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.
It's really bad for your butt.
Rosie O'Donnell?
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.
LMAO...
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.
>>>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.
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?
Gay marriage? No such thing.
Pssst. The idea is we want to make marriage sound like a nice, worthwhile thing! PR and all! :-)
Oooo, sparkley!
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.
The Gay divorce rate.
*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.
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.
You're right; it marriage sounds too much like prison, then it may interest them more. Ever see Arrested Development?
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?
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.
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???
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.