Why, precisely, is gay marriage a bad thing?

[Mac1958]

.

To those who oppose gay marriage, I would love to see a specific list of reasons & explanations why it should not be allowed in America. A calm, reasonable, civil, mature description of the various harms to society that gay marriage would inevitably cause, that would outweigh any benefits it would provide.

Heading off to the office now, looking forward to checking back in.

.

 

[SniperFire]

It is gross.


eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww....


And why not start this thread in the gay and lesbo forum instead of 'politics'?

 

[rdean]

Anything gay, according the right wing, is "bad".

Bad obviously equals "enticing".

Many conservatives find the gays so appealing, they want them destroyed to avoid "temptation".

 

[Seawytch]

It is gross.


eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww....

Believe it or not, this is the most truthful answer you'll get from this bunch, Mac. It's what their arguments boil down to...and nothing that will hold up in a court of law.

 

[Artevelde]

Why are some people so obsessed by this topic that they keep opening new threads asking the same question over and over again?

 

[Sunni Man]

Families; man + woman = children.

Is the backbone of all cultures and societies throughout history.

Homosexuality insidiously breaks down this biologically normal paradigm.

And historically has been instrumental in the internal decay and destruction of any nation state where it has been allowed to thrive unchecked and decriminalized.

 

[SniperFire]

It is gross.


eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww....

Believe it or not, this is the most truthful answer you'll get from this bunch, Mac. It's what their arguments boil down to...and nothing that will hold up in a court of law.

But shouldn't we be discussing Harry Reid's refusal to do his Constitutional duty and pass a budget resolution, and Obama's complicity in same in the 'politics' forum?

Why does Lefty want to have 8 threads on gay butt sex running at once in lieu of examining Presidential politics?

Are you perhaps out of solutions for the Nation and want to deflect?

 

[SniperFire]

And historically has been instrumental in the internal decay and destruction of any nation state where it has been allowed to thrive unchecked and decriminalized.

Oh sure. Bring facts into it, why don't you!

 

[Claudette]

Personally I have no problem with gays or gay marriage.

LOL Hell. If they want to join the divorce and not so happy marriage venue then let em have at it.

Of course they can always have that 20 plus yr marriage that so many enjoy.

Either way I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Artevelde]

It is gross.


eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww....

Believe it or not, this is the most truthful answer you'll get from this bunch, Mac. It's what their arguments boil down to...and nothing that will hold up in a court of law.

This is not what the argument boils down to. But you're too obsessed by this political correctness hysteria that you can't even read anymore.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Why are some people so obsessed by this topic that they keep opening new threads asking the same question over and over again?

Infatuation with mud packing or carpet munching?


To the OP

Seriously, it is no skin off my back if they get Married, but I do prefer the Term Union

Marriage to me is between a man and a women, Marriage has been defined 99% of the time throughout History as between a man and a women, only the new PC definitions have changed it lately.

.

 

[Seawytch]

It is gross.


eeeewwwwwwwwwwwww....

Believe it or not, this is the most truthful answer you'll get from this bunch, Mac. It's what their arguments boil down to...and nothing that will hold up in a court of law.

This is not what the argument boils down to. But you're too obsessed by this political correctness hysteria that you can't even read anymore.

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality. Please provide the reasonable person standard you will use to oppose civil marriage equality. What is the societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Go!

 

[Artevelde]

Believe it or not, this is the most truthful answer you'll get from this bunch, Mac. It's what their arguments boil down to...and nothing that will hold up in a court of law.

This is not what the argument boils down to. But you're too obsessed by this political correctness hysteria that you can't even read anymore.

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality. Please provide the reasonable person standard you will use to oppose civil marriage equality. What is the societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Go!

I've already posted it in several other threads started by the people obsessed with this craze: marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, is an essential foundation stone of human society (as can be observed throughout history and throughout the world). To turn this into something else because of a sudden politically correct fad is stupid, short-sighted and immoral.

