How do you decide who gets to wear the wedding dress?
The reality is this. No one, male or female can consummate a homosexual "marriage." The very idea is preposterous. (And, in most societies, an inability to consummate a normal marriage, has been grounds for annulment--for declaring the marriage void.)
Homosexual marriage is as absurd a concept as marriage to a tree; marriage to a rock. To even use the term is to display a fundamental misunderstanding of what marriage means. A Court may delcare Black, "White" or "Green" or "Blue," but it can never change the actual appearance or characteristics, simply by changing the name.
William Flax
tell them to look at the tools that have been provided or have evolved...
There are reasons why men are equipped the way they are as with women.
First make clear that marriage is for creating stable and healthy relationships for heterosexuals and families. Ask him why we would want to change something that works for heterosexuals to accomodate that which is childless, unstable and disease ridden. Marriage, and all the rules governing sexual behavior and duty is for heterosexuals and the children they produce - gays can make up there own thing. The rules are developed around the way men and women expect and need one another to act sexually and morally. Often heterosexuals fail to live up to the rules and duties of marriage; but the ideals of heterosexual marraige should not change to fit the failures and don't change to fit those who have nothing to do with heterosexual relationships. Gays don't have to destroy what heterosexual have in order to name themselves wonderful.
HIldy, there's a masculine and feminine/male and female everything. Even in the languages of the earth, there are masculine and feminine definitions. The combining of these two entities makes the whole.
If nothing else works, tell him this: you get no electricity from two plugs or two sockets. Sorry to be crass, but, there it is.
Hillary Clinton
People have different moral views on homosexuality, and the government should be neutral and not impose liberal views on everybody by promoting homosexual activity through giving it an official government stamp of approval. Heterosexual marriage is different, since there is a strong government interest in promoting stable committed marital relationships between mothers and fathers for sake of providing children with a stable family environment.
The fact that it's an oxymoron, to begin with? The definition of "marriage" requires two people of opposite genders. The point of marriage is to create an environment conducive to the bearing and raising of children, something no "gay" relationship - no matter what they want to call it - can do.
It's simple. Marriage is a religious institution. None of the major religions (and I'm deliberately excluding moonbat religions that are nothing more than twisted social clubs) that sanction marriage accept homosexuality. So what's the point of getting married? Kinda like an atheist praying if you ask me.
Janet Reno
because gays can't procreate, thus the end of humankind
Usually that argument slams the Lefties into a bloody smear.
Regards, Ivan
How do you decide who gets to wear the wedding dress?
The only legitimate justification for state involvement in marriage is that the institution is better than any other at producing children and raising them in a stable relationship. This is true despite abysmal divorce statistics.
Gay couples - despite lots of anecdotes - are not even close to marriage in terms of stability. Production of children is essential for continuation of a state, much less a stable society. Just look at the predictions of doom surrounding social security - it's going down the toilet because of a lack of children to support their retired elders. Europe is currently experiencing a demographic collapse because it did not value stable child-producing and rearing institutions.
Every argument for gay marriage focuses upon the claim that the state shouldn't discriminate by denying marriage to two people who "love" and "care" about each other. While I feel very comfortable with a government saying "we need children to continue our society so we will subsidize and support the institution with a proven 6000 year track record at doing so," I have a serious problem with government granting benefits just because two people claim to love or care for each other. That's the role of the church or individual conscience.
Government benefits sanctioned on feelings, rather than legitimate needs of the state, are absurd.
Democrats are for this. Did you know that?
"Marriage" is a religious institution, and so government should have no hand in it, pro or con. These religions are perfectly entitled, and are protected under the Constitution, from being coerced by the state into performing a religious act - marriage - for those whose very concept of self revolves around behavior that is explicitly condemned as abomination by those same religions.
Of course, there are churches, or at least they call themselves that, who will marry gay and lesbian couples right now. So, it's not really about marriage, per se. And, it's not about religious freedom, because clearly there are religious settings that accept gays and lesbians, and have been for quite some time. It's really about force ... forcing acceptance of homosexual behavior upon those whose religion forbids it. Hate crime law will come into play, eventually, with the spectre of arrest, fines or even imprisonment for refusal to perform a religious ceremony for those whose own behavior explicitly indicates rejection of that religion.
Make any sense? It's anti-freedom of religion, anti-freedom of conscience and anti-freedom of association. It's all about forcing acceptance, ultimately at the business end of a gun.
This would be the conservative libertarian stance on the matter, I suppose.
I know they hate this kind of stuff but sperm does not get sperm pregnant. I know sex is supposed to be pleasurable but the bottom line is sex was meant for reproduction of the species not the feces.
2. It is contrary to the natural family. No one has ever been begot by two men or two women. Political support for that reality directly benefits every child. Even gay children (I disagree with that term) have only one real father and one real mother.
3. By redefining marriage in this way, you inadvertently redefine other relationships and add awkwardness to them. Friendship changes. Father/son, mother/daughter changes. Small things like public restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms change in that you end up sharing these more intimate spaces with persons sexually attacked to you. Why have male/female divisions at all, anywhere? (This effect takes place to a certain degree with any acceptance of homosexuality, but it is greatly increased when marriage gives it official status.)
4. Costs. Can we afford to lavish more gov't goodies to a new group for no reason other than they like to have sex together?
5. When imposed by the courts, it denies to others their right of dissent. This builds resentment in the people and takes away the government's moral authority. When that happens, who are you going to get to fight your wars or stand up for the values of the coutry as a whole? Who wants to risk their life for a coutry they do not believe in? Granted there will always be those whose disapproval of gov't will cause this reaction, but you avoid a mass disconnect by not robbing the people of their right to consent.
Two words: Gay Divorce