[television is just wrong]

The purpose of marriage is to form intact families. Same sex marriage does not afford that priviledge. My sister in law is in a gay marriage, 3 WAY. Three women living together sharing one of them. The thought is perverted and it makes it hard to remain friends with her. All three of these women have been married to men. Bad marriages, and are lonely.

[Jew4GWB]

Ernie, I think what's driving the movement to ban gay marriage is a belief that government legislation to ban the paperwork and terminology will just make homosexuals disappear. Poof! Well, it won't.

I'm sorry that some people hate the thought of other people living and doing their thing, but you don't have to live next door to them. You can teach you're children that they're doing the wrong thing -- just as you can teach your children that people of other religions are practicing the wrong faith, or that sex before marriage is wrong. But if everyone started trying to get the government on his side in these disputes, where would we be?

It's all about the right to life, liberty, and property. I don't see where marriage fits in there.

[petercooper]

The song "I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" will have to be changed to "I saw Daddy Paul Kissing Santa Claus".

[SQUID]

"Do opponents of same-sex marriage propose that our society should begin identifying areas where choices involving human intimacy should be regulated by government entities and thus dilute our commitment to the values inherent in a free society?"

Your gay movement people are the ones using the government to push their agenda not the other way around. By teaching little Johnny in the schools that family is made up of mommy and mommy, daddy and daddy, mommy and daddy is using the state to push an agenda that is attempting to normalize a behavioral defect.

By the same token, you have no clue how positive the effects will be as well. If there are any. You are certainly not going to outline any negative effects so there goes that.

So, let me ask you, if two consenting adults, Mother and daughter wanted to get married would you be all for it? How about father and son marriage...or...grandmother and grandson marriage. Hey man as long as they are happy it's okay right? Where would you draw the line or would you? Why would you draw any line? It's a free society right? How about I get your daughter into my harem of 20 women I am sure you would be okay with that right? If she is consenting then you have nothing to say. Why can't we marry 30 women and have 160 children? I also want the government to recognize all of my wives!!

[Quix]

Given that it's all a 99.9999% sham . . .

It would appear that the major damage is to the definition of family and of marriage.

The number of homosexuals who marry is relatively miniscule.

The number who stay married is even MORE miniscule.

So, it seems that it's mostly a scam of the puppet masters to trash the traditional definitions of family and of marriage.

Must be they are really interested in shredding society to make it easier for them to control individuals and society without that awful parental authority getting in the way.

[jonrick46]

You must be doing an imitation of that mythical bird that sticks his head in the sand. Well, maybe you have your head stuck where the sunshine don't shine.

Now that I have insulted you enough that you will not read any further, you can go away somewhere else and not learn anything more than your ignorance shows.

I do have a hint for you, if you want to click a mouse around on the Internet a few. Check the out of wedlock birthrate in Sweden. Check out the same thing in Holland. Both these countries have allowed gay unions.

For your homework assignment, find out why gay unions have affected the out of wedlock birthrate. Also, answer the question, "Is out of wedlock births good for a nation?"

[SweetCaroline]

BUMP

[k2blader]

One word: children.

[noah]

An affront to GOD, if you believe HE IS & cares.

[Rytwyng]

By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?

Here is the chain of reasoning:

(1) Homosexuality is NOT a genetic mandate, but an addiction into which many youths can be "recruited" at psychologically vulnerable points in development. (Some adults are vulnerable too.) (See www.narth.org)

(2) Civilizational continuity requires that this homosexual recruitment be resisted and thwarted as much as possible. When homosexuality reaches epidemic levels, disease and demographic disaster, followed by foreign conquest and demographic replacement, are the result.(All history roars out in witness to this.) BTW, all industrialized countries are now below replacement fertility!

(3) Aside from the death penalty, the best weapon that any society wields against homosexual recruitment, is *severe social opprobrium*, so as to provide a certain degree of mental resistance in vulnerable persons who are subjected to homosexual overtures. "Just say no" is not strong enough; it needs to be more like, "How DARE you!!!!"

(4) Protecting homosexuality by law, contravenes this essential social intolerance and eventually weakens it. Silencing even the most respectful disagreement with misnamed "hate speech" laws, and lowering the age of consent, are part of this movement as well. (In some countries the age of consent has been lowered to 12 -- imagine adult homosexuals making moves on your 12 year old kid, and you're not even legally allowed to prevent it!)

(5) Allowing homosexual "marriages" is the final step in removing social opprobrium and causing homosexuality to be viewed as equal to normal sex.

(6) With the social opprobrium gone, homosexuals will recruit vigorously, and successfully -- eventually dooming the society.

No, I can't tell you that it would happen by 2010 or 2015, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it WILL happen at SOME point. All the ancient cultures (Greek, Roman, etc), started on the downslide when they began to tolerate homosexuals. When they were on the rise, all these cultures were anti-gay.

Note that I have not made any religious references here at all. However, it's not an accident that all the major world religions hate homosexuality. Either divine wisdom and/or centuries of hard-won experience has convinced all of them that homosexuality is a destructive path that ought to be discouraged by all means possible.

[shellshocked]

How about saying, " I am still waiting to learn what specific adverse consequences proponents of gay marriage anticipate to result from its NOT BEING legalized. "

[I_dmc]

One view: Governments should *not* have the right to perform marriages. They should be only allowed to create civil unions. The concept of marriage is steeped in tradition and even allowing government entities to perform them weakens our traditions. Only a religious entity should be allowed to deem a civil union a marriage. To those that might say, "What about atheists"? I say, how can one participate in a tradition created by religion if one is an atheist without being a hypocrit?