Is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

[Liriena]

I am harmed by it they need to stop acting like this

No, you're not.

[Surfistan]

Lovely. So I guess that's the official church position?

Yup, and the Orthodox is similar, if not worse. Also, as the Catholics and Orthodox believe that only the Church can interpret scripture correctly, your interpretations of Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. are invalid in their eyes.

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus of course.

[Geilinor]

I am harmed by it they need to stop acting like this

Why?

[Luveria]

To be fair, please do read what he said.

I read it. Doesn't change the fact that Freihart opposes what he opposes.

At the same time as being hostile to same-sex marriage rights, he claims to want marriage abolished for everyone in the name of equality. It's the new argument against same-sex marriage.

[Magna Libero]

Analogies aside, I really wish those opposed to SSM would actually answer this question. If they can't answer it with a reasoned yes, their argument is kind of selfdestructive.

The only ones opposed to same-sex marriage and would answer this question with a yes are the lunatics who think gay marriage leads to earthquakes and floods.

Homosexuality is directly comparable to terrorism. It is.

[Geilinor]

I read it. Doesn't change the fact that Freihart opposes what he opposes.

At the same time as being hostile to same-sex marriage rights, he claims to want marriage abolished for everyone in the name of equality. It's the new argument against same-sex marriage.

It's been tried over and over again in this thread.

[Freiheit Reich]

To be fair, please do read what he said.

It's in the second paragraph of that post. In his prior posts, he called homosexuality perversion though, so the "Abolish government recognition of marriage" is a red herring.

Actually, I think the best situation is abolishing any govt. involvement in all marriages.

The 2nd best solution is abolishing govt. recognition of same-sex marriages.

The 1st one is not very likely to pass (people love big govt. and feel their marriage is worthless unless daddy govt. says it matters)

The 2nd option would have a better chance of being approved by the general public although it seems this is seen as too moderate. Most people are either anti-gay marriage or they are pro-govt. recognized gay marriage. My idea is a compromise between both sides.

[Mkuki]

I read it. Doesn't change the fact that Freihart opposes what he opposes.

At the same time as being hostile to same-sex marriage rights, he claims to want marriage abolished for everyone in the name of equality. It's the new argument against same-sex marriage.

As far as Freihart goes that does seem to be the case, however, it is possible to legitimately oppose the whole idea of government recognition of marriages and not just use it as a smokescreen.

[Geilinor]

It's in the second paragraph of that post. In his prior posts, he called homosexuality perversion though, so the "Abolish government recognition of marriage" is a red herring.

Actually, I think the best situation is abolishing any govt. involvement in all marriages.

The 2nd best solution is abolishing govt. recognition of same-sex marriages.
The 2nd option would have a better chance of being approved by the general public although it seems this is seen as too moderate. Most people are either anti-gay marriage or they are pro-govt. recognized gay marriage. My idea is a compromise between both sides.

1. What's so good about that 2nd option?
2. How is abolish civil marriage or not recognizing same-sex marriages compromise?

[Strana Mechty]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

[Rocopurr]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

Gays can have babies, and we're such a small percentage that it wouldn't really affect the population.

[The Scientific States]

The only ones opposed to same-sex marriage and would answer this question with a yes are the lunatics who think gay marriage leads to earthquakes and floods.

Homosexuality is directly comparable to terrorism. It is.

No it's not.

[Luveria]

It's in the second paragraph of that post. In his prior posts, he called homosexuality perversion though, so the "Abolish government recognition of marriage" is a red herring.

Actually, I think the best situation is abolishing any govt. involvement in all marriages.

The 2nd best solution is abolishing govt. recognition of same-sex marriages.

The 1st one is not very likely to pass (people love big govt. and feel their marriage is worthless unless daddy govt. says it matters)

The 2nd option would have a better chance of being approved by the general public although it seems this is seen as too moderate. Most people are either anti-gay marriage or they are pro-govt. recognized gay marriage. My idea is a compromise between both sides.

Marriage has hundreds of legal benefits. You know nothing about marriage, to say it's worthless unless it's government recognized. That is ridiculous considering marriage is a legal contract with hundreds of benefits and you don't seem to understand that concept at all.

Marriage isn't going to be abolished. Your idea isn't a compromise. Your idea is because you are so hostile to the thought of gays being married, you would rather see marriage abolished entirely.

[The Scientific States]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

It wouldn't even put a dent in the population growth rate.

