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.
Words have meanings. I can say that a pig can fly all I want, but the word "fly" has a specific meaning and pigs simply can't do it.
Similar to your point, the word marriage has a long-used and specifically defined meaning, and, like pigs can't fly, two people of the same sex, by definition, can't be "married".
There's no mainstream religion that recognizes marriage as anything else but between a single man and a single woman. Religiously, gay marriage proponents haven't a leg to stand upon.
So...logically, proponents of gay marriage must look at marriage as a legal contract - which, technically it is. If that's the case, then there are no rights that marriage legally bestows upon you, that can't be obtained through other means (Powers of attorney, wills, etc). So long as both parties are of age, and of sound mind, any two people can set up exactly the same rights, legally, that any husband and wife have through marriage.
My point? I guess that gay marriage has no point. It's not a part of any organized religion, and the same ends can be obtained through other legal means. So, it can't be anything other than a way to force common acceptance of a gay social agenda.
"However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful."
Nothing wring with talking rabbits, unbirthday parties, leprechauns, and a search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, if that's "your thing." However, when one sets social policy to comport with fantasy, while, at the same time, rejecting thousands of years of the tradition upon which successful societies have based themselves - all due to various fancies about "modernity" - the result is a society headed for self-destruction.
At all events, don't concern yourself overmuch about persuading liberal peers and professors; they're not interested in rational argument, but simply in stroking their own delusions and they won't listen.
Hey Mr. Student. Try this:
Gay people ALREADY ARE free to marry, as long as they can find a minister or proper official to conduct the ceremony.
The problem arises when gay homo's demand that the government and the straight majority APPROVE OF and sanctify their homo lifestyle by bestowing on them the exact same tax laws, inheritance, estate, visitation, rights that man-woman marriages have enjoyed for thousands of years.
A same sex couple is free to create documents that in effect give them such monetary benefits, but for them to demand that everyone accept their smarminess is simply a bridge too far.
Besides, in survey after survey, poll after poll, the majority of American society clearly stated they do NOT accept same-sex marriage as being equal to man-woman marriage.
There's something smarmy about two men swapping spit and saying "I do". It's something most families would rather not show their kids.
So what about sterile people?
If they are a man and a woman--who are not close blood relations--they can marry. All men and women--who are not blood relations--may.
And we are indeed talking about individuals.
No, we are not. We are talking about the institution of marriage which is about a lot of things--not the least of which is procreation. No other union besides a man and a woman can procreate. The state shouldn't care about your individual ability or willingness to conceive... that is between the two of you and God--freedom of conscience and all that. Biologically, though, marriage and procreation are not possible between any other coupling. The state, therefore, has an interest in this institution as it is currently understood.
I gotta admit, this one's a barn burner!
I'm sorry, it did not print. Here it is again.
What is wrong with homosexual marriage? Marriage is a 5,000 year old religious ceremony as prescribed by the Old Testament. (Torah) Both the Old and New Testaments forbid homosexuality. Radical gay activists are not seeking marriage so much as they are seeking validation for their "lifestyle". Gay activists have failed to succeed using the democratic process so they have turned to activist judges to legislate from the bench. This will be the very undoing of our constitution. Ultimately it is a church vs. state issue. The gays cannot find self acceptance and HATE anyone who refuses to accept their twisted behavior. Their goal is this: "Since we fail every time in the democratic process, we will use civil rights laws and godless activist judges to affirm our "so called" human right to marriage." If they succeed they will be able to FORCE any clergy of conscience who refused to perform the gruesome ceremony in his or her church to do so or lose their tax exempt status due to perceived discrimination. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH IS THEIR NUMBER ONE GOAL. Marriage is a canard. They want to destroy the lone dissenter by any means necessary. The proof of this is that wherever so called, "civil unions" are legal, less than ONE PERCENT of the gay populace there take advantage of it. The gays know as well as nature knows, same sex persons do not get married. They are hateful and dangerous. The legacy of Sodom continues to destroy the family and the faithful.
You nailed it. Did you read above #43. This is what is coming here if its not stopped.
actually, that is more revisionist than fact. The anicient Athenians would stone to death sodomites caught with children.
Much of the notion of ancients accepted it is been the product of homoactivists who have tried to support their position of "normalcy". In fact the homo-activists never say that Alexander the Great's wife and son are burried in Pella Greece, in the province of Macedonia.
Nor do they mention that many of the scholars who want to normalize homosexuality have conveniently confused the greek word for "mentor" with the word for "lover". The ancient greeks had multiple words for the degrees of love from the uncondidtional to the mere physical.
You can't use ancient societies, even the romans, because their views of homosexuality were different from modern. For example the ancients thought of it as a LEARNED behavior not a born behavior. In fact much of the world still thinks of homosexuality as a mere behavior and they laugh at the western notion of "born that way"
I think our vanity poster would do well to focus on that fact. Homosexuals are seeking marriage ratification based on a sexual behavior alone. The "test" for marriage will become "pop an orgasm". Many behaviors are outlawed. Homosexuality and marriage is no different than brother sister marraige, dog human marriage, human machine marriage.
