Gay marriage proponents are looking for "special" rights which is unAmerican.
A family headed by one woman and one man is usually agreed to be the best unit for raising well-adjusted children, one of the primary interests of the People. Therefore, it is appropriate for the State to encourage marriage. Childbearing and rearing aren't the only reasons that individuals marry, but heterosexual marriage is a package deal. The State interest is in propagating the People, and the People demand that all individuals have the right to heterosexual marriage.
Homosexual marriage is another matter. It does not generally produce children or rear them in a beneficial environment. Therefore, the State has no interest in promoting or officially recognizing homosexual relationships. The People, whenever the State deigns to ask, reject homosexual marriage -- they don't want what they consider an ancient tradition, a constitutional element of their civilization, altered by a minority that cannot explain to their satisfaction why this alteration should be made.
(I'm not arguing that gays shouldn't raise children, or that they should; only that the best method is the nuclear family, providing the integral diversity of a mother and a father. It's the responsibility of the State to encourage that best method through official recognition of the tradition of marriage.)
As a matter of civil order, marriage exists for two reasons: to identify who belongs to whom; and to create and then provide the material and psychological needs of offspring. As a matter of civil order, marriage has nothing at all to do with romance and love, even though, of course, both are helpful to reach those goals. And marriage between people of opposite genders provides for the full experience of psychological growth and patterning. There is lots more I can say, but that should serve as a start.
What civilization ever benefitted from "gay marriage"?
If they bring up "ancient Greece," make sure to point out: households run by two male lovers included female slaves kept for breeding purposes.
If all gay activity ceased tomorrow, the human race would continue to survive.
If all heterosexual activity ceased tomorrow, the human race would be extinct in decades.
I like to say: "If you're gay, thank a heterosexual." The opposite cannot be said.
It makes sense that society would construct special consideration of marriage between man and a woman as a source of procreation, child-rearing and family stability.
Notwithstanding the value of marriage is so denigrated now that the number or one-parent children has increased exponentially in 40 years.
Nobody is saying that gay people can't live together, contract their assets and arrangements together, or whatever.
But it is clear that society benefits from having special institutions to encourage mothers and fathers to live together and raise their children.
What the mainstream media WON'T write about is the appauling toll on health and longevity that homomsexual behavior creates.
If they applied the same standards to homosexuality as they do to smoking it would have been banned years ago just on health grounds.
Homosexuals are judged to lose, on average, around 20 years off their life span.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html gives a good summation.
Part of the thing is that, whether we like it or not, marraige is about PROPERTY, not love. Love is assumed, but it is not a mandatory part of the deal. Marraige is a legal issue dealing with property and family, and specifically, the legal transfer of property from one family and generation to the next. Ie: if Miss Smith marries Mr. Jones, their child will be the legal heir to the lands and property of both Smith and Jones.
The one thing two women, let alone two men, can't do that a man and a woman can, is have a child. (Let's not focus on the exceptions right this minute.) The old taunt, God did not creat Adam & Steve, has a valid point: an Adam and a Steve simply could not have a child, a valid heir, without a third party being involved. It's including that third party that boloxes everything up legally, how on earth would this third wheel fit in, what rights would they have, what do you call the odd man or woman paired with the "married" couple?
Just my two cents.
I sometimes have trouble debating with liberals on this subject as well.
As others have said before, I think that the gay marriage supporters should be required to make the case for gay marriage. We shouldn't have to defend an institution that has been between one man and one woman for thousands of years. But since there is now a movement for gay marriage, we must try, I suppose.
I think that with gay marriage come various other insidious things. Once the government announces a lenient position on gay marriage, they become lenient on other issues most Americans find morally reprehensible. These include polygamy and marrying animals. It's just like with abortion: legalizing abortion has allowed euthanasia, assisted suicide, and sometimes infanticide. Once you let them get their foot in the door, they're able to get their whole body in. They take their new "rights" to the extreme.
Liberals tend to have the upper hand in the argument over gay marriage because their persuasions produce emotions in those who are wavering on the issue. Some of their arguments: "Why can't people of a different sexual orientation than yourself reap the same benefits of marriage that you do?" 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."
Also - and I'm not exactly positive about this - Catholic/Christian priests will be required to marry gays. This obviously goes against their beliefs, the Bible deplores homosexuality. You can't ask them to do that.
I'm also not sure whether I'm for or against civil unions. I think I'm against them because you know at some point they're going to want the real deal (marriage).
I hope this helps you. ;-)
Homosexuals demand equal rights and claim minority status - but all other minorities are BORN the way they are. Homosexuals simply have a sexual perversion and are sexual addicts in a way because they turn their lives upside down with the decision to act out their perverted thoughts.
By granting them the right to marry we are in effect giving them a stamp of approval for living out their perverted behavior. Should a pedophile be allowed to marry a 5 year old? Should a zoosexual be allowed to marry a dog?
Then you get into other factors of gay marriage for example a guy marrying his brother or his father just to be able to add him to his health insurance.
This is a free country and homosexuals can act out their perversions behind closed doors, but marriage brings them out from behind those doors and parades said perversion in our faces and in front of our children.
Since they started coming out of the closet they have increased their numbers tenfold - and it is so sad to see so many people sucked into such behavior. The purpose of them trying to normalize their behavior is really an attempt to gain more recruits.
Read up about the ex-gay movement to hear some really heartbreaking stories about what the homosexual lifestyle can do to people. Homosexuality is really just a mental disorder in my book.
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.
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?"
Marriage is about children, gays can have no children..
You know like democrats and republicans that can have children BUT abort them..
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."
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.....