Posted on 12/21/2010 12:22:53 PM PST by Stourme
I have a question about the homosexual agenda for FR. I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. But I am an employer.
So what I would like is the potential legal argument surrounding homosexual marriage based on these condition.
1. All sex is a choice.
2. Having the desire for another man does NOT mean someone has to engage in sexual acts with that person. Again it's a choice.
3. I do not accept homosexuality as normal. Engaging in homosexual acts shows a decided weakness in someone's character, morals, and judgment.
4. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry would force employers like myself to subsidize this behavior through having to provide benefits and other accommodations to their homosexual partner.
5. I am unwilling to do this.
What is the legal argument that supports my right to not accept homosexual marriage as legitimate?
Nope.
Rape for instance, the one being attacked is engaged in sex BUT not by choice.
Also some folks suffer from mental disorders wherein the engage in sex because of the malady.
So you should edit number one to there are two ways one engages in Sex either by choice OR being coerced by another or some mental disorder
Since homos will now be able to serve openly shouldn’t schizophrenics, manic-depressives, sociopaths, obsessive-compulsives, etc also be allowed to serve?
Homosexual sex smells like $h!t.
You did something few Trolls have done. You were Zotted by the Big Guy. BTW, you can quit being a Homo. There is lots of help out there if you ask.
That argument was basically lost with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don’t see it much mentioned anymore, but religious arguments were made against it at the time, and the courts basically said that the public need outweighed freedom of religion
The mods aren’t going around zotting people based solely on thread titles.
If you love God so much, why do you engage in and apologize for behavior He has described as an abomination and a sign that a society is corrupted beyond repair?
Oh, you got zotted. Bummer.
MarineBrat, the pictures in your profile had me laughing so frigg’n hard I was crying. Awesome! :)
Glad you liked them. Feel free to borrow when you find the need. :)
If I can figure your question correctly, The US has the right to determine who is recognized as legally married. We have said that Mormons can only have one wife at a time. We have made laws against marrying animals. We can and should state that it is illegal for a man to marry a man or woman marry a woman. The government has the right to determine who is able to marry. I isnt necessarily a moral judgment for the government. For me, it is absolutely moral judgment, but the government is representative of who the people are,.......supposedly.””
Neither can one marry a sibling or parent, except maybe in MA and CA.
SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH! You can’t address the adverse effects on public health and healthcare costs when it is attributed to the sexual perverts. Stick with smoking and the progs will join you. sarc
And each state sets “age of consent” limits. It isn’t a Constitutional right for homosexuals to get married,.....that’s the point. We can and do set limits on what we collectively see as “moral”. As far as I know in 5000 years of written history, no society has recognized homosexual marriage. They have all had homosexual behavior, but did not allow marriage. Just because there are many that seek sex with children, no one thinks it should be legal. “Cept maybe that Mohamed guy”.
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.