[Galloism]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

Are you under the impression that gay people are marrying opposite sex people and having babies because that's the only marriages our government recognizes, and that this will cease if gay marriage is recognized?

That's an assumption so large you couldn't even explain it away in Star Trek with technobabble.

[Luveria]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

NO ONE IS FORCING RELIGIONS TO MARRY GAYS. WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THIS IDEA FROM? Inquiring minds want to know, because I sure as fuck haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you not get it that gay children come from heterosexuals? Lrn2biology.

[Mkuki]

It affects the number of children birthed per couple.

Provide evidence of this.

That in turn affects the population growth rate.

Provide evidence of this.

I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays

Not once has this been proposed by anyone with any form of reasonable power.

is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc.

Provide evidence of this.

Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

What?

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

Provide evidence of this.

[Freiheit Reich]

At the same time as being hostile to same-sex marriage rights, he claims to want marriage abolished for everyone in the name of equality. It's the new argument against same-sex marriage.

It's been tried over and over again in this thread.

It's not about gay marriage. It is about big govt. Why should the govt. get involved in marriage? It creates headaches for many and seems to only benefit divorce lawyers. It creates extra bureaucracy and allows people to use their personal views to dictate other people's lives. Why can't siblings marry? Why can't people have several spouses?

Marriage is between people and their God(s) as well as families. The govt. should not be required in this decision.

[Luveria]

It's been tried over and over again in this thread.

It's not about gay marriage. It is about big govt. Why should the govt. get involved in marriage? It creates headaches for many and seems to only benefit divorce lawyers. It creates extra bureaucracy and allows people to use their personal views to dictate other people's lives. Why can't siblings marry? Why can't people have several spouses?

Marriage is between people and their God(s) as well as families. The govt. should not be required in this decision.

Oh bullshit. This is about you desperately trying to find a reason to deny gay couples the right to marry.

Marriage is between people and their God(s) as well as families.

No it isn't.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's the correct position in the eyes of God, or so they believe.

I'm not saying you're wrong there. I'm saying what they think doesn't matter if they can't translate something properly.

They beg to differ. Tradition is just as if not more important than scripture itself, and the Bible even warns against rejecting Church teachings and people following their own private interpretations. Remember, the Church believes that it is delivering the actual beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, which is how they derive their authority.

Hence, Christianity is a cancerous religion.

[Galloism]

I'm not saying you're wrong there. I'm saying what they think doesn't matter if they can't translate something properly.

They beg to differ. Tradition is just as if not more important than scripture itself, and the Bible even warns against rejecting Church teachings and people following their own private interpretations. Remember, the Church believes that it is delivering the actual beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, which is how they derive their authority.

Hence, Christianity is a cancerous religion.

Jesus Christ. How do you even wield a brush that broad?

[Lupelia]

No, not at all.

[Genivaria]

They beg to differ. Tradition is just as if not more important than scripture itself, and the Bible even warns against rejecting Church teachings and people following their own private interpretations. Remember, the Church believes that it is delivering the actual beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, which is how they derive their authority.

Hence, Christianity is a cancerous religion.

Jesus Christ. How do you even wield a brush that broad?

The Catholic Church clearly represents all Christianity....well actually I'm sure they'd agree with that.

[Lupelia]

It's been tried over and over again in this thread.

Marriage is between people and their God(s) as well as families. The govt. should not be required in this decision.

Non-religious marriages exist as well you know.

[Liriena]

Well, lately around where I live, there's been an awful lot of discussion about gay rights (sure is a pity I'm not there right now, because everything would be very fun if I was), largely due to a pride parade that happened a couple of days ago, which is a relatively rare event around here. So, NSG, allow me to bring the liberal communazi gay agenda to you and ask this - is anyone actually harmed by gay marriage?

I have heard all the "marriage is an ancient union of a man and a woman PILLARS OF SOCIETY and so on" arguments, but none of them seem to answer the key question - how does gay marriage harm anyone? Because to me and to presumably many, it does not harm anyone at all. And if it harms no one, I see no reason for it to be illegal.

Just so we're clear - I'm not asking you people why gay marriage should be illegal. I'm asking you if it, in any way, harms anyone. In any capacity.

It affects the number of children birthed per couple. That in turn affects the population growth rate. I really don't care about gays, but forcing a religion to marry gays is kinda dumb since all gays want is the same rights as straits have, tax breaks, legal rights for spousal treatment, etc. Who cares about religious ceremony..... I digress.....

It harms population growth rate...... so no babies

What an asinine post.