The Gay Mirage

[Special Ed]

How 'bout hhis argument:

Any nation's survival is directly dependent upon how they value the most basic & fundamental building block of any successful society anywhere: the traditional marriage of a man & a woman. When nations/societies begin devaluing the marital institution to the point of allowing marriages between any two entities be it man/man, man/boy, man/animal, woman/woman, woman/animal, etc, etc, then that society is on track for failure. The only successful societal building block will always be that of a man married to a woman, & that union producing children.

And, no, adoption is not procreation....

[RoBoTeq]

I was anti gay marriage until I met my wife...we would debate about it for hours and it usually ended up in her upset at me for the rest of the night. So after two years of this i realized I was fighting for really no reason, it's a stupid argument based off of old world beliefs, and we all know how a lot of the old timers believe....hate anything that aint white or that you can't understand.

I thought that's why we had Woodstock? To change that old way of believing.

America...land of the free...as long as your not of a different color...gay...a child...a criminal...on the clock at work...driving a car...I could go on forever with this list.

I think we have the word free confused with something else.

You obviously were not alive during the time that the Woodstock Festival took place. The reason for Woodstock was to have fun while getting down with a little bit of paganistic values....and the brown acid, man......

If you want to know what the homosexual agenda is and why I refuse to call a group of people who are so NOT GAY, gay, listen to Dan Savage;

Here's a person who claims to be a defender of homosexuals from bullies who is out there bullying everyone who does not agree with his homosexual rants.

[printer2]

I'm a live and let live kind of guy. So gays dont bother me any more than non gays do. Having said that, to me marriage is part of a bigger family commitment that usually involves having kids. Sure not all heterosexuals have kids but no gays have their own kids. Marriage is for a man and a woman in large part to start a family IMO. Let gays call themselves life partners or whatever else they want but I just dont see gays and marriage in the same sentence. Whether you believe in God or not, it just doesn't seem like the natural order of how life was intended to be. To me its common sense, marriage is one man and one woman, if that makes me old fashioned, or whatever, so be it.

Gays also want kids. I know a pair of women that had their own, never asked how they managed that. I would guess that more gays would adopt if they were allowed to and they could show some long term commitment such as being married rather than shacking up with on another.

[printer2]

How 'bout hhis argument:

Any nation's survival is directly dependent upon how they value the most basic & fundamental building block of any successful society anywhere: the traditional marriage of a man & a woman. When nations/societies begin devaluing the marital institution to the point of allowing marriages between any two entities be it man/man, man/boy, man/animal, woman/woman, woman/animal, etc, etc, then that society is on track for failure. The only successful societal building block will always be that of a man married to a woman, & that union producing children.

And, no, adoption is not procreation....

So no sense me getting married in my 50's when I will not be having children with anyone in the future? As the song said, what does love got to do with it?

Also, lot of kids out their brought forth out of wedlock. Why not get rid of the whole marriage institution as it is, no need for it to have children?

[RoBoTeq]

Gays also want kids. I know a pair of women that had their own, never asked how they managed that. I would guess that more gays would adopt if they were allowed to and they could show some long term commitment such as being married rather than shacking up with on another.

Wanting to raise children should not be a reason to legitimize homosexual marriage. Many children have been raised in not so normal family settings without there having to be a homosexual marriage involved.

Homosexuals refer to heterosexuals as breeders. Interesting. In order for homosexuals to have children to raise, they must rely on breeders to provide those children. Almost sounds like a theme of a horror movie where something that seems to be a good idea at the moment turns out to be really screwed up.

[Special Ed]

So no sense me getting married in my 50's when I will not be having children with anyone in the future? As the song said, what does love got to do with it?

Also, lot of kids out their brought forth out of wedlock. Why not get rid of the whole marriage institution as it is, no need for it to have children?

I'm sorry, I thought the point was about gay marriage in general, not the morality of it. My point is, in case you missed it, is that there is no possible way gay people can procreate/reproduce thereby repopulating society.

Sure, people have children out of wedlock but they didn't conceive any children by sleeping with someone of the same gender, &, sure, fifty-yr-olds get married but usually it's not their first marriage.

[printer2]

I'm sorry, I thought the point was about gay marriage in general, not the morality of it. My point is, in case you missed it, is that there is no possible way gay people can procreate/reproduce thereby repopulating society.

Sure, people have children out of wedlock but they didn't conceive any children by sleeping with someone of the same gender, &, sure, fifty-yr-olds get married but usually it's not their first marriage.

