French Christians, Muslims, Jews rally against gay marriage

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Honestly though, I think religeous folk should leave society too it, aslong as there aint gay marriage in Churches, let the rest of society do what it wants.

Good point. The laws do not and will not force any clergy to perform same sex marriages, though some churches willingly do it anyway.
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Marriage is traditionally a public affair. You can get to a relationship with someone, but when you want it to be an official commitment that society embraces and recognizes, you get married. Otherwise, you can just make a promise to one another, without the whole ceremony etc. The fact is you want society to recognize the union and accept the bond between the members.

The government doesn't recognize such a promise as a marriage. It's all about the marriage license. My marriage wasn't and isn't a public affair. We invited our families and a few friends. I don't need society's permission or approval to get married nor do I care what society thinks of my marriage. It's no one else's business. The government doesn't require I get married in a church, either.

As we know, the holy books, condemn homosexuality. It's one thing for you to believe in homosexual marriage, it's another to force it on the majority to accept.

They don't have to participate in a same sex marriage and they don't have to accept it either. The government must not discriminate.

For a reason, homosexuality, has been in the large part, rejected by past and current society and culture.

Purely religious reasons are irrelevant to a secular government.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
How is the right special? They wouldn't have any other rights or benefits that heterosexual married couples have, and having those same rights as every other citizen has 0 negative impact.

The right is special in that never before has there been SSM. That is a special privilege.

The specific rights that have merit pertain to finances, visitation has been an issue, what else can you think of? Those rights would have no negative impact, I agree. Raising a generation of children with the example of it doesn't matter if you choose Eve or Steve will have a decidedly different impact, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that a good portion of our society won't stand for it. You are seeking for the wishes of a minority to impose upon the rights of the majority. I don't see why that should fly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Here's a study from UCLA, specifically about Iowa.

Your study debunks your claim that there is tax benefit to marriage. There is still a marriage penalty, which is one major contributor to how SSM would generate revenue. The other main way is by taking people off entitlements.

In other words you advocate conservative fiscal policy: pay more get less. Good to know you realize this is what our Nation needs!
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
The government doesn't recognize such a promise as a marriage. It's all about the marriage license. My marriage wasn't and isn't a public affair. We invited our families and a few friends. I don't need society's permission or approval to get married nor do I care what society thinks of my marriage.

This is what is known as denial. The gay lobby wants to impose their whim upon society, thinking that society will accept and embrace their committed relationship just the same as they would a heterosexual marriage. That is the only reason they push for marriage instead of civil union with all the same legal rights.

Regardless of what the law says, it won't happen in my lifetime. In a few coastal areas? Perhaps.
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The right is special in that never before has there been SSM. That is a special right.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Raising a generation of children with the example of it doesn't matter if you choose Eve or Steve will have a decidedly different impact, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that a good portion of our society won't stand for it. You are seeking for the wishes of a minority to impose upon the rights of the majority. I don't see why that should fly.

Can you detail what that impact would be? I expect your answer will be verifiable using evidence from the states that have already legalized SSM. Telling kids they have the legal ability to marry the same sex does not make your kid gay.

There is no imposition. How are the 800 married couples in Iowa or any other state affecting your life? You don't have to participate in such a marriage and you don't even have to attend a ceremony. Playing the persecution card is really weak.
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Your study debunks your claim that there is tax benefit to marriage. There is still a marriage penalty, which is one major contributor to how SSM would generate revenue. The other main way is by taking people off entitlements.

In other words you advocate conservative fiscal policy: pay more get less. Good to know you realize this is what our Nation needs!

I am financially conservative.
Here's some information about SSM generating $259 million for NYC in one year after legalization.
 
Upvote 0

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟14,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
This is what is known as denial. The gay lobby wants to impose their whim upon society, thinking that society will accept and embrace their committed relationship just the same as they would a heterosexual marriage. That is the only reason they push for marriage instead of civil union with all the same legal rights.

Regardless of what the law says, it won't happen in my lifetime. In a few coastal areas? Perhaps.

These kind of posts make me feel impatient to get married once it becomes legal, I'll send you a wedding invite shall I? Lol :)

FYI - Civil Unions are not the same as marriage.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Welcome to the 21st century.

At least you admit to attempting to force special rights down the throats of a dissenting populace. Finally. You also seem to acknowledge that this is nothing more than the whim of a minority, based on no reason at all, with reckless disregard for the good of society. You shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is standing in line for your vision of the 21st century.

Can you detail what that impact would be? I expect your answer will be verifiable using evidence from the states that have already legalized SSM.

It is the height of looney tunes to expect that in a species with a procreation rate like ours, that such info would be available from EU, let alone US. A full generation would not see the complete effect. (Besides I already "detailed the impact.")

There is no imposition. How are the 800 married couples in Iowa or any other state affecting your life? You don't have to participate in such a marriage and you don't even have to attend a ceremony.

What is weak is the way you are playing dumb. Marriage is not merely a ceremony, but an ongoing part of society. Unless you're saying gay people don't work that way and only want a fancy ceremony like straight people? Wise up duck, I'll beat your pants off if you choose to engage in that fashion. Back to reality, you know very well that every member of society makes a contribution, and pretending this "just doesn't matter" is absurd. Of course it matters. There will always be another generation developing sexually, and that development is not yet understood. Social factors do seem to influence at least some people, and you are clearly attempting to tinker with social factors; stop pretending otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The right is special in that never before has there been SSM. That is a special right.
Marriage isnt a special right.
.
I'm not even sure that its a right at all. Does the USA recognize marriage as a right?
.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

seeking Christ

Guest
I am financially conservative.
Here's some information about SSM generating $259 million for NYC in one year after legalization.

Numbers. I like numbers, and charts, and graphs. Here's what it boils down to:

NYC (the city alone) married 10x as many people as Iowa in their first year of SSM.

People paid an average of $275 / night for a hotel room (welcome to the Big Apple!) to attend weddings, and they came from all over. That's a cool $64 MILLION right there! (Fully 40% of Iowa's increased revenue was non-repeatable, in the same way)

Other than tourism and the ceremony itself, no info is given as to where the revenue came from; but with NYC's prices, that's enough. And honestly, it may not be just a flash in the pan 1 year thing, but these numbers aren't sustainable and if SSM is legalized elsewhere NY's increased revenue will mostly disappear.
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
At least you admit to attempting to force special rights down the throats of a dissenting populace.

No such thing because there are no special rights. You refuse to acknowledge same sex couples would get nothing that heterosexual couple's don't already have and you refuse to acknowledge that nothing gets taken away from heterosexual couples.

And what the colorful explicative is it with the phrase about shoving things down throats? The anti-LGBT crowd uses it just a little bit too often. I'll say it again. No effect on you.

Finally. You also seem to acknowledge that this is nothing more than the whim of a minority, based on no reason at all, with reckless disregard for the good of society. You shouldn't be surprised that not everyone is standing in line for your vision of the 21st century.

This isn't a whim. These are people's lives.

It is the height of looney tunes to expect that in a species with a procreation rate like ours, that such info would be available from EU, let alone US. A full generation would not see the complete effect. (Besides I already "detailed the impact.")

You said nothing about the impact or the good of society. Tell us what you THINK will happen then, and how long you THINK it will take to be readily noticeable? Massachusetts legalized SSM 10 years ago. It that long enough?

And Looney Tunes was pure genius.

What is weak is the way you are playing dumb. Marriage is not merely a ceremony, but an ongoing part of society. Unless you're saying gay people don't work that way and only want a fancy ceremony like straight people? Wise up duck, I'll beat your pants off if you choose to engage in that fashion. Back to reality, you know very well that every member of society makes a contribution, and pretending this "just doesn't matter" is absurd. Of course it matters. There will always be another generation developing sexually, and that development is not yet understood. Social factors do seem to influence at least some people, and you are clearly attempting to tinker with social factors; stop pretending otherwise.

Of course marriage matters! Of course it's important! That's why same sex couples shouldn't be excluded. This isn't about a party or the mechanics of sexual relations. It's about the ability to have a family and about a commitment to love your partner. Being gay does not prevent someone from loving another person or being in a committed relationship the same way heterosexual couples are.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
You said nothing about the impact or the good of society. Tell us what you THINK will happen then, and how long you THINK it will take to be readily noticeable? Massachusetts legalized SSM 10 years ago. It that long enough?

How could it possibly be? 10 year olds don't discuss their children with each other. And while a generation is often considered to be 20 years, 20 year olds don't do that either. Even at 30, fewer people are parents than a mere 15 years ago. And it will take multiple generations to see the full impact, which I have already stated.

Look, most things follow a fairly predictable distribution curve. Extremes are slight, and the majority of the population is somewhere in the middle. In human sexuality one measurement of those extremes could be seen as heterosexuality, homosexuality and asexuality. This would mean that the vast majority of us are at least capable of bisexuality. Precious little is known about the development of human sexuality, especially with regard to any of this. There aren't even reliable figures on human bisexuality, because of the overlap with hetero and homosexuality. Now throw all this into a society where an entire generation grows up seeing that choosing either Eve or Steve is of no consequence whatsoever, and we may well find that this underlying bell curve shows up. Although I am saying it will take more than one generation for that to happen.

Most parents don't want this influence convincing their children to experiment with bisexuality, if they can avoid it w/o trauma. Yes, the push to legalize SSM rather than being happy about gaining civil unions is the minority recklessly affecting the majority, against their will. Otherwise known as you're attempting to shove it down our throats. And you shouldn't be surprised that people react to it as something disgusting and putrifying, inducing vomit.

Granting civil rights does not have that effect, and would therefore seem preferable.

Being gay does not prevent someone from loving another person or being in a committed relationship the same way heterosexual couples are.

See? THIS is valid! And people can do that regardless of law. And invite their friends to NYC and boost revenue there just as much w/o legalizing SSM. And civil unions can be made to grant all the actual rights married people have. Or another term can be crafted. Or marriage can be removed from Gov't jurisdiction entirely, so that it sees no one as married and only recognizes civil unions, or whatever term is thought up to replace it. (I'm not crazy about that idea, but it does seem to be gaining steam)
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
And it will take multiple generations to see the full impact, which I have already stated.

Please remind me, though I want some detail. You THINK something bad may happen in the next 100, 200, or 300 years, people should be denied their rights? Do you have any evidence to back that up because I've already stated that the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association all officially endorse same sex marriage. I'm thinking they are more qualified than you to make that determination.

Now throw all this into a society where an entire generation grows up seeing that choosing either Eve or Steve is of no consequence whatsoever, and we may well find that this underlying bell curve shows up. Although I am saying it will take more than one generation for that to happen.

Again, those detailed consequences are what exactly?

parents don't want this influence convincing their children to experiment with bisexuality, if they can avoid it w/o trauma.

If they are interested, they are going to experiment no matter what the government says. Teenagers don't care what their parents say, so they certainly aren't going to check in the with state constitution first :). Meanwhile you're still free to preach all about how icky it is and makes god all frowny faced to "dissuade" them.

Otherwise known as you're attempting to shove it down our throats. And you shouldn't be surprised that people react to it as something disgusting and putrifying, inducing vomit.

There's that phrase again.
Hey, you're free to think it's icky. BTW, there are no shortage of heterosexual couples that participate in disgusting, vomit inducing, even dangerous behavior.

And we all don't need to be reminded that marriage encompasses way more than just sex.

See? THIS is valid! And people can do that regardless of law. And invite their friends to NYC and boost revenue there just as much w/o legalizing SSM. And civil unions can be made to grant all the actual rights married people have. Or another term can be crafted. Or marriage can be removed from Gov't jurisdiction entirely, so that it sees no one as married and only recognizes civil unions, or whatever term is thought up to replace it. (I'm not crazy about that idea, but it does seem to be gaining steam)

Civil unions aren't the same thing, but we've already gone over that. Civil marriage is strictly the government's business and they don't get to discriminate. You're still free to tack on whatever religious significance you want to after you get your marriage license from the county clerk.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

seeking Christ

Guest
You THINK something bad may happen in the next 100, 200, or 300 years, people should be denied their rights?

You couldn't possibly have gotten that from what I said. First of all, I am advocating for rights, not denial of them. Second of all, a second generation comes along quicker than 100 years.

If they are interested, they are going to experiment no matter what the government says.

We are talking about human sexual development. From birth to the beginnings of that, most people are oblivious to Gov't., so why bring that into it? My verbiage has been clear, twice now. If you choose to leave reason in favor of silliness, just say so.

Teenagers don't care what their parents say

Neither did I mention anything about that. Have you forgotten what "society" is? People grow up in surroundings. We form expectations. It appears impossible to remove a single factor of this from our development. You can't pretend your proposal won't have impact on everyone.

I stand corrected: you DO pretend that, but it is mere pretense.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
If they are interested, they are going to experiment no matter what the government says.

So why are you incapable of adding 2 + 2 and arriving at 4?

What will make developing people interested in bisexuality? Well, being raised in a society where they see no consequence in choosing either Eve or Steve. The AMA and other professional organizations have not factored that into their studies, nor have they made any attempt to determine the effects of it on our society.

Again, the special privileges of the minority being forced upon the majority, to the detriment of all. This is not wise, even when a Dr says it.
 
Upvote 0

awitch

Retired from Christian Forums
Mar 31, 2008
8,508
3,134
New Jersey, USA
✟19,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
What will make developing people interested in bisexuality?

Mostly genetics. Not entirely, but the predisposition is there.

Well, being raised in a society where they see no consequence in choosing either Eve or Steve.
What consequences?

The AMA and other professional organizations have not factored that into their studies, nor have they made any attempt to determine the effects of it on our society.
Which of their studies have you thoroughly read?

Again, the special privileges of the minority being forced upon the majority, to the detriment of all. This is not wise, even when a Dr says it.
That's worse than the one judge, since the American Medical, Psychological, and Psychiatric Associations are composed ofa small army of doctors, researchers, and medical professionals.

I think we're starting to go in circles at this point.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Mostly genetics. Not entirely, but the predisposition is there.

That absolutely is not known. It is not known for homosexuality, but both nature and nurture seem to have an effect. Bisexuality is impossible to know much about until we understand hmosexuality, and we don't.

What consequences?

Precisely my point: you're talking about generations growing up and seeing none. The only time in human history anything remotely similar to that happened was near the collapse of a civilization.

I'll pass, thanks.

Which of their studies have you thoroughly read?

How is it not clear that what I'm talking about can't possibly be included in their studies, because there is simply no data to study? Although it might be interesting to see what they came up with let me take a guess: they mention nothing even related to what I'm talking about, except the well-being of their patients. (The minority being catered to at the expense of everyone else) Doctors talk about their health, psychiatrists mention along with them that no drugs are effective as "gay therapy," and psychiatrists concentrate on the benefits of acceptance. Go ahead, surprise me with the great and all-knowing academia while I pay no attention to the man behind that curtain, nor the elephant in the room that everyone wants to pretend isn't there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟468,399.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Not a one says anything like what you have portrayed. We could discuss the difference if you'd like.

The closest thing to gay bashing in any of those examples is admonishing parents to actually discipline their children, but not via anything seen as abusive a few decades ago. Again, your depiction is WAY off.

Let's discuss the difference then? To me what it boils down to that IF I was gay, I would feel absolutely unwelcome in a church. Why would I want to subject myself to somewhere that considers me a lesser person for being gay but other people get a free pass. Consider that perspective.

Reverse the question: you don't bash who you're afraid of. You bash (or bully) those who you feel can't possibly stand up to you. If there were actual fear involved you'd see death by sniper shots, rather than the type of violent bashing we have.

One day it may come to that, religion can be a powerful motivator of violence.


:confused: I'm advocating for correct usage of terms. You seem to be complaining of extremism, not the fundamentalist movement within Christianity. Others have agreed that a good descriptor of extremism is when
laws are broken. Do you agree?

I agree with that understanding. But that doesn't change my understanding of Christian fundamentalism as pretty extreme. But now I think we are arguing semantics. Sure fundamentalism means the "fundamentals" of Christianity which are harmless but we both also know there is cultural baggage to that word that implies very specific varieties of Christianity, usually of the independent Bible church, that are very far-right.

^_^ I don't agree with much of anything I stumble upon on the internet ^_^ Our "congregational safe houses" here are supposed to be for fellowship, but most of our great posters have been chased off and anymore what we mostly have is pointless strife. Further, for all the ruckus non Christians like to make about all the different divisions within Christianity, if you read these denominational sub-forums for a while, you see there's really little to nothing to those divisions and people are people
.

That's not an argument I make, division on issues can be healthy especially since everyone is entitled to their opinion. That said, I do recognize that CF is a bit ....intense (since you don't want me to use the word extreme) in its portrayal of Christianity compared to the experience in real life, true enough.


You do realize this is a strawman?

Your original implication is a little sketchy as well I reckon.
 
Upvote 0