So you are saying that as a retired widow, if I marry it will be a fraud because I cannot produce a baby? BTW, I don’t think I could love a man in the Eros sense without wanting to have sex with him. Many in this country fail to understand the difference between Eros and Agape.
While on the subject of compelling arguments, let’s consider the case of the disenfranchised citizens of Washington, DC. They pay 100% federal income taxes, but have no Senate or voting House of Representatives delegates. This is clearly “taxation without representation.” What are all the pro legal/economic rights people going to do about that? To quote the article, “The compelling argument is on the side of [the DC citizens],” O’Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. “That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side.” What is the argument on the other side???
If you engage in sex with the same sex, the marriage is a fraud against nature. Many male and female partners can not produce a baby but they still can engage is natural sex.
“So you are saying that as a retired widow, if I marry it will be a fraud because I cannot produce a baby?”
You’re twisting words. Now, THAT is just plain silly of you.
Supposing you were younger, still married to a man, and had to have a hysterectomy. You could still have sex.
>>>While on the subject of compelling arguments, lets consider the case of the disenfranchised citizens of Washington, DC. They pay 100% federal income taxes, but have no Senate or voting House of Representatives delegates. This is clearly taxation without representation. >>>
Talk to the democrats. They have kept the people in D.C. on the “reservation” so they could point to them as poor people who NEED government handouts. Yet, when a Republican is president, they can blame that party for all the “poor” people within D.C.
> What is the argument on the other side???
The argument is simply this.
Like Canada and the Netherlands, it will become illegal to teach against homosexuality. It almost is now.
It will be illegal to deny to homosexual “couples” services reserved for marriage and married couples.
It will be illegal to preach the gospel, because you won’t be able to preach SIN. Can’t preach the good news without preaching the bad news first.
“Safe” sex will be taught in the government schools not just for heterosexual couplings, but for homosexual ones, right down to the kindergarten level.
Brainwashing of little children about homosexuality can begin in earnest.
Those who believe the Bible is the Word of God will be even more marginalized than they are today, with their jobs, businesses, livelihoods, freedoms, and even their lives in jeopardy.
All these things have already started, and they will become much worse once the marriage of homosexuals becomes endorsed by the power of the state.
Imagine life in the United States as one unending, daily celebration of homosexuality, a perpetual gay pride parade.