re: Plusaf
You are correct in your question about what gays will gain, your question is also the answer.

That is why the only logical conclusion can be that their purpose is to destroy the christian faith for perceived wrongs being done to gays by Christians. they can't grasp the concept of condemning the sin but loving the sinner,

As a religious faith, Islam is the most anti gay religion there is. yet they don't protest against them because they can't get away with it. they would and in fact are persecuted, jailed and in some instances executed. Does anyone believe that if a Muslim in any Muslim country were to murder a gay man, he would be prosecuted. Not likely.

The major problem with the gay activist besides what I already mentioned is that they believe that Christians want to persecute them. Nothing could be further from the truth. we believe in live and let live, but don;t constantly throw it in the face of straight people.

Fred

Re: Plusaf to Fred,

I couldn't disagree with you more as who is trying to destroy whom.
Our society in general is trying to destroy christianity for certain in my humble opinion and I would say underlying that desire of the liberal progressives is the desire to destroy religion in general. Of course at the same time they are afraid to confront some of the fanatical believers in Islam.

My personal concern about Islam is not about their specific beliefs in the Koran, but the interpretation by some that justifies terrorism and killing in the name of Islam. May they and all other religions go in peace as I want them to let Christians go in peace.

Your belief that the gay activists don't want to destroy Christianity is a denial of the truth presented by these activists in their actions almost on a daily basis. The attack on a Catholic church is just one example among hundreds.

I'm not quite sure why you decided to place the burden of writing and passing of new laws that deal with any civil contracts to be entered into by gay couples on me. I have no cause in that department. I only oppose the usage of the word marriage to be used for the union of gay people. I would support and even fight for the rights that are often claimed to be denied to gay people such as visitation rights in hospitals.

Another “right” often claimed is the right to be on their “partners” insurance. I oppose the concept of employer provided health insurance for anyone. If the government would stay out of mandating insurance requirements for certain size businesses, then the insurance coma\panies would create what was needed in a free market.

Marriage in my belief and in the Christian faith is about the desire to create a traditional union of man and woman in order to procreate as dictated in the Bible and to announce their commitment to each other publicly. Christians that oppose gay marriage oppose the word as it has a specific meaning. Of course we live in a time when words mean nothing other than what the speaker or writer wants it to mean. We live in a world where rules mean nothing anymore. The point of a x society is to have like minded people join in a common effort to live peacefully and productively in order to better everyone’s life. This is true, at least in theory.

Your attempt to compare slavery to marriage because anti gay marriage proponents use the term traditional in their argument is absurd. There are many things that were done for thousands of years, but the general agreement now is that slavery is wrong and was therefore abolished by law.

Gay marriage is opposed on traditional grounds because there is strong disagreement among the worlds population. Here in the U.S. We have become so politically correct that many opposing views are shouted down by one side or the other because we now live in a politically correct time where the government is run by liberals and no matter what the voter says the liberal judges will overturn the vote of the people.

I stand for the rights of all people that the Constitution guarantees, no rights that anyone claims to exist that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And before you claim that the constitution also allowed slavery and considered a black man only three fifths of a man, please remember that was a compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified and deal with slavery later. You can find further information on that subject by googling three fifths compromise.

Fred Speckmann









Re: Plusaf to Fred,

I couldn't disagree with you more as who is trying to destroy whom.
Our society in general is trying to destroy christianity for certain in my humble opinion and I would say underlying that desire of the liberal progressives is the desire to destroy religion in general. Of course at the same time they are afraid to confront some of the fanatical believers in Islam.

My personal concern about Islam is not about their specific beliefs in the Koran, but the interpretation by some that justifies terrorism and killing in the name of Islam. May they and all other religions go in peace as I want them to let Christians go in peace.

Your belief that the gay activists don't want to destroy Christianity is a denial of the truth presented by these activists in their actions almost on a daily basis. The attack on a Catholic church is just one example among hundreds.

I'm not quite sure why you decided to place the burden of writing and passing of new laws that deal with any civil contracts to be entered into by gay couples on me. I have no cause in that department. I only oppose the usage of the word marriage to be used for the union of gay people. I would support and even fight for the rights that are often claimed to be denied to gay people such as visitation rights in hospitals.

Another “right” often claimed is the right to be on their “partners” insurance. I oppose the concept of employer provided health insurance for anyone. If the government would stay out of mandating insurance requirements for certain size businesses, then the insurance companies would create what was needed in a free market.

Marriage in my belief and in the Christian faith is about the desire to create a traditional union of man and woman in order to procreate as dictated in the Bible and to announce their commitment to each other publicly. Christians that oppose gay marriage oppose the word as it has a specific meaning. Of course we live in a time when words mean nothing other than what the speaker or writer wants it to mean. We live in a world where rules mean nothing anymore. The point of a x society is to have like minded people join in a common effort to live peacefully and productively in order to better everyone’s life. This is true, at least in theory.

Your attempt to compare slavery to marriage because anti gay marriage proponents use the term traditional in their argument is absurd. There are many things that were done for thousands of years, but the general agreement now is that slavery is wrong and was therefore abolished by law.

Gay marriage is opposed on traditional grounds because there is strong disagreement among the worlds population. Here in the U.S. We have become so politically correct that many opposing views are shouted down by one side or the other because we now live in a politically correct time where the government is run by liberals and no matter what the voter says the liberal judges will overturn the vote of the people.

I stand for the rights of all people that the Constitution guarantees, no rights that anyone claims to exist that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And before you claim that the constitution also allowed slavery and considered a black man only three fifths of a man, please remember that was a compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified and deal with slavery later. You can find further information on that subject by googling three fifths compromise.

Fred Speckmann