Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage

[pochy1776]

So it's ok for sexual conformists to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society?

I thought you were against one-size-fits-all solutions for large numbers of people? Have I misread you, or have you gone all hypocrite-style on this issue?

What about getting the government out of marriage. Its totally possible you know.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior because it deviates from natural law and natural sexual conduct.

The issue is same-sex marriage loosely called gay marriage although strictly speaking it is same-sex marriage.

Sex, including buttsecks, is not a federal requirement for marriage nor required in most states and if it were challenged in court (e.g., one partner couldn't have sex for health, location, psychological, capability/performance issues), I doubt many courts would invalidate the marriage - but please prove me wrong.

Please don't confuse marriage with sex.

Do we have to do anything after the wedding?

Most states have no legal requirements for marriage after the ceremony. A handful of states require consummation of the marriage through sexual relations. Most states do not require consummation and simply consider the two married once the marriage ceremony ends. Even if the officiant fails to file the marriage certificate, the two are still married.

family.findlaw.com/marriage/legal-requirements-for-marriage-faq-s.html

As a general comment - not specifically to you, Confederate - I don't think people's bigotry or sexual hangups should be at the forefront of their postings here.

 

[TheTexan]

Ok, another question for Confederate. Slightly off topic, but I'm curious. From what I remember, your rules on what is considered "morally acceptable" was dependent on whether or not the conclusion of some sexual activity resulted in the deposit of seed within the woman's vagina.

If you're gay, is it morally acceptable to watch homosexual porn with your wife, as long as the seed ends up where its supposed to?

 

[TheTexan]

What about getting the government out of marriage. Its totally possible you know.

Shrug. In the past I thought Confederate said he supported state laws on this (but it would be a small state). Guess I was wrong

 

[Confederate]

The issue is same-sex marriage loosely called gay marriage although strictly speaking it is same-sex marriage.

Sex, including icky buttsecks, is not a federal requirement for marriage nor required in most states and if it were challenged in court (e.g., one partner couldn't have sex for health, location, psychological, capability/performance issues), I doubt many courts would invalidate the marriage - but please prove me wrong.

Please don't confuse marriage with sex.

As a general comment - not specifically to you, Confederate - I don't think people's bigotry or sexual hangups should be at the forefront of their postings here.

I never said that sexual intercourse is a condition of marriage, but to approve and endorse homosexual "marriage" is to give credence to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lobby's attempt to normalize that behavior and lifestyle, which is unnatural and immoral.

 

[dannno]

Eugh...another defender of allowing sexual deviants to impose their definition of marriage on the rest of society.

lol, that's actually the opposite of what he said.

 

[pochy1776]

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior because it deviates from natural law and natural sexual conduct.

Regarding your -rep



I agree, the government has no right to nullify private contracts that don't violate anyone's rights. That doesn't mean that I as a private citizen have to approve of what I believe is immoral behavior and shut up and "tolerate" it.



I am not attacking anyone on this forum or any group of people, I'm expressing my disapproval of certain immoral and unnatural behavior and at Beck approving of that behavior and lending the homosexual agenda some credibility.

Homosexuality has been in nature since nature started. It is a form of population control. With


in soviet america, you now have to or else you will be fired from your job or expelled from school. Unless you have aspergers or a disability. i was in hot water for tryingto insult the GAy straight alliance meeting. My teachers were very mad, my father defended me. To be honest, these people like Dan Savage and NoH8 peddle more hate and deception. They split people up and make gays look like petty victims over nothing. If gay people want to be respected as people they must stop whining and start ignoring slurs. Start acting like people, not a tribal group. This idea over Gay or women's rights hurts them as a group more than it helps. It is only our american suppression of speech that makes them out to be the heroes. I hope AIDS kill them all, the world would have one less of a nuisance.

 

[Confederate]

Shrug. In the past I thought Confederate said he supported state laws on this (but it would be a small state). Guess I was wrong

What I've said is I believe a community has the right to enact laws against behavior they find immoral. I also agreed with Scalia and Ron Paul's comments on Lawrence v Texas where they said that under the federal constitution the states have the legal authority to outlaw sodomy.

 

[dannno]

I never said that sexual intercourse is a condition of marriage, but to approve and endorse homosexual "marriage" is to give credence to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lobby's attempt to normalize that behavior and lifestyle, which is unnatural and immoral.

The government shouldn't have anything to do with what lifestyles are acceptable and what aren't. They should only be involved in actions that individuals commit against others.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I never said that sexual intercourse is a condition of marriage, but to approve and endorse homosexual "marriage" is to give credence to the acceptability of the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lobby's attempt to normalize that behavior and lifestyle, which is unnatural and immoral.

So your defense is that you only strongly implied it? Gotcha!

 

[pochy1776]

The issue is same-sex marriage loosely called gay marriage although strictly speaking it is same-sex marriage.

Sex, including buttsecks, is not a federal requirement for marriage nor required in most states and if it were challenged in court (e.g., one partner couldn't have sex for health, location, psychological, capability/performance issues), I doubt many courts would invalidate the marriage - but please prove me wrong.

Please don't confuse marriage with sex.



As a general comment - not specifically to you, Confederate - I don't think people's bigotry or sexual hangups should be at the forefront of their postings here.

The oh so typical american speech repression technique. I should be able to say what i want, when i want. First Amendment protects me from this. I will have to deal with scrutiny though.

 

[Confederate]

Ok, another question for Confederate. Slightly off topic, but I'm curious. From what I remember, your rules on what is considered "morally acceptable" was dependent on whether or not the conclusion of some sexual activity resulted in the deposit of seed within the woman's vagina.

As a Catholic and a strong believer in natural law I believe that the main purpose of sexual activity is procreation, so yes, I do believe that all sexual acts which preclude the creation of life are immoral.

If you're gay, is it morally acceptable to watch homosexual porn with your wife, as long as the seed ends up where its supposed to?

No, I don't believe the viewing of homosexual (or heterosexual) pornography is moral in any circumstance. I think porn is immoral, dangerous, and damaging. Porn is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. It results in emotional, physical, and spiritual costs to individuals, families and communities.

 

[Confederate]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with what lifestyles are acceptable and what aren't. They should only be involved in actions that individuals commit against others.

I disagree.

 

[The Free Hornet]

No, I don't believe the viewing of homosexual (or heterosexual) pornography is moral in any circumstance. I think porn is immoral, dangerous, and damaging. Porn is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. It results in emotional, physical, and spiritual costs to individuals, families and communities.

Edit: decided not to post a pic that would be offensive (just a kiss).


Don't make me go back to the interwebs for more!

 

[CT4Liberty]

As a Catholic and a strong believer in natural law I believe that the main purpose of sexual activity is procreation, so yes, I do believe that all sexual acts which preclude the creation of life are immoral.



No, I don't believe the viewing of homosexual (or heterosexual) pornography is moral in any circumstance. I think porn is immoral, dangerous, and damaging. Porn is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. It results in emotional, physical, and spiritual costs to individuals, families and communities.

You are completely within your right to believe what you would like and make it known... the question is, do you want a government that would impose morality on you and others? There are many moral questions, which should not be regulated by the government. Keeping the biblical context of morality, adultery is a sin. Should the government make it a crime to cheat on your wife? Its also immoral to covet your neighbors stuff...should we make jealousy and envy a federal crime?

Furthermore, what if non-Christians want to impose their moral beliefs on you and others through the federal government. How would you feel living under Sharia, because according to them there are immoral behavior that if broken cause emotional, physical and spiritual damage to families and communities, which I am sure you would be in violation of everyday.

 

[Confederate]

Edit: decided not to post a pic that would be offensive (just a kiss).


Don't make me go back to the interwebs for more!

Deciding not to post it is a testament to your intellectual maturity and capacity to have a civil debate.

 

[TheTexan]

No, I don't believe the viewing of homosexual (or heterosexual) pornography is moral in any circumstance. I think porn is immoral, dangerous, and damaging. Porn is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony. It results in emotional, physical, and spiritual costs to individuals, families and communities.

What it if it wasn't porn, just two people they're watching

 

[Confederate]

You are completely within your right to believe what you would like and make it known... the question is, do you want a government that would impose morality on you and others? There are many moral questions, which should not be regulated by the government. Keeping the biblical context of morality, adultery is a sin. Should the government make it a crime to cheat on your wife? Its also immoral to covet your neighbors stuff...should we make jealousy and envy a federal crime?.

I've always said I don't believe the federal government should or even has a right to be involved in social issues or questions of morality. The enumerated powers given to the federal government by the Constitution are very clear and limited.

I do believe that government does have a role to play in defending morality, but that it should be done at the most local level possible and I believe that private individuals, organizations, and corporations should do most of the regulating themselves.

That said, I do believe that the states under the Constitution have the authority to outlaw behavior that they deem to be immoral. I don't believe it's always wise or necessary to do so, but I do believe they have that power.

Furthermore, what if non-Christians want to impose their moral beliefs on you and others through the federal government. How would you feel living under Sharia, because according to them there are immoral behavior that if broken cause emotional, physical and spiritual damage to families and communities, which I am sure you would be in violation of everyday.

As I states before, the federal government has absolutely no authority to be involved in policing individual behavior.

I should add, though, that under Sharia law Islamic courts have no jurisdiction over non-Muslims and their personal affairs and non-Muslims are exempt from most of the restrictions placed on Muslims, for example bans on consumption of alcohol and pork.

 

[NickOdell]

I disagree.

Sounds like you're okay with using government to reinforce your moral view of society, but as soon as homosexuals seek equal recognition for marriage they are imposing their view on you. I fail to see how they are imposing anything on your or how their recognition affects you in any manner. Legislating morality is not moral.

I see one of two things happening - either gay marriage is legalized or the government gets out of marriage all together. Your choice.

 

[Confederate]

What it if it wasn't porn, just two people they're watching

Pornography isn't limited to magazines or DVD's. It includes "live performances." Anyway, all homosexual sexual behavior is immoral, so obviously watching for amusement or arousal is immoral as well.