Protect the Institution of Marriage

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by Mr.Conley, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    The views I am about to express are not very fashionable. They are certainly not politically correct. But I believe what I am about to say are my own and must be expressed to protect the institution of marriage.

    Too often in the media, currency is given to the theory that everyone should be allowed to marry regardless of gender, outlook and whether the two people are creating a suitable family environment in which to bring up children.
    Well, it is time to ask some hard questions about this attitude. The only way we will save marriage is to reclaim the institution for the mainstream. Marriage is for normal people who want to raise children in a healthy and secure environment. This is why we should ban gays from marrying.
    Homosexuals engage in unnatural practices. The unconventional views they hold inevitably lead to their children being teased in the playground and, no matter what studies may show, there is surely a greater risk they will grow up to be homosexuals themselves if they are exposed to dangerous ideas from a tender age.

    No matter what homosexual propaganda may claim, homosexuality is not sanctioned by nature. There is not a single species in the animal kingdom that is gay. Even in the higher orders of primate, no species has conclusively shown to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Animals tend to be heterosexual, which shows that these views are surely instinctive, normal, natural and right.
    Maybe you think it is OK for humans to differ from animals. Maybe you think consenting adults should be able to do what they like regardless of whether the average person agrees with their views.

    Such a liberal approach is a slippery slope. When we allow gays to marry it says that homosexuality is OK. It encourages these people to foist the homosexual agenda on the rest of the community. Before long they will be trying to "turn" people to their “lifestyle”. Should we risk this? Gays are a small minority of the population, so only a small number of people would be inconvenienced by a ban. It would not even be discriminatory as homosexuals would still have the right to marry - so long as it was to a member of the opposite sex.

    Let's not forget that we are not just talking about consenting adults. When you allow gays to marry it encourages them to adopt children. Sure, they might still have kids even if they cannot marry in the eyes of the law, but why legitimize it? Children are the true victims of gay marriages. Children don't get a say when they are born into a household practicing a homosexual lifestyle. Tiny children should not be subjected to cultural experiments and social engineering. Imagine how confused and guilty children would feel when they were indoctrinated with the bizarre idea that they are supposed to engage in sexual relations with members of the same sex.

    Imagine also the teasing that children who have grown up in these "families" would be subjected to in the playground when other kids find out about their unusual views and practices. What are normal parents supposed to do when their children arrive home asking uncomfortable questions because they have been exposed to these groups at an age when they are too young to understand?

    Before you know it, gay parents will be insisting preschool children read storybooks about the gay lifestyle in order to better understand it. There will be coloring books directed at four-year-olds showing gay families as thought they were normal.

    What hope does a child indoctrinated with this sort of propaganda have of growing up to be normal? Can you really tell me they will not be more likely to grow up gay themselves?

    Before you accuse me of hate speech, I should point out that I bear no grudge against homosexuals personally. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is my policy.

    CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...y/2007/03/30/1174761750887.html?page=fullpage
     
  3. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    So, what's the difference?
     
  4. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    I think we folks that aren't gay have let our guard down on this deal. We will have to pay for the burden of this lifestyle in the long run. We have had to swallow this lifestyle situation way too much and this goes way beyond just human beings. The issue in my book is I don't press or force my being married on gays, so I don't expect to have to recognize them in that lifestyle. I have a distinct difference between knowing a gay person and treating them respectfully and acknowledging they are humans and interacting as such. If our politicians have to stoop so low for the votes then maybe they shouldn't be in a political office. Once our tax laws get turned around and the gay community has to start paying for these unions or marriages in taxes we'll see how important this issue is!
     
  5. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    You are not defending marriage by prohibiting gay marriage. You are merely continuing to restrict it. Gay marriage will not prohibit heterosexual marriage. Couples of the opposite sex will still be allowed to wed if they so desire.

    People get marriage for various reasons. Sometimes, couples choose not to have children. Some couples can’t have children.

    In other words, isn’t it your opinion that couples that hold unpopular views should not be allowed to have children. Wow! You intend to hold to your own opinion no matter if research may run counter to it. I guess that one can't argue against that, since you confess that you will simply cover your ears and eyes to anything that goes against your prejudice.

    That which is natural is not necessarily good or bad. Cancer is natural. Radiation treatment is not natural. “Survival of the fittest” is natural in the animal kingdom.

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

    The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

    "The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."


    What of the heterosexual agenda? Every group tries to get people to convert to their beliefs and practices. Christians proselytize. I lost count of the people who try to get me to believe in their god.

    Were children subjected to experiments when we allowed interracial marriage? "Zebra kids" and "half-breeds” are funny names for those kids. What about the damage children of interfaith couples. “He will be a Catholic”. “No. He will be a Jew”. Imagine the confusion.

    Do you really have concern for children? Consider outlawing elderly people from giving birth. There is a high likelihood that children born to elderly people will have physical problems.

    http://www.freedomtomarry.org/node.asp?id=3485

    Study after study has shown that children of lesbian or gay parents are as well-adjusted as those of non-gay parents. All children deserve the right to insurance coverage, social security, emergency care and inheritance rights no matter who their parents are. All families benefit from the intangible reassurance that comes from knowing that your family is safe and secure.

    Also see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

    What do you tell your children when they ate told about anything that they are too young to understand? You consider the maturity of your own child and say that he is too young and that you will explain it some day when he is old enough or you tell him the truth as you see it.

    That was a nice bit of fortune telling. Besides, is preschool attendance a requirement? Each concerned parent will want their children to be taught things that coincide with their beliefs. The same goes for Christians and atheists.

    What hope does a child have when subjected to any indoctrination and propaganda – from the liberal left or conservative right. Hopefully, when he becomes and adult, he will be encouraged to apply what he has been given to reason and think for himself.
     
  6. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    Did anybody even read his second post?
     
  7. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Okay. I get it. Nice. Yes, I guess that the same can be applied to gays, fundamentalists, liberals, etc. Ultimately, it is up to the parent to raise the child in accordance with his beliefs. :)
     
  8. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    It's not only the politicians who are afraid to buck the gay/lesbian alliance. When our State Legislature recently debated whether to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, BIG BUSINESS (yep, that big contributor to the Republican Party) entered into the fray on the side of the homosexuals. Needless to say, since this is a predominately Republican state, the debate on the issue ended.
     
  9. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Yes, let's have those paragons of marital virtue, Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich. As far as the unions of same gender couples, cadre studies of children raised by straight and gay couples show no statistical difference in their socialization or gender identities. Get over it.

    Or are you one of those who would rather see children raised by a straight couple with a meth lab in the basement than by a loving same-gender couple?
     
  10. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Oh my GOD, READ THE SECOND POST.
     

Share This Page