Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
As the title implies, I'm going to look at the "gay-rights" arguments that really scrape the bottom of the barrel.  I hope that whatever side of the debate your on, you can agree that these arguments don't hold water.  To emphasize this, I'm going to try to sound as neutral as possible.

1. Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.  So you can't use Christian morality to outlaw same-sex marriage.

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what Separation of Church and State is.  The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.  It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church that was worried Jefferson would force his Deism on the churches.  Jefferson assured them the first amendment would protect their freedom.  So the question is, what does the first amendment do?  It prevents the government from establishing a state religion.  Outlawing same-sex marriage does not establish a religion.  It doesn't force anyone to become a Christian anymore than it forces them to be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or any other faith that sees homosexuality as sin.  Also, it doesn't prevent anyone from using their religion to motivate their politics.  If you truly believe your religion, it should influence your decisions or you should consider if you truly believe it or not.  You want real Separation of Church and State?  How about having the government butt out of marriage entirely since it finds its origin in religion and different religions have different views of marriage anyway (e.g. Islam and some forms of Mormonism permit polygamy.)

2. The way things are, the LGBT community are 2nd class citizens.

No they aren't.  They have the same rights everyone else does.  Including marriage.  To elaborate, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex.  And a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.  We have equal rights.  The LGBT goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exist.

3. It's unconstitutional to out-law same-sex marriage since marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.  If you read the Constitution you'd know that.  And again, my previous points stand.

4. Homosexuality is accepted by the majority as normal and thus, no longer immoral.

First off, I doubt the claim at the majority support it since most states ban same-sex marriage and (as of this writing) only 17 states allow it.  Last I checked, 17 out of 50 was not a majority.  Second, even if that was true, to say that the population decides right and wrong is insane at best and dangerous at worst.  There was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by many.  Years before even that it was common for people to rape the women of the country they conquered.  Was any of this right?  (Rhetorical question.  If you answer "yes", please see a therapist.)  To quote Leo Tolstoy:
Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.-Leo Tolstoy
5. People are born homosexual, so it would be wrong to not allow them what they want.

Some scientists speculate the same thing about alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths.  Does that make what they do right? (Again, a rhetorical question.)  If this were true, these conditions would be more like diseases.  But as someone I know (who was an alcoholic) put it, what he did wasn't totally involuntary.  He chose to get drunk just as he chose to stop and ultimately kick alcoholic beverages out of his life all together.  Just as people have left the LGBT lifestyle.

6. What about infertile couples?  They can't have children either and your Bible says marriage is for having babies.

This argument is a reply to oft-quoted argument against same-sex marriage by pointing out that same-sex couples can't naturally produce a child.  There counterpoint, however, is a strawman.  This may shock some people, but the Bible says sex (in wedlock) was not only for child rearing but for pleasure.  It was designed to be a beautiful experience... then humanity ruined it like everything else.  Proof?  Song of Songs. :iconnuffsaidplz:  Besides, homosexual behavior causes serious health problem.  HIV being only a tip of the ice-berg.  An infertile couple is still natural and, as long as they are being responsible and faithful, they won't contract STDs.

7. People used religion (i.e. Christianity) to justify not letting interracial couples marriage.

Those people were also stupid.  The Bible is shown to be very anti-racist, including having interracial couples (like Ruth and Boaz.)  And another thing, PLEASE stop equating what you do to the way other people look.  It's nonsensical at best and insensitive at worst.
For more info, click here: townhall.com/columnists/michae…
8. If you don't support the LGBT, you're homophobic!

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride."
Furthermore, if someone was in a lifestyle that was harmful wouldn't you try to convince them out of it?  We do this with alcoholics, why not homosexuals?  Especially since homosexual behavior brings damage that makes alcoholic damage look miniscule.  Frankly, I could argue I love and care for them more than those who try to push for this behavior.

9. Legalizing gay marriage won't affect anyone.

I think the redefinition of mankind's oldest and most important institution would affect everyone.  Also, some LGBT advocates agree it is to affect everyone as to make people stop viewing homosexuality negatively.  Now I know some of you are saying, "Not THAT kind of effect."  Sinful acts never just affect one or two people, it often affects whole communities and even countries. Achan's sin in Joshua 7, and David's sin in 2 Samuel 24 are a couple good examples.  As for some modern examples, Spain and Argentina have greatly deteriorated the family structure ever since same-sex marriage was allowed.  In the Netherlands, there is a decline in marriage rates even though same-sex marriage is allowed. To help explain my point (on this topic and others), I recommend the book "Homosexuality ad the Truth of Politics."  Now before you shoot this down as biased, there are LGBT advocates that agree with this book.  In fact, the leader of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Oppose Pride Extremism) wishes that this book was required reading in schools!

Also, this journal explains the problems of same-sex parenting.


Any thoughts?  Do you agree?  If not, why?  Did I miss any?  Leave your thoughts in the comments and please act like an adult.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsteerpikeofficial:
SteerpikeOFFICIAL Featured By Owner 6 days ago
I'm pretty sure marriage isn't even mentioned in the constitution.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
That's what I said.
Reply
:iconcjtheeaofmas:
CJtheEAofMAS Featured By Owner Apr 15, 2015  Student General Artist
Thanks very much for doing this, since I find really annoying all this retarded arguments that persons make-up just to be left alone, if persons choose to be gay well, that's their decisions and their lives. The problems is that they represent it like it was part of genetic specially with the argument that they "born that way", I never saw the logic or sense in this, because is is a "preference" (a sexual one) is something that can develop and change with time and depending on circumstances, like the preferences for other things. I try to never bother them though, but they act like if a person is even neutral it have to be convinced somehow, and that's sad.
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
"No they aren't.  They have the same rights everyone else does.  Including marriage.  To elaborate, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex.  And a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex.  We have equal rights.  The LGBT goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exist."

And people in countries controlled by ISIS all have equal rights - they all have the right to be Sunni Muslims and they all don't have the right to believe in any other religion.

In North Korea, everyone has the same rights - the right to worship Kim Jong Un and never question the government.

And a few decades ago, everyone in the US had the same rights - the right to marry someone of their own race. 
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The problem here is that we have a different idea on what rights are.  Your rights aren't granted by government, they are from Natural Law (God, nature, take your pick).  If a government limits rights granted by Natural Law, it's wrong.  But there comes a point when "rights" are wrong.  If you have to redefine a word to get it to mean something you want it to, you're wrong.  The removal of bans preventing interracial marriage didn't require redefining marriage.  So to compare homosexuality to skin color or religion is to compare apples and oranges.

I just wanna say, thanks for being mature in your comment.  Too many people these days don't know how to disagree like grown-ups.
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
"Redefining marriage"? You mean like when it used to mean a father giving away his daughter as property to another man secure a family/political alliance? No one ever married for love until just a few hundred years ago. Marriage has had countless different definitions and purposes in different cultures throughout history. I suggest you do some research, such as this:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01…
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I meant as "one man and one woman" and going by the Biblical model (which required the relationship to be one of love.)
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014
So it hasn't changed definition... except all of those times it has, but you can just ignore those if you like. And if you want to talk about the Bible (I don't even see how that's relevant anyway, as the Bible is not a legally binding governmental document of the United States, and plenty of people in the USA aren't Christian), but if you DO want to talk about what's in the Bible, you also have to take into account the many polygamous marriages there (Genesis 4:19, Genesis 31:17, Deuteronomy 21:15, Judges 8:30, 1 Samuel 1:2, 1 Kings 11:3, 2 Chronicles 11:21, 2 Chronicles 13:21, 2 Chronicles 24:3, for some examples), the fact that having concubines was common and acceptable (Exodus 21:10 for example gives a rule about Concubines), Then there's the whole Levirate marriage scenario...
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The definition has not changed no matter how many people try.  Actually, they seem to reenforce it.

While you can't force Christianity itself on a populace per say, you can put certain laws inspired by Christianity into effect without forcing the population to accept said religion (see point 1).

Now tell me, did these happen with God's approval, or did it simple say that it happened (as to catalog the event)?  Also, some of these laws were put simply because it was dealing with the reality that it was happening and find a way to cope.  (e.g. you can't just divorce your other wives or you'd make more problems.)

And what about "the whole Levirate marriage scenario"?
Reply
:icongiantenemycrab99:
giantenemycrab99 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2014
Why don't you look up the verses I cited for yourself and see? God never punishes or chastises them for it. In fact in many of the cases (i.e. Jacob, King Solomon, Gideon, Jehoiada) they were considered holy men blessed by God. 

And yes, the definition has changed, many many times throughout history and different cultures. I've demonstrated that to you already in the article I've shown you. Your "point 1" directly admits that different religions and beliefs have different definitions of marriage. So in order to implement a national law restricting marriage, that law has to have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose is denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry. In fact, you suggested that the government should just stop officially recognizing marriage altogether and let individuals and non-governmental groups oversee it (this would also mean not granting privileges like tax exemptions for married couples). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_a… Removing all of these from the legal system would be a major chore, but it might actually be a good idea. Of course that would also mean that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry just as well - if the government no longer controls marriage then who's going to stop them?

Also "dealing with the reality that it was happening and finding a way to cope" seems like a flimsy excuse to me. God can do anything, if he didn't want these polygamous marriages and concubines to exist, then they wouldn't exist. There would be a law against it, and anyone who broke that law would be punished. I mean, look all over the OT for examples of this kind of thing. It seems that "no polygamy" would be a lot easier to enforce than "no working on the Sabbath", but God and the Hebrews had no problem enforcing that one (Numbers 15: 32-36). In fact, the OT has tons of rules forbidding things, most of which are punishable by death (fortune telling - Deuteronomy 18:10, shaving the hair on the sides of your head or shave your beard with a razor - Leviticus 19:27, men wearing women's clothing or vice-versa - Deuteronomy 22:5, tatoos - Leviticus 19:28, cut yourself or shave your head in mourning - Deuteronomy 14:1, adultery - Deuteronomy 13:18, Putting oil or frankincense on the meal offering - Numbers 5:15, sexual relations with your mother, mother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, daughter, granddaughter, a woman and her daughter, a woman and her granddaughter, your aunt, aunt-in-law, daughter-in-law - Leviticius 18:7 - 18:18, bestiality - Leviticus 18:23, sexual relations with a woman on her period - Leviticus 18:19, Marrying non-Israelites - Deuteronomy 7:3, sacrificing castrated male animals - Leviticus 22:24, eating non-Kosher animals - Leviticus 11:4, eating the meat of a wounded animal - Exodus 22:30, eating blood - Leviticus 3:17 - this is actually why Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions, as they consider it a form of "eating", eating meat cooked with milk - Exodus 23:19, eating fruit from a tree that's less than 3 years old - Leviticus 19:23) I could go on, that's just the beginning, but my point is that the OT had tons of rules for so many things that were expected to be strictly followed. Nowhere is there a rule against polygamy, though (except in situations where it would break one of the other rules). So yes, the Biblical definition of marriage includes polygamy.

BTW, speaking of divorce, there were provisions in the OT for a man to divorce a woman (but not vice-versa). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_(div… Here is a link with some information on this.

