How my View of Gay Marriage is not changed - Page 4

**fix** · #46 Jun 27, '12, 12:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Well, I don't see liberalism going away anytime soon, how much I'd like that to happen.

But really, in the end gay marriage will be legalised and practicing homosexuality will therefore be endorsed by the state, which represent its citizens.

Also, the state won't protect marriage anymore, it will only harm it. Better to prevent that to happen.

Stopping state protection will not help, in fact it would be worse.

bilop · #47 Jun 27, '12, 12:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by epan

I have a theory about this. We know from polling that the majority of Americans have supported gay marriage for some years. FOX recently ran a feature, asking exactly the question: why do the surveyed opinion poll results vary from the voting poll results. FOX comes up with its own conclusions, but here is what I think.

1. The majority of those opposed to gay marriage see it as a moral issue which affects them personally. They have a strong stake in the issue. So, they will tend to turn out to vote.

2. The majority of those who support gay marriage are heterosexual. While gays are very likely to vote on the issue, the balance of their support is not as likely to vote, in varying degrees.

In California the margin was narrow. FOX also speculated that this coming election may be the turning point in which the vote might represent a majority opinion on this topic.

Unlikely.

The issue is probably the polling. There is a long recognized effect that people tend to tell pollsters what they think they want to hear, particularly if a stance is controversial.

PC positions always outpoll their actual votes.

Giving how pro-homosexuality the media is, people likely lie to the pollsters, saying they support gay marriage, when they actually don't.

God Bless

sedonaman · #48 Jun 27, '12, 1:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

Why not abolish state-marriages? The state should recognise no marriage. If people want to get married they can do so sacramentally in Church or, if they're gay or not religious, organise some sort of ritual elsewhere and call it marriage. Everyone happy.

Because the public purpose of marriage is to tie children to their parents and their parents to one another. If it weren't for children, there would be no need for marriage; therefore, the state has a compelling interest in children being raised by a mother and a father.

CopticChristian · #49 Jun 27, '12, 1:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Note needed changes.

If there were no separation of Church and State, the State would be (synonymous with) the Church. Religious institutions are advocacy groups just like any other advocacy group with First Amendment rights not reducible by the fact of their religious identity

Liz,

You are too good to me...

**edwest2** · #50 Jun 27, '12, 2:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

And if the state abolishes all marriages in favor of civil unions, then there will never be same-sex marriage. So the general welfare is thereby promoted.

That is incorrect.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/gov-ric...-ban-into-law/

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #51 Jun 27, '12, 2:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Credo ergo sum

I'm also not in favor of renaming it civil unions. I'm advocating the state stops doing things they shouldn't even by doing anyway, that is to meddle unnecessarily in the private life of its citizens.

What would be the difference for the Church if the secular marriage was done before a state official or before, let's say, a notary?

And yes, marriage existed in the early beginnings of the human race, but I can't remember the ancient Greeks or Romans going to a state official for their marriage. It was only done for friends and family.

Then why go to the State and demand gay marriage?

People can and are living however they want, right now, but don't put same-sex marriage on the ballot ever again. No one needs my approval to do anything.

Peace,
Ed

ASimon · #52 Jun 27, '12, 3:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

That is incorrect.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/gov-ric...-ban-into-law/

What is incorrect? Your link does not address my comment.

epan · #53 Jun 27, '12, 3:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilop

Unlikely.

I disagree. The trend is clear. 2012 is the tipping point for some, and the rest will follow.

**edwest2** · #54 Jun 27, '12, 3:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by epan

I disagree. The trend is clear. 2012 is the tipping point for some, and the rest will follow.

"tipping point" It's on my top ten list of words I hate. It's usually around number 5. There will be no tipping point at all.

Peace,
Ed

**edwest2** · #55 Jun 27, '12, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

What is incorrect? Your link does not address my comment.

Sure it does. What is the recognized gay agenda is this:

Gay Marriage - the goal. But if that doesn't work...

Civil Unions. But if that doesn't work...

Domestic Partnerships.

Peace,
Ed

ASimon · #56 Jun 27, '12, 4:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Sure it does. What is the recognized gay agenda is this:

Gay Marriage - the goal. But if that doesn't work...

Civil Unions. But if that doesn't work...

Domestic Partnerships.

Well, you're wrong in the 2nd place because there is no "contingency clause" in the gay agenda. If Gay Marriage doesn't work, they'll keep pushing until it does. There will be no acceptance of CUs or DPs as consolation prizes.

And you're still wrong in the 1st place because the link doesn't address my comment.

epan · #57 Jun 27, '12, 4:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

"tipping point" It's on my top ten list of words I hate. It's usually around number 5. There will be no tipping point at all.

Peace,
Ed

good luck with that view. are you familiar with the ostrich?

Credo ergo sum · #58 Jun 28, '12, 1:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASimon

Well, you're wrong in the 2nd place because there is no "contingency clause" in the gay agenda. If Gay Marriage doesn't work, they'll keep pushing until it does. There will be no acceptance of CUs or DPs as consolation prizes.

And you're still wrong in the 1st place because the link doesn't address my comment.

At least you've got to give the polygamists something, they don't push their agendas as stubbornly and agressive as the homosexuals.

Really, if they wont settle with CUs or DPs then they're just provocating and should be dismissed.

CopticChristian · #59 Jun 28, '12, 7:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by epan

I disagree. The trend is clear. 2012 is the tipping point for some, and the rest will follow.

E,

I thought that in December 2012 according to the Mayan's that the world is coming to an end....is that the tipping point yous speak of?