Perkins: Americans Will Never Accept Gay Marriage Because it 'Violates Reason and Natural Law'

  • metta

    Posts: 39099

    Jun 04, 2012 8:22 PM GMT
    Perkins: Americans Will Never Accept Gay Marriage Because it 'Violates Reason and Natural Law'

    " declaring that Americans will never accept the legitimacy of gay marriage, regardless of what the courts rule, because "same-sex marriage violates reason and natural law" and warning that any Supreme Court ruling upholding the legality of gay marriage will "create great unrest in this society" "

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/perkins-americans-will-never-accept-gay-marriage-because-it-violates-reason-and-natural-law




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 8:24 PM GMT
    Most Americans violate reason and natural law. Maybe the US should place a ban on ALL marriage. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 8:32 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif

    Sigh.. yeah we're not getting much traction out of the old misinterpreted bible passages argument, sooooooo we're falling back to plan b, misinterpret natural law (again).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    He can enjoy being on the wrong side of history.
  • Machina

    Posts: 419

    Jun 04, 2012 10:39 PM GMT
    Wow. Well at least we know that he is not speaking with any ounce of scientific legitimacy. As of 1999, homosexuality had been documented in over 1,500 species across all forms of life on this planet; Birds, Mammals, Fish, Reptiles, Insects, Invertebrates, etc., etc..

    Is it any wonder why there is really no legitimacy to his backward views? Now he is abandoning the "...because the bible says so." rhetoric and has moved on to proxy declarations of what the writings of the founding fathers really mean...

    Wow!

    How arrogant can a person really be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    Clearly an Obama voter, this guy.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14336

    Jun 04, 2012 10:47 PM GMT
    Perkins doesn't know what "natural law" really is. He is just another narrow minded, bible thumping screwball that loves to talk out of his ass. What an idiot.icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 10:49 PM GMT
    It reeks of desperation. Clearly, the tide has turned and more and more Americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. So, this yutz is statistically wrong, among other things.
  • jhill2456

    Posts: 285

    Jun 04, 2012 10:51 PM GMT
    Tony Perkins violates reason and natural law. My Goodness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 11:19 PM GMT
    Gravity.
    The speed of light.
    Motion.
    Thermodynamics.

    I'm trying to think of what natural law heterosexual marriage validates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 11:34 PM GMT
    Trollileo saidFor a moment I thought you were talking about the restaurant and I was like "NO! THEIR MUFFINS ARE DELICIOUS AND NOW I HAVE TO STOP EATING THERE!"

    Then I realized it was just a couple of bigots as usual.
    Omg you have those in Washington? I thought it was just an upper midwest thing! icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 11:34 PM GMT
    If gay marriage were made legal today, no one would force Tony Perkins to marry his boyfriend tomorrow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2012 11:34 PM GMT
    Ya know.....when blacks were finally given equal rights, these same ignorant fucks were doing the same thing. When it got close to them getting their rights, the bigots ramped up their hatred to an all new level because they felt it was their last shot. Hell, the National Guard had to escort little black children to school to prevent the Right Wingers from killing them! This is no different. We're hearing all kinds of rhetoric we've never heard before, such as having the government kill us and crazy shit like that. Their time is up and they know it.
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Jun 04, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    Hopefully, God will sentence our dear friend Tony Perkins to eternal damnation in a gay night club with half-naked men rubbing up on him for the rest of his immortal existence.
  • turtleneckjoc...

    Posts: 4685

    Jun 05, 2012 1:43 AM GMT
    Trollileo saidFor a moment I thought you were talking about the restaurant and I was like "NO! THEIR MUFFINS ARE DELICIOUS AND NOW I HAVE TO STOP EATING THERE!"

    Then I realized it was just a couple of bigots as usual.


    Same thought here...and they closed most, if not all, of their locations in Central Florida recently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 1:46 AM GMT
    Alpha1 saidHopefully, God will sentence our dear friend Tony Perkins to eternal damnation in a gay night club with half-naked men rubbing up on him for the rest of his immortal existence.

