How bold one gets when one is sure of being loved.— Sigmund Freud
Revealing Homosexual Marriage quotations
When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?
Marriage should be between a spouse and a spouse, not a gender and a gender.
Personally, I think that children should be left alone, they should be given an opportunity to grow up, to become aware of themselves and decide themselves who they are: men or women, if they want to have a traditional or homosexual marriage.
Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children;
their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.
It's about time we all faced up to the truth.
If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family.
Many people are skeptical about marriage of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Pressley. They say, Lisa Marie is more of a sit at home type, while Michael Jackson is more of a homosexual pedophile.
There's never been a civilization, ever in history, that has embraced homosexuality and turned away from traditional fidelity and traditional marriage, traditional child rearing, and has survived.
It's just like calling homosexuals 'gays.
' Gay means happy! You know, it's just to try to dilute it so that it becomes socially acceptable, and if you say anything against homosexual marriage or anything - 'Oh, you're not tolerant.' So we're supposed to prostitute our principles, on behalf of tolerance.
Homosexuality is against nature. Sexual expression is permitted only within marriage, between man and woman, male and female. Anything else is an abnormality and is against nature.
Homosexuals can be, you know, committed to each other.
And they have freedom to behave in the ways that they do, but they cannot be a family. They cannot be married. I mean, virtually every culture in the history of the world has considered marriage to be between one woman and one man.
The entire future of marriage rests with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who declared in Citizens United that corporations are people with constitutional rights. I just hope he doesn't do anything rash, like declare that homosexuals are people with constitutional rights.
Marriage commissioners who choose not to marry homosexuals are being fired.
A Knights of Columbus chapter in British Columbia is in court because it chooses not allow a lesbian group to use its facility for marriage ceremonies. The list goes on.
I oppose any attempt to grant homosexual unions the same legal privileges that civil government affords to traditional marriage and family life.
We will see a breakdown of the family and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual lifestyle.
In the 21st Century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.
How could homosexuals possibly srew up the sanctity of marriage any worse than heterosexuals?
We must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.
I was totally surprised by the spread of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
In just my lifetime we have gone from a taboo to even talk about homosexuality, to the sanction by governments of homosexual marriage. Few such large social considerations have ever before been turned over in such a short time.
In all of Western civilization, there have been societies that celebrating the homosexuality, the ancient Greeks. But they, in fact, protected the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. They got the joke. And the American people get the joke.
If the Court finds that there is not a state interest in discriminating and showing moral disapproval of homosexuality then we can't stop equal marriage rights.
... it is clear that any sexual relationship other than that between a legally wedded heterosexual husband and wife is sinful. The divine mandate of marriage between man and woman puts in perspective why homosexual acts are offensive to God. They repudiate the gift and the Giver of eternal life.
So they can create a class they don't like-here, homosexuals-or a class that they consider is suspect in the marriage category, and they can create that class and decide benefits on that basis when they themselves have no interest in the actual institution of marriage as married?
How long before we have, not just homosexual marriage, but homosexual unions between adult men and small boys?
What is behind homosexual marriage. It's really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about exalting homosexuality, because you need to destroy also loyalty to the family.
People are so intimidated by the gay movement that nobody will say why.
..they won't say why they don't want gay marriage...they don't dare to say because homosexuality is wrong, it's harmful for society, it's abnormal, it's unnatural, the people who are doing it can overcome it and should overcome it
Satan delights in homosexual perversion because it not only exists outside of marriage, but it also defiles God' very image reflected as male and female.
Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people.
I believe that sex is for marriage, and that's regardless of whether it's homosexual or hetero sexual.
I think it's alright if the government wants to say, in the state of Massachusetts, in the state of New York, in the state of California, that civil ceremonies should be accepted, I think that should be fine. I don't think that even those states that believe in civil marriages between homosexuals or ordained in a church should perform civil ceremonies.
I don't have any complaints about homosexuals being married in a civil ceremony.
But I don't think that the government ought to require religious organizations, churches, should perform marriages between homosexuals if a local congregation decides otherwise. I believe in the autonomy of individual churches.
To show you, just to illustrate the inroads the homosexual marriage crowd has made, it is now common to hear on television and in the midst of debate the concept of "opposite-sex marriage."
Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages.
Persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with homosexual inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity - that's a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.