As for the Levirate marriage, it's an arrangement found in the Bible where the brother of a dead man is obligated to marry his brother's widow. In other words, neither the husband or the wife have any say in this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum In fact, there was even an incident in the Bible where God killed a man for refusing to go through with such a marriage (Genesis 38:7 - 10). This is also part of the Biblical definition of marriage.

Of course the Bible is actually completely irrelevant to the legal issues here, I'm just discussing it so much because I find it interesting and like to study it. The real point is that same-sex marriage harms no one (I should know - it has been legal in my state for nearly 6 years and nothing bad has happened), so unless you have a secular purpose to forbid it (one that would hold up in court), then you can't pass a law against it. More and more state courts are overturning SSM bans because there is no secular purpose that can justify such a ban. After all, it doesn't affect you or me. If you don't like same-sex marriage, just do what I do: Don't have one.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'll freely admit that my knowledge of Scripture isn't as good as I want it to be, but I will say this.  God is rather merciful when we screw up.  But this topic is slightly off the point.

Ah ha, here's the kicker; I always knew my plan would legalize same-sex marriage by proxy.  But with everyone going by their definitions, it wouldn't force an acceptance.  Although, I'd like to see homosexuality re-recognized as a mental disorder and have the option (keyword there) of therapy open.

A friend of mine (friend on this site at least) answers your third paragraph nicely here: hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…

Well, there are exceptions to certain rules.  Divorce is fine in cases of infidelity.  To compare, killing is justified in very specific cases (self-defense, defense of others, war, executing criminals, etc.)

The Levirate marriage was to ensure that the widow wasn't going to be left to fend for themselves and most likely go into poverty (or worse).  Also, if you look at the guy God killed, you'd find God had a legitimate reason for killing him.  He was basically say, "Since legally they'd be my brother's kids, I'm gonna make sure my new wife never has kids, even though she wants them.  Oh, but of course I'm gonna take advantage of her and still have sex and stuff, I just don't want to have that pesky responsibility."  If you were in God's position, wouldn't you deal with this prideful, selfish, hedonistic monster?

Actually, history has shown that the Bible is the perfect basis for government.  Even America's founders agreed (even the Deists!)  I recommend this book for you: www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Chr…

Here are just a few excerpts from it:

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

Also, I find pandering to a psychosis very harmful.  Especially when said psychosis can lead to health problems that make alcoholism look safe by comparison.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014
1) You do realize that by getting government out of marriage that it would allow for churches that are okay with gay marriage to let gays get married, i.e. the very thing you seem to be against, right? Also, the first amendment is a two way street. We keep the government out of your religion, and you keep your religion out of government. Seems pretty damn fair. And to support one religion's view of marriage over others, as some religions do permit marriage as Hawaii had to be reminded in their court case over their gay marriage laws. The local Buddhists were fine with preforming gay marriages, which they had to remind people when the anti-gay Mormons claimed to be fighting on behalf of all religions.

2) If there were no anti-gay marriage laws, you'd be right. But since there are anti-gay marriage laws, the effort to prevent gay marriage ironically has made it possible to fight against it on the basis of discrimination. In the 60's when anti-gay marriage laws started, a gay couple had taken advantage of the vague marriage laws to try and get married. But instead of rewriting the law for marriage, they added an anti-gay marriage law, thus in a lovely little twist it turns out to be unconstitutional to do that under the due process and equal protection clauses.

So it turns out that anti-gay marriage advocates did more harm to their cause then good, as the 14th amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By having their states make those anti-gay laws, they unconstitutionally abridged citizens rights without due process.

3) Actually marriage is a right as determined by the supreme court in their Loving V. Virginia decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that: “ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival........ To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

If you exchange race for gender or orientation and you have the exact same argument for gay-marriage. Mildred Loving, the black woman who was the center of the case has been on record saying: "I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

4) Just because less then half the states allow gay marriage doesn't mean that half the population can't be in support of it, and in fact many polls throughout the country have showed an upward trend in all areas, and most areas are now surpassing 50%.

5) Except that alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths tend to hurt themselves and sadly other people fairly often. Allowing yourself to be gay in and of itself doesn't hurt anyone per se. The pain is usually caused by others, trying to hurt the gay person, or the gay person making poor life choices, choices not exclusive to being gay I might add nor universal among gays.

6) You do realize that if a same-sex couple responsible and faithful, they won't contract STDs either right? It's not as if you rub two sticks together and BOOM, STDs spontaneously form.

7) You're right. Gay is not the new black. If anything Black is the new gay and as a member of the LGBT I find it insulting when people think that blacks had it worst then we do. Blacks got discriminated against for a few hundred years. Gays have been discriminated since before recorded history, facing every sort of punishment and torture in the book. Oh, and on top of that, not only were they punished and tortured, it was often down at the hands of their own friends and family when they were discovered. Never seen a black person torture the life out of their kid for being black. For being gay on the other hand...sadly happens today even in the more civilized parts of the world like the US.

8) Homophobic means an aversion to homosexuals. Are you saying that you don't have an aversion to homosexuals?

9) First of all, I would've thought the "don't murder each other" thing would be the oldest and most important institute. Second of all, you have been suckered by some propaganda I'm afraid. Marriage isn't just in decline in those countries that have adopted gay marriage, but in decline universally in the first and even many second world countries, regardless of gay marriage. The two main theories behind this are the declining influence of the church and financial instability. The former is that over the past 20 years (coincidentally around the same time the internet started becoming commercially available along with tons of free information)the church has slowly but surely been loosing power and thus many are wondering why they need to restrict themselves to religious rules. The latter reason is that many people feel like they shouldn't get married and start a family until they're financially stable. With the last global recession many younger folks are being more cautious about what they deem to be "financially stable" thus many of them are holding off on marriage (and on an unrelated note, holding off on investing in the stock market as well).
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
First, allow me to thank you for being respectful in your disagreeing.  Most people today don't know how to behave anymore.

