The looming war over gay marriage

[Father Time]

it can't, look what it did to sodom and gomorrah.

look what it's doing to europe and ma. ... Oh wait those places haven't been destroyed by god. Never mind.

yet!

Then God's lazy.

Although forget gay marriage you'd think if God was going to destroy places in wrath the top of his list would be Islam theocracies where they actively persecute and/or imprison Christians and non-Muslims.

And if not that then Buddhist theocracies.

 

[JD_2B]

I am not good with chapter and verse: it is the time the hebrew leaders tried to trap Yeshua by asking if a woman married a brother and he died and according to law, she married another brother and so on, who would she be married to in heaven....

Nooo. According to law the husband's family had to provide for her. That was not a sexual verse- it was just saying that the man's brother (or father or mother) would take care of the woman if she is widowed. When Jesus died, he told Lazarus to take care of his own mom.

John 19:26-27 (Today's New International Version)

26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman, [a] here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

You seem to only read enough to snap back, not understand. I said that if a person repented of their sin (and they were divorced) and became a better person that did not make the same mistakes, it would not be the same person remarrying. It would be an improved person (through Christ), that would be a lot less likely to sin the same way (make the same mistakes)

That is the gospel according to YOU. That is not what the bible says. The bible says that if a woman's husband even dies, then she must not remarry or have sex with another man, as this is adultery. This is the same situation with divorce.

As for the 'unrighteous' being redeemed: how can that happen unless they seek redemption (repent)?

They don't know God, so there is no way for them to do this on their own, until Judgment day. God will know who knew him and who did not. HE is the redeemer. I think he might even say "Hey how ya doing? I'm God! I am great, am I not? Well, did you know you were sinning by doing X, Y, and Z? Do you want to follow my way, instead?" "sure" "Ok then you are redeemed, you don't have to stay dead."

Where have I said I 'hate' homosexuals? Aren't you spreading 'propoganda' by implying that the Lord will accept homosexuals as 'not sinning' when it clearly states in several places that in the 'eyes of the Lord' it IS a sin?

If someone does not know the Lord, then whatever they do is not actually considered to be sinful, because the Lord said that they are simply unrighteous.

Righteous= Knowing God
Unrighteous = Not knowing God.

No where have I claimed that I AM G*d or even a god. I am pointing out falsehoods about the Bible (that homosexuality is not a sin). Because you disagree with the Bible, does not make the Bible wrong. I would looooove to here your plan for society to 'all get along'. I would be very interested in hearing where you think people get their spirituality and ability to reason (some call that free will).

I never said that the bible was pro gay. I am simply saying that religion really doesn't bare any consequence to this issue, because in America, people have the freedom of religion. This is a legal matter, and therefore it should remain wholly secular.

Yeshua begged His father to "forgive them for they know not what they do". I would "read into it" and say He was declaring that behavior sinful.
Adam and Eve were told that they 'displeased' G*d. The punishment was expulsion from The garden, working all their days for survival and painful childbirth (just guessing, maybe I am not "reading into enough", but that sounds 'sinful' to me). I believe sin and evil can be used interchangibly in the Bible.

Dont forget the punishment of death. Adam and Eve both knew in advance that they would die if they did not follow the one commandment God gave them. Did they follow it? No. Death was the ultimate punishment. This again bears no consequence to the issue of gay marriage, because not all American marriages are created in a church and issued by a pastor/ priest. Many marriages are purely secular, and a covenant between two united people and the state, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, yadda yadda.. and by the power invested in me by the state of whatever, I now pronounce you John and Jane or Chuck and Larry.

WWJD? Please, have you read the gospels? He would have been in the worst places telling the 'sinners' about His love and the opportunity for ANYONE to come to Him for redemption. He would not see their sin and say ... oh well, maybe I should just let that slide.... He went to the people that were considered the worst of society and preached and taught them about G*d's love. He told them what awaited them if they chose to reject G*d.

First of all, I do not understand why you keep putting an asterisk where the o should be in the word God. You are not using his name in Vain. It is perfectly okay to spell it out.
Secondly, Yes he did say I will let that slide.. He did it all the time. Letting is slide WAS the redemption. Yes they came to him.. But they didnt have to beg him for mercy. He just GAVE the redemption freely. He KNEW them, and knew that they felt bad. Or he knew that they didnt know him. What was worse was that they did not know him, not what they did in the past. Once they knew him, that WAS the redemption.

No where did He say: in eternity everyone is accepted just as they are.

YES HE DID. He said that only certain specific people would be barred from their second chance at life. And even out of those specific people, many of them even got a second chance, like the prostitutes, for instance.

