Which is fine, but margianalize indscriminately.
That last sentence is what the "report this post" button was created for.
That's a mighty big brush you're tarring 'us all' with.
Read the thread. Seriously. And the last sentence-absolutely disgusting; I mean the lack of reasoning.
when you can't refute a point, report the post. :2bigcry:
There's a real world effect here. You are calling for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of a certain people based on religious opinion. Does that sound like a good law for America? Something the Land of the Free should endorse?
There's no way that one could endorse theocracy against unwilling people and maintain they move for freedom.
Oscar, your post was disgustingly rude and vulgar. There was nothing to refute. You went for, and hit, shock value.
No? There's no pressure on the Catholic church to accept gay priests?Huh??? Where do you get that the Church would be forced to condone it? This is solely about government. The church can and does what it wants.
You don't have to endorse theocracy to understand and respect the various religions and their followers in the US. It's not my point to say that as a justification in and of itself, but don't say we don't have to give a crap about what the religious want, but we do have to give a crap about what homosexuals want.
You don't have to endorse theocracy to understand and respect the various religions and their followers in the US. It's not my point to say that as a justification in and of itself, but don't say we don't have to give a crap about what the religious want, but we do have to give a crap about what homosexuals want.
still can't answer the question though can you? how is one act more harmful to society than the other? hmmmmm.....
The. Subject. Of. Incest. Is. Not. The. Point. Of. This. Thread.
It's not about what they want. It is about what they are entitled to as equal citizens under the law.
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.
Everyone is entitled to not have their beleifs trampled on, as well.
Of course I can! The rights should be granted by virtue of them being citizens of the United States. Nothing else matters but their rights as citizens.
The homosexuals are not calling for government force against religion. That's the difference. They are asking for the removal of coercion against their ability to freely practice their rights. You are endorsing the coercion. Do you get the difference?
No one is calling for government force against homosexuals, either. I don't agree that it is a right, so therefore, I obviosly don't see the coercion.
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.
It's obvious most of the people on here are clueless, they don't understand this isn't about rights or whatever but about fags trying to destroy the family and as we all know the family (it's not "individuals", get a clue) is the bedrock of civilization. Fags live short, dangerous and unhealthy lives in addition to the fact that homosexuality is a perversion (as well as a mental disorder). The State should be promoting values that protect and strengthen the family and civilization in general, not sanctifying perverts. "Gay marriage" will also open the door to a form of legalized child abuse, that being "gay adoption". Homosexuality is a perversion that goes against all decency and as well as against nature. No amount of State power can normalize or make this perversion acceptable.
but equal rights is. you can't argue gay marriage in a vacuum.
The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage
Adam Kolasinski
The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Why? He didn't attack anyone.That last sentence is what the "report this post" button was created for.
This article makes a good case against gay marriage from a secular point of view. Not all people argue against "gay marriage" for religious reasons.
Source: The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage - The Tech
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?