1. Yes I'm aware that it would legalize it through proxy.  But this way, no one can force someone to participate in a same-sex wedding.

2. The problem with this line of thinking is that people with minority status have it because it is immutable.  No one is, for example, an ex-black.  But there are ex-homosexuals.

3. Just because some government official said this, it doesn't make it true.  Especially since not everyone agrees. barbwire.com/2014/06/28/finall…

4. I did a journal on this. hisarcher19.deviantart.com/jou…

5 & 6. I recommend the book "Homosexuality and the Truth of Politics" to answer that.

7. I partly covered this in the 2nd point.  As for more, I don't approve of killing people over this.  Also, where in the US are they being killed with societal approval?

8.  I don't have an aversion to them.  Heck, I'm friends with some.  They even know my stance on the issue.  But we still get along.

9.  Actually "don't murder each other" is the 2nd :)  OK, jokes and history speculation aside.  Second, if you look at the world as a whole, Christianity is spreading.  Even some atheists predict a resurgence in the faith.  On the marriage issue, it is not just a matter of less marriages, but more failed ones.  You'll find that the divorce rate of homosexuals is rather high.
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014
Well, no one's opinion was ever changed by insulting and yelling at them.

1) Technically no one can be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding even with gay marriage being legalized anymore then they could be forced to participate in a straight wedding.

2) There are no ex-homosexuals, just suppressed homosexuals. The founders of the now defunct Exodus International organization even admitted as much and any in-depth analysis of these alleged ex-homosexuals will reveal that they're actually still homosexual, they're just suppressing those feelings often in unhealthy ways. In fact many of these ex-gay persons will end up suffering from depression, abuse themselves, and sadly often commit suicide due to the methods of ex-gay ministries. Any group claiming to be able to "cure" homosexuality is either a scam or delusional. I suggest visiting www.beyondexgay.com/ for more information.

3) A cute article(horrible website though) but sadly it, nor does that judge's opinion override the constitution. Quite frankly, that this man is a federal judge is quite appalling. His comment that "“Were marriage a freestanding right without reference to the parties, Utah would be hard-pressed to prohibit marriages for minors under 15 and impose conditions for other minors.” shows a disturbing lack of his understanding of the very laws he's supposed to be ruling on. Prohibiting marriage for minors has been put through many historical trials thus satisfying the "Due Process" clauses, as has many other laws abridging the rights of those unable to legally consent.

4) A journal that shows a clear lack of understanding of the homosexual position and marriage itself in so many ways. Gays don't want to crush religion, we just want it out of the way for instance. And marriage is a declaration of love to rest of the world. Atheists get married too, so it's hardly exclusive to religion. I'd also love to know what that one comment considers to be "a normal person", because I know I've never met anyone who's normal. Have you? Everyone has some oddity.

5 & 6) Can't you highlight the key points that address my points?

7) I have yet to see a murder of a gay person that hasn't been given approval by some US citizens, particularly those of conservative and christian beliefs.

8) Perhaps, but you still have an aversion to them having equal rights. I'd say that still counts. And really? You're really gonna go "hey some of my best friends are [insert minority]"? Probably not the best way to go if you're trying to avoid stereotypes.

9) That's debatable seeing as many new converts rarely follow what an american would recognize as proper Christianity. And of course the initial divorce rate is high. If you put a buffet before starving men, would you be surprised if they ate themselves sick? Many same-sex couples don't know how long their state will allow marriages as some have revoked that right before, so many jump the gun before they're ready. And straight marriages aren't doing all that well either, with 50% of straight marriages ending in divorce nowadays.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"Well, no one's opinion was ever changed by insulting and yelling at them."

I know, right?

1. Must I tell you of all the photographers and bakers that had their constitutionally affirmed rights trampled on but being severally punished for not providing their services to same-sex weddings?

2. Just because one place did it badly it doesn't mean it can't work.  The website pfox.org covers this rather well.

3.  Teens can give consent.  Heck, in most parts of Japan, the age of consent is 13 (there is a lot of fine print to that, but there is more fine print that brings it back into the creepy territory.)

4. I was just quoting the comments.  The point was to show that the statistic was lying.

5 & 6.  Sadly, I don't have the book on hand and I'm terrible with words at times.  That said, keep in mind the even some LGBT advocates liked/agreed with it.  The president of H.O.P.E. said he wishes it was required reading for school.

7. But they are a very small minority.  So small that I didn't even know they existed until you brought them up.

8. You still haven't proven to me that marriage is a right.  I recall a fellow saying this falls into a fallacy he calls convenient reasoning.  It only works if we agree on what marriage is.  Since I feel marriage is between one man and one woman, if you tell me they have a right to marriage I'd probably say, "Sure every gay man should marry any woman they want.  And every lesbian should marry any man they want."  Also, I know that sounds cliche but yes, I have LGBT friends but we still get along in spite of our differences.  To quote the words attributed to Voltaire, "I may not agree with you, I may even think your views are harmful, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

9. I would like to point out the divorce rate of devout Christians (as the survey calls them, which is people that read their Bibles everyday and go to church every week) is significantly lower.

" If you put a buffet before starving men, would you be surprised if they ate themselves sick? Many same-sex couples don't know how long their state will allow marriages as some have revoked that right before, so many jump the gun before they're ready."

So you think after they had a prolonged wait, longer than straight couples, they still had a divorce even though they could have developed their relationship better?
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014
1) I'm sorry, but could you be more clear on what constitutional rights protect a business from refusing to serve customers in a discriminatory manner? Because that would really shake the foundation of every anti-discrimination law in the country.

