Posted on 11/30/2005 2:08:49 PM PST by Hildy
I need the best... don't mean a good opinion, personal anecdotal stories...a great argument against gay marriage. I'm in a very very civil discussion (as strange as it may sound) on another bulletin board. I'm the only heterosexual, let alone Conservative and it's been very interesting. But it always comes down to Gay Marriage. And, frankly, besides the religious argument that can always be overruled by civil arguments, I'm gonna lose this one...I know one of you brilliant people have at one time posted something brilliant about it...or know of a journalist who has written something brilliant about it. On this one...I admit...I'm at a loss. Thank you.
Citation, Please. I don't think you can find a biblical mention of gay marriage let alone a proscription against it. One can reasonably infer that gay sex will occur within a gay marriage and one can state (against some arguments perhaps) that the bible proscribes gay sex but there is no biblical law against gay marriage that I am aware of.
How is it made easier with a contract?
A sound family structure is a critical part of the foundation of any society.
Agreed but you are talking about society, and Government is only a small part of society...and more Nanny Government such as the marriage and divorce business only makes Government a larger part of society.
I dont know Hildy. The whole thing for me comes down to this: If we were all homosexual, we'd cease to exist! And then there's this: For me, God said it's wrong. BAM! So for ME it's wrong! Period, end of story.
You win with the above statement.
What about couples sixty-five and older? Should they be prevented from marrying? I've never heard of a pregnant eighty year old (not counting Sarah in the Bible, who had divine intervention), so maybe it's true that they CAN NEVER EVER have children either.
No one is preventing a gay man and a gay woman from getting married and having gay children.
All this, and more, on the next Lando posting.
The honeymoon would hurt.
For thousands of years civilized societies have had "marriage" between a man & a woman as the "best" way to raise a child & ensure stability of a society. The "data" is still out on the effects of having a child raised in a single sex household... So, it's a Grand Social Experiment...that in a Politically Correct World might even sound somewhat reasonable...but bottom line it is "experimenting" with Children. Also, similar, the concept that it was better for the "children" for the parents to divorce than for the "children" to remain in an home with two unhappy parents. Data is now coming out (surprise, surprise) ...that the children of "Divorce" no matter how amicable the divorce are more troubled than children from homes where the parents stay married for the sake of the children...even with arguing... So, who knows what the mysterious "Data" will show re: children raised in a "Gay Marriage" home (initial "data" shows that the children of these households already have more instances of suicides & drug abuse...but not sure if that's related directly to the single-sex of parents or issues related to being outside the mainstream of their peers... Guess, it still comes down to...experimenting on humans...
(picky point but true) Gay marriage has always been legal. There's no legal prohibition against gay people getting married.
(what they really mean) Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, does not exist, and it never has. Marriage in every civilized culture throughout history has been between one man and one woman, or between one man and multiple women, but the multiple wives were not married to each other.
So the issue isn't "should we let people of the same sex get married," but, "should we redefine the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples." Every time the issue goes to vote, it's rejected by a convincing majority, even in "blue" states. So clearly it's not what people want to do, either now or any time in the past.
Okay, I hear ya, now again, go away. I do not like homos, nor folks who support them...
If marriage is to be "sanctioned" by the government because it produces children, why do those unions that do not produce children also get the same benefits?
This argument makes the sanctioning of marriage unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. If this were the only defining point, then a childless couple, or a marriage where one or both of the spouses is incapable of producing children, would be no different from a same sex couple.
>>>The purpose of marriage is to raise children, bringing well-adjusted kids into society. Children rasied by gays are more prone to depression, suicide, crime, dropping out of school, and violence. It's not to the benefit of society to encourage more kids like this.
>>The same could be said of children with divorced parents, but the state allows heterosexual couples to divorce.
And just as the government discourages divorce, it should discourage gay marriage.
First, define "can't." If you can look at two people and see the parts don't fit, then that's a pretty simple test. People that are "sterile" have kids from time to time even when supposedly neither is capable. What kinds of tests are to be required to deny benefits? We set the standards pretty low, but it is a huge leap from "barren" to mechanically incompatible.
Non-religious reason: Marriage is a seal of approval and special status from government. Government doesn't care about "romance", and that's not why it sanctions heterosexual marriage. It sanctions marriage between men and women to encourage the best chance for an arrangment that can best nuture children and perpetuate a stable society (studies by even pro-homo researchers have admitted that). THAT's the government's fundamental interest, not who sleeps with whom.
Going Dutch: Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands
first off - I have never seen a poll of actual gay people on whether they want to marry. If they are honest, I suspect MAYBE 30% do. This issue is being driven by activists to poke a stick in the eye of conservatives.
Gay marriages are simply impossible in reality:
1. There's no father of the bride to pay for the wedding.
2. There's no affordable wedding gift: the
happy couple already own everything sold by Crate and
Barrel, Pottery Barn, and Pier 1.
3.Most church organists refuse to play "Knock on Wood"
for the processional.
4. Who gets the diamond, who gets the plain gold
band?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.