In response to:

Why a Good Person Can Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

The Original King Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:00 PM
Not for nothing but, if one of Prager's points is that the Koran and Muhammad are against SSM, shouldn't that be considered a reason why American should be FOR SSM?
anonymous3218 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:25 PM
He's not using one ideology to support the other. He's pointing out that, no matter where you look, the moral thinkers of the past, whatever their ideology, have never advocated same-sex marriage. Furthermore, your comment is a good example of that "first stage thinking" Dr. Sowell has spoken about. Knee-jerk reactions are based on emotion, not rational consideration of the consequences.
The Original King Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:33 PM
anonymous............ok, here's your chance. Please enlighten me me as to the consequences of SSM...the real, provable consequences, not based on "emotion"
Anominus Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 5:58 PM
The consequences of homosexual "marriage" include:

Advancing the normalization of all other sexual paraphilias within society.

Adoption of children into the inherently lesser quality and often abusive "parenting" of homosexual couples.

The advancement of the harmful legal concept that "all behaviors are created equal" and that people are not responsible for their actions (born that way).

Continued assault, in the form of "hate crime" legislation on traditional, moral and religious sections of society and their businesses, as well as the free speech rights of society in general.

These issues are observable in cultures where homosexual "marriage" has been recognized by the state.
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 6:14 PM
"The consequences of homosexual "marriage" include:

Advancing the normalization of all other sexual paraphilias within society."

Each action must be analyzed individually. Just calling them "sexual paraphilias" says little.

"Adoption of children into the inherently lesser quality and often abusive "parenting" of homosexual couples."

Red herring. Heterosexual couples have same problems yet you have no agenda against them.

nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 6:15 PM
"The advancement of the harmful legal concept that "all behaviors are created equal" and that people are not responsible for their actions (born that way)."

If the behaviour doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, then this is irrelevant.

"Continued assault, in the form of "hate crime" legislation on traditional, moral and religious sections of society and their businesses, as well as the free speech rights of society in general."

Too late. This gate was opened with the 14th Amendment. Fight against the abuses of Civil Rights legislation.

"These issues are observable in cultures where homosexual "marriage" has been recognized by the state."

Such as?
Anominus Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:04 PM
"Each action must be analyzed individually. Just calling them "sexual paraphilias" says little."

Sexual paraphilias which are innately linked to homosexuality like necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality. These movements all utilize the same approach and the same arguments for legalization and normalization.

" Heterosexual couples have same problems yet you have no agenda against them."

Heterosexual couples at least start out on the same footing, providing a mother and a father, rather than with homosexual couples which intentionally deny the child either a mother or a father.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:11 PM
"If the behaviour doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, then this is irrelevant."

Our laws are based on the concept that different behaviors are treated differently. People are judged according to their behaviors. Homosexuality runs opposed to this foundational concept.

"Too late. This gate was opened with the 14th Amendment. Fight against the abuses of Civil Rights legislation."

Hardly. Society continues to reject the homosexual agenda whenever it comes up to a vote.

"Such as?"

Prosecution of priests and preachers for speaking against homosexuality, as well as private business owners and religious affiliated institutions for operating according to their faiths, recently noted in England and Canada.
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:14 PM
"Sexual paraphilias which are innately linked to homosexuality like necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality. These movements all utilize the same approach and the same arguments for legalization and normalization."

What references do you have that show that homosexuality is "innately linked" to these other behaviours?

"Heterosexual couples at least start out on the same footing, providing a mother and a father, rather than with homosexual couples which intentionally deny the child either a mother or a father."

And? Every individual is a product of a heterosexual couple, and every orphan is a product of this same couple. So it is heterosexuals who must first deny their child a parent or parents.
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:21 PM
"Our laws are based on the concept that different behaviors are treated differently. People are judged according to their behaviors. Homosexuality runs opposed to this foundational concept."

LOL...that's it? Just legislate based on "behaviour"? You don't really think out your arguments do you, A?

"Hardly. Society continues to reject the homosexual agenda whenever it comes up to a vote."

You didn't grasp my point. 14 Amendment legislation is what started "anti-discrimination" laws and is not specific for "gays" but any minority that can gain the attention of the State.

nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:22 PM
"Prosecution of priests and preachers for speaking against homosexuality, as well as private business owners and religious affiliated institutions for operating according to their faiths, recently noted in England and Canada."

And this has nothing to do with the marriage issue and all to do with 14 Amendment legislation. But conservatives won't touch this issue.
The Original King Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 7:28 PM
Nawlins...............good stuff. Near as I can tell, according to Anonymous, if SSM is allowed there is going to be a HUGE jump in the sex with dead folks business.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 11:29 AM
What references? How about the fact that homosexuality was originally on the same list of mental disorders as all those other paraphilias, was only removed due to political lobbying, and that the same people who argued for this change within the APA are now pursuing the same path for pedophilia?

So you are admitting that homosexual couples are inherently of lesser quality with regards to parenting than heterosexuals? Well done.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 11:34 AM
Actually, my argument is very well thought out, while yours is totally lacking in thought. If, as the homosexuals would have us believe, behavior is innate and people are simply born that way, how can we punish people for simply carrying out their natural programming? That's like legally punishing a mentally ill person for his actions - it just doesn't happen.

Anti-discrimination laws are based on the Constitutionally defined minorities of race, sex and religion. Homosexuality is a self-proclaimed minority based entirely on behavior and is not protected in the Constitution. It is foolish to grant special protections based on an aberrant sexual behavior.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 31, 2012 11:36 AM
The pursuit of "marriage" is all about the normalization of their behavior for the homosexual crowd. Once that step is attained, all other opposition, religious or otherwise, is more easily quashed by the courts.

Next week voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington will vote on whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge...