pineapplemike wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:40 am
what about the gay people that now have the freedom to marry?
socially liberal to me would presume to support gay marriage recognition through the state, and not care if it is recognized by the church. and i wouldnt force churches to hold gay weddings either, if that's in the legislation then the legislation is flawed. churches are a private cult and they can do as they please.
your arguments about the morality of gay behavior fall on deaf ears, i dont like the overexposure in the culture but i am ok with letting gay people gave the freedom to be gay married if they want to be. i dont like banning stuff. next we'll be saying that alex jones is immoral and should be banned
Their freedom to "marry" means the rest of us have no freedom to avoid immorality. Business owners are not free to conduct business according to their conscience. A woman no longer has the freedom in some places to give her baby up for adoption to a good family so that her baby will be raised in her faith. One can go on and on.
Marriage has always meant a union between a man and woman. It's purpose is to create the most stable environment in which to raise children: the human family. All other households are inferior -- objectively proven by the way -- if not outright harmful to children and thus society in general.
I have no problem decriminalizing sodomy. If two dudes want to live together in some kind of sexual relationship, then I really do not care. That is NOT a marriage, though.
When you create legal protection for degeneracy, you destroy our freedoms. Every fucking time.
You are not arguing for freedom. You are arguing for less freedom. Gays can already freely live together. Some of them want "gay marriage" because they want to destroy our freedom of conscience. That is what creating legal protection for evil results in. Every last God damned time.
These political slogans you repeat are literally Orwellian newspeak. You call tyranny freedom.