Skip to comments.
I need the BEST argument against Gay Marriage
Nov. 30, 2005
| Hildy
Posted on 11/30/2005 2:08:49 PM PST by Hildy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 301-305 next last
To: Hildy
It's really bad for your butt.
161
posted on
11/30/2005 2:55:02 PM PST
by
humblegunner
(If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
To: Hildy
To: Hildy
Marriage means the lifelong union of one man and one woman for the purpose of creating a family, which is the cornerstone of our civilized society. Homosexuals have, and always have had, access to marriage. They just need to marry someone of the opposite sex because that is what marriage
is.
To tamper with the definition of the word is to render it meaningless. If you destroy the cornerstone, it is inevitable that the structure built on it will crumble.
163
posted on
11/30/2005 2:55:18 PM PST
by
Plexi
To: humblegunner
164
posted on
11/30/2005 2:55:43 PM PST
by
sit-rep
(If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
To: Hildy
Marriage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Jump to: navigation, search Marriage is a relationship between individuals which has formed the foundation of the family for most societies. Marriage can include legal, social, and religious elements. In western societies, marriage has traditionally been understood as social contract between a man (husband) and a woman (wife), while in other parts of the world polygamy has been the most common form of marriage, usually in the form of polygyny (a man taking several wives) but occasionally in the form of polyandry (a woman taking several husbands). In some western societies today, same-sex marriage is recognized yet remains a controversial issue.
165
posted on
11/30/2005 2:55:47 PM PST
by
danmar
("Reason obeys itself,and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it....... Thomas Paine)
To: the lone rider
A child grows up with gay parents....
The child questions how they came into the world...
At some point they realize they didn't come from the stork...
A child can only naturally result from the union of a man and a woman. This child now realizes they are in an unnatural situation. Not unnatural by chance, but by choice, by the selfishness of the gay parents.
Uncomfortable? Maybe. Schitzophrenic? Probably. Bad for society on the whole, even if this particular child turns out fine? Yes.
Homosexuality just isn't natural...I take that back...it's natural in the way wanting more than one wife is natural, wanting to have as many women as you possibily can...but moral people don't act on these 'natural urges' because they know that growing up with 15 mothers isn't the ideal way for a child to grow up.
It's basically immoral because it goes against the laws of nature & a society based on monogamy. It's also immoral because the homosexual act is a blatant distortion of the natural sexual act of mating.
It's like poring soda in through your ears and saying you can't help it - you just have these natural desires to quench your thirst.
To: Restorer
>>>A majority of the population of the United States was in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation when it was promulgated and within about a year it was a significant majority.
I'm not so sure. Lincoln only received 40% of the popular vote in 1860 running on a platform much less radical than that of the Emanicpiation Proclomation. When it was released, Lincoln didn't have it apply to the border states in the North because he feared he would lose them. I'm doubting it had popular support in the South once implemented.
167
posted on
11/30/2005 2:57:19 PM PST
by
NC28203
Comment #168 Removed by Moderator
To: FormerLib
In the same manner as any other legally-enforceable agreement. For instance, do you rely on written or verbal contracts when buying a home or other large purchase? One is a legally enforceable contract while the other usually is not.Sorry, I still don't get it. If I have a kid, my name's on a legal document - a birth certificate. If it isn't, or I scoot - the court gets involved. But that's liscensing parenthood - not marriage. Now if I form a financial partnership with someone, sure I draw up papers. Now what has that to do with marriage which is a religious union?
169
posted on
11/30/2005 2:58:19 PM PST
by
rhombus
To: Hildy
Gay marriage? No such thing.
170
posted on
11/30/2005 2:58:43 PM PST
by
Busywhiskers
("...moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society." --Judge Edith H. Jones)
To: two134711
Marriage, like fighting a war, is a serious mission.Pssst. The idea is we want to make marriage sound like a nice, worthwhile thing! PR and all! :-)
171
posted on
11/30/2005 2:58:49 PM PST
by
HitmanLV
(Listen to my demos for Savage Nation contest: http://www.geocities.com/mr_vinnie_vegas/index.html)
To: Lando Lincoln
172
posted on
11/30/2005 2:59:01 PM PST
by
teenyelliott
(Soylent green should be made outta liberals...)
