Homosexuality not a choice, It's caused by exposure to hormones in utero

[-Cp]

So should someone be allowed to "marry" their 5 brides or their dogs too?

 

[Gem]

-Cp-

You bring up one of the "good" reasons to oppose gay marriage, as well as one "bad" reason to oppose it (in my opinon).

I'll start with the bad.

There are real and understandable legal reasons why allowing gay marriage will not lead to incest and bestiality, a common "n-th degree" debate used be people who oppose gay marriage.

Incest is illegal among straight and homosexual people alike because it leads to abnormalities in the offspring of that union...also, if you are talking about parent/child incestuous relationships...we have laws for straight and gay people alike regarding statutory rape, therefore...

Bestiality can remain illegal for a number of reasons, #1: I would assume, is consent...this conversation can go on and on and get quite disgusting if we choose to have it go that way (I'd prefer not!) but bottom line...animals can not say "Yes, I would like to have sex with you/marry you." Therefore, we can keep bestiality illegal by simply stating that an animal can not give consent. #2: Inter-species relationships...while you might say that by approving of one deviant thing you are approving of all...but it just doesn't logically follow that because we recognize homosexual relationships we have to recognize ones between people and animals....(a counter argument might have been "if we give blacks the votes whats next...giving cows the vote???")

In my opinion, there are enough reasons to oppose gay marriage without comparing people who are homosexual to people who have sex with animals or people who molest children. While you may think they are comparable, it does not "win the debate" to insult and demean the people you are debating with if you can prove your point in other ways.

Now the Good Point:

Right now, marriage is a recognized union between a man and a woman. That union is recognized as special because it creates a partnership to create and raise children.

Now yes, we allow straight couples to marry and NOT have children, but that is a seperate issue...I am talking about what marriage was designed for originally...it was not so two people could have someone to go out with all the time...it was so children would have both a mother and a father with them.

When we change that, we are basically saying that marriage is no longer a relationship between a man and a woman for the creation and betterment of family...but rather a legal agreement between two people who want to join assets.

Why that change? Because we are asking gov't to legally change the definition of marriage...because gay marriages are not about the creation of children, they are, in the most unemotional sense, two people joining assets....and that is how the gov't would define it because you can not legislate love.

So now, lets pretend the gov't has done that. The legal definition of marriage is now, "a legal partnership between two consenting adults."

Once that is done, there is no, in my opinion, no good reason for not allowing that definition to become "a legal partnership between consenting adults," dropping the number requirement.

Why? Because you can not give a firm reason why the number 2 has to remain. If I can join my assets with a man or a woman, why not two women...why not 3...why couldn't a bunch of single women band together to help eachother out. The government can not step into the arena of "you have to love the people you are marrying," so therefore...there is no longer an understanding that marriage is a union of love...but rather simply a business transaction.

Yes, there would be difficulties in figuring out health benefits...but people would argue that that is no reason to deny my civil liberties. I should have the right to marry 3 people if I want...and you can not stop me simply because it might prove tricky for health insurance....

Once it has been established as a business transaction, it has lost any meaning it once had...


I think that this is something that needs to be considered more fully...I do not think it is insulting to homosexuals to ask what happens when we change the timeless understanding of what a marriage was originally intended for....but I do not think that we need to compare homosexuals to those who practice bestiality.

 

[007]

Well, there's no need on my part to be too long winded here. My point, other than religon, is that if you allow queers to marry, not only are you contaminating, or polluting something that has been pure for centuries, but it's just one more HUGE step towards the moral degeneration of this country. A man and woman can "consumate" their marriage, because they have the correct natural equipment, created or evolved, for them to do so. They "fit" together. Myself, I don't consider a blow job or sodomy a way to consumate a marriage. That is nothing more than an act of sexual perversion.

On top of that, one can also argue that the flood gate to marry whatever, whoever, how many, any age, etc., etc., etc., will be open. If you are arguing for "change", then who are you to argue "what" change? Arguing that we should allow a deviation in marriage, but only to benefit you won't fly. Every other pervert in the nation is going to say, "well you're letting them do it, why not us"? Just go ask NAMBLA.

Sometimes change is NOT a good thing. I say LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE! It is what it is, and shouldn't be tampered with. If legal issues and benefits are truely what this is all about, then give queers a "civil union" that is recognized in all fifty states, and grants them all the same benefits and rights granted a man and woman in marriage. I see NOTHING wrong with that. In fact, I wish they would do that, if it would get them to lay off marriage.