2. The gay rights movement supports same sex marriage.
3. People don't like NAMBLA.
4. Therefore, people should not support the gay rights movement or same sex marriage.
That is still an association fallacy. Do you actually not see how it is illogical? That is like me saying, "Hitler called himself a Christian, and I think if most believers realized that Hitler was a Christian, nobody would want to be a Christian." That is pretty weak.
There are still churches in the South that will not marry interracial couples. Conflict between religious views and social progress is always going to occur.Nor do I believe there are many who understand the consequences of trampling the rights of conscience of those who can not support gay marriage in the name of stomping out discrimination. When political appointed federal judges can do that hello Houston we have a problem.
As far as my personal view on it. God was going to destroy the city of Sodom no matter what because he made that decision before the whole rapey incident occurred and Lot could not even find 10 righteous men in the city in however many days God gave him to do so. And if Lot, a man who offered his daughters for rape, is to be considered the standard of righteousness in this story...well I can't say I'm as inclined to care as much as you are. Define "sodomy" however you want. In the end, we all get to answer for ourselves.
2. No it's very important. Some people like to pretend, such as you, that everybody is on board with this. People of all types are not.
3. Behavior is not a skin tone or gender.
4. You don't want equality, you already posted against some types of marriage.
5. Don't mind me if I'm not dumb enough to take your word for it. There's been groups out there for years pushing for things besides two adults getting married.
6. It's completely true. You are an example. You said you saw nothing wrong with multiple wife's or something close to it.
"“If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina; or Savannah, Georgia; or Jacksonville, Florida…” -Obama
The gay rights movement IS associated with NAMBLA through members of NAMBLA also advocates for gay rights.
The gay rights movement including NAMBLA support same sex marriage
People should be informed of the founding of the gay rights movement and until recently had a new makeover separating themselves from NAMBLA because of its unpopularity.
That would be more accurate.
As far as the rest of your gobbledygook
Most people don't call Hitler a Christian today, but during his reign he certainly had enough Germans convinced he was.
As far as interracial couples, that is still an issue of marriage between a man and a woman and has little to nothing to do with same sex marriage. If some still practice it in the South then let that be a lesson for the learning that you can not legislate every racist practice out of existence and it's time to stop trying.
As far as consequences for redefining marriage...what can currently be observed is....
Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The laws that are being written to define discrimination while those who support same sex marriages are eradicating such views through economic, social, and legal pressure. The consequences for religious believers are becoming apparent. Recently in the news multiple federal justices have been willing to deny rights of conscience to those who deny services to gay couples in relation to gay marriage. They are forced to carry a burden of legal expenses that no person should have to encounter in this country in exercising their constitutional rights of conscience. But that is how the game is played on the left. They use Lawfare, a type of warfare where politically appointed justices can make asinine judgments to further a political agenda allow a false validation to stand. And those who don't know a Constitutional right from the hole in their arse are the dumb sheeple giving homage to such opinons.
Another current example of consequence is after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles.
Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” But it didn't stop there, Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes.
The denial of parental rights in public schools and the denial of Religious freedoms are two pretty big ones in my book.
Last edited by vesper; 09-08-13 at 04:58 PM.
They were using State funds therefore must follow State guidelines.Another current example of consequence is after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles.
Video: 14 Supreme Court Rulings on Marriage | American Foundation for Equal Rights
2.) no i have not posted any types of "marriages" im against but please feel free to make up more stuff
3.) no its not important at all to equally and ending discrimination and i have never said that everybody is on board. Why thats two things you just made up now. Does that tactic ever work for you? its failing currently
4.) correct but yet its still discrimination and you have not answered the question. instead of dodging it answer the questions. What risk?
5.) repeating this lie wont make it true
6.) you dont take my word for it but then agree with me weird. either way your example is meaningless to equal rights for gays
7.) nope its completely false, the obvious and educated point you are missing is its not a Pandora box its about rights and freedoms. If people wanted to fight for the new rights of polygamy im fine with that as along as it consenting adults but gay marriage would lead to that anymore than straight marriage. sorry you fail again
again any examples ?
During a recent episode of MaineWatch on the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, an anti-marriage activist said that Catholic Charities in Boston was forced to stop its adoption services because Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry.
While the claim has been repeated across Maine many times, it is not true.
This is a shameful distortion of what actually happened.
I should know. I was the chairman of the board of directors for Catholic Charities of Boston.
I feel compelled to set the record straight and let voters in Maine, who might not remember what actually happened, know the truth.
Like many of my fellow Catholics, I believe our greatest commandment is to help those who are in need and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That call is why I joined the board of directors of Catholic Charities of Boston.
I was especially proud of our work facilitating the adoption of abandoned and neglected children.
Catholic Charities used the one and only criteria that’s appropriate for adoption agencies — the best interest of the child.
For nearly two decades, Catholic Charities arranged adoptions to families who would provide safe, loving homes for the children we worked with, many of whom were from difficult backgrounds and harder to place.
We placed kids according to their needs and to make sure that they would find a loving and stable adoptive home. The kids always came first.
Most of these children, as a matter of fact, were adopted by straight couples, but during 15 years, about 13 were placed in the stable, secure and loving homes of same-sex couples.
Then in 2005, tragically, and out of the blue, the Vatican told our agency to cease using the single criteria of “best interest of the children.”
They ordered us to stop facilitating adoptions to households headed by gay men and lesbians.
First and foremost, the Church hierarchy was telling us to ignore the best interests of the children we were trying to place. But just as important, the bishops were telling us to ignore decades-old anti-discrimination laws.
Catholic Charities had signed a contract with the state and accepted taxpayer money to provide adoption services for hard to place children. Some of these kids were older, had behavioral issues or chronic medical conditions.
When organizations accept taxpayer dollars, they have to follow anti-discrimination laws that are in place to make sure everyone is treated equally. If we excluded qualified families simply because they were gay or lesbian, we would violate those laws.
When taxpayers are footing the bill, you can’t discriminate against people. It is part of the contract to do the work.
The decision had nothing to do with marriage, and the conflict would likely have occurred regardless of whether same-sex couples could legally marry.
The board reacted strongly to the Vatican’s order, voting 42-0 against excluding gay and lesbian families from adoption services. From the board’s point of view, the decision was wrong for children and a violation of longstanding law.
When the hierarchy persisted in its demand, the organization had little choice but to end adoption services. They had made the decision to put other interests ahead of what was best for the children we served.
Along with seven other board members, I resigned.
While the adoption services Catholic Charities had provided were immediately filled by other social service agencies, the decision broke my heart.
Last edited by winston53660; 09-08-13 at 05:27 PM.