The Lord is JUST...everyone will be punished for their sins (like when you were a child and disobeyed your parents, you were punished, and most of the time, you earned the punishment), it will not stop His love. If you reject Him, you will not get to be in with Him (something that caused the rebellious angels to cry and gnash their teeth and show great distress).

Rebellious angels gnashing teeth?? Well, you have one part of it right. Gnashing of teeth is the biblical interpretation of people being angry and upset, but the people would be upset because someone died, because death is very final, or at least, can be very final. I agree with the rest of what you said, but again, this plays no role in the issue of Gay marriage in free America.

There was no mention of a "basic contract", the subject is: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Do not try 'it depends what is, is".

It is still a contract. My parents were entitled to all sorts of government entitlements, because they were married. They were not married by a priest. They did not have to be married by a church to be awarded those benefits, like social security and insurance benefits and such. Why does everyone all of a sudden have to be married in a Christian church to be considered legally wed???

I do not have a story book outlook on the Bible, it is a book of spiritual growth, you can use it to mature spiritually (or not). I do not have a story book outlook on society; I do not believe you can legalize sinful behavior, and the outcome will be whole and pure. It will not. I do not believe that lying to people that are involved in destructive behaviour, will somehow, magically, make the outcome any different. People will be destroyed. That is not hatred. It is not fear. It is fact.

It is not fact. It is baloney. Native Americans, for instance, have been smoking pot for hundreds of years, if not longer. They don't have a higher crime rate because of it. Actually it is a part of their heritage and culture, and religion too. Yet, you will be the one to claim that based on the bible saying that someone should not use mind altering substances, then all mind altering substances should be illegal, including pot. I suppose you would probably not consider including prescription MAOIs which also alter the mind, of course.. That is because you just pull out whatever argument you can run the fastest with. And yes- that is a story book way of life.. Which I meant no offense by, either. =)

 

[Rinata]

I ran across an article today that really surprised me. Cindy McCain posed for a Web site promoting same-sex marriage. I thought I had read it wrong, but I didn't. There is even a picture of the ad.

Good for you, Cindy!!!

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Cindy McCain poses for same-sex marriage campaign - Blogs from CNN.com

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I still don't get why people are so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives

 

[logical4u]

I still don't get why people are so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives

The people that are 'for' homosexual marriage are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions. In America there is 'still' freedom of speech, so some of us use that to say that 'legitimizing' same sex is wrong. It hurts society, it does not help it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I still don't get why people are so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives

The people that are 'for' homosexual marriage are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions.

By that same 'reasoning', people who support interracial or any other instances of marriage 'are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions'. I find it interesting that homophobes always end up arguing against marriage, yet you still demand it for yourselves. Why is that?

 

[logical4u]

I still don't get why people are so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives

The people that are 'for' homosexual marriage are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions.

By that same 'reasoning', people who support interracial or any other instances of marriage 'are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions'. I find it interesting that homophobes always end up arguing against marriage, yet you still demand it for yourselves. Why is that?

You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

 

[jeffrockit]

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

How would that be easier as they would then have to change the definition to suit another group.
From freedictionary.com
Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

BTW what right do they not have that I have...ie, I am free to marry who I want. of the opposite sex, if we both mutually agree. They are free to do the same as me. I am not, however free to marry someone of the same sex, nor are they. We both have the same set of rights.

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

That a way to warp scripture! God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit represent the holy trinity. They are one in the same. The bride is the Church. Love it when non Christians interpret the bible. It is a hard read and even harder to interpret which is why it's usually misquoted or taken out of context.

 

[bodecea]

Blacks were treated the same way, some time back. The rationale was that they were allowed to marry.. only rather than it being a sexual orientation limitation, it was a limitation based on race.

Here's the issue with that- there is no "pure" race.. Most everyone has some kind of mixed race in them, from an ancestral level. So, the logic that blacks only legally married pure blacks is a myth, in and of itself.

Also, people can marry other people and then later realize that they are homosexual or bisexual whatever. Because of this- technically, a heterosexual person can be married to a homosexual person. In fact, both people could feasibly decide that they are both homosexual, and remain married, but the interests of that person would be wrapped up in another individual, not the person that they are contracted to love honor and cherish till death, etc.

Anyways, marriage is what it is.. a union between two adults. Even Jesus and God were married in a sense. Jesus was always referred to as the bridegroom, in relation to God (the father).. Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral, and I think that the analogy of the father and jesus being a marital union is an excellent example of why this is okay.

