TexasCHLforum.com

As a start, a small disclaimer. I am against Same sex marriage due to my religious beliefs and my culture background.

That being said,
If same-sex marriage is legalized and recognized as marriage is fundamental right for individuals. (This is the claim for supporters).
So what happens next.
Would they allow
1) A men to marry his daughter?
2) A women to marry her son?
3) A sister to marry her brother?
4) A sister to marry her sister?
5) A brother to marry his brother?

How about?
a) A man to marry his pet animal, regardless of the sex of the pet?
b) A woman to marry her pet, regardless of the sex of the pet?

That is a crazy world they are promoting.

I just don't foresee any way this thread could progress that won't turn into a TOS violation.

Jumping Frog wrote:I just don't foresee any way this thread could progress that won't turn into a TOS violation.

Precisely the reason I chose not to reply, for fear of violating a rule.

it was so long ago that interracial marrige was viewed in the same light, but speaking up about that is now somewhat taboo and has growen to social acceptance in most places.
ask your self how does gay marrage directly effect you?
im guessing the same way your gun collection effects people aginst your cause. it really doesnt, they just dont like it. same as you on gay marriage.
personaly i dont care if you marry a goat and / or a cow, as long a nither wind up on goverment programs.

So you should keep your liberty, but it is ok to deprive others of theirs?

I am not gay, don't know a single person who is, but I will go on record as saying if folks can't figure out that a smaller goverment means a goverment that stays out of everyone's business is a good thing....I don't know what to tell you.

Dumb post and I would expect more out of a senior member of this board. Hope it gets locked/deleted soon.

it does involve one question, what are the limits of morality for a civilized society, where do we draw a line and say "this is wrong and will not be tolerated or condoned" If homosexual marriage is now going to be ok, as the OP demonstrated, why not all the other examples he listed? Why should they be judged as immoral yet this is not somehow?
At what point does behavior correctly be identified as perversion?

wil wrote:it does involve one question, what are the limits of morality for a civilized society, where do we draw a line and say "this is wrong and will not be tolerated or condoned" If homosexual marriage is now going to be ok, as the OP demonstrated, why not all the other examples he listed? Why should they be judged as immoral yet this is not somehow?
At what point does behavior correctly be identified as perversion?

Actions that harm or deprive others of their life, liberty or property without their willing and informed consent are immoral and perverse.

All the rest is just stuff "you don't like and find offensive".

Sorry, you have no Constitutional protection from that.

android wrote:

wil wrote:it does involve one question, what are the limits of morality for a civilized society, where do we draw a line and say "this is wrong and will not be tolerated or condoned" If homosexual marriage is now going to be ok, as the OP demonstrated, why not all the other examples he listed? Why should they be judged as immoral yet this is not somehow?
At what point does behavior correctly be identified as perversion?

Actions that harm or deprive others of their life, liberty or property without their willing and informed consent are immoral and perverse.

All the rest is just stuff "you don't like and find offensive".

Sorry, you have no Constitutional protection from that.

and could not have said it better.
remember its pretty much the same as freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

I think it will ultimately come down to semantics. The term "marriage" will be reserved for the joining of a man & a woman by religious ceremony. And the term "civil union" will be used to describe a civil ceremony where heterosexual or homosexual couples are allowed to officially join outside of religion. Equal rights would be conferred to both. It's none of my business who somebody wants to spend their time with. And I believe this would be just another step down the PC morass that we've been on for some time. But if we, as conservatives, continue to allow the left to drag us down these unwinnable arguments, the cause will be lost. If you don't want a homosexual union, don't get one.