GoldenEagle Posted December 11, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 11, 2012 i don't understand.. he was talking anti gay so what was the end.. ? In the end BigBear he states he was reading something against bi-racial marriages from the 1950's or 1960's. He asks the council to "do the right thing" by giving homosexuals the right to marry or something of that nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenEagle Posted December 12, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 764 Topics Per Day: 0.18 Content Count: 7,626 Content Per Day: 1.81 Reputation: 1,559 Days Won: 44 Joined: 10/03/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2012 Well, what to do about this list then? Possible to call it something other than marriage with these same legal rights? Curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 12, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2012 Well, what to do about this list then? Possible to call it something other than marriage with these same legal rights? Curious. I have held that view for a bit now. I don't agree with calling a union between sames sexes marriage. But if we are saying the government should not be in marriage, then neither should the benefits that are provided. It's a slippery slope, and if a common ground can't be found then I am sure that all 50 states will soon allow homosexuals to call what they have marriage. Here's the problem with your perspective. The reason that those benefits were initially given to Marriage as God defined it is that we once understood the benefit of Godly Marriage to the society. This is why the society chose as a whole to promote it. There are definate negative consequences to an unGoldy definition of Marrige and to promoting such. You see, it is not an issue of moral equivalency as some would have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 12, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2012 I would ask a question. Why did the Govrnment initially give a tax break for mortgage interest deduction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 12, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2012 I would ask a question. Why did the Govrnment initially give a tax break for mortgage interest deduction? I'm sorry but I must say I find it rather odd that you want questions answered that may be related, to the OP but when it comes to yours you refuse. But I do want to address your previous reply. The issue with what you are saying is it is still government issued benefits. So we either want government out of the marriage business, which would include benefits. The benefits can't be seperated from government, but marriage can be seperated from both. Because they are not a requirement to be married. It's related. The reason that we give ebenfits to Godly Marriage is because we, at one time, wanted to promote it for the good of the society. The reason that we give a mortgage interest deduction is because we want to promote home ownership because it is good for the society as a whole. It is also directly related to the first premise in that the nuclear Godly family needs a domicile in order for it to function safely and properly. The problem is that none of this is about equal rights. It never has been. It's about destroying the very basis of a society and the foundations of this Nation. If it were about equal rights then Nations in which it has been practiced for over twenty years now would see an equivalency if not an outright plethora of this kind of Marriage. However, they don't and facts show that there is less Marriage of both kinds because the very core reason for being Married is diluted. It's about the enemy's designs for your children in a spiritual sense. Overall, the rest of the society is just playing into his hands as more and more of our society becomes morally relevant. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are being delivered into hell as it enlarges its mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthitjah Posted December 12, 2012 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 1,285 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 17,917 Content Per Day: 2.28 Reputation: 355 Days Won: 19 Joined: 10/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted December 12, 2012 The reason that we give a mortgage interest deduction is because we want to promote home ownership because it is good for the society as a whole. It is also directly related to the first premise in that the nuclear Godly family needs a domicile in order for it to function safely and properly. Didn't the housing crash have something to do with mortgage interest rates (but thats neither here nor there)? The problem is and will be that the government provides these benefits, and salaries that homosexuals (who are apart of society) make go into the taxes that help the governement provide the benefits. I said Mortgage interest deductions. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the mortgage crash which was caused by Leftist Progressive policy's. Regardless, You've just demonstarted my point. You have just given moral equivalency to Homosexual Marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts