What's so scary about same sex marriage?

[Nosmo King]

Please explain why particularly Social Conservatives find same sex marriage so damn scary?

Is it the Social Conservatives fear their own marriage may be in jeopardy if same sex couples get access to this particular part of contract law?

Is it that Social Conservatives think that permitting access to contract law is something some people have no right to?

Is it that Social Conservatives harbor a peculiar form of homophobia?

Is it that Social Conservatives think that the size of government should be reduced to one that can easily fit into a bedroom?

Do Social Conservatives think that the state not only permits a marriage contract between two consenting adults but sanctifies that marriage as well?

Do Social Conservatives think that divorce laws are too liberal and therefore present the real threat to the institution of marriage?

Do Social Conservatives recognize that the state not only has a means of entering a marriage contract but a means of dissolving that contract as well?

What makes same sex marriage such a problem for Social Conservatives?

 

[007]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

 

[Jon]

I don't really understand it, either. Traditional marriages are already a sham, and I don't see how allowing gay marriage will change that, for the better or worse.

I don't really see the religious side of the argument, either. The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Not allowing gays to marry isn't stopping them from being gay, so it's not as if these people are preventing sin. Furthermore, one is not a sinner for allowing sin to happen.

So yeah, I don't get it. But whatever. It's the least important of the issues this country is dealing with right now.

 

[KittenKoder]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

 

[007]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

Why not?

 

[xotoxi]

I am afraid that my children will have the option to join the Gay Orgy Club as an extracurricular activity if gays are allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions.

 

[Jon]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

Why not?

Because marriage should be either a legal union or a religious union. Not both. In this country, it's a legal union, which means God should not be involved in the terms of the contract.

 

[KittenKoder]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

Why not?

Because it is the government dictating which religious beliefs are valid and which are not. Many religions do not agree with that stance, and some do not agree with marriage in laws at all.

 

[xotoxi]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

Why not?

The state should not be issuing licenses for two people to love each other or for two people to have sex. They should be strictly issuing legal contracts which unite two adults from a legal perpective.

Marriage is for religions.

 

[Nosmo King]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In spite of psychological studies to the contrary, there are folks who eschew science and still think in terms of perversion and mental illness.

Weird.

I guess there still are folks who think the world is flat, too.

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe. What a pity! Imagine if mumbo jumbo was replace by clarity and reason! What a wonderful world we could enjoy. We would not only have a greater understanding of the natural world, but we could practically eliminate prejudice and blind bigotry.

And God has nothing to do with state law. We are not governed by the Taliban.

 

[Nosmo King]

I am afraid that my children will have the option to join the Gay Orgy Club as an extracurricular activity if gays are allowed to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions.

Is there a heterosexual orgy club at their school? Who's the Principal? Mr. Caligula?

 

[Jon]

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe.

That's a different argument, and irrelevant to the question. In addition, it's completely false.

 

[Nosmo King]

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe.

That's a different argument, and irrelevant to the question. In addition, it's completely false.

Then explain why psychiatrists do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Explain why Fundamentalists would rather eschew evolution for mythology.

 

[007]

In which case, there should be no legal issues involved in marriage at all.

Why not?

Because it is the government dictating which religious beliefs are valid and which are not. Many religions do not agree with that stance, and some do not agree with marriage in laws at all.

Well if you all believe that, then why is it so important for homos to marry? Why can't they be satisfied with a Civil Union when they get all the same benefits?

 

[Jon]

Then explain why psychiatrists do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Explain why Fundamentalists would rather eschew evolution for mythology.

Again, it's a different argument for a different time. But long story short: science is not fact. Evolution does not disprove the creation theory. It only offers an alternative explanation. Or, if you believe as I do, it offers a means to an end. Is it so hard to believe that God created evolution? Or that God caused the Big Bang? Science can explain most things, and the observations are practically irrefutable. But science does not explain everything, nor can it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Why not?

Because it is the government dictating which religious beliefs are valid and which are not. Many religions do not agree with that stance, and some do not agree with marriage in laws at all.

Well if you all believe that, then why is it so important for homos to marry? Why can't they be satisfied with a Civil Union when they get all the same benefits?

Because it is a canard that Civil Unions provide the same benefits and legal protections as a marriage contract.

 

[007]

No... social conservatives who are largely Christians see homosexuality as a perversion, a mental illness, a disgusting sexual act, and traditional marriage being that of a man and a woman wed in the eyes of God in holy matrimony, should not be soiled by such a disgusting sexual perversion.

It's just that simple.

In spite of psychological studies to the contrary, there are folks who eschew science and still think in terms of perversion and mental illness.

Weird.

I guess there still are folks who think the world is flat, too.

Science refutes what the most fundamental religious people believe. What a pity! Imagine if mumbo jumbo was replace by clarity and reason! What a wonderful world we could enjoy. We would not only have a greater understanding of the natural world, but we could practically eliminate prejudice and blind bigotry.

And God has nothing to do with state law. We are not governed by the Taliban.

Well... sorry I touched that nerve, but what I spoke of was the opinion of the vast majority of the world. Men shouldn't stick their pee pees up each other ass. That's not the way they were built. That's a perverted sex act, and not natural or normal, and the vast majority of the people on earth believe that way, and no matter how sugary you want to dress up homos, it will never the majority think men pumping each others brown eye is anything but perverted and disgusting. You're in a dream world if you think that's going to happen. The BIGOTRY is all on your part against normal people having a normal reaction to a sexual perversion.

God calls homosexuality an abomination, and that a man that lies with another man as a woman shall surely die, his blood shall be upon them. Why should the church sanctify that?

 

[Jon]

Because it is a canard that Civil Unions provide the same benefits and legal protections as a marriage contract.

Even if they did, there would still be those who fight for gay marriage, just because they know it pisses the other side of the aisle off. And if civil unions offered the same benefits, those against gay marriage would argue that those benefits should be allowed for married couples.

It's a never-ending battle, and no solution will satisfy everyone.

 

[Nosmo King]

Then explain why psychiatrists do not agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Explain why Fundamentalists would rather eschew evolution for mythology.

Again, it's a different argument for a different time. But long story short: science is not fact. Evolution does not disprove the creation theory. It only offers an alternative explanation. Or, if you believe as I do, it offers a means to an end. Is it so hard to believe that God created evolution? Or that God caused the Big Bang? Science can explain most things, and the observations are practically irrefutable. But science does not explain everything, nor can it.

I believe in God. But I don't believe that mythology that explained creation to those who lived prior to scientific method. The same way I do not adhere to dietary laws laid out in the Bible. Why? Because I am not a desert wandering nomad and I have refrigeration. and yet the dietary laws are (or should be) just as important as a Biblical edict against the rights of man vis-a-vis homosexuality.

I do not believe that God it in for homosexuals. I believe that earth bound bigots do, but not God.

 

[Jon]

Why should the church sanctify that?

It shouldn't. But that has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a legal contract. Period.