The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #147102   Message #3481770
Posted By: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
20-Feb-13 - 05:07 PM
Thread Name: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
Frogprince. First, did you watch that video which mentions the (nicknamed) 'The God gene')??..I thought the video was pretty interesting.

Second, your re-phrasing of my post, "the decision to marry a person of the opposite sex, and have sex with them, is NOT the same as being born with as different color skin...now is it?"

Ummm...The decision to marry a person of the OPPOSITE sex, has been around a lot longer than the 'push' for homosexuals to imitate marriage, as if it WAS the same as marrying a person of the opposite sex. Marriage was originally set forth to 'announce' to the community, at large, that this man and this woman were marrying and no longer 'available', to have a family, so to the community it was a 'hands off'...but that was in a day that marriage and family were not as demeaned as they are today...not just by the homosexuals, but to even those who enter into marriage. Today, even many of the participants in marriage seem a 'little weak' in that commitment...and then you have 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on 'marriages'.
So, as to your re-phasing, it is not even remotely applicable...except of argument's sake.

Homosexuals can and do about anything they want. When they start pushing churches and governments around, pressuring corporations to coerce those who don't agree with the 'marital status' of their sexually centered practices, on the behalf of the very few (minority), who agree with them, it would be idiotic to even imagine that they would not receive resistance...Likewise, when those who have married and have conceived their own offspring, and are trying to raise them to be normal, it would not be surprising that they would object to homosexual practices to taught in the public school systems...

..and you are correct when you say, "One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world could ever disagree with that question...", but the Civil Rights Act, and the Constitution was worded and meant what it said concisely when it said 'Race, Creed or Color'. Maybe the interpretation of Race, Creed and Color was stretched by some people to include sexual practices and preferences....but you nailed it when you said, in that same sentence,..."One thing for sure, gfs; no sane person in the world...". So, are you alluding to homosexuality as a mental or emotional issue? Worse off, is those who promote it on both bad science and bad political stance not based on truth.
You can't compare apples and oranges..then say they're turnips!

Respectfully Though,

GfS