2) There has never been a place that has succeeded. All the scientific evidence supports the idea that it's better to accept one's sexuality then to fight against it. Further more there hasn't ever been a case going the other way as well. No straight person has ever gone gay. You can pretend to be one or the other, but unless your bisexual you'll never be happy doing that. And even if you are bi you'll probably still catch yourself looking at the same gender every now and then.

3) Consent on certain things perhaps...and if you could prove that they had the mental faculties and understanding to actually consent to a marriage at that age, which is very unlikely imho, then why shouldn't that be legal?

4) Really? Because I saw nothing in those comments that actually disprove the stats. Just a few opinions and misunderstandings about how things actually work. Like that "If so many Americans agree with gay marriage then why are the state laws having to get over turned by the federal courts to allow the practice?" comment, fails to realize that those laws existed before the public opinion changed to favor gay marriage and that the process of changing those laws is much much slower then going through the courts.

5 & 6) Yes, and if you dig far enough you can find a black person who agrees with the clan, a Jew that agrees with the NAZIs and Star Trek fan that liked the last episode of Star Trek Enterprise. But that doesn't make them or their opinions right.

7) Are they small, or are you merely sheltered from them? The news tends to gloss over it as they do with anything that could be considered "anti-christian", so unless you follow these murders and beatings yourself I can't say I'm too surprised at your ignorance on the matter.

8) Actually I did when I brought up the Loving v. Virginia decision, which declares that marriage is in fact a right and until the supreme court overrules that decision it is legally a right under US law. However that decision only defined it as a right, and one that can't be abridged by racial limitations, but didn't define it beyond that. Of course if you change race with gender and you'll realize history is repeating itself yet again. Marriage law has been redefined again and again under the law, and your idea of marriage has only existed in the US since the 60's. Before that it was "any black man can marry any black woman he wants and any white woman can marry any white man she wants." And even before that it was often restricted by religion as well. Nowadays we take our freedom of modern marriage for granted.

9) Perhaps, but how many of those devout Christians are in happy marriages? I'd love to see that numbers on THAT.

And that's a fallacious argument. You're assuming that all these relationships had extra time to develop, but a gay relationship can be as young and unstable as any straight relationship and many of these marriages are in the young, impulsive, and hopeless romantic categories. Not exactly a recipe for a long-term marriage even among straight couples.






10) No matter what other arguments you try to use, the question of same-gender marriages comes down to one simple question: "why?" Or more precisely, why not? Despite all your arguements, all of them, from unfaithfulness, to STDs, to fighting one's orientation can be just as equally be applied to straight people as well. Oh sure you can try and argue that they occur more in gay couples, but even if you could substantiate that somehow, that's still not a valid argument since it would open the floodgate for discriminating against any minority.

So with those arguments not being enough on their own, that leaves us with the one simple question of "why should gay marriage be banned"?
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
1. Freedom of association (mostly freedom of religion though).  And yes, that would also mean a business could refuse services to anyone even Christians.  Don't like it?  Don't take your business there.

2.  I recommend you check that site out and read the book.  They'll explain far better than me.

3. Well, if a minor can say no, and understand why they're saying no, then I think they can say yes.  But of course, there is a little something called morality...

4. So even though the top rated comments were against the statistic, it doesn't at least put some doubt on them?

5 & 6. False Equivalency.

7. I don't think we watch the same news outlets.  Even then, I question what difference it would make.

8. Removing the interracial marriage bans didn't require a fundamental overhaul of marriage.  It was still one man and one woman.  And again, a false equivalency.

9. Gee, the marriage isn't ending in divorce.  They are reading a source that encourages a loving relationship.  You think that sounds happy?

10. Ignoring the false equivalency, I'll get to my main point.  The family is the heart of the nation.  You'll find that people from families that were dysfunctional, went through a divorce, or even only had one parent don't adjust as well as others.  If the family unit is damaged, the effects ripple throughout the nation.  For more info, click here: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…
Reply
:iconchakatblackstar:
ChakatBlackstar Featured By Owner Aug 13, 2014
1) Pretty sure that's not in the constitution. And if they don't want to serve their customers, they don't have to run a business then. Simple as that.

2) That's a cop-out.

3) No. No it doesn't. They usually lack the emotional maturity, mental capacity, and in a shocking number of cases sexual intelligence, to know what they are and aren't agreeing to.

4) Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Put that on a conservative website, you'll have the anti-gay comments thumbed up all day long. Put it on an LGBT website and they'll be lucky not to get moderated.

5 & 6) How so?

7) American news networks have a conservative bias. Particularly Fox News but the other networks often lean conservative, or at the very least centrist and will treat both sides as equals even when they're undeniably not (e.g. climate change). As a result, when any story would portray Christianity in a negative light they're either ignored, or repeatedly said not to be "real Christians" i.e. the classic No True Scotsman fallacy. Hence if you have Christians cheering about anti-LGBT abuse, the mainstream news sources will ignore it. But go to less traditional sources and you'll find an entire anti-LGBT cheering section every time.

8) Didn't it? To people at the time, the idea of interracial marriage being legalized was absurd. In fact, when the interracial marriage laws were overturned, public opinion was 70% against interracial marriage. Back then, it was receiving more opposition then gay marriage is now.

9) No. That sounds like they're putting on a happy face to try and keep in line with their religion. It doesn't end well.

10) Please forgive my language but...what a bunch of bullsh*t. First of all, in no way should you be allowed to legislate on that basis.

Second of all, there's no such thing as a "normal" family. They're all dysfunctional in one way or another, some are just better at hiding it. While parents should be key, a good family is one that is made up of a strong support system. The parents can be the basis of that support...regardless of gender...and having friends and biological family that helps support them can create an even better family. There are simply too many variables to simply go "oh, nuclear families are the only ones that work".
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
1. Regardless, I feel the freedom of association is important.  And the freedom of religion is definitely in the constitution.