Sorry, I don't think you understand. Yeshua honored His Father, G*d. "His" bride was and is the "church". The "church" is made of the people that love Him and want Him for their Savior. This analogy is only used to show the depth of love Yeshua has for people.
Please don't re-define marriage here. Marriage is not 'simply' a union between two adults. There are specifications to "qualifying" adults for marriage. Yeshua stated, that a man shall take a wife and the two shall become one. He did not say that a man shall take another man and the two shall become one.
And your other statement "Honestly, the bible only says that homosexual SEX is immoral, it does not say anything about gays being married being immoral" is totally illogical, are you implying if homosexuals are married, they will NOT engage in homosexual practices?

Just explain in a logical way how homosexual marriage can benefit society. Tell us how it can improve communities.

It can't, look what it did to sodom and gomorrah.

There was gay marriage in sodom and gomorrah?

 

[bodecea]

The people that are 'for' homosexual marriage are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions.

By that same 'reasoning', people who support interracial or any other instances of marriage 'are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions'. I find it interesting that homophobes always end up arguing against marriage, yet you still demand it for yourselves. Why is that?

You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

So? ...and a 'very deceptive side'?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

By that same 'reasoning', people who support interracial or any other instances of marriage 'are all about 'flaunting' their 'sex lives' and 'legitimizing' their actions'. I find it interesting that homophobes always end up arguing against marriage, yet you still demand it for yourselves. Why is that?

You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

So? ...and a 'very deceptive side'?

Yep. You had no clue l4u was gay, did you?

 

[bodecea]

You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

So? ...and a 'very deceptive side'?

Yep. You had no clue l4u was gay, did you?

No, he was being deceptive. Very deceptive.

 

[FA_Q2]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

 

[FA_Q2]

isn't that like saying four doesn't 'have' to be two and two, we could call it two and three?

Actually it is more like waking up one day and realizing that hey, not only can I get 4 from 2 and 2 but I can ALSO get it from 1 and 3!

 

[logical4u]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

You are right, none of the above "requires" marriage. Marriage is not about "love". Love is a historically recent developement; traditionally, marriage benefited "both" families, and made the woman "secure", physically and financially. While 'those' aspects of marriage are not discussed, they are still important. Can you explain to me how two 'men' can need physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how two women can offer physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how one person pretending to be the opposite sex benefits 'either' family of the 'couple'? And while you want to pretend children are not an important part of most marriages, I can tell you they are. I know very few married couples that do not have children [conceived the 'green' (no extra fossil fuels burned or doctor visits required) way]. And while it is true, that occasionally a married couple does not have children, the statistic is probably smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in the country. Marriage is about 'growing' a community. Can you demonstrate how homosexuals, being "true" to their sexual nature can grow a community?
Can you demonstrate on any scale how homosexual marriage would benefit society?

Marriage should be 'denied ' to homosexual couples because:
they hurt one or both families by 'pretending' to be something other that they really are: male or female.
they hurt the family that is hoping their family member will be a contributing member to the family's stability (with children, emotionally, financially, etc)
they hurt society by promoting promiscuity and encourage others to participate
they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

The "looking at them" comment was to demonstrate the difference between interacial marriage and homosexual marriage. The supporters want to say that it is the 'same' thing. It is not. If you are of a different race, you cannot pretend to 'fit in' when it is to your benefit (the way homosexuals can deceive people about their 'true' selves). That makes the two comparisons, vastly different.
Your mention of 'benefits' of homosexual marriage is a one way street, society sacrifices for the homosexuals, but homosexuals sacrifice....nothing, just take. In the end it boils down to a 'social experiment' with very predictable results. The homosexual marriage supporters are telling us "trust us", it will turn out okay. They sound like DC politicans promising to have 'citizens' best interests at heart when they are voting away the same citizens' rights.

 

[logical4u]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

Your statement: marriage is not "required" for heterosexual traditions demonstrates you have not intention of approaching this with any logic....you want it.
There have been no 'sound' rationalizations for homosexual marriage. There have been no benefits to society listed.
It comes down to homosexual marriage supporters attempting to 'force' society into a huge social experiment with no evidence, no practical theory. They are telling us, trust me, they sound like the politicians in DC telling citizens they really care about them, and then go behind closed doors and vote to ruin the citizens' lives.

 

[JD_2B]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

You are right, none of the above "requires" marriage. Marriage is not about "love". Love is a historically recent developement; traditionally, marriage benefited "both" families, and made the woman "secure", physically and financially. While 'those' aspects of marriage are not discussed, they are still important. Can you explain to me how two 'men' can need physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how two women can offer physical and financial protection? Can you explain to me how one person pretending to be the opposite sex benefits 'either' family of the 'couple'?