What does it matter if it is their first marriage? Why does it have to be tied to reproduction? In that case maybe we need proof of making a baby before we offer a marriage certificate. At work we have a guy that decided that he did not want children and got snipped before he married his wife (she was ok with that). Should they have been allowed to get married. Have another guy with no kids, still young enough to have them if he gets to it in a hurry.

Then our resident gay guy. After years of living the life he found himself a woman that he is shacked up with now. Should he be allowed to marry now with his now chosen life partner (it looks like) while if he decided to chose a guy instead we would say their love is not strong enough to pass the marriage test (doubt he is going to start a family now either)?

How does each of these people being married threaten others?

[behappy]

the gay marriage issue has been pushed to the forefront by homosexuals who really have no interest in a long term monogamous relationship. the effort is to get America to officially recognize homosexuality. Of Course

i'm not sure why the government ever felt the need to get heavily involved in marriage in the first place.


if it's recognized by Nancy Pelosi, who the hell cares?

homosexuals have no claim to call marriage a "right", neither does anyone else. Agreed


because there are rules that are defined by the public and the government.
there's nothing fair about these rules.

a homosexual may claim they don't have the tax advantage, . Only a small part of the equation

the only right homosexuals have on this subject, is the right to a co-habitat.

IMHO

Other than an agenda....
Historically, 3 things pushed this forward.

AIDS, insurance and lawyers....

[Special Ed]

What does it matter if it is their first marriage? Why does it have to be tied to reproduction? In that case maybe we need proof of making a baby before we offer a marriage certificate. At work we have a guy that decided that he did not want children and got snipped before he married his wife (she was ok with that). Should they have been allowed to get married. Have another guy with no kids, still young enough to have them if he gets to it in a hurry.

Then our resident gay guy. After years of living the life he found himself a woman that he is shacked up with now. Should he be allowed to marry now with his now chosen life partner (it looks like) while if he decided to chose a guy instead we would say their love is not strong enough to pass the marriage test (doubt he is going to start a family now either)?

How does each of these people being married threaten others?

You're reading too much into it. Let me simplify it for you....

IF everyone was gay & no one saw fit to have sex w/a female, how long do you think their society would last? Or how long would it last if there were only men or only women?

Gay people are an aberration, not the norm. I see no reason to let them enjoy the same privileges of marriage & child-rearing as normal men & women. And furthermore I think there should be no reason for them to complain about it, because they don't want to get married or raise children initially because love is overwhelming their hearts: they're doing it because they want society as a whole to see them as a normal part of life, which would be possible if they could raise children & get married.

So while the occurrence of homosexuality happens in society I don't think it should ever be seen as normal.

[Some Dude]

How is it unethical with them being able to get married? Maybe ethics is not the term you were really looking for. Who is comparing your marriage to another person's (actually it does sound like you are comparing their marriage to yours though)?


I take thee to love and care for, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer...


Don't see anything in the above that gays are incapable of.

Marriage was instituted by God , not man was my point.
Homosexuality is a disease that should be eradicated.
Years ago a few sick people spread this disease into our political system.

See, once they figured out that the Holy Bible condemned their disgusting way, it ( the Bible ) and the people who believe in the bible became their enemy.
Decades later our very constitution is being challenged by these very people, and those who either sympathize with them or condone their behavior , or have simply been brainwashed , since they control the educational system as well.
They hide their agenda very well, most of the time.

[AStudent]

Marriage was instituted by God , not man was my point.
Homosexuality is a disease that should be eradicated.
Years ago a few sick people spread this disease into our political system.

See, once they figured out that the Holy Bible condemned their disgusting way, it ( the Bible ) and the people who believe in the bible became their enemy.
Decades later our very constitution is being challenged by these very people, and those who either sympathize with them or condone their behavior , or have simply been brainwashed , since they control the educational system as well.
They hide their agenda very well, most of the time.

How would you "eradicate" this "disease"?

[AStudent]

You're reading too much into it. Let me simplify it for you....

IF everyone was gay & no one saw fit to have sex w/a female, how long do you think their society would last? Or how long would it last if there were only men or only women?

Gay people are an aberration, not the norm. I see no reason to let them enjoy the same privileges of marriage & child-rearing as normal men & women. And furthermore I think there should be no reason for them to complain about it, because they don't want to get married or raise children initially because love is overwhelming their hearts: they're doing it because they want society as a whole to see them as a normal part of life, which would be possible if they could raise children & get married.

So while the occurrence of homosexuality happens in society I don't think it should ever be seen as normal.

The problem with your debate is that people don't have to have sex to reproduce.

[corny]

How did the topic change from trevors murder to homos ???

Am I missing something ???