Also, what if I wanted a Muslim artist to depict Mohammed?  Should the artist be punished for it?  Or if someone wanted a Christian craftsman to make an idol?  Heck, what if I told you to do something that violated your principles?  Something you could do with a clean conscience?  Not fair, is it?

2. No.  It save me time by providing more info than I can type.

3. So... teens have no sense of right and wrong?

4. You do realize Yahoo! praises the heck out of the LGBT, right?

5 & 6. You haven't proven that the LGBT are like other minorities.

7. American news networks have a conservative bias?  No they don't.  You'll find that a good chunk have a very liberal slant.  Also, it's not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy.  If you claimed to be apart of a group, but you lack a defining trait you aren't really in the group.  For example, if someone said they were a Scotsman, but never even set foot in Scotland, or had heritage there, they aren't a Scotsman.  And finally, it's the internet.  You'll find a cheering section for ANYTHING if you look hard enough.

8. Citation?

9. That relies WAY too heavily on speculation.

10. So, instead of ensuring the well-being of society, we should pander to a psychosis?

"there's no such thing as a "normal" family."

To be brutally honest, that felt like scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Also, did you even read the journal?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconautumnbirch:
AutumnBirch Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014
Complete fail on #3. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage ever mentioned. Research is your friend.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That's my point.
Reply
:iconsterileritalin:
SterileRitalin Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
You're kidding right?
I am a calm person,but this just makes me angry.
This is one of the vile things i've ever read.
Same Sex marriage is going to become legal,and you're shaming people for being who they are,as Lady Gaga's song said "I was born this way".
And saying that I should act like an adult when you yourself fail to do that is rather stupid of you.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm going to assume you didn't actually read what I wrote considering you aren't actually providing a counterpoint beyond "born this way" which I stated was a faulty claim.
Reply
:iconsterileritalin:
SterileRitalin Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes I did,I wish I didn't,but I did
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
And yet you aren't actually countering me.  Basically, what you're saying is, "You're wrong because I'm right.  And I'm right because... reasons!"
Reply
:iconsterileritalin:
SterileRitalin Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
No,what i'm saying is that this is one of the most horrible things I've ever read.
You're saying "Fuck the marriage rights of the Homosexuals,they're immoral because the bible said so!"
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I only used my religion when relevant to the point (i.e. when the argument brings it up).  Also, there is no such thing as marriage rights because marriage isn't a right.  If it were, we wouldn't need a license for it.
Reply
:iconsterileritalin:
SterileRitalin Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Marriage is a right you horrible person.
This is why i'm Anti-Theist,because people like you deny the human rights to other human beings.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhckuh…

If marriage is a right, then why don't we grant it to children?

Also, check out Rodney Stark's "The Triumph of Christianity" to completely refute your words.

www.amazon.com/The-Triumph-Chr…

Here are just a few excerpts from his book:

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…

www.truefreethinker.com/articl…
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconproudtortoise:
ProudTortoise Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014
I see you support the sanctity of gender as regards gender, but have you considered race as a factor? I'm going to look at the "interracial marriage" arguments that really scrape the bottom of the barrel.  I hope that whatever side of the debate your on, you can agree that these arguments don't hold water.  To emphasize this, I'm going to try to sound as neutral as possible.

1. Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution.  So you can't use Christian morality to outlaw interracial marriage.

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what Separation of Church and State is.  The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.  It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church that was worried Jefferson would force his Deism on the churches.  Jefferson assured them the first amendment would protect their freedom.  So the question is, what does the first amendment do?  It prevents the government from establishing a state religion.  Outlawing interracial marriage does not establish a religion.  It doesn't force anyone to become a Christian anymore than it forces them to be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or any other faith that sees interracial relations as sin.  Also, it doesn't prevent anyone from using their religion to motivate their politics.  If you truly believe your religion, it should influence your decisions or you should consider if you truly believe it or not.  You want real Separation of Church and State?  How about having the government butt out of marriage entirely since it finds its origin in religion and different religions have different views of marriage anyway (e.g. Islam and some forms of Mormonism permit polygamy.)

2. The way things are, people of minority races are 2nd class citizens.

No they aren't.  They have the same rights everyone else does.  Including marriage.  To elaborate, a Latino can marry someone of the same race, but not someone of another race.  And an African-American can marry someone of the same race, but not someone of another race.  We have equal rights.  The minorities' goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exists.

3. It's unconstitutional to out-law same-sex marriage since marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege.  If you read the Constitution you'd know that.  And again, my previous points stand.

4. Interracial marriage is accepted by the majority as normal and thus, no longer immoral.

First off, I doubt the claim at the majority support it since most people marry people of the same race.  Second, even if that was true, to say that the population decides right and wrong is insane at best and dangerous at worst.  There was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by many.  Years before even that it was common for people to rape the women of the country they conquered.  Was any of this right?  (Rhetorical question.  If you answer "yes", please see a therapist.)  To quote Leo Tolstoy:
Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.-Leo Tolstoy
5. People are born into their ethnicity, so it would be wrong to not allow them what they want.

Some scientists speculate the same thing about alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths.  Does that make what they do right? (Again, a rhetorical question.)  If this were true, these conditions would be more like diseases.  But as someone I know (who was an alcoholic) put it, what he did wasn't totally involuntary.  He chose to get drunk just as he chose to stop and ultimately kick alcoholic beverages out of his life all together.  Just as people have had love affairs with someone of another race but then settle down with someone of their own.

