Gay Civil Union; It's abnormal
75
How abnormal Is It?
For a while now, I have resisted making a comment on this issue until I saw an article about the US Marine Corps' need to accept gays (a new policy recently implemented). It is not the corps' lack of cohesiveness that I am concerned about but what is going on outside its training camps. And that is, “gay civil union”; an act most worthy of being in sewer.
Stemming from Prop 8's marriage for opposite couples, Judge V. R. Walker found it discriminatory and overturned what proponents of Prop 8 wanted. Part of his decision was derived from the notion that same-sex parenting are equally effective as opposite-sex parenting or that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not in any way negatively affect the rights of opponents of same-sex marriage, and that parenting does not require any form of masculinity.
This is pure nonsense simply on three contradictions.
(1) Sexual relationships; same sex is acceptable. Until someone can show me why opposites are not needed, same sex relationship is purely abnormal! In the first place, God had intended a men/women relationships, not men/men or women/women sexual relationships. This clearly shows how carnally minded man have become even after the great flood. (I wonder how many know why it happened).
(2) Marriage; no divine purpose. Except for those who know their scriptures, marriage has a divine purpose beyond this earthly life. Unfortunately, its’ true divine purpose has been fogged up in many cultures for thousands of years. And gays of this modern era have taken this holy matrimony, tweaked it, and called it civil union or domestic partnership for benefits rightfully designed for married couples.
(3) Governments; not our business. Is it not true that state and religion do not mix? Or is it my imagination? Understandably, there are times when governments need to get involved. But when the judicial system allow a group of sexually immoral individuals to add a new category or distort the term marriage with a term like civil union then that explains how unintelligent the courts are. Totally!
For tax benefits?
So, why is it so abnormal? It is clear that people having sexual relationships with the same sex gender is abnormal which, of course, exist in other cultures as well. No doubt this form of behavior existed thousands of years ago but God, on one known occasion, disapproved of it and cleaned up the mess, eventually. (Disregard if you are an atheist).
Whether or not we are due for a clean up by God is beside the point. But today, we (normal people) are faced with a new challenge because rules and regulation are designed for us to love and tolerate these abnormal people. And now, these individuals have come out of their closets with less fear of being criticized or being attacked. With that same attitude, they have successfully convinced politicians to repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, and were able to challenge Prop 8's discriminatory agenda on marriage for opposite sex.
Marriage, as most religious people know, is divine in nature. It involves children - gifts from God - who are to be nurtured by a mother and a father in preparation for the cruelty of this world. And by nurturing, I mean, minimize any confusion of what a father (male) and a mother (female) is besides other things, etc., etc.
Now, matters of this nature should have been left for churches to decide. Instead, the courts made it their business and overturned a case in California on the merits of "equal protection" violation. (See Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial).
And the crazy thing about gays and their civil union crap is that they want the same benefits as married couples. Unfortunately, it is not working out for some of them in many aspects. For example, civil union couples living in Massachusetts pay more in tax when selling their house than those who are not. Why? Massachusetts’ current tax laws do not recognize male (wife) and male (husband). Therefore, each person is considered single. Does anyone see how unintelligent and odd this whole thing looks? But it does not stop there. Even those federal employees who have domestic partners are struggling to get benefits as well.
Tolerance; New Generation
Gay civil union is, no doubt, abnormal and is a threat to the meaning of marriage. How? It starts with children. Nurture children in a carnal state of mind and see how many of that generation will not find anything wrong with the concept at hand.
If this upcoming new generation do not stand against it, gays will succeed in due time in whatever benefits they don't have now, and make us accept their behavior a social norm. Those against it will have to face the reality of more overturned decision by the courts, and will have to learn to live harmoniously until the creator of this world returns, and then we will eventually know our level of intelligence on this matter.
Wrong is Wrong
As I stated from the start, gay civil union is abnormal, is not a fundamental right, and I do not believe gays rate to twist or impose their agenda on what has been established for and by normal god-fearing people.
Gay civil union or domestic partnership sounds twice unnatural; two males or females in a sexual relationship as well as wanting to join as one or make a family. And who in their right mind would approve this nonsense? Wrong is wrong but, if the general populace says otherwise then, Isaiah 5:20 should be a warning as he says, ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness....’ Enough said on that.
CommentsLoading...
What mythology, Edouard de Mas? I agree that ppl have the freedom to choose whatever they want to but the oddity still remains. In fact, if one person decides to marry his bitch (female dog), would you call that normal? Heck NO! But if 50 percent of the population thinks there is nothing odd about it then surely we have a mental issue here.
God-fearing ppl would try to be straight; all others would rather lean on their own understanding which makes them fools because no one alive on this planet knows everything thus, must rely on a source that knows everything. And who might that be? Obviously, not your mother, brother, or the government! If you think like an atheist, then continue what you are doing because the word God means nothing to you. Otherwise don't kid yourself and base your argument on freedom alone.
proton66, I agree with your argument but there's an anger or disgust that shows through that is off-putting. I would expect it from the likes of Edouard de Mas but we who love the Lord gain a hearing not only by our arguments but by the spirit with which they are put forth. Yes, Jesus overturned tables in what appears to be an over-the-top righteous anger, but I'm not Jesus. If anything charactizes the homosexual crowd it is denial. They form their own world and exclude all that would break through their bubble. But or God is powerful to use the gospel to transform lives. My sins are not those of the homosexual but they are just as offensive to God. Only thre cross of Jesus offers me hope.
