As long as they start with gay marriage first. Homosexuality is a net social debt, and has no claim to the religious institution. The state should not support homosexual unions of any kind. They produce no benefit for the state. They do not contribute to the welfare and future security of society. I can tolerate degeneracy, but I will not support it.
While Im not as hung up on mixed race couples, I do understand the existential and social degradation it ultimately causes. There is no reason to support it. It does not contribute to a healthier society. Its a personal indulgence at best and therefore shouldn’t be guaranteed by the state. It guarantees the production of lesser quality offspring, increases the rate of failed family units and creates social tension and a lack of cohesion.
Granted I don’t see gay marriage or interracial marriage going away. From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law. Don’t care about interracial marriage. People are free to associate with whoever. Or not associate with whoever (at least they should be). Plus I have some different ethnicities in my family tree so i have no issues with it.
From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law.
Well maybe not you personally, but there is certainly nothing constitutionally stopping such a law by the states. That was the norm for the vast majority of America's existence. Laws fundamentally exist to enforce morality and morality is derived from theology, even the faggot stuff has its own perverted theological basis.
I always figured they could go do a civil contract with a lawyer.
They specifically rejected civil unions, because it was never about them associating, or even getting the benefits of being married without providing the benefits of a marriage to society.
It was always about power. They wanted to force people who disagreed to call it a marriage. They wanted people who objected to bake the cake, officiate the ceremony, file the paperwork.
SCOTUS making stuff up and an almost century long campaign of a highly organized elite gay minority going back to the International Congress for Sexual Reform on a Scientific Basis in the 1920s.
From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law
You most certainly can. It's amazing how something went from unthinkable for millennia to unthinkable to not support it being permitted. As long as we play along, society will continue to go to hell.
As long as they start with gay marriage first. Homosexuality is a net social debt, and has no claim to the religious institution. The state should not support homosexual unions of any kind. They produce no benefit for the state. They do not contribute to the welfare and future security of society. I can tolerate degeneracy, but I will not support it.
While Im not as hung up on mixed race couples, I do understand the existential and social degradation it ultimately causes. There is no reason to support it. It does not contribute to a healthier society. Its a personal indulgence at best and therefore shouldn’t be guaranteed by the state. It guarantees the production of lesser quality offspring, increases the rate of failed family units and creates social tension and a lack of cohesion.
Granted I don’t see gay marriage or interracial marriage going away. From a Christian view I’d say that marriage is a man and woman but I can’t make that a law. Don’t care about interracial marriage. People are free to associate with whoever. Or not associate with whoever (at least they should be). Plus I have some different ethnicities in my family tree so i have no issues with it.
Well maybe not you personally, but there is certainly nothing constitutionally stopping such a law by the states. That was the norm for the vast majority of America's existence. Laws fundamentally exist to enforce morality and morality is derived from theology, even the faggot stuff has its own perverted theological basis.
How did they win? They claimed a right to associate? I always figured they could go do a civil contract with a lawyer.
They specifically rejected civil unions, because it was never about them associating, or even getting the benefits of being married without providing the benefits of a marriage to society.
It was always about power. They wanted to force people who disagreed to call it a marriage. They wanted people who objected to bake the cake, officiate the ceremony, file the paperwork.
SCOTUS making stuff up and an almost century long campaign of a highly organized elite gay minority going back to the International Congress for Sexual Reform on a Scientific Basis in the 1920s.
You most certainly can. It's amazing how something went from unthinkable for millennia to unthinkable to not support it being permitted. As long as we play along, society will continue to go to hell.
This is a crucial distinction that somehow got lost in all the caterwauling over "rights."