Arguments against gay marriage echo t...

Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage

There are 138 comments on the www.courier-journal.com story from Jan 6, 2013, titled Arguments against gay marriage echo those heard against racial intermarriage. In it, www.courier-journal.com reports that:

When Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Pike County, Ky., voted last year to bar interracial couples as members, the condemnation was swift and universal: The head of the county ministers association said, "This is not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.courier-journal.com.

Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#63 Jan 7, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a requirement, an expectation...
would adding an entire class of people who were physically incapable of love have a detrimental effect on the institution of marriage?
I know you wont answer and also I know why you wont...
We know why you won't, too.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#64 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
They signed a contract.
All the law would have to do is to recognize the legal contract the parties signed giving sole custody and responsibility to the two mothers.
Kansas wants to ignore the contract and punish the sperm donor, rather than recognize the contract between the two women agreeing to joint parenting.
But straight shooter is a "lawyer" don't ya know?

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#66 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>But straight shooter is a "lawyer" don't ya know?
I think I missed that post, but most every court involves two or more lawyers arguing opposite sides before a judge. Just because a person advancing an argument is a lawyer (or not) does not mean the person is correct. One of the two sides is almost always wrong, according to the judge, and as you know, even judges disagree with each other.

So being a lawyer or even a judge does not equal being correct. Some lawyers love to argue, even when they know they are wrong, and I suspect there is at least some of that in operation here.

“Equality for ALL”

Level 2

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#67 Jan 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
I think I missed that post, but most every court involves two or more lawyers arguing opposite sides before a judge. Just because a person advancing an argument is a lawyer (or not) does not mean the person is correct. One of the two sides is almost always wrong, according to the judge, and as you know, even judges disagree with each other.
So being a lawyer or even a judge does not equal being correct. Some lawyers love to argue, even when they know they are wrong, and I suspect there is at least some of that in operation here.
But being a lawyer,'Jane' seems to find a lot of time to spend on the various Topix threads. Must not have many clients with real issues to deal with....unless 'Jane' doesn't have many clients ...which may be because he/she spends so much time on Topix ...or potential clients have been turned off by the demonstration of his/her legal reasoning. Just saying.
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#68 Jan 7, 2013
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
By TFP Student Action
Share
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.(Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#69 Jan 7, 2013
This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#70 Jan 7, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
where's the column for polygamy as many of the arguments are also the same...
How many concubines can you afford?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#71 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>We know why you won't, too.
no you don't.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#72 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>But straight shooter is a "lawyer" don't ya know?
I'd say we hit the thousand times mark of you insisting. I never heard of someone so pathetic as to insist on such nonsense for so long but you are a gem of pathetic.
and guess what?
it hasn't changed my job at all...

reality is a funny thing isn't it?
(How would you know)
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#73 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I missed that post, but most every court involves two or more lawyers arguing opposite sides before a judge. Just because a person advancing an argument is a lawyer (or not) does not mean the person is correct. One of the two sides is almost always wrong, according to the judge, and as you know, even judges disagree with each other.
So being a lawyer or even a judge does not equal being correct. Some lawyers love to argue, even when they know they are wrong, and I suspect there is at least some of that in operation here.
I do love to argue...
you are right about everything you wrote...
but Mona/Jane DoDo is just a stupid troll...

as to your "argument", thankfully you always make one, you do have to admit that you get backed into a corner of declaring gay marriage a right when you know that is not necessarily the case....

I mean, in the end, don't you have some trepidation that the court will rule exactly as you deny is the case here?

and what will you do then?

declare the court bigoted and argue on, just as you would accuse me of doing, right?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#74 Jan 8, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But being a lawyer,'Jane' seems to find a lot of time to spend on the various Topix threads. Must not have many clients with real issues to deal with....unless 'Jane' doesn't have many clients ...which may be because he/she spends so much time on Topix ...or potential clients have been turned off by the demonstration of his/her legal reasoning. Just saying.
Notice I am on here for a while some days and then not at all for longer stretches?

just sayin...

Also, ever notice I have never justified ANY argument with "I am a lawyer and you are not"? NEVER, I never bring it up at all, I merely address Mona/Jane's DoDo's DAILY attack on that score?...

I would like an answer, ever notice that?

