The ulitmate sin: blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

Hello commike37Just two quick statements So I guess my first statement is this; my wife and I are happily married and, I have always assumed, quite healthy. But since we do not have, nor plan to have, any children I guess I am mistaken.My second statement would be actually more of a question. How would a gay couple being allowed to marry have any effect what-so-ever on the health of a family and any children they may have? You do know how babies are made don’t you?

Hi again: And since this started with you claiming that the best environment for children is in a heterosexual household, I assume you have strong data showing how poorly children do when they’re in a same sex household. Somehow I doubt that you have the statistics to back this up. However, why don’t you look for the numbers regarding child abuse in your best environmental setting?Let me ask you this. Would you be ok with a homosexual marriage if no children were involved? I mean, is that your only concern...the "health" of the children. Is that why you are opposed to gay marriage?

Commike37 This hasn’t really clarified it for me, so let me ask you this: Are you proposing that only Judeo-Christian marriages should be recognized in this Country?And why even mention the health issue? What does it have to do with discrimination? Fineheterosexual marriages result in better health (maybe), so does that mean that only heterosexual marriages should be allowed? Would not it also be good for a single homosexual to get married, so he/she can have the benefits of marriage and thus be, by your own words, more healthy than when they were single?Do you think that a homosexual male that does what many Christians say he should do (i.e. marry a women anyway cuz it’s the Christian thing to do) would really be more healthy than if he remained single or, God forbid, married another male? Or do you think that a homosexual male should remain single, even though you yourself have repeatedly stated that married couples are healthier? I guess you feel the homosexuals deserve be in poorer health than heterosexuals.My biggest area of confusion, I guess, is in trying to decipher what exactly you think is Christian about banning gay marriage. I think it’s what Jar has been trying to get from you for quite some time, but has yet to receive an answer. So let me try. If you know that by denying homosexuals the right to marry, you are also going to deny them: A) health care, B) protection from domestic violence, C) access to protection under divorce laws, D) and inheritance rights, then how can you in any way consider your action to be Christian?

Hi again commike37Hold on buddy, I’m not letting you off the hook this easily. You have completely ignored the main question. But you KNOW that the main question was as follows (and is the one for which I really want an answer):Please oh please oh please answer this for us commike37. Bull shit. What a big load of homophobic crappola. And by this, what you really mean is that you want YOUR values to be those which will be used to define. AgainBull shit. If marriage is defined as you (and many other homophobes) want it defined, then it will deny the rights of homosexual couples to be married. As such, these individuals will NOT be allowed to benefit from your rather limited and quite discriminatory political privileges. Why can’t you see this and admit to it? And yet againBull shit. You have completely mixed the two (values and policy). Your values determine the policy. How can you see this any other way? Gays can’t marry, therefore gays cannot benefit from the policies. It’s not rocket science here, commike37