Those are personal questions, best suited to each individual couple. Those types of questions cannot be assumed to be blanketed across all couples as a whole, just because they are married. Are you aware that many females in married relationships are beat up and sometimes murdered by their husbands?? But, knowing that a man has a violent history of battering women does not make it any less legal or legitimate for him and hetero men like him to marry. Also, there are loads of women who offer more financial support in the relationships than their husbands do, or maybe you just forget that these days, many women are CEOs, or otherwise well to do executives and hard working people who make more contributions to their families and society than ever before. Also, many women these days are military combat trained, and can do a better job of protecting their families than the husband could, based solely on him having a Y chromosome and a set of balls. Stop being such a cheuvenist, for Christ sakes!!!

And while you want to pretend children are not an important part of most marriages, I can tell you they are. I know very few married couples that do not have children [conceived the 'green' (no extra fossil fuels burned or doctor visits required) way]. And while it is true, that occasionally a married couple does not have children, the statistic is probably smaller than the percentage of homosexuals in the country. Marriage is about 'growing' a community. Can you demonstrate how homosexuals, being "true" to their sexual nature can grow a community?

Most, not all. Not having children does not nullify the marriage, in any event. You are grasping at straws here. Marriage is not the primary means of bearing children these days, either. More and more people are choosing to cohabitate or have children and live separately, and simply are not ready to get married or do not want to get married. Procreation is going to happen with or without marriage and gay marriage being legal. Making gay marriage legal is not going to somehoe reduce the amount of live births we have every year, also. Please!!!

Can you demonstrate on any scale how homosexual marriage would benefit society?

Demonstrate how heterosexual marriage rights somehow benefits society in a way that cohabitation would not??? Get fucking real. It is a legal issue, and it is about equal protections, nothing more, nothing less.

Marriage should be 'denied ' to homosexual couples because:
they hurt one or both families by 'pretending' to be something other that they really are: male or female.

That is total bullshit. In fact, this issue that you bring up that all lesbians are butch dykes apparently, or that all gay men are flaming queens, is such utter fucking nonsense. Actually, hormone levels can also be off in married hetero women and men, as well, and can cause women to act more masculine, and men to act more feminine, and none of this makes a hill of fucking beans of a difference to whether it is legal or not.

they hurt the family that is hoping their family member will be a contributing member to the family's stability (with children, emotionally, financially, etc)

Another bullshit argument. Christ, You really don't know any gay couples do you?? These people are normal, and they seem to be even more emotionally and financially supportive of each other and the kids than some hetero families are!!

they hurt society by promoting promiscuity and encourage others to participate
they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

Oh wow.. This is another bullshit fucking joke of an argument from the biggest jizz faced man on here. Gays are not promiscuous just because they are gay. Christ.. I mean, come fucking on. Do you realize how many hetero couples are promiscuous and cheat on their partners??? Turn your TV on and watch Jerry Springer or Cheaters some day. Talk to your hetero friends and ask them how many times they have been cheated on or have cheated themselves. You are just full of fucking shit, trying to make gays out to be the only ones who cheat or sleep around. Thats total bull and you know it!!

The "looking at them" comment was to demonstrate the difference between interacial marriage and homosexual marriage. The supporters want to say that it is the 'same' thing. It is not. If you are of a different race, you cannot pretend to 'fit in' when it is to your benefit (the way homosexuals can deceive people about their 'true' selves). That makes the two comparisons, vastly different.

Just because it is easier for one to act like someone other than who they really are for gays does not mean shit, for the purposes of this argument. Married guys can act like they have working sperm, even if they have had a vasectomy, just to try to get hooked up with a beautiful woman and sleep with her a lot, under the guise of helping her get pregnant, etc. Just because it is EASY to cover up does not mean that it is the standard or the norm for that gender, or sexual orientation. Stop being such a fucking pig about this and try to argue logically, please.

Your mention of 'benefits' of homosexual marriage is a one way street, society sacrifices for the homosexuals, but homosexuals sacrifice....nothing, just take. In the end it boils down to a 'social experiment' with very predictable results. The homosexual marriage supporters are telling us "trust us", it will turn out okay. They sound like DC politicans promising to have 'citizens' best interests at heart when they are voting away the same citizens' rights.

How so??? What.. Just because gays aren't out MAKING babies does not mean that they arent raising them or adopting them or contributing to society. Fucking twit.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races.

So that's what happened to make you so uncomfortable around gays...

Can you explain to me how two 'men' can need physical and financial protection?

So women are weak and can't fend for themselves?