More practical arguments that liberals will be harder pressed to refute: Our laws on taxes, insurance, inheritance, immigration, even criminal (testifying against a spouse not allowed) etc ALL give advantages to married heterosexual couples because society prizes children as they are any society's future.
Of course there are abuses but those are tolerable in light of the broader benefits to society.
Can you imagine the nightmare and the costs (legal and illegal) of extending all those benefits to gays first, and later to polygamists?
I want my 4 wives on my insurance? I'll later marry my neighbor to add him on my insurance cuz he's a nice uninsured guy?
Trying to get a criminal to testify against his accomplice? He can marry the accomplice for a while.
Are you now a citizen? You can marry 5 foreign guys (one after the other, or at the same time when marriage is extended to more than 2) and bring them over legally, then divorce them and start over...
If liberals want to give gays visitation rights (they already have) we can have legal guaranties for that, without gay marriage. We don't need to destroy civilization and our institutions for that.
I guess I should have said officially recognize. And I don't think it's the government's business to poke into peoples bedrooms.
Gay marriage is not a private matter it would have a huge negative impact on us all.
Whats wrong with gay marriage? Nothing.
...and I vote republican in every election, which is pretty difficult to do in inner city New Orleans.
What does it matter to me if the two gay guys that own a house across the street from me are legally married or not? It doesn't.
I suppose it matters to them that the person they committed their life to is recognized as such as far as insurance, wills, estates, property rights etc.
I'd also like to point out that there are some gay couples that are more monogomously committed to each other than some married ones I know.
I guess some people think that the concept of gay marriage desecrates the institution. I'd argue that drive through marriage chapels and the rapid ease one can get divorced and the screwing over men get in a divorce settlement all do a far more damaging job than a couple homos ever could. Not to mention that cohabitation and premarital sex being so widely accepted makes marriage pointless. No, its the homos that will bring immorality to the sacrement.
Some will argue that the only reason to get married is to procreate and have children. Do any of these people argue that a straight person who cannot have children should be denied the ability to get married. My wife of 15yrs and I made the decision to not have children, I'd like to see someone tell her that they have a problem with us being married....
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. If you're straight and you don't let it bother you, guess what, it doesn't in any way shape or form.
In completely non-secular legalese terms, gay marriage throws a wrench into the system of parental rights and all that jazz.
Let's say there are a husband and a wife and a child. The husband and wife gets divorced. The husband gets to see the child on weekends and alternate thursdays, and for a few weeks in the summer. Then, the wife (who is raising the child most of the time) decides men are no longer for her and finds another wife (who is able to legally adopt the child, as a step-father would). Then, those 2 subsequently get divorced and wife #1 finds someone else (who cares which gender it is at this point) and wife #2 finds someone else.
Who gets to see the child on weekends? How many parents does this kid have?? And they will all want a piece of the kid, not to mention I haven't even touched on the subject of alimony. The only people who truly stand to benefit are the lawyers and the only people who truly stand to lose are the children.
Also - whether or not you believe in Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mel Gibson, or Logic H. Reason as your God, and no matter how we were created, it is a fact that genetically a child is created by one mother and one father. There has to be a reason for this.
I could honestly care less whom anyone decides to have sex with. There are 2 kinds of sex. Sex for the right reasons (involving both pleasure and responsibility), and sex for purely pleasure. The first category involves a married man and woman. The second category involves a wide array of categories, such as:
* two dudes
* two chicks
* people who aren't married
* any combination of X dudes and X+1 chicks (or X+1 dudes and X chicks) where X is greater than or equal to one
* a human being and something else that isn't human
* a lonely dude and a vacuum cleaner
* a President and an intern in an office in the West Wing
* a man and a woman who get an abortion afterward
* and (as far as what I believe, being Catholic) where birth control is utilized (although that one is up to some debate from all of the non-Catholics)
Whether you are religious or not, the natural order of things is that a child has a mother and a father. Gay marriage tosses a wrench into the mix, and only messes things up. As someone else has said, feel free to examine countries in Europe where this has been allowed.
Amen and thank you for a great lesson in this day and age
when some believe anything goes. It's not normal and your comparisn to the forbidden brother/ssister marriage is an excellent example. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and to form the protective relationship to procreat and raise the children created in a proper atmosphere to develope into strong adults. Maybe he should point out to these nitwits that all types of animals bond for life to the Opposite sex wether its penquins or ducks or us. Homosexuality is not normal and does not deserve the protection of Marriage.
My point was whether you get anyone to agree with you or not, the truth is still the truth.
The Bible is the solid foundation we have for marriage being between a man and a woman.
And just as Jesus was persecuted for speaking it, real Christians will be also. We stand on His word, whether anyone will agree or not.
The good part is if we share His sufferings, we will also share His glory.
And all God's people shouted...AMEN!
STUNNINGLY ACCURATE!
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.