    I WANNA COMMIT SIN TOO!!!!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 05, 2012 1:50 AM GMT
    It will interesting to see him proved grossly wrong if/when the courts do approve SSM and the sky doesn't fall. He was probably predicting similar doom & gloom about DADT being repealed.
  • somedaytoo

    Posts: 704

    Jun 05, 2012 1:51 AM GMT
    He says "This will cause great unrest in our country". Hmmm.... We've had marrage equality here in CT for some time now and the sky has not fallen. Where is this unrest he speaks about? It's all In his mind!
  • DR2K

    Posts: 346

    Jun 05, 2012 1:53 AM GMT
    We didn't need them to accept that the Earth was round or older than 4000 years. Gay marriage will be fine. icon_lol.gif
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jun 05, 2012 1:56 AM GMT
    Violates natural law? How can anything violate natural law? Wouldn't that be like trying to violate the law of gravity? How could that be done?

    Or, looking at it from a more grammatical standpoint, perhaps people will not accept gay marriage BECAUSE it violates natural. Why would people accept anything just because it violates natural law? They will accept gay marriage because social justice requires it, not because it violates natural law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 2:06 AM GMT
    Did everyone notice that he quoted the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." but totally skipped the very next phrase which states "...that all men are created equal"?

    More selective quoting. I hate that.
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Jun 05, 2012 2:19 AM GMT
    Other countries seem to accept gay marriage just fine... I wonder why he assumes the US will have such a hard time with the concept.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 2:46 AM GMT
    I just finished glancing at an article on GMO foods to avoid.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

    Maybe Perkins can first attack corporations that manufacture GMO foods. Then I'll listen to him.

    I don't think men should be genetically modified to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Decades ago, Discover magazine had an article about men carrying a pregnancy to C-section. Something was done medically. (The article was published sometime between 1978 and 1989.

    Same-sex Civil Union is still waiting for a real politician to do the expedient thing. It's politically unfortunate HRC is pushing marriage over civil union. Men and women are not interchangeable in marriage according to natural law. Men outside of medical assistance do not carry pregnancies to term. They do not grow breasts, they do not pump their breasts; they do not face the question of should I carry or drop this baby. Traditional U.S. marriage is NOT equal to gay marriage for men.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 2:51 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidI just finished glancing at an article on GMO foods to avoid.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

    Maybe Perkins can first attack corporations that manufacture GMO foods. Then I'll listen to him.

    I don't think men should be genetically modified to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Decades ago, Discover magazine had an article about men carrying a pregnancy to C-section. Something was done medically. (The article was published sometime between 1978 and 1989.

    Same-sex Civil Union is still waiting for a real politician to do the expedient thing. It's politically unfortunate HRC is pushing marriage over civil union. Men and women are not interchangeable in marriage according to natural law. Men outside of medical assistance do not carry pregnancies to term. They do not grow breasts, they do not pump their breasts; they do not face the question of should I carry or drop this baby. Traditional U.S. marriage is NOT equal to gay marriage for men.



    In the majority of cases, the phase a heterosexual man goes through with a pregnant wife is NOT EQUAL to the phase a homosexual man goes through with his partner in civil union when adding a new born to the family. There's no: "I love you more as half of me and half of you will be born as one." There's no talking to the belly, playing Mozart to the belly. Hey, hon, how can we survive what you're going through physically, emotionally, hormonally--and different clothes, swollen feet, etc.?

    What percentage of gay men will stay in a relationship 9 months, let alone 9 months where one partner's waist balloons?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2012 3:06 AM GMT
    In disputes between mothers and fathers, don't courts decide in favor of the mother (generally or in heavy percentages) re: custody of children up to a certain age?

    Yes.

    That's how gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage. If two men can marry, what's the logic for giving women the advantage in custody cases?

    Gay marriage must change the "inequality" of custody cases, then.