Homosexuality - Sickness or Sanctioned?

[archangel]

Even if the statistics are true and homosexuals do live shorter lifespans, etc., why is it anyone else's business to degrade them and deny them marriage rights? If it has nothing to do with you, then why do you guys care so much? They are not trying to convert you or infect you-- so what is the problem?

try reading a little history.."Fall of the Roman and Greek Empires" homosexuality was tried and failed taking down two empires in the process...do you really want to see the US fall?...Then the radical Muslims would have a great door to enter...then y'all would really be in trouble!

 

[dilloduck]

Even if the statistics are true and homosexuals do live shorter lifespans, etc., why is it anyone else's business to degrade them and deny them marriage rights? If it has nothing to do with you, then why do you guys care so much? They are not trying to convert you or infect you-- so what is the problem?

It's the nature of 2 different ideologies to attack the other. Liberals just like to deny that they attack anyone ( even with tons of evidence to the contrary stacked against them). Is this the part where you say---"But the conservatives attacked first" ?

 

[007]

Even if the statistics are true and homosexuals do live shorter lifespans, etc., why is it anyone else's business to degrade them and deny them marriage rights? If it has nothing to do with you, then why do you guys care so much? They are not trying to convert you or infect you-- so what is the problem?

A "marriage" is not for two men. It's the holy matrimony between a "man and a woman". Queers are trying to "infect" that.

Not many people here including myself have ever said they had a problem with fags having civil unions, which would grant them all the priviledges of a marriage. So why do fags keep pushing for "marriage"?

And marriage isn't a "right". Queers have ALL the same rights as anyone else in this country. What they're asking for is "SPECIAL" rights just for them.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

A "marriage" is not for two men. It's the holy matrimony between a "man and a woman". Queers are trying to "infect" that.

Not many people here including myself have ever said they had a problem with fags having civil unions, which would grant them all the priviledges of a marriage. So why do fags keep pushing for "marriage"?

And marriage isn't a "right". Queers have ALL the same rights as anyone else in this country. What they're asking for is "SPECIAL" rights just for them.

Pale: two things.
1. The "special rights" argument is a bit specious - allowing for gay marriage would not grant gay people any special right that is "just for them." If the argument is that gay people have the same rights as straight people (to marry someone of the opposite sex) than allowing same sex marriage would not grant any special rights exclusivley to gay people; it would grant special rights to people in general. Granted, gays would, for practical purposes, benefit from it the most, but it wouldn't be a right exclusive to gays any more than traditional marriage is a right exclusive to straight couples. No?

EDIT: If you so please, replace any instance of the word "right" with the word "priviledge." The question still remains the same in spirit.

2. Would you be ok with removing the word marriage from government? Everyone would file for a civil union, and the word marriage could be bestowed by individual churches. Other than the tradition of civil unions between two people being called a marriage, is there any other reason to keep "marriage" governmental? Or would this be another affront against Christianity in the public square?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Even if the statistics are true and homosexuals do live shorter lifespans, etc., why is it anyone else's business to degrade them and deny them marriage rights? If it has nothing to do with you, then why do you guys care so much? They are not trying to convert you or infect you-- so what is the problem?

Marriage is not a right, its a privledge, much like a drivers license.

Our society/culture has chosen to embrace it to help create better families and enviorments for kids to grow up in.

If you dont agree/like/want that, or if you want to expand it, contrary to what our current and past culture/society, then change the culture. But dont usurp it by judicial fiat.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Pale: two things.
1. The "special rights" argument is a bit specious - allowing for gay marriage would not grant gay people any special right that is "just for them." If the argument is that gay people have the same rights as straight people (to marry someone of the opposite sex) than allowing same sex marriage would not grant any special rights exclusivley to gay people; it would grant special rights to people in general. Granted, gays would, for practical purposes, benefit from it the most, but it wouldn't be a right exclusive to gays any more than traditional marriage is a right exclusive to straight couples. No?

2. Would you be ok with removing the word marriage from government? Everyone would file for a civil union, and the word marriage could be bestowed by individual churches. Other than the tradition of civil unions between two people being called a marriage, is there any other reason to keep "marriage" governmental? Or would this be another affront against Christianity in the public square?

Again, marriage isnt a right, its a privledge. Its a proactive law by the govt. to endorse the family unit.

No other unions will increase the quality of the family unit, in fact, same sex marriage will weaken it. Next will be an all out assault on homosexuals being able to adopt as easily as heterosexual couples. It just aint right.

Plus, as I said before, it will just further clog up the already backed up family courts, what with Dick(less) and Jane arguing over who gets the poodle.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Again, marriage isnt a right, its a privledge. Its a proactive law by the govt. to endorse the family unit.

No other unions will increase the quality of the family unit, in fact, same sex marriage will weaken it. Next will be an all out assault on homosexuals being able to adopt as easily as heterosexual couples. It just aint right.

Plus, as I said before, it will just further clog up the already backed up family courts, what with Dick(less) and Jane arguing over who gets the poodle.

I threw an edit in after you posted. Replace "right" with "priviledge," the word choice doesn't matter much to me.

If two gay people are together, having a legal civil union recognized by the state/union does not harm the family unit any more than if it isn't recognized, no? How is a gay civil union any different than a heterosexual marriage with no children in terms of its effect on the family unit?

Plus, divorce and single parenthood is accepted, and they certainly do not fit the mold of a traditional family, right? So what of them?

 

[liberalogic]

dilloduck-- I have no idea what you're talking about and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth...stick to the issue instead of the partisan bickering.

archangel-- If gay marriage is approved does that mean that everyone is going to be gay? I don't think so. So, I don't think we have to worry about America falling down...and please don't make this an issue of patriotism.

Pale Rider-- I respect what you said about how we should view marriage. To be perfectly honest with you (and this is just how I feel), when I see homosexuals kissing in public and when I went to see "Brokeback Mountain," I did feel very uncomfortable seeing them interact on a sexual level. It just seemed a bit disgusting to me. With that said, though, I don't disapprove of their lifestyle; I just choose not to partake in it.

I believe that they want the marriage title because they believe that it is only fair to them; they feel that they should be treated no differently than any heterosexual couple...I can't really speak for them, but that is what I've heard and read over the past year.

You seem to embrace the idea that there is sanctity in marriage, that it is a holy union (which of course is between a man and woman). No one is trying to tell the church to marry gays, they simply want to be recognized by the government. The marriage granted by the government is separate from the marriage granted by the church. As a matter of fact, I believe gays should not be allowed to marry in a church because it is a private institution. If you think that marriage through government is a holy union, then adultery and divorce should be illegal as well because both diminish the holiness of a marriage. My point, though, is that holiness should be in the marriage sanctioned by the church, not the government.