and "Half of the marriages in America end in divorce. What's letting gays marry going to do?" and
"Do two gays down the street getting married affect how you live? No."
Posted on 11/15/2006 10:57:01 AM PST by Seven Minute Maniac
I am a student. I personally do not support homosexuality, and I find the idea of gay marriage repulsive. However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful. Most liberal professors and students at my college do not view homosexuality as abnormal, and treat me like I am nuts when I suggest that marriage should not be altered to include gays and lesbians. Please help to supply me with some ammunition by posting below.
The sex act has an obvious biological purpose. Homosexual acts are obvious perversions of the sex act, in which two people try to imitate an act for which they don't have the correct plumbing. Same sex attractions are obvious dysfunctions.
Why should society try to "normalize" what is obviously abnormal?
Is it so that no one will have to feel bad? Should everyone be able to act out on every abnormal sexual impulse without any stigma? Is that the purpose? If so, how do you draw any lines at all? Why should pedophilia or bestiality be taboo?
"Normalization" will inevitably increase the amount of homosexual activity, which is a biological dead end.
In addition, since homsexuals use body parts for purposes for which they were never intended, they have terrible health risks. Even before AIDS, homosexual lifespans were shorter because of fecal matter being forced into the blood stream through tiny tears in the wall of the anal cavity.
I could not have been more WRONG!
No sooner had Lawrence been decided that every degenerate, disgusting, scum of the earth and worse crawled out of their holes and proclaimed that they were now entitled to do all manner of perversion. Leading the league was NAMBLA who felt the way was now open for them to do what they should be strung up for just thinking about.
Well let me tell you, I learned my lesson. The same crowd behind Lawrence is behind gay marriage, and it ain't gonna happen again. No way we should give these people an inch. They're sickening.
Leave marriage as it is. These people don't want to get married, they want to tear down the rest of society. They showed who they really are in the aftermath of the Lawrence case. That's more enough for me. Should be for anyone.
You are not crazy. There is already a provision in the International Criminal Court statute which is designed, in part for this very purpose. It is a vaguely defined "crime" called "persecution," which consists of denying any fundamental human right to any group or collectivity, or words to that effect.
Since "marriage" has already been defined as a fundamental human right, this statute will inevitably be used to imprison some priest or pastor who refuses to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple.
9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
(I Corinthians 6:9,10; New Revised Standard)
What's wrong with fish hot air ballooning?
Get a copy of the manifesto "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage" which was recently signed and released by 300 liberals, not all homosexuals, who basically say that the real goal is not strictly homosexual marriage, but an end to marriage as it has been for centuries. They want various kinds of groupings to be called marriage, and there has been a lot of subterfuge connected with keeping the real goals hidden from view. I think it was a big mistake to come out with this and I'm sure if the MSM paid any attention to it they would say these people didn't really mean what the manifesto said. The manifesto makes clear, though, that the bottom line is to destroy marriage. Unfortunately, your professors and peers would probably say, "Well, what wrong with that?"
That's not the point. Your union allows the possibility of new life. No other type of union does. We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about institutions.
Marriage is about children, gays can have no children..
You know like democrats and republicans that can have children BUT abort them..
Thank you. I have always figured that it wasn't about two gay guys who just want to settle down in bliss. They have been doing that for years. I figured it was a leftist strategy to bring down the church in America and make it almost impossible for them to carry on in their faith with the extra added benefit of no longer being tax exempt added in as a bonus.
One of the long-term legal problems with the same-sex marriage decrees handed down by activist judges in our courts is that you cannot separate their logic by which they demand that the government does not have an interest in preventing same-sex marriages from the same logic that can be applied to plural marriages (multiple "partners" of both sexes), polygamous marriages (like one man with many wives) or even incestuous marriages between "consenting adults".
While they deny that is their intention, when such cases come before them (as they will) they will be hypocritically arguing against their own legal reasoning by which they demanded the approval of same-sex marriages. Because of that very evident hypocrisy, such judges, if they attempt to stop polygamy in the same courts, will likely have their ruling revoked on appeal, because the courts will go back to those same judges' rulings on same-sex marriages as legal precedent, as grounds for ANY marriage that anyone wants to declare themselves part of.
Another way of looking at it, that your profs might begin to grasp: "Just as you don't want to see a pristine, natural vista cluttered up with unnatural condos and fast-food retaurants, so do I not want to see marriage clutttered up with unnatural fabrications."
you violate His laws at your peril.
none for me, thanks.
VERY well put. If you don't mind, I think I have found a new tagline...
http://www.princetonprinciples.org/
I've been looking for something like this for 5 years. Thanks! You can't use religious arguments with non-religious people or in the context of drafting laws in today's ACLU-fearing world. This seems like good sound reasoning with studies to back it up.
Thanks again.
It's hard for them to point fingers when they are probably are themselves or go for anything that breathes. You're trying to fight a losing battle.
No need to argue why you think it's immoral. It is, and that's a fact. Male and females need to mate for the species to survive. And you can tell them that your anus is a one way street to remove waste from the body and that's the only thing it was intended for.....
"You'll never convince them.Don't even bother trying."
That's wise, because you can't convince someone who is trying to convince you.
You say that, but it is pretty scary to think about what my indoctrinated peers are going to turn out like in 15 years. The vast majority of their ears have never heard a conservative voice, and I feel that I have a societal duty to my peers to keep the professors liberalism in check.
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.