Edouard is right, in my opinion, (though of course, you are entitled to your own,) to state that your arguments are based in mythology rather than fact. He was also right in noting your presumption that everyone follows your God- either that, or you deliberately have put it so despite having known this. Not only that, but what 'God' said is right should have nothing to do with our government- ever heard of Separation of Church and State? So even if God is real, and if he indeed did deign that man should not be homosexual, his word still has no place in our laws and items of that nature. Our country was not created for only Christian people- this country is one of no set religious denomination, therefore the law cannot force ways upon the citizenry that are tied to one specific religion. To do so would be to deny the rights of those who are of a differing religion/religion-less.
proton66: as soon as you talked about God, you lost all your credibility for a rational discussion. Whether or not God likes same-sex marriage/civil unions, in order to show that they are somehow wrong, you have to construct an argument that has nothing to do with God or religion. If you can't then, you can believe in your God all you want, but you can't expect to convince anyone else, even other Christians, or are you under the mistaken impression that ALL Christians think gay marriage/civil unions are wrong?
Freedom is all about individual choice. You can't say that Freedom for a small number of people is okay when they disagree with you, but when a lot of people do it, it becomes bad. That's just another way of saying "Well, I can ignore it if only a few people do it, but it's still wrong."
It's either wrong or right. The number of people that do something doesn't have anything to do with it.
I resent the idea that if something is contrary to God's wishes, it has to be wrong. That's as bad as coming to me and saying "My friend, Frank thinks you're wrong." That is entirely possible, but you skipped three steps. You have to prove to me that Frank exists, you have to prove to me that he actually does think I'm wrong, you have to prove to me that Frank is someone I should listen to by providing me with some kind of evidence that he is right. You've done none of those things.
Try constructing an argument without invoking your (or anyone else's deity) If you can do that, you have a chance of convincing other people (not just atheists) If you can't, then you have to consider the possibility that it is you who is wrong.
Swordsbane. I applaud you for your point of view. It's funny how you believe that I lose my credibility by including God. You talk about freedom but, who gave man freedom in the first place? Who gave life to this planet and all the creatures (human included)? Unless you are an atheist, please don't tell me God has nothing to do with it. Seems like you're missing the point. As long as we are in a state of imperfection we will always do things that seem right or look right at first but find out later they are not correct or vice versa. The bible is like a yard stick. Take it out and the debate will be an on-going one because humans believe they know it all, using logic and reasoning. I have no intention of convincing anyone that such as a situation is odd even if I set aside any religious views. This world is already full of abnormalities. Some we, humans, create and some we don't. Even some laws don't makes sense.
proton66: Well it just so happens that I AM an Atheist. If you are saying that gay marriage/civil unions are wrong for Christians, then I have no problem with that, but you are taking issue with laws intended to govern all people, Christians, Atheists and everyone in between. You can't use God to prove your point.
Debate takes place when you don't know everything and KNOW you don't. That's how you learn things; by asking questions and talking about the answers.
If you're not going to set aside your religious views when discussing things that affect those who are NOT members of your religion, then how can you expect to convince anyone?
The oddity in this situation does not demand that people in that type of category stop what they are doing. One reason things of this nature is allowed to continue is that we have a court system and the ppl's vote. As for the laws, we can either make laws that suite our carnal behavior or refer to a law that is not instituted by man.
We can act freely but sooner or later some of our actions will be frown upon. If it continues to offend ppl, then it becomes an issue which leads into a debate, etc., etc. And then we'll have ppl like you say, don't use God in any debate. This is like someone airing their dirty laundry; please keep them in the laundry basket.
proton66: When I say "Please don't use God to prove your point" I'm telling you that using something that not everyone believes in to justify something won't get you anywhere with the non-believers, and unless you want to impose your values on other people regardless of what they think, then I suggest you ease up a little on the "God doesn't like it" and throw in a little more "This is why it's bad for you"
Making laws to suit our carnal behavior or referring to laws not instituted by Man aren't the only options. We can refer to laws made by man that have been proven to be beneficial to mankind and the least intrusive into our private lives. We can make judgements about new laws on that basis for the good of everyone involved, not dictates from a deity that not everyone even believes exists. We can use the laws that work and make our lives better and discard the one's that don't work. Religious laws should govern religious people, AND NO ONE ELSE. Otherwise, we're back to the Inquisition in a heartbeat.
Edouard de Mas 6 months ago
Sorry, but your arguments are based in mythology rather than fact. You're presuming everyone must share the beliefs you have in a god, although the constitution guarantees the freedom to believe or not believe in whatever god anyone chooses.