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage. One of the weirdest arguments in favor of gay marriage goes like so: Marriage is already on the rocks. Look at all the people cheating, look at all the divorces; so why not gay marriage, too?
This is like arguing that someone has already accidentally eaten some rat poison; so why not give him some cyanide to go along with it? When someone's sick, you don't make him sicker, you heal him. If marriage has been tarnished in our society -- and it has -- we should be looking for ways to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.
Sure, if gay marriage were to become legal tomorrow, you wouldn't have legions of people who are already married running off to get divorced. But, gay marriage would further degrade the religious element of marriage, cut down on the "sacredness" of it, and make it less of a special event. That would cause people to put less value on marriage, make them less likely to get married in the first place, and make them more likely to get divorced. This leads to more children being born out of wedlock and kids from single parents are more likely to commit suicide, take drugs, go to jail, drop out of high school, etc., etc. in every category that matters than kids from two parent families. You can already see this starting to play out in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and you'll see it happen here, too, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
Simple. God’s way or mans way.
OK...now give me five good reasons against gay marriage without referring to god, religion, or the bible directly or indirectly.
Excellent
Pingage...
Libertarians take notice.
It is against the natural law. It is against biology.
Confused children who have two mommy's or daddy's.
OK...that's one.
Our anatomy is not designed to accommodate same sex, sex.
This is an opinion, not a fact. Our human anatomy is far more versatile and agile than you give it credit for being.
I'm sure that there are plenty more, but for me God's reasons are enough.
Unfortunately, in your response, you've only provided one reason "against" gay marriage. Not homosexuality in general - just gay marriage.
And using god as a reason simply does not make an argument. However, if it suffices for you - that should be enough - for you.
Just don't try to foist your belief system on those who do not believe as you do. You're likely to run into some very stiff opposition!
Sadly I am more and more convinced that we are losing this battle.
The end of DADT will accelerate this progressive movement.
How did we end up with a generation of young adults that see homosexuality as just another race or sex?
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
It is against biology.
What is "it"? Are you referring to "gay marriage" or homosexuality? If you are referring to pro-creation, then I would suggest there are huge numbers of parentless children strewn about just begging for a comforting home.
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism. "--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
Our law considers marriage in no other light than as a civil contract (not a right). . . . The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, laid on them not only by nature herself, but by their proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the highest manner injurious to their issue, if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwards see them perish. . . And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents. And the president Montesquieu has a very just observation upon this head: that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation: whereas, in promiscuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown; and the mother finds a thousand obstacles in her way.
and I would add that fellow citizens, as a consequence, must be deprived of the natural right to the fruit of their own labor to provide maintenance for the child.
Governments are instituted to protect the natural rights of citizens (Declaration of Independence). Civil marriage is a contract that delegates that responsibility (for the child) to the parents who created the child. A child has a natural right to a mother and a father. Civil marriage insures that right. It requires parents to care for children they create thereby protecting the natural right of other citizens.
Gay marriage cannot produce children. What they do or how they live there lives is not a civil concern. If there are impediments to there pursuit of happiness, they should be removed.
Q: How did we end up with a generation of young adults that see homosexuality as just another race or sex?
A:
Don't need no Weatherman to see which way the wind bl
ws.
"Behind the Violence, Says Jane Alpert, Was Sex"--November 09, 1981--
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20080637,00.html
"He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend."
Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1"...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..."
Campus Wars: The Peace Movement At American State Universities in the Vietnam Era
"What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/predicting_the_weatherman.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2818309/posts
My answer is God’s way
>>And specifically, what “natural law” might that be?
The law that says that when cultures “normalize” behavior that reduces their socio-biological fitness, they FAIL to compete with more reproductively fit cultures.
Simple.
Just a joke, lighten up.
Here is a reason I give to my gay friends- Do you really want big brother having a list of who all is gay? Do you want to be on some government's list? What happens if by some weird twist of fate, you get some Fred Phelps type person in charge?
I, for one, will refuse to give up the biblical worldview just because a fool doesn’t recognize its authority.
What the anti-theists refer to as “natural law” is simply the way the Creator made things and how He tells us is best to live in the reality He created.
And, rather than just guess, I will look to the special revelation He has given us.
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.