I support my arguments with SCOTUS case law, and not my resume....
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#75 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I missed that post, but most every court involves two or more lawyers arguing opposite sides before a judge. Just because a person advancing an argument is a lawyer (or not) does not mean the person is correct. One of the two sides is almost always wrong, according to the judge, and as you know, even judges disagree with each other.
So being a lawyer or even a judge does not equal being correct. Some lawyers love to argue, even when they know they are wrong, and I suspect there is at least some of that in operation here.
Jane is often wrong. He is lying when he says he's a lawyer. His posts are clear evidence of that lie.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#76 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice I am on here for a while some days and then not at all for longer stretches?
just sayin...
Also, ever notice I have never justified ANY argument with "I am a lawyer and you are not"? NEVER, I never bring it up at all, I merely address Mona/Jane's DoDo's DAILY attack on that score?...
I would like an answer, ever notice that?
I support my arguments with SCOTUS case law, and not my resume....
Oh puh-leez, you liar. Who told us you were a lawyer? YOU did, and it was in the context of "I'm a lawyer so I know better." However, it's been clear since you let that lie slip that there is NO WAY in hell that you are what you claim. Your posts are the proof.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#77 Jan 8, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
But being a lawyer,'Jane' seems to find a lot of time to spend on the various Topix threads. Must not have many clients with real issues to deal with....unless 'Jane' doesn't have many clients ...which may be because he/she spends so much time on Topix ...or potential clients have been turned off by the demonstration of his/her legal reasoning. Just saying.
lol. In this case, the client has a fool for a lawyer. There is no fucking way Jane made it through law school. His posts are clear evidence of his lack of training. I mean really! What kind of lawyer says Bank of America is a private company and should be free to pick and choose their customers??????? That kind of reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the law. Remember, this is the same idiot that said the KKK could force a gay B&B to hold an anti-gay rally for the same reasons a gay couple won their lawsuit against a "christian" B&B that refused to hold their wedding. He thinks the law works both ways... a clear indication that he's NOT a lawyer.
Revelations

United States

#78 Jan 8, 2013
lawyers are the problem and need to be arrested for manipulation of the constitution, possibly executed.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#79 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Jane is often wrong. He is lying when he says he's a lawyer. His posts are clear evidence of that lie.
Over a thousand times you have insisted, and each time you are wrong....
pathetic...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#80 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Oh puh-leez, you liar. Who told us you were a lawyer? YOU did, and it was in the context of "I'm a lawyer so I know better." However, it's been clear since you let that lie slip that there is NO WAY in hell that you are what you claim. Your posts are the proof.
Na, it was in the context of, "guess how much I take your comments seriously,...not at all..."
luckily, I live in a reality where your posts are just silly...

but guess what, I am a lawyer and you are not...attack my abilities all you want, but you are merely a non musician saying I don't get music...
an angry and stupid one at that...

insist for another 100 times I am not a lawyer....even though I am...a "great" use of your time dude...
back to you fraud-boy....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#81 Jan 8, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>lol. In this case, the client has a fool for a lawyer. There is no fucking way Jane made it through law school. His posts are clear evidence of his lack of training. I mean really! What kind of lawyer says Bank of America is a private company and should be free to pick and choose their customers??????? That kind of reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the law. Remember, this is the same idiot that said the KKK could force a gay B&B to hold an anti-gay rally for the same reasons a gay couple won their lawsuit against a "christian" B&B that refused to hold their wedding. He thinks the law works both ways... a clear indication that he's NOT a lawyer.
you are just dumb and your dumb interpretations of what I say are also dumb....
that's it.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#82 Jan 8, 2013
some poster on this board changed their name in yet another pathetic attempt to bully me, can anyone guess who that fraudulent liar is?

actions speak louder than words, right?

Tell Jane/Mona....
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#83 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you are just dumb and your dumb interpretations of what I say are also dumb....
that's it.
Honey, no one needs my interpretations. Your posts are here for anyone to read. And it doesn't take a law degree to see that you are a fraud.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Louisville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trump better be glad 4 hr Aweful Leaders in... 6
more bad news for trump 4 hr ANTITHEIST 1
Glenview Park Subdivision (Apr '12) 7 hr Glen 45
Trump for President, He will win. watch (Aug '16) 9 hr Phoenix97 2,650
Trey Moss 10 hr WUT 5
Billy Ray Cyrus Concert 12 hr Billy ray cyrus ... 1
So many people who leave Kentucky, come back. ... (Jul '07) 14 hr Really 471

Louisville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Louisville Mortgages