To: Hildy
Look up the word in the dictionary. It's a union between a man and a woman. They've already stolen the word 'gay' from our language among others and they've stolen our rainbow. I refuse to submit to allowing them to steal the word 'marriage' as well.
To: Hildy
174
posted on
11/30/2005 3:00:31 PM PST
by
CJ Wolf
(BTW can someone add 'zot' to the FR spellchecker?)
To: Sols
*This is why I especially find "marriage = children" arguments are upsetting. I feel the logical conclusion is disallowing non-child producing marriages as well.*
From earlier posts:
Yes, those heterosexuals who extract marriage benefits and who never have children have abused the system. We draw the line at couples who are at least potentially capable of having children, and decline to investigate this capability beyond the plainly obvious.
...and...
*Should couples who can't bear children not be allowed to marry? *
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.
175
posted on
11/30/2005 3:00:34 PM PST
by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
To: Hildy
The gay argument on religious grounds will lose in the polls - and it is where the gay-rights proponents have forced the debate. The problem is - you will never convince a nonreligious person using that.
Throwing the red herring aside, you need to understand WHO the gay rights proponents are - liberals who believe in destroying western culture and creating a nanny state. And just what will "gay marriage" get us?
More access to government programs and corporate benefits, which is a liberal raison de etre. More lawsuits, which keeps the Senator Edwards crowd in the pink. But, more insidious - the dilution of the institution of family.
What is "marriage"? Marriage is an obligation - it is a sacrifice and a commitment. The rewards are marriage are intangible and sublime. The purpose of marriage is to have and raise children - to provide for them, to be part of the workforce (by definition to give more to the economy than to take), to give children a healthy safe and sane environment where moral values and character can be passed on.
But what is "gay marriage"? Gay marriage is not giving - it is taking. Access to medical insurance, social security benefits, nebulous "rights" that create a more nebulous society... and what is "returned"? Nothing. Well, the lefties will tell us "tolerance and diversity". Hogwash - just codewords for another welfare grab by the left.
I explained this to a liberal politician I know very well. I told him that as far as I could tell gay marriage was about picking the pockets of corporations for health care benefits, would be expensive for the government in terms of social security and other programs, and would just give another excuse for the idle class to generate a lawsuit for no other reason than being chronically unemployable.
As I watched him smile and pump his head up and down - I realized that he thought those were the best reasons in the world for instituting it.
176
posted on
11/30/2005 3:00:53 PM PST
by
Fido969
("And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).)
To: HitmanNY
You're right; it marriage sounds too much like prison, then it may interest them more. Ever see Arrested Development?
177
posted on
11/30/2005 3:01:31 PM PST
by
two134711
(I have libertarian leanings, but my conservatism keeps those in check.)
To: Hildy
Marriage is a word that has been understood by millions of people for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. Attempting to call something that is not marriage marriage is an insult to the intelligence of all of us.
Calling some sort of ceremony between two homosexuals a marriage is no more accurate than calling an adoption a marriage, or an employment contract, or any other agreement between two people.
Furthermore, if you want to use the argument that it feels "normal" to you, then what do you say to those that think it's normal to do it with multiple partners, children, animals, dead people or whatever other kooky thing they come up with?
178
posted on
11/30/2005 3:02:37 PM PST
by
IndyInVa
(There either needs to be less corruption, or more opportunity for me to participate in it.)
To: Alter Kaker
My baby is off to college in the Fall. I think marriages should automatically dissolve when the children leave the nest. (at least that's how I feel today...grumble, grumble)
Of course there would be the renewal option if one was so inclined.
179
posted on
11/30/2005 3:03:28 PM PST
by
colorcountry
(That's what happens when you fall for a pistol. (No, no, I don't mean no gun.))
To: Hildy
If they are so proud of being a homosexual and dead set on wedding another homosexual, why the h*ll do they insist on defining their twisted sexual cravings as gay???
180
posted on
11/30/2005 3:03:55 PM PST
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Okay, bring our troops home. But don't feign suprise when the terrorists tag along.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200 ... 301-305 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson