Opponents. How has gay marriage negatively effected your life?

I am not the only person who feels that way.
Therefore I assume others fear me as much as I fear a random male stranger.
So I try to put them at ease in various ways.
However, since I am a Christian some of the ways men prove they are straight (going places with their latest female sex partner, bragging about conquests, swearing, bullying and talking about wives or kids) were not acceptable options until I was 39. The ring allowed me to put some people at ease without saying a word. After a few years it no longer proved anything.

 

Your not a christian.

 

If he believes in the Christ and the sacrifice that Jesus made, he's a Christian. That doesn't mean he's properly following the Christ's example, but that is not the definition of a Christian. The belief, not the behavior, is the factor. If you want to go by the behavior then many pagans and atheists are Christians, and better ones at that.

 

No its not.

 

I don't think either one of you are entitled to describe or assert what one's beliefs are or are not.

 

I'm not asserting what one's beliefs are, I'm asserting that belief is not enough.

 

That is your belief. You still are not entitled to apply it to someone else's beliefs.

 

I personally did not assert what any given person's belief was. I noted that it was belief that was the qualifier on being a Christian, and that if Phil does hold that belief, then he's a Christian, albeit not automatically a good one.

 

Yes I am.

 

Total nonsense. There is no fallacious response.

What "public benefits" are you talking about?

 

You said, Supreme Court had granted special rights to homosexuals because they created new law that grants special rights for homosexuals..
Since Supreme Court is an authority, we just have to listen to them and follow their orders.

We all know what Supreme Court did.
They have granted public benefits for strictly private activity that has nothing to do with marriage.
Public benefits are the marriage benefits reserved for regulation of heterosexual couples.

 

Nope.

 

No, they ruled the Constitution guarantees what you view as "special rights."

That's the idea.

An opinion I don't share.

 

Sex of any type is a strictly private activity. You still have not presented anything that shows otherwise.

Again, you refuse to provided any proof of this. You are also changing the goalposts. You fist claimed regulation of heterosexual sex, not couples. You have yet to show a single regulation on heterosexual sex. But even in looking at couples, your claim fails. The only supposed evidence you have presented has to do with children. There are far more marriage benefits that have nothing to do with children, that there are that do. Children are accounted for as a possibility within marriage, but they are not a requirement of, nor dependant upon marriage. Almost all the regulations surrounding children, exist independent of marriage. If a gay man and a gay woman create a child, their legal responsibilities exist regardless of whether or not they are married, either to each other or to other people. What are the regulations on heterosexual sex, or heterosexual couples, that are only applicable within marriage?

 

What proof you are talking about?
Heterosexual sex is a public activity that needs to be regulated by the government.
Yes, sure, if we have laws that disconnect sex and pregnancy, then may be you have a point.
Until then public benefits for something that has nothing to do with public life is a special right for homosexuals.
Similar to special rights for African-American, Women etc.

And that is important to know, because that will help us to avoid lawsuits and possible jail time (in future) against those who disagrees with homosexual agenda.

 

Their opinion is based on fallacy, so they are just wrong.
We are talking about reality.
Reality is that homosexual marriage is a special exception for political purposes.
I would call it political gift.

 

Thank You for your unsubstantiated opinion.

 

Public benefits are the marriage benefits reserved for regulation of heterosexual couples.

They aren't and you haven't provided any proof that they are.

 

Actual examples of how heterosexual sex is regulated.

If heterosexual sex is regulated then there are laws on who, how, when, why and/or where I can have heterosexual sex with my wives and girlfriends. What are these laws? Give examples. Make sure they areones that do not apply to homosexuals as well. For example, not having sex in a public place applies to both heterosexual and homosexuals.

There are no laws that connect sex and pregnancy. The laws that affect pregnancy and childbearing/raising after birth exist whether that pregnancy occurred by sex or IVF, or even by Turkey baster. Again, you have yet to give an example of laws that connect sex and pregnancy. Correlation/causation fallacy.

You keep blathering on about these benefits, but never state what they are and how they are different between heterosexual and homosexual married couples, or between married heterosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples.

What special rights are African'Americans or woman getting that no one else gets? Or will you be vague on them as well?

There are thousands of people out there very veribally disagreeing with the "homosexual agenda" who are not in jail or being sued. Can you provide an example of this claim of yours where someone has been sued for something against the "homosexual agenda" that cannot be also applied to other areas. For example, assault against a gay man is the same as assault against a black man or a straight woman or even a straight white man. Assault is not a crime limited to being against the "homosexual agenda".

 

What fallacy?

 

This is paranoid delusion.

 

This thread has taken some interesting directions. Why has no one presented a list of how homosexuals have personally harmed you?

 

They may be wrong, but they decide.

Again, I disagree.

 

Same Sex Marriages. Not homosexuals. The two are not automatically connected, even if they commonly are so. I mean we can start a thread on any supposed harm from homosexuals.