182
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 299:
Line 299: +
→SSM as an attack on the institution of marriage
This is part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The [[civil union]] already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the [[gay rights]] movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "[[hate speech]]" and [[hate crime]] legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as [[sin]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
This is part of the [[homosexual agenda]]. They don't really want to be "married" or "enjoy the benifits of marriage". The [[civil union]] already does this, allowing next of kin rights when you're in the hospital, etc. The purpose is to destroy marriage. What we need to be writing about is why and how the [[gay rights]] movement is trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage. I guess it has something to do with taking away the ability of pastors (and society at large) to condemn homosexuality. It's related to "[[hate speech]]" and [[hate crime]] legislation which forbid criticism of homosexuality as [[sin]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Girls and boys getting married? Should they be referred to as men and women? [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, I don't think you're really correct on any of the above. I can't see why homosexuals would want to destroy marriage, and frankly, I think that the imputation of this invidious intent on a group of people is simple fear-mongering, or alarmism in the extreme, without proof. Second, "civil unions" do not carry the federal marriage benefits that President Bush fought so hard for (tax breaks et al). Surely that's a benefit that homosexual couples have an interest in acquiring. Third, and most importantly, perhaps, the idea of the "parade of the horribles" - "if you allow this, you allow bigamy" - has really been refuted a thousand times. If you want, I'd be glad to draw you the legal lines between same-sex marriage, and bigamy et al, but I consider them fairly obvious. Please let me know if you would enjoy the clarification.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 13:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)