10 Reasons Gay Marriage is WRONG

[Biggin]

People like you are the ones that are truly ruining our country, with youre complete and total ignorance as well as not accepting any change at all.

You are one of the reasons why our area is portrayed as backwoods and ignorant.

[gcdevil22]

someone presents a problem with your way of thinking and automatically you turn and say "your liberal ideology" like it's some sort of disease, times change brotha, get with the program

many defended slavery many years ago, but times changed and now we see that slavery was wrong...btw, many of the slave owners were Christians, can you say today that anyone who owned slaves could be a Christian? that's the same argument as saying that no homosexuals can be Christians

i know you (and 90% of this area) is all about guns and hunting and all that jive...and if im not mistaken, the Bible teaches us that killing any of God's creatures is wrong...so can you please justify to me why you can turn your back on homosexuals and then go out and kill some deer for the fun of it

[imported_MoonlightGraham]

personally i could never be gay, i am sloppy, i dont know fashion, and i hate broadway, not to mention i had a colonostomy one time and yelled some unprintable words (okay i cried like a baby for an hour), but anyway....

in my opinion who cares if someone wants to be gay. it isn't my life and i am not gonna judge there actions. that is where i disagree with right winged conservatives 100%. They believe everyone has a set templete to life and that everyone should follow that templete. Me, I don't care, I am not going to force my beliefs on anyone, nor am I gonna say doing this or doing that will send you straight to hell.

How is the liberal idealogy sending this country down the tubes? This country was founded on freedom. And to me it just seems hypocritical to found a country on liberty, and then do the exact opposite. The way things are going, if there is a WW3, then WW4 will be fought with sticks and rocks.

[gcdevil22]

what would people get out of making homosexuality illegal? would they feel more comfortable? safer? would this law be protecting anyone? anything?

quick answers:
nothing
no
no
no
no

[TheBeast]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
and if im not mistaken, the Bible teaches us that killing any of God's creatures is wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
You are mistaken, the bible says that is wrong to murder another man. Man is given dominion over nature and all animals to do with as he sees fit which includes hunting them for food and using them to work.

[Monkeyhead]

I was about to point out the same thing.

If Herbie Husker don't want to change thats fine by me. No person has to except homosexuality if they don't want to. That is a big problem that people face, people think you are suppossed to change your beliefs, whether it be rite or wrong.

I myself don't care about if your gay or not, but don't push it on me like I have to except it.

[RaiderWahoo0105]

This isn't a response to anyone, more so just a statement.

First of all I think that an extremist liberal OR conservative view would send this country down the drain. By "liberal" or "conservative" I'm talking about the U.S.'s definitions of the terms... not the polar extremes of the terms, i.e. communism vs. facism (*note* all historians agree the U.S.S.R. was a poor example of Communism as set out by Marx).

Our nation's founders set out to create a country that welcomed everyone (i.e. politically liberal), but at the same time the country is built on a certain amount of Conservatism (i.e. read the Bill of Rights). Times do change, but sometimes some things are better left intact, e.g. Freedom of the Press with certain limitations regarding public safety.

That being said, the institution of "marriage" is a religious one that has been corrupted throughout the centuries, e.g. kings marrying their children off to other royalty to build ties, gain power, etc...

Marriage in the strictest sense should be left alone and the government has no place in regulating it.

I think the debate over gay marriage lies in the fact that homosexual wishing to be "life partners" would like the same rights as married couples do, i.e. tax breaks and what not.

First of all I don't think the government should tax exempt people for marrying, they should grant tax credits for children. Two PEOPLE, that is ADULTS, living together SHOULD have the wherewithal to support themselves, to hold jobs, and pay for life - ESPECIALLY in today's society where woman are flooding in to work place faster than the census can keep count. Living under one roof actually reduces costs to two people.

But when you throw children in the picture, you have COMPLETE, psychological, emotional, and emotional depedents under the roof, and from a social standpoint, that's where tax credits should be given with respect to situations where people live together and where the crutch of dependency exists.

To better focus the debate I think the language should change to a question of, "Is it right for homosexual life partners to raise children."

It's a VERY complex debate topic, and it's the real question that should be delt with.

That being said, if two homosexuals want to live under the same roof, it is their decision, and it's not my place to judge them. But if they were ever to ask about what I thought about them living together I would have to disagree given my religious background, but I certainly wouldn't be hateful towards them. For the sake of separation of Church and State (a whole seperate debate), I don't think I'd endorse/not endorse one view one way or the other in terms of PUBLIC policy. If the churchest started allowing it, then the debate would be on.

The American sphere of politics sits to the left of the scale anyway... both Elephants and donkeys are liberals in the strictest sense. France on the other hand, those freaks sit right on the middle and they have some real party hatred over there.

So to bash a dem/repub for being a dem/repub isn't something that's really viable in terms of the sphere of Liberalism that U.S. politics operate.

We have to seek to find a good balance between what is solid and what gray areas can be modified to better serve the ideal of social justice which this country is founded upon.

[imported_biggamesjames]

Some good points wahoo...especially pointing out that the institution of marriage is a religious one.

By the way if gay marriage is legalized then why not polygamy?

[RaiderWahoo0105]

ah a trick question... I'll bite

the legalization of gay marriage (which I stand neutral on from a public policy stand point again) would be hard to actually argue that it does damage to society BEYOND the moral sensibilites of others... those sensibilities being from tradition, religion, etc... stuff the state is separated from...

how about polygamy?

you enter a world of problems there from a societal/legal/practical/worldly standpoint... where government has the legitimacy to operate... think about a divorce and the legalistic issues surrounding that... distribution of belongings and what not... what if a wealthy man dies (assuming he would have to be one to support that many wives) with no will, the fighting would be relentless... would you want our society to put values on wives by who came first and what not?

what about children and inheritance, same problem

imagine the problems that would arise from jealousy... people could have whole other lives that one of their families may not know about... imagine the civil unrest... I don't know the true answer as to why it's illegal, but I'd imagine that part of it...

in addition to this country's Protestant background and conceptions of marriage that got mired/mashed in with law

[imported_biggamesjames]

How about if polygamists marriages could be granted on a condition that pre-nuptial agreements were signed on property issues as well as current or any future custody of offspring and affidavits of support had to be approved based on income showing an ability to support such families?