6. The Bible says we should have babies, isn't it better to have a mixed-race baby than no baby at all?

This argument is a reply to oft-quoted argument against interracial marriage by pointing out that interracial couples can't naturally produce a single-race child.  There counterpoint, however, is a strawman.  This may shock some people, but mixed-race babies face discrimination. Think of the children!

7. People used religion (i.e. Christianity) to justify slavery.

Those people were also stupid.  Jesus is shown to be forgiving of everyone including the Tribes of Ham.  And another thing, PLEASE stop equating something simple like marriage to the complex issue of slavery.  It's nonsensical at best and insensitive at worst.

8. If you don't support interracial marriage, you're racist!

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride."
Furthermore, if someone was in a lifestyle that was harmful wouldn't you try to convince them out of it?  We do this with alcoholics, why not interracial relations?  Especially since this behavior brings damage that makes alcoholic damage look miniscule.  Frankly, I could argue I love and care for them more than those who try to push for this behavior.

9. Legalizing gay marriage won't affect anyone.

I think the redefinition of mankind's oldest and most important institution would affect everyone.  Also, some advocates agree it is to affect everyone as to make people stop viewing interracial relations negatively.  Now I know some of you are saying, "Not THAT kind of effect."  Sinful acts never just affect one or two people, it often affects whole communities and even countries. Achan's sin in Joshua 7, and David's sin in 2 Samuel 24 are a couple good examples. [insert bullshit real-world examples of interracial marriage making everything worse because I don't really want to trawl through racist blogs or whatever]

Disclaimer: this is intended as a counterargument. It does not reflect my actual views.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Reply
:iconproudtortoise:
ProudTortoise Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014
I didn't say black, I said interracial marriage. Since I run into this viewpoint fairly often, I made a convenient chart! sta.sh/02c0r9m6xmen

Also, refer to this article if you think banning gay marriage is the "Christian" thing to do. intheparlor.wordpress.com/2013…
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
But that's the problem, people have changed their sexuality.

Also, technically my view on marriage from a legal stand point is that I feel the government should butt out of marriage since it is something of religious origin.  This would "legalize" same-sex "marriage" by proxy.  But I do feel that homosexuality is a mental disorder and the option of therapy should be available.
Reply
:iconoutbreak-ii:
Outbreak-II Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Nobody has changed their sexuality, actually. The founders of several "ex-gay" organizations, such as Exodus International, have admitted as much.

Sexual attraction is a combination of brain chemistry, hormonal & pheremonal responses, and psychology. If you can show that you can change all of these factors through simple "ex-gay therapy" (much of which involves forcing gay people back into the closet, telling them to pretend to be straight, and sometimes mild torture), and do so through empirical, peer-reviewed methods, you'll win a Nobel Prize.
Note that nobody has been able to do so thus far.

And marriage existed long before any kind of organized religion, especially the Abrahamic ones. Christianity didn't even get into the marriage business until the 12th century or so. And since atheists & agnostics can get married in the US (it being a SECULAR contract here & in most first-world countries), it kind of blows your "religion owns marriage" concept out of the water.
And that's ignoring the fact that many cultures & religions throughout history have had same-sex legal unions (imperial China, Greece, Rome, Native Americans, to name a few).

Marriage in the US is secular. Religion is not a requirement, and religions don't own it.

And your so-called opinion of what classifies a 'mental disorder' does not change the scientific facts. Making a statement about something that can be verified through empirical data is not an opinion, it's a claim of fact. Claiming "that's just my opinion" is a cop-out.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
No one has changed?  Then explain this: pfox.org/


"And marriage existed long before any kind of organized religion, especially the Abrahamic ones. Christianity didn't even get into the marriage business until the 12th century or so. And since atheists & agnostics can get married in the US (it being a SECULAR contract here & in most first-world countries), it kind of blows your "religion owns marriage" concept out of the water."

Citation?

"throughout history have had same-sex legal unions (imperial China, Greece, Rome, Native Americans, to name a few)."

And how did it turn out for them?

Again, I recommend that book.
Reply
:iconproudtortoise:
ProudTortoise Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014
Sexuality can change, but you can't change it at will. It's like how your height can change but you can't purposely change your height (except with significant trauma possibly :P )

The option of therapy is available but it doesn't work because homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Anyway, general acceptance of homosexuals as equals is the goal. Saying it's a mental disorder won't stop gay people from feeling rejected, now will it?
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The mind and some willpower can change more than you know.

And as for it not working: pfox.org/
Reply
:iconproudtortoise:
ProudTortoise Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014
UGH I've wished I was taller for YEARS and guess what it hasn't happened

So you don't think gays are equal and you're okay with the deaths that mindset causes okay cool
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I mean MENTAL changes, not bodily.

I think gays are equal and I don't think we should be killing them.  Rehabilitation though, will work.

You didn't even check the link, did you?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkatrinahood:
katrinahood Featured By Owner Edited Aug 10, 2014  Student Digital Artist
:iconhobbitsclapping1plz::iconhobbitsclapping2plz::iconhobbitsclapping3plz::iconhobbitsclapping4plz:
:iconhobbitsclapping5plz::iconhobbitsclapping6plz::iconhobbitsclapping7plz::iconhobbitsclapping8plz: Nicely written, my good sir/madam/whatever you want to be called!
Reply
:iconproudtortoise:
ProudTortoise Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014
Person! =D
Reply
:iconsteeveleeii:
SteeveLeeII Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
The thing I've taken away from this homosexual debacle is simply that the government as become a bloated, overgrown mass - it's waaay too big to function without oppressing someone.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hence why I'm for limiting the government.
Reply
:iconsteeveleeii:
SteeveLeeII Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Amen to that! What a great idea! I wish SOMEONE would've thought of that sooner... oh, wait.
:iconjeffersonplz::iconbenfranklinplz::iconhamiltonplz:
Reply
:iconcowboyrodent:
CowboyRodent Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2014
I agree that all of these are inane arguments because religious marriage to me is redundant, in a perfect world government would butt out of religion, and have gender neutral civil unions to provide legal adjustments to individuals. people like to take anti-gay individuals as being inherently evil, and their not, they're misguided, because civil marriage doesn't equal religious marriage, and that's a problem, because there shouldn't be civil marriage, they're shoudl be civil unions. But on a personal level, I really just want to "marry" someone when I found the right person, what other folks think of me couldn't matter less unless they decide to be physical about what they think and beat the fuck out of me, it happens.

