Gay=incest?

Huh?

I don't see what the big deal is...Christ, just let'em get hitched.  This "traditional" crap is stupid.  I believe the far more common arrangement was one man and many women- that's more traditional...it's got a longer history to it.

~Zoo 

not quite there young whippersnapper!

The original traditional way was one man, one woman.  Only later (from Cain's side) did we see the beginning of polygamy....you know Satan's seed?

 Genesis 4:17-19

Zoo,

I think the point here is more the slippery slope argument. There are lots of loving relationships out there...even those committed to their pets...however, that is not marriage.

The big deal is 2,000 years of traditional marriage.....universally understood by every civilization as a union between a man and a woman.

Like many others, you don't understand or are confused about what marriage really means. 

What is the reason to allow gay marriage? The reason liberals want it is to be nice. Don't we all know where the road of good intentions leads?

So why is the tradion stupid Zoo? Give us a real reason,  besides just degrading "traditional views".  Tradition has a reason for man and woman marriage, to produce children.

How can people who are classified as being "gay" become so angry? I thought it meant happy.

best (and only good) comment I've seen on this topic. Cudos

Well, ok, LW's comment was also quite funny.

LULA POSTS:

This story about Connecticut issuing marriage licences has it that civil unions in effect are just like marriage.

Obviously those who believe in traditional marriage are disappointed and reading down you'll see a quote from Peter Wolfgang which indicates they intend quite a different reaction than those we've been describing with Prop 8.

Connecticut Begins Issuing Marriage Licenses to Homosexual Couples

By Kathleen Gilbert

NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, November 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Today Connecticut officially became the second state in the union, after Massachusetts, to legally recognize homosexual unions as "marriages."

Homosexual couples lined up in front of New Haven's Superior Court to claim marriage licenses, and many others are expected to "marry" later today at town and city clerks' offices across the state.

According to the Associated Press, the new marriage licenses had to be altered to accommodate homosexual couples.  Rather than providing spaces for "bride" and "groom," the license simply shows two spaces marked "bride/groom/spouse."

“Today, Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

In October, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that homosexual couples are entitled to "marry," despite a civil union law already in effect that gave same-sex partners the same rights and privileges as married couples.

Last week, Connecticut voters decided against holding a constitutional convention, where delegages would have considered a proposal to protect the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in state law.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of The Family Institute of Connecticut, vowed to press on with an uphill battle to protect marriage in his state.

"Unlike California, we did not have a remedy," Wolfgang said. The Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex "marriage" "must be overturned with patience, determination and fortitude."

Until recently Connecticut was recognized as the third state to legalize homosexual "marriage." However, marriage proponents in California successfully reversed a court decision to legalize same-sex "marriages" by passing Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution to protect true marriage.

Stubbyfinger,

The poor guy in the youtube video needs to get a grip....

For what it's worth, heres a Wall Street Jorunal article from 1998, by David Gelernter...

We also need to be serious about the motives of homosexual-rights groups. What started as a political trend seems to be part of an emerging, philosophically coherent paganism. The cultural elite has rejected traditional Judaism and Christianity, not out of petulance but becasue it holds the Bible to be immoral. (By in large, it hasn't found the courage to say so, but it will.) And the new paganism has its own spiritual aspirations, and shares some practices with classical Greece: nature worship, human body worship, a belief in sensual pleasure for its own sake, and the celebration of sex."

 Sodomy and other promiscusous sexual behaviors has never been and never will be on par with the sacrament of heterosexual married love.

Gelernter was prophetic.....Didn't this guy say in so many words that the Bible is immoral for calling all the "love" going on between people who identify themselves according to their sexual behavior as a sinful abomination?

My short answer is ----Approving same-sex "marriage" would be calling for the disordering of society. Where's the love in that?

Marriage is about having children and children have a natural right to a mother and a father.

In the end, it's not about homosexual "marriage", it's about full blown societal acceptance and approval of same sex-sex.      

No, but it does bring up an interesting issue.  The taboo (and that is what it really is) against marriage between relatives (first cousins and closer generally) is due to the genetic re-inforcement  that occurs with so close matching of genes.  With gay relationships, this issue is really moot.  So while - gay=incest - is not part of the demand, how will society view gays marrying with relations since there is no possibility of an offspring (adoption not with standing)?  And since it is not a possibility, what is going to stop them from then demanding such unions?  The only reason they are frowned upon is biological in nature, and rendered moot by the type of relationship.

I find it puzzling that so many on the left support Obama because of his possible links to groups like Hamas, which are not only extremely homophobic but also against abortion.

You see, that's where it all falls apart.

The argument about marriage being about having children and the rights of children to a mother and a father, a female and a male role model is both legitimate and persuasive.

But the argument that "same sex-sex" is immoral doesn't make sense.

