Gay Marriage Video(s)

[Imperial]

I just thought i'd post up these 2 video's to see what everyone here thinks of them. I myself am all for Gay Marriage, because there's absolutly no reason why there shouldn't be. So here ya go:

I WAS going to get a third video of the original NOM anti-gay marriage ad by itself in, but when i typed it in on youtube there were SOOOOOO many parodies of it (kind of shows you how bad it was if that many people made fun of it). But the ad IS shown in the first video with the guy explaining it.

Anti-Gay Marriage Ad with guy talking about it -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYzlUGenuA

Pro-Gay Marriage Ad -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcvhqg- ... re=related



Also to Ageofknowledge : i know i replied to your post with the same anti gay marriage ad in the other thread about states allowing gay marriage, but i wanted to make a new clean thread on it. + i'll probably get more opinions this way.

[Gman]

So why are Christians against gay marriage? A lot of it not only has to do with immorality, but also the way the body was designed. Gay sex is not natural and actually endangers the person(s) doing it. Please see the link below.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

As for children of gay marriages, many Christians (like me) believe that it is wrong to separate the child from their biological mother or father. Children have the right to be with their parents and nothing should impede that ruling..

[Imperial]

Ok i was willing to accept there might be health factors, but after just 2 minutes of reading that site =/ theres NO way anything on that site can be credible.

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

28% saying they have had more than 1,000 sex partners? in what world is that even possible.

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population.

Common sexual practicing among straight people also lead to numerous STD's and physical injuries.

As for the health risks of Anal, Oral, Fisting etc. Once again this is an extremly common practice among huge amounts of straight couples. I'm sorry but nearly everything in that entire article seemed like it was being exaggerated by someone that was actually TRYING to make gays look bad.


In addition i'd like you to view this link : http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

About the

separate the child from their biological mother or father

idea is a bit exaggerating it. Gay couples Adopt from Orphanages. These kids have no parents, and would be more than happy to be taken in by a loving couple. And for those who think it's not good for a child to grow up with gay parents, please view "The Arguments Against Gay Marriage #3" in the link above.


*EDIT* - i just thought of somthing to add while playing WoW...

Health issues are NOT a reason why gays should not be married because even if gays are not allowed to get married, they will still have sex just like any other couple. If anyone is now thinking gay's are bad becuase they have "sex before marriage" then you are HIGHLY contridicting yourselves. A point made by someone else in another post (The post about if Real Love even exists anymore) is that after getting married for a certain amount of time, you develop a more special relationship where "love comes before sex". Love in Gay marriage is no different from Love in Straight marriage.

[Gman]

28% saying they have had more than 1,000 sex partners? in what world is that even possible.

That study or quote comes from Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, not made up by the web site.

Common sexual practicing among straight people also lead to numerous STD's and physical injuries.

As for the health risks of Anal, Oral, Fisting etc. Once again this is an extremly common practice among huge amounts of straight couples. I'm sorry but nearly everything in that entire article seemed like it was being exaggerated by someone that was actually TRYING to make gays look bad.

Actually no... You can't pin all these practices on heterosexual couples. With homosexuals that is their only way to stimulated themselves..

Take this into account...

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexual men stating they had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent.[135] Although homosexual men may practice various sexual practices which may put them at risk, studies report that anal sex may be an important risk factor for the relay of many diseases. For example in 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases the following: "Proctitis, or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring HIV infection."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle

About the

separate the child from their biological mother or father

idea is a bit exaggerating it. Gay couples Adopt from Orphanages. These kids have no parents, and would be more than happy to be taken in by a loving couple. And for those who think it's not good for a child to grow up with gay parents, please view "The Arguments Against Gay Marriage #3" in the link above.

It's simply not true... Gay couples do not only adopt from orphanages. They adopt from many sources, and the child is usually too young to make a decision at that point.. Also there are cases where the parents want their Children back later and are not allowed to.

Health issues are NOT a reason why gays should not be married because even if gays are not allowed to get married, they will still have sex just like any other couple. If anyone is now thinking gay's are bad becuase they have "sex before marriage" then you are HIGHLY contridicting yourselves. A point made by someone else in another post (The post about if Real Love even exists anymore) is that after getting married for a certain amount of time, you develop a more special relationship where "love comes before sex". Love in Gay marriage is no different from Love in Straight marriage.

Health IS a huge part of the issue. Being a heterosexual, I have never engaged in any of the practices you have stated here.. So you think that every heterosexual engages in these weird sexual practices? Please don't lump us into the same category.. When you go against nature, there are consequences...

[Jac3510]

There are both practical and theological reasons to oppose gay marriage. I also don't see any real reason to support it. Contrary to the typical liberal assertions, I don't see it as a civil rights issue. Gay people have the right to marry just as much as straight people. They can marry the opposite sex. You'll undoubtedly complain that isn't fair, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, to which I simply shrug and say it is their choice. You can't just marry anyone you want. If someone is already married or out of your league or whatever . . .

Of course, to this, you may respond that a person who is already married can get a divorce, which brings consent back into the picture. But then again, I have a serious problem with divorce as well. I will give you this. It is the height of hypocrisy to complain about gay marriage destroying the sanctity of the institution when evangelical straight people are divorcing at a 50% rate!

And that leads to the theological reason (which will lead to the political reason):

Marriage is not just a promise of two people to live together forever. If so, why bother with the "forever" part at all? If it is just a living arrangement, then why not temporary marriages--say three year contracts that you have the option of renewing? The fact is that "marriage" is a thing in and of itself. It is an institution that is designed to be the foundation of a family, and a family is the basic social unit in society. Thus, in all reality, marriage is the basic social institution!

That means it is more than a living arrangement--more than a promise of two consenting people. It is, actually, the institution by, through, and in which the family is created and nurtured, which means children. You'll find me old fashioned here, but marriage is about kids, not sex. And this leads to a very important idea that has been rejected by modern society:

The purpose of sex is procreation. Period. It is, of course, pleasurable. It gives a person a deep sense of connection with their spouse. But those are accidents (in the philosophical sense of the word). That is, they are secondary features. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. That is its essence. What we have done in society is to reduce the essence to the accident and promote the accident to the essence! Is it any wonder that as we've gotten our ideas on sex exactly backwards that we have lost site of what marriage really means?

And this begs the question of the relationship between sex and marriage in the first place. Again, straight Christians have done marriage much harm here by having extramarital sex as much as anyone else. Sex, however, is to be in marriage only. The reason is that sex is about making children, first and foremost, and children are to be raised in a family--a stable family at that! The fact is that if you are not ready to have and raise a child, you have no business having sex, inside or outside of marriage. And bluntly, that means that if you are not ready to have children, you have no business getting married. I can see why liberals believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry when straight marriage is in the state that it is: it is really nothing more than a live-in sex partnership that allows tax breaks and eventually, maybe, someday, children.

The important thing to understand in all of this is that marriage is a religious institution, but it is also more than that. It is a social institution. You cannot have an areligious society. ALL society's have a religion, even if it is secular humanism. As the family is the basic social unit, it is the primary means by which we train our children in religious settings. Since marriage cannot be divorced from religion, it follows that you cannot have the marriage debate without fully considering its religious implications. The Christian view of marriage is inseparable from the Christian view of sex, which is primarily for children (and which produces pleasure as a secondary aspect), and thus marriage is primarily about producing children.

In this view, it is obvious that gay marriage is in fact no marriage at all. It is rather an oxymoron, much like square-circle. It simply has no meaning. What you are in favor of is allowing gay people to live together under some meaningless promise (if the divorce rate is any indication!) and tax breaks. And if that is all ANYONE means by 'marriage,' then no one on any side has any argument. I don't have the right to tell you who you can live and sleep with. But you don't have the right to tell me that I, as a minister, am forced to abandon my religious views and perform ceremonies and/or allow you to use my property and/or indoctrinate my children with ideas I inherently disagree with. Which, then, is the political reason for the opposition. Since government cannot endorse religion, it is unconstitutional to force me to abandon mine in favor of yours, which is exactly what this debate ends up doing (which is well documented it states and countries in which it has been legalized).

The long and short is this:

Marriage, properly defined, is a permanent union of a male and female as the basis of a family by which they will produce and raise children. Gay marriage does not exist by definition, and your copy-cat (no, not YOUR copy-cat, but western culture's copy-cat) institution bears little resemblance to this at all; it is a shame of shames that liberals think that they have the right to take my religious freedom from me to impose their own view of this religious institution. If they want to live together, then fine, I couldn't care less. But it isn't marriage, and I resent being told that I have to support the further degeneration of the foundation of our society.

[Gman]

You'll find me old fashioned here, but marriage is about kids, not sex. And this leads to a very important idea that has been rejected by modern society:

Good point.. More here... http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/h ... ality.html

[ageofknowledge]

We aren't talking about whether someone prefers the color blue or green here either. From God's perspective the practice of homosexuality, unlike other sins, has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing or the fact it is unnatural on many levels not just biologically. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Exactly what we see in the homosexual community today as their behavior mars their brains through a process known as negative neuroplasticity.

And as CARM states:

"Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom. But, it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image."

Politically, the homosexual cause ends in persecution and oppression of Christians and pastors who defy the new homosexual laws and hold true to scripture. It also opens the door to even more degeneracy.

Of course, as Christians we are to love the sinner but also instructed to reject the sin. So we don't cosign something that has devastating consequences to our families, children, and the health of our society. But we don't persecute these people either. We talk to them, eat with them, work with them, pray for them, and share with them when they'll let us.

[Imperial]

There are both practical and theological reasons to oppose gay marriage. I also don't see any real reason to support it. Contrary to the typical liberal assertions, I don't see it as a civil rights issue. Gay people have the right to marry just as much as straight people. They can marry the opposite sex. You'll undoubtedly complain that isn't fair, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, to which I simply shrug and say it is their choice. You can't just marry anyone you want. If someone is already married or out of your league or whatever . . .

I dont see any real reason NOT to support it. What you're basically saying here is "Gay people CAN marry... we just don't want to let them marry who they actually WANT to marry". And as the guy said in the video that you probably didn't watch, HOW can someone look at your post and call you the good guy?

And this begs the question of the relationship between sex and marriage in the first place. Again, straight Christians have done marriage much harm here by having extramarital sex as much as anyone else. Sex, however, is to be in marriage only. The reason is that sex is about making children, first and foremost, and children are to be raised in a family--a stable family at that! The fact is that if you are not ready to have and raise a child, you have no business having sex, inside or outside of marriage. And bluntly, that means that if you are not ready to have children, you have no business getting married. I can see why liberals believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry when straight marriage is in the state that it is: it is really nothing more than a live-in sex partnership that allows tax breaks and eventually, maybe, someday, children.

It amazes me that a person who is strongly against abortion would just turn around and try to greatly lower the number of loving parents that these children could go to. The rest of what you said basically repeated the same concept -> living together and children. There are things you get from marriage that make living together financially easier among other. Also it seems you're trying to imply that gays are not fit to raise kids, which seems to prove you didn't read the essay i gave a link to above.

What you have failed to realize is what will happen if gays DO get the right to be married, and the REAL fact is -NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPEN-. Once again like on the first video you act like the apocolypