What is wrong with gay marriage? (survey)

And all God's people shout...AMEN!

It is simple to answer, although you will still be categorized with this new answer.... You ready? (caution, adult subject matter, turn kids away)

Naturally, Male and Female animals have sex to reproduce. The female of some species have genitalia to produce orgasm thus making it desirable to potentially reproduce. There is no purpose what so ever for humans to engage in same sex intercourse from the stance of natural behavior. So, it is abnormal. I choose to stay normal and reproduce. Marriage is a societal agreement for the establishment of family. Since the homos don't reproduce to create a family, then we should brain storm and come up with a title that more suitably fits them because same sex adoption in my opinion is fraud understanding the laws of nature...

I happen to have a few here with me I'll throw in as a freebee...

Fur Traders;

Pillow Biters;

Carpet Munchers;

Sphincter Boys;

How's that?

I think the important thing is your stance on the issue. Personally, being a catholic I believe those acts are intrinsically evil (and disgusting).

Stand for your beliefs, on a college campus your probably in the minority and it's fashionable to revel in the 'New Paganism.' (to quote Belloc)

Stand up for the City of God. The hedonists will most likely be entrenched in the City of Satan.

Our Government did not invent Marriage. Marriage at the time of the founding was between one man and one woman. It was defined by Western Civilization and Christian thought. The Constitution has nothing to do with marriage. The governmet involvement in marriage ie licence, family law, divorce law, tax breaks etc. do not change fundamentally what marriage is and was as the government do not define marriage. Now the ACLU and liberal lawyers and Judges have decided that since the government does recognize marriage and does bestow benefits and legal protection (which could all be stopped legally tomorrow and Marriage would still be what it was before these governmental intrusions) that they can twist the law to demand that they can change what marriage is and ought to be under color or their twisted law ie. Equal Protection. It is twisted law and will always be twisted law. No Judge or Law on this Earth can really change the defination of Marriage as tradionally understood.

Elementary mammalian biology... penis + vagina = baby

The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire...

Yes, God has the final say in this matter and all matters.

Glad He gave us a copy of His sayings (the Bible, of course).

Until the era of political correctness, homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disorder. A characteristic of the homosexual is a tendency toward paranoia. Thus today, they are constantly pursuing acceptance from the public. Despite their claims they desire to seduce our children into their ways. Their sexual practices are so repugnant....beyond your imagination! And there is much more violence in the homosexual community. Homosexual relationships are seldom long lasting and are chararacterized by much strife and violence.

I know I am jumping in late, but some points you should consider:

1. Marriage is not a right, not for me, thee, or anyone. If you (or anyone) must depend on another to exercise a right, you have no right, but rather a privilege dependent on another party. Look at it like this, how can you have a right to marry if no one wanted to marry you? How could you (or anyone) exercise that right?

2. So understanding this, what the hell is marriage? Well there are two types of marriages and this is where all the confusion lies. There is a religious marriage and a civil marriage. For the sake of expedience and so a couple need not visit a church and a justice of the peace, the state allows certain (most but not all) religions to conduct a civil marriage at the same time they conduct a religious marriage (by the power vested in me by the state of XXXXXXX and almighty God, I do pronounce you man and wife).

The religious marriage is simple a matter between the couple and the god (or in case of the true one - God) they believe in. The state, provided the marriage doesn't violate any civil law, should not get involved in a religious marriage.

However, the civil marriage is actually a contract between the state, the man and the woman. All three parties enter into this contract freely and because they believe they will get something out of the contract.

The state gets another couple that will likely produce children and create the best environment to raise children. Even if the couple is childless, the act of them marrying will encourage others (social acceptance) to marriage. And strangely enough, when a couple spends a lot of time together, including sleeping in the same bed and living in the same house, child often appear. (Now the child is not the only thing the state desires from a marriage but also the most stable setting to raise those children, hence unmarried couples don't benefit the state like a married couple.)

In exchange for the children/encouraging others to have kids, the state provides benefits to the man and woman; inheritance rights, name changes, kinship rights, tax breaks, etc, etc.

3. Since the homosexual couple can not provide the same benefit of children or encouraging others to engage in relationships that tend to lead to children, the state has no interest in entering a contract with them.

4. The burden is on the homosexual couple to show a compelling reason why the state should enter a contract with them. Love is not the states interest; social acceptance is not the states interest. Perpetuating itself and fodder for its industry, economy, and armies is. Since the homosexual couple can not provide these things, the state has no reason to bestow inheritance rights, kinship rights, name changes, or tax breaks to them.

Hell, homosexuals can obtain inheritance rights, change their names, and for the most part obtain kin rights by entering a contract amongst themselves. So the only thing they are denied is tax breaks and social acceptance. The tax breaks are meant to encourage a specific behavior, one that the state desires because it derives a benefit from. Since the homosexual can not provide the same benefit as a marriage heterosexual couple, why should or would the state encourage their behavior.

There is no compelling reason for the state to entered a marriage contract with a homosexual couple.

Forgive any spelling errors. It is late.

See my post 109. Although you and your wife are childless, your act of getting married encourages other to marry, who will, more likely than not, have kids.

I would agree that drive through marriage chapels and the rapid ease one can get divorced and the screwing over men get in a divorce settlement do indeed damage marriage and these things should be address and corrected, but allowing homosexuals to marry will not address these issues. Instead, it would simply damage the institution of marriage more. When marriage is treated with comtempt it is damaged and it has been severly damaged in the last 30 years. Why damage it more?

Any straight man or woman that feels like they are being sucked into the whole gay marriage debate are so only because they willingly let it.

Were you sucked into this thread? Seriously, just because you cannot see the potential damage to our culture and society that destroying the most basic framework of civiliation will have, doesn't mean others don't.

The answer I would give them is that it is a contradiction of concepts. A concept is arrived at from concrete referents i.e. reality. When adult males and females started to have formal and legal unions for a relationship with a sexual component which usually resulted in children and families, that act was described by the concept word "marriage". It's like trying to say "why can't an apple be an orange".
Also, For hundreds of years our culture has founded marriage primarily in our religion. Long before governments got involved (which I do not believe they should be) the union was seen as having a religious basis. And that religion denies the possibility of homosexual marriage since it considers homosexuality to be a sin.
Finally, as others have pointed out, once you deviate from this strict definition, the word loses it's meaning, and any relationship (s) can undergo a "civil" ceremony, that's legally recognised and call it marriage.
It's yet another attempt to destroy the basis of our society, and should be resisted at points.

same depth as the argument I answered to....

Its just an open door for a well thought out agenda.

Because of this new culture, children at a young age are wondering if they are Homosexual. Girls 11 and 12 who hold hands, now wonder, little boys who love their best friend are wondering am I homosexual. This is a very normal course at this age and shouldn't be confused. Yet, we are allowing children to be defiled. It's sick.

Homosexuality is wrong. To redefine Marriage is wrong.

Marriage is defined.

Why don't we just throw out the definition of Child that way there is no reprocutions if a child is molested? Get the picture.

You have been duped by the culture to accept all. Not all is acceptable.

YOUR MIND IS BEING ANESTHETISED BY THE CULTURE OF DUH!

THINK FOR YOURSELF. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE.

BY THE WAY THERE ARE CERTAINTIES IN THIS WORLD.

PS:
Can we stop calling it GAY, the word to describe this type of person is a HOMOSEXUAL.

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.

Curiosity....

By whose definition?? And you can't site God or religious justification because that is based on belief, not fact.

And if the "definition" is a civil one, then it can certainly be changed, can it not?

"Look at the first 'legal' gay married couple in MA. They're already divorced and so are the first lesbian couple. Whether lesbians are monogamous, I don't know. Of all the gay men I've known, they all cheat."

Of course, it's harder for them to be monogomous. Even if they aren't cruising for sexual encounters, they just have way more opportunity. I'm a woman married to a man. (duh). All of my girlfriends are - well - girls. They aren't all possible sexual partners.

I know a very nice lesbian couple who have been together for several years, but they are highly possessive of one another and only hang out with each other's families. They don't trust the other to have goof female friendshps - not other lesbians, anyway!

Okay you got me going...

Think about it. Okay we all accept Homosexual partners.

Who will have the children? Should we have a straight farm and order from the catalog? How would the world procreate?

Geesh. I can't believe you have to explain this to a Professor. Homosexuality is not natural.

My God, is this what you paid for to argue about a Homosexual lifestyle?

State a fact and ask them to argue the FACT that without the Male/Female relationship there is no created being. Ask them is this true? Then state, we could put a Male with a dog...abnormal? Why? Woman with a horse...abnormal?Why? Male to Uncle? why not?

Ask them why? Why wouldnt these relationships be acceptable?
Then tell them, the way they think about these alternative relationships is similar to the way you think about Homosexuality....How could you change their mind about the afore mentioned relationships? How could you get them to accept it? So it is the with you. Because some day we will see the relationships they disagree with and they too will have to defend why not.

every heterosexual male i've ever met cheats, too.

I would actually like to re-phrase my last posting to "a lot of heterosexual males" that I've met cheat on their spouses as well"

Doesn't place men in general in a very good light, does it?