The Bible might or might not say that it is, but the Bible is only a book. Some people believe it, some people don't. Many interpret it differently. I personally intepret Biblical prohibitions against homoexuality as referring to the practices of ancient Greece. Either way, since it is a sin against G-d rather than against other people, it is up to G-d to judge it, not society.

I'm fine with whatever a democracy decides.

As for the gay groups that see something as their "right" which is both new and not approved by voters AND the groups that believe that their morality should be forced on others and who pretend that they represent all good religion:

You are both nuts. Go away.

Oh brother, blobermann, what a loon.

Hey Cacto???????? thank you of all the feel better cards yours was the biggest suprise and the one that really touched me the mopst!!!!

IF I WAS OFFERED SOMETHING THAT GAVE ME THE SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE, i WOULD TAKE IT AND NOT RAISE HELL ABOUT IT. a GOODLY part of this vote was outrage at four judges overturning the will of the people in 2006 when Californias voted to define marriage as one man to one woman, it won too, then four {4} yes just for judges saw fit that they were wiser than the millions of Californians that voted in 2006 and overturned it.

Polygamy was very common in many cultures for thousands of years before Semitic tribes formed the cultures from whoch Jewish tradition derives.

Polygamy is even common among other mammals.

Exactly my point.  Even with genetic re-inforcement the offspring really just going to have a higher chance of having problems since genetic hiccups can happen even without incest.  Most of the time incest is only a problem over generations. 

Incest is used in farming to make sure offspring has certian traits.  While those animals that prove defective are slaughtered.  If an incestuous couple find that a fetus is going to have serious problems its not like they can't have an abortion.

  Also not all cultures have/had a problem with incest, such as the Hawiians (at least before the American takeover of the islands) and the ancient Egyptians.  What ancient culture had gay marriage?  Before anyone says the Greeks, remember they had long term gay lovers but were still expected to marry a member of the opposite sex.

well you can't get earlier than Cain Leauki.  It started with Adam and Eve, then Cain, then Abel and Seth.  I'm saying polygamy as written in the earliest history we have started with a close descendant of Cain.  Then Polygamy was carried forth from there.  I don't believe there is any history to support any tribes before Adam and Eve. 

We're talking humans not animals and there is a difference between the two. 

On another note:  the latest news of homosexuals in California revolting is that some suspicious white powder has been mailed to the Mormon Temple and is being currently investigated. 

Depends on your beliefs... Personally the only diffrence between humanity and animals to me is I like people more (generally speaking of course).

I dont know, I prefer beef.

LEAUKI POSTS:

There are several answers that satisfactorily explain why "same-sex sex" is immoral.

First,  we would have to agree from where and whom we get our sense and source of morality. If we agree morality is from God grounded in the natural law or moral law and in His revealed laws, then we can go forward. Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself, but which he must obey...for man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. Christ taught by moralizing, He clearly taught right, wrong and sin.

If it's man's own made up morality in which he exalts himself, a treatment of the self as the primary and or definitive source of morality, then we have a problem going forward. Why? Becasue moralizing today involves skirting moral absolutes in favor of values clarification, an insidious technique which usurps all traditional moral norms in favor of personal choice...what's morally right for you may not be morally right for the next person, but that's OK, cause you're OK and he's OK. Pope Benedict calls this the dictatorship of moral relativism. Some people live by the idea that a moral code is something which they create themselves, as if man were the source and norm or morality.

(This is a lie and where false things are and also getting ahead of myself with a second explanation of why same-sex sex is immoral and can't in any way be good and held equal to traditional marriage.)  

Yes this is true and God will judge we can be assured of that. Scripture says that homosexuality is a sin that cries out to Heaven for justice or something like that...anyway, as far as judging, we are not to judge the person's heart or soul, but we have a duty and responsibility both individually and as a society to judge behavior or actions..including sexual behavior and that's what this discussion is about, right? Same-sex sex is after all, behavior. Should government condone, approve and hold same-sex sex as equally good as sex within traditional marriage?  

Think about it Leauki,,,,that's what our laws are all about...judging behavior or someone's actions. That's what the people did in voting on Prop 8....

The Talmud claims that there were 974 generations before Adam. But that is besides the point.

The point is that other cultures have other traditions. Whether those traditions were lived or imagines doesn't matter. But monogamy is not the "traditional way". It is one of them.

Depends on your scripture. I can find the part in my holy book but I cannot find an explanation for it. I do not judge people without knowledge of why what they are doing is wrong. My assumption is that Jewish prohibitions referred to the ancient Greek style of promiscuous homosexuality.

This is going a bit far. Abortion is not a tool to repair a broken gene pool.

Thanks. Yours is probably the best arguments against both incest and abortion I have heard.

I am fine with people voting against gay marriage. That's not the point.

Its just going further!  People are saying we should not force morality on others, yet no matter how we try we will. I m stating what they could do to fix the situation, not what is right, supposedly its not our place to judge morality.