We aren't afraid of g@ys we are pro traditional marriage

Often when I hear people argue for gay marriage they always say some variation of: "it has nothing to do with you" or "if you don't like big government, why intrude on something personal like marriage?" These are valid arguments but I would say that gay marriage changes the fundamental relations between genders (if it is to be accepted) and thus affects us all indirectly. In the future being really good friends with someone of the same gender can be misconstrued as gay Imagine you go out with some buddies and your gf/mom/whatever worries that you might be cheating on her with a dude. I just can't imagine a society that lives like that. Why? We don't have to oppress homosexuals, but why should we change our definition of marriage for them? Isn't marriage defined from Christianity and Jewish traditions? Why don't they just stick with civil unions? By making them the same as a heterosexual relationship we open up a whole world of problems in the area of relationships and marriage. We know (scientifically) that children raised by a man and a women are most heathy mentally, but we can't prove (scientifically) that homosexuality is innate. Indeed the only result I've seen so far of this movement is a greater acceptance of lesbianism (usually to the pleasure of men) and bisexuality in women in particular (see Black Swan or a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo movies for examples). How is this equality movement any different from a sexual revolution that liberalizes sexual relations?

"You're not allowed to have that opinion! It's wrong! You MUST accept gay marriage or you're WRONG," cried OTSolidSnake35

Good for you.

Wall of text! Find your 'Enter' key and use it!

We know 'scientifically' that you didn't provide any sources

We know scientifically that separate but equal doesn't work.

And we know, scientifically, that the 'role'(which doesn't need to exist in the first place) of the genders' and the assumptions people make of others won't change regardless.

"You're not allowed to have that opinion! It's wrong! You MUST accept gay marriage or you're WRONG," cried OTSolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]"You're not allowed to have that opinion! It's wrong! You MUST accept gay marriage or you're WRONG," cried OTmajoras_wrath

In the future being really good friends with someone of the same gender can be misconstrued as gay

peter1191

You realize that gay people will exist whether gay marriage is legal or not, right?

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services.

Are you telling me you're anti-small business?

Can't any mom or girlfriend think that already. It's a lifestyle that they choose and not you. If they want to get married let them go for it. And changed the defetion of marriage? Marriage is when to people are in love and want to spend the rest of there lives together, who cares if its a man and a women, a man and a man or a women and a women. To be honest if you also want to stick with the whole actually tradition of marriage, you are supposed to be staying with that person forever. So say the husband turns out to be bad and beats is wife, they are still supposed to actually be together if you go that far into, but it is not right for the women. So they can go on living a horrible realtionship and yet when to people love eachother very much and want to be together and would never do anything to harm the other, they can't because the like the same gender?

Can you imagine how many of these couples will adopt kids,I bet its gonna be a whole bunch of lil gay kids prancing around like fairies Bucked20

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

no we could be anyone and love anyone, let's not set so many rules, it's tiring, let's all be equal opportunists:)

Putting the word scientifically after a statement doesn't make it a fact. Show me these studies that provide any evidence to what you are saying.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]"You're not allowed to have that opinion! It's wrong! You MUST accept gay marriage or you're WRONG," cried OTSolidSnake35

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

This thread will go far. Count on it.

The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin.

mindstorm

STOP.

There's that church and state thing.

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

Usually your post are rather well thought out, but this is just stupid. Equality shouldn't be a foundation for society?

Similar arguments were once made against interracial marriage as well.

Ancient traditions are meant to be broken; it is all part of a process known as cultural progression.

Gay activists just like to have mentality of being bullied even when the person who is for marriage doesn't actually hate the Homosexual.

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]Can you imagine how many of these couples will adopt kids,I bet its gonna be a whole bunch of lil gay kids prancing around like fairies majoras_wrath

Gay activists just like to have mentality of being bullied even when the person who is for marriage doesn't actually hate the Homosexual.

Philokalia

I think it's akin to moderate apathy a la Birmingham Jail, which is also harmful.

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="Bucked20"]Can you imagine how many of these couples will adopt kids,I bet its gonna be a whole bunch of lil gay kids prancing around like fairies Bucked20

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

Gay activists just like to have mentality of being bullied even when the person who is for marriage doesn't actually hate the Homosexual.

Philokalia

lol. Anyone not supporting gay marriage is either an idiot or a christian. mhm. That's kind of redundant. l4dak47

I find it curious anyone who doesn't support an ideology must be an idiot when there are clear reasons as to why most people on earth don't subscribe to the idea of gay "marraige" based on their religious beliefs and that it logically follows from those beliefs which they hold to be true. But if it puts you on a higher ground I agree without God there is no reason to be against gay marriage, but I would qualify that and say without God there is no reason to be for or against anything.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] So you would want society to be pedantic, and just term it a different word? That is f*cking ridiculous.SolidSnake35

Most gay activists are for marriage, that usually what they're arguing about.

toast_burner

And most like to use rhetoric.

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] So you would want society to be pedantic, and just term it a different word? That is f*cking ridiculous.SolidSnake35

.

I just don't think marriage should become unmoored from its fundamental purpose, which is the creation of children. fidosim

Fascist.