But now for my scolding, in a few of these you spread a few mis-thruths you may have accidentally implied that hiv is only caused by homosexual sex, when in fact the fastest growing hiv group in america is young straight women, the general idea that hiv/aids is a gay disease leads to many new cases every year from unprotected straight sex, and homosexual sex if by that you imply anal sex isn't very risky if you use a condom. Also many gay couples do not practice anal sex. And sometimes gays are treated like second class citizens in the fact that in many states you can still be fired for being gay. Heck I got fired for my first job when my boss found out, Don't leave your phone out on a counter when taking a piss.

For every stupid argument for same-sex marriage there are just as many idiotic ones against it. The simple fact is, It doesn't kill countries, it's not some ultra death sin explosion, it's two dudes kissing, or girls, and some people feel that it's wrong, and thats ok they're allowed to but they shouldn't use the bible as an example on why it shouldn't be allowed, since that's a religious book and not everyone subscribes to that religion. All I can do Is offer my point of view, to hope to sway yours.

Thanks for your time.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I've just now told you my "government/marriage" idea.  So I won't repeat myself.

In response to your 2nd paragraph, here are some other health risks: allendra3.deviantart.com/art/T…

On the topic of 2nd-class citizens, people can (or at least should be able to) fire whoever they want for whatever reason.  Don't like it?  Don't take your business there.  (As a side note, I wouldn't hire/fire based on something as irrelevant as sexual preference.  Only job performance and how you represent my business on the job.

On the 3rd paragraph, Sodom and Gomorrah.  Just Sodom and Gomorrah.  At least you can see the concern from my side.  But yeah, like you said, all we can do is share opinions and hope the other side sways.

Thanks again for your continued politeness on a subject most sensitive.
Reply
:iconoutbreak-ii:
Outbreak-II Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Government is involved in SECULAR marriage because of all the legal red tape. Otherwise, everyone in the US would have to have a degree in contract law just to negotiate a legal marriage. Legal civil marriage & religious wedding ceremonies (note that term) are completely different, and the latter is not recognized as a legally-binding contract in the US without the secular paperwork accompanying it.

If you think people should be able to fire people for any reason whatsoever, then I assume you're alright with businesses discriminating against blacks, Christians, etc.? Because some of those businesses would do very well in certain areas of the country, all while actually doing harm to the local citizenry by denying them a place to work. (And the old "they can find a job elsewhere" canard assumes that every town has dozens of businesses with different standards, that each has plenty of available jobs, and that everyone is qualified to do any & all of those imaginary jobs.) Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't really work very well.

As for Sodom & Gomorrah, the Bible itself says that their sin was greed, selfishness, and inhospitality to others. Not once does it say they were destroyed for homosexuality. And you might want to take into account that Rome was not destroyed the same way, despite homosexual acts being common at the height of its Empire's glory. (It fell due to overexpansion years after Constantine declared Christianity the state religion.)
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, I'm for smaller government so...

Yes, if a business owner wanted to fire someone for any reason, they could/should.  Even for reasons like appearance, religion, etc.  The actual odds of the scenario you made happening are slim to none.  Even then, they could start their own business.

Well, it said their actions (including the whole "let's have sex with those guys) were called vile.  Homosexuality is seen in other socieities near their collapse.  I know correlation doesn't always mean causation, but after you notice the same things occurring together often, it's not a coincident it's a trend.
Reply
:iconcowboyrodent:
CowboyRodent Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2014
I'm going to dismiss many of those health risks, because many seem to be related to stress, bad sex practices and some are outright lies from old studies. Though many simply don't apply to me, So I can't really relate to any of them.


"On the topic of 2nd-class citizens, people can (or at least should be able to) fire whoever they want for whatever reason.  Don't like it?  Don't take your business there."

I can't agree with that statement. You shouldn't beable to fire someone for any reason you please, especially in this economy if you fire someone because you don't like a small part about them unrelated to their job performance you can literally kill them, and I was doing my job, I friggin rang up groceries. That jackhole tried to say i was hitting on him when my acquaintance that worked with me asked why i was fired. No in reality he took my phone while I was peeing and looked through my texts, that's the only way he'd know since I don't broadcast it in public. It's good to know you won't ruin someones life over that, even from a christian perspective if you want to "save" gays how is firing them helping. That also goes to parents disowning gay teens, seriously how does that help them if you want them to not be gay?

in response to your third paragraph I can't take Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence, considering they never existed, at least in my opinion.
Reply
:iconhisarcher19:
hisarcher19 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
...How about that book I keep recommending?

Freedom of association my friend.  Though I agree, what happened to you was uncalled for.

My point is that's where we come from.  We don't want to see that happen.  Heck, we believe God doesn't like having to resort to that.  He doesn't want anyone to perish, but repent and enjoy a more abundant life.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconhisarcher19: More from hisarcher19


Featured in Collections

Political Social Religious by amanda2324

Stories by ForsakenDreamsTheif


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
December 20, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
764
Favourites
21 (who?)
Comments
275
×