Can you explain to me how two women can offer physical and financial protection?

I think Cris Cyborg could make an effective bodyguard.

These women could offer plenty of financial protection

Can you explain to me how one person pretending to be the opposite sex benefits 'either' family of the 'couple'

1)

2)It doesn't have to

. I know very few married couples that do not have children

I know lots of single people with kids and married couples without. What's your point?

Can you demonstrate on any scale how homosexual marriage would benefit society?

Doesn't need to. How does letting you exist benefit society? It doesn't. You're an obvious detriment to our societal progress. And yet we let you live.

Marriage should be 'denied ' to homosexual couples because:
they hurt one or both families by 'pretending' to be something other that they really are: male or female.

Only in your case.

they hurt the family that is hoping their family member will be a contributing member to the family's stability (with children, emotionally, financially, etc)

So is the single person. Try again. People have no obligation to provide grandkids.

they hurt society by promoting promiscuity and encourage others to participate

Wrong. That's single people and people who get divorces.

they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

Like keeping slaves, beating your wife, or giving your child an exorcism?

 

[logical4u]

Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races.

So that's what happened to make you so uncomfortable around gays...

Can you explain to me how two 'men' can need physical and financial protection?

So women are weak and can't fend for themselves?


I think Cris Cyborg could make an effective bodyguard.

These women could offer plenty of financial protection

1)

2)It doesn't have to



I know lots of single people with kids and married couples without. What's your point?

Doesn't need to. How does letting you exist benefit society? It doesn't. You're an obvious detriment to our societal progress. And yet we let you live.



Only in your case.

So is the single person. Try again. People have no obligation to provide grandkids.

they hurt society by promoting promiscuity and encourage others to participate

Wrong. That's single people and people who get divorces.

they set an example that members of society do not have to live by honored traditions (act dishonorably).

Like keeping slaves, beating your wife, or giving your child an exorcism?

thank you for providing those stunning answers of how homosexual marriage benefits society. I am sold, I think the next time a small part of the population wants to re-define a long-held tradition, we should just give them free rein; maybe when the radical islamists want to change the law in this country to Sharia, we should just say okay (under the guise of giving them 'equal' rights).

 

[FA_Q2]

logical4u
You are the one that is saying that it is all about 'prying' into other peoples' sex lives.
There are 'legitimate' reasons for heterosexual marriage, many listed previously in this post. I have asked repeatedly for 'legitimate' reasons for homosexual marriage. The only reasons listed are the ones that people use for 'living together' and adoption (of which, neither requires marriage).

Interracial marriages are a totally different matter, as society mixed, so did the peoples. Homosexuality has a very deceptive side, one cannot tell a person is homosexual by looking at them the way you can with people of vastly different races. It is not the same thing.

And EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOES NOT ‘REQUIRE’ MARRIAGE EITHER. There have been advantages listed here and you have ignored them. If it is a benefit of a straight marriage then it is the same benefit of a gay marriage except the ability to bear children (which a lesbian couple actually still has). Since marriage between people that cannot have children or do not want them are not barred from marriage then that benefit to society had obviously not been deemed paramount in marriage. You have yet to provide even ONE reason that marriage should be denied to gay couples. “It has always been this way’ and ‘it is against MY morals’ are not valid points.

What the heck does ‘tell by looking at them’ have anything to do with discrimination and this thread? I cannot ‘see’ your religion but it is still illegal to discriminate against you based on that.

Face it, there is no real argument here so you have to resort to empty suit points like ‘it will mean an end to morality/marriage’ when there is no meat behind the statements.

Your statement: marriage is not "required" for heterosexual traditions demonstrates you have not intention of approaching this with any logic....you want it.
There have been no 'sound' rationalizations for homosexual marriage. There have been no benefits to society listed.
It comes down to homosexual marriage supporters attempting to 'force' society into a huge social experiment with no evidence, no practical theory. They are telling us, trust me, they sound like the politicians in DC telling citizens they really care about them, and then go behind closed doors and vote to ruin the citizens' lives.

That was YOUR statement and you prove my point quite well. That statement is not using logic at all. There are sound rationalizations for gay marriage, namely the same reasons there are hetro marriages.
You still have yet to provide anything even remotely pointing to what ‘terrible’ things would happen if gays marry. Give me a bone here, what is it that you so fear. Remember that simply stating that Nazis riding dinosaurs will take over the world without some sort of evidence to back your claims up is not going to fly. I keep hearing that hetro marriages will be somehow affected without any actual vehicle for that to happen. If gays can marry there will be no difference except in the lives and relationships of the gays themselves.