And this is NOT about "marriage equality". The argument that this is somehow a "discrimination" has been rebutted several times in many threads.

 

[SniperFire]

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality.

Go!

Everyone has exactly the same 'right' to marriage, fool.

Of course, you know that.

You just want to redefine marriage to include polygamy, incest and all sorts of other perversions.

The world has been there, done that, which is why culture and civilization has rejected it and we have the current evolved understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Now this is where you whine that you should be able to have special rights to marry your fudge packing buddy. We know the drill.

 

[Mr Natural]

Because the Big Book of Myths and Fables says so.

 

[Seawytch]

This is not what the argument boils down to. But you're too obsessed by this political correctness hysteria that you can't even read anymore.

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality. Please provide the reasonable person standard you will use to oppose civil marriage equality. What is the societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Go!

I've already posted it in several other threads started by the people obsessed with this craze: marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, is an essential foundation stone of human society (as can be observed throughout history and throughout the world). To turn this into something else because of a sudden politically correct fad is stupid, short-sighted and immoral.

And this is NOT about "marriage equality". The argument that this is somehow a "discrimination" has been rebutted several times in many threads.

Except it isn't. I have a license issued by the state of California that says I'm married. I've got friends that, while not legally married, got married in a church.

Legal civil marriage and religious marriage are two different entities. We already have equal access to religious marriage, but are fighting for legal, civil marriage. What reasonable person standard to you use to prohibit gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage?

Your "tradition" line doesn't cut it and won't stand up in court. See, folks tried that when they passed laws preventing blacks from marrying whites. It failed then and will fail now.

It is completely about marriage equality and it most certainly IS discrimination. Those that claim it isn't have been shot down in their "arguments" repeatedly...and not just here, but in a court of law (where it matters).

Marriage equality will be a reality in the not too distant future. You can't stop it.

 

[SniperFire]

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality. Please provide the reasonable person standard you will use to oppose civil marriage equality. What is the societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult couples the legal protections of civil marriage?

Go!

I've already posted it in several other threads started by the people obsessed with this craze: marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, is an essential foundation stone of human society (as can be observed throughout history and throughout the world). To turn this into something else because of a sudden politically correct fad is stupid, short-sighted and immoral.

And this is NOT about "marriage equality". The argument that this is somehow a "discrimination" has been rebutted several times in many threads.

Except it isn't. I have a license issued by the state of California that says I'm married.

Marriage was around before the state of California.

 

[Seawytch]

Then maybe you can be the first to explain the reasonable opposition to marriage equality.

Go!

Everyone has exactly the same 'right' to marriage, fool.

Of course, you know that.

No they don't and your "argument" has already failed historically. See, back when the arguments were being made not to allow blacks to marry whites, it was argued that these laws were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women, blacks and whites. The argument failed in court...just like yours will.

You just want to redefine marriage to include polygamy, incest and all sorts of other perversions.

While I really don't have a problem with consenting adults choosing a polygamist relationship, no we don't want to redefine marriage to include "all sorts of perversions". Of course you knew that and just want to continue to be ridiculous. To each his own...

 

[Seawytch]

I've already posted it in several other threads started by the people obsessed with this craze: marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, is an essential foundation stone of human society (as can be observed throughout history and throughout the world). To turn this into something else because of a sudden politically correct fad is stupid, short-sighted and immoral.

And this is NOT about "marriage equality". The argument that this is somehow a "discrimination" has been rebutted several times in many threads.

Except it isn't. I have a license issued by the state of California that says I'm married.

Marriage was around before the state of California.

Yes, and? Do you have a point? Duh, of course you don't. What WAS I thinking...

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Because the Big Book of Myths and Fables says so.

Which Book?, all these are against Homosexuality:

Christianity
Islam
Judaism
Buddhism
Sikh
Hinduism
Bahai
Druze
Zoroastrianism
Jedi


.