“It Doesn’t Affect You.”

This was the refrain I constantly heard during the lead-up to the SCOTUS’s decision to undermine the bedrock of human civilization (marriage) for the convenience of sexual deviants (“deviant” is not a moral condemnation; it’s a statistical, biological and psychological fact). “Why do you care? It doesn’t affect you!” (The assumption by everyone who disagreed with my opinion that I was not a homosexual, tends to demonstrate my point about deviation).

First, I would point out that it does affect me. Because it gives legal standing to those who would sue Churches out of existence–or even sue private citizens–for not participating in a lie. This affects me.

Second, I would ask: when did this become the standard of action? I can only object to things which affect me personally? If I see a woman being attacked, you don’t think I should step in? I will and have. But let’s turn the tables: what about the money I earn, which is confiscated by the govenment and thrown away on social programs? Unlike the SCOTUS ruling, other people’s poverty really doesn’t affect me–it’s the government social programs which affect me. If I should not object to the redifinition of marriage because “it does not affect me”, then I should also not pay for social programs.

Advertisements

12 responses to ““It Doesn’t Affect You.”

  1. “Because it gives legal standing to those who would sue Churches out of existence”

    Only if they rent out their buildings for functions. Otherwise, no, no this won’t happen.

    “If I see a woman being attacked, you don’t think I should step in?”

    Sure.

    But if you see a woman being given flowers, you shouldn’t step in because you don’t like flowers.

    • There have been people chomping at the bit to sue Churches into bankruptcy for a long time. With DOMA repealed, they will now start suing Churches for not performing same-sex ceremonies, claiming “discrimination”. It’s not speculation, it’s just a matter of time–just as they are already suing private businesses.

      Your statement about flowers is true, but irrelevant.

      • “they will now start suing Churches for not performing same-sex ceremonies”

        No they won’t. Jews haven’t sued Catholic churches to perform their marriage, and neither will gays. If some do, their suits won’t win.

        “Your statement about flowers is true, but irrelevant.”

        Not at all. You compared ssm to being mugged. Actually, all the evidence is that it causes no harm. So it’s closer to my flower analogy than your mugging one.

      • Jews versus Catholics is a false analogy; homosexuality is not a religion, and therefore has no marriage ceremony. This is a matter of atheists using a special privilege granted to homosexuals as a bludgeon against religion in general and Christianity in particular.

        Granting legal status to same-sex relationships as “marriage” IS harm; it forces people to be accomplices to a lie (that’s in addition to the “anti-discrimination” lawsuits against people who don’t acknowledge the lie). It also undermines the meaning of actual marriage–the establishment of families. I’ve posted a link in a recent article to an excellent pamphlet on this by the Heritage Foundation.

      • “A marriage is a marriage–the union of a husband and a wife. And that’s not a lie.”

        Yes it is. A marriage is a union of two people who love each other. And as you’re perpetuating the lie that it’s only for a man and a woman, you’re harming me. So I guess we should outlaw your type of marriage.

      • Marriage has always been for the creation of families. The idea of a marriage FOR love, rather than a marriage which DEVELOPS love, is a very recent concept (perhaps the last two centuries).

        The statement that a marriage is the union of a husband and a wife is an historical fact. Either you are trolling, or your knowledge of history is astoundingly poor. Regardless, why outlaw marriage, which is, again, the basis of human civilization? I’m certainly not trying to outlaw anything; just to recognize that there IS such a thing as marriage, and there are things which are NOT marriage (toaster ovens, dog parks, homosexual relationships).

      • “Marriage has always been for the creation of families”

        No, it hasn’t. It was clearly for the changing of hands of property (women in olden times) before it was anything else.

        “The statement that a marriage is the union of a husband and a wife is an historical fact.”

        Whereas the statement that it can only be this is a demonstrable lie.

        “the basis of human civilization?”

        I don’t believe this to be true.

        ” I’m certainly not trying to outlaw anything”

        Sure you are.

        In some places, such as whole countries like Canada, homosexuals are allowed to get married. You want them not to be allowed to get married. That means you want to outlaw something.

      • You are confusing cause and effect. If marriage were solely about “property”, then it would not have existed among people (such as slaves) who did not, or could not, own property. Marriage exists for the creation of families; one of the functions of family is inheritance.

        The statement “marriages only exist between a husband and a wife” is a lie in the same sense that the statement “only dogs belong in the species canis familiaris” is a lie.

        You are certainly free not to believe that marriage is the basis of human civilization. You are incorrect, but feel free.

        I’m not trying to outlaw “same-sex marriage”, because it is an invalid concept. It would be like trying to outlaw round triangles. The fact that “places like Canada” are perpetuating nonsense, does not make the nonsense true.

      • “then it would not have existed among people (such as slaves) who did not, or could not, own property.”

        Except when it was among slaves, it was about love and not supported by the slave masters.

        “Marriage exists for the creation of families”

        And homosexual couples are and can create families as well.

        “because it is an invalid concept. ”

        According to you. Canada, the UK and multiple American states and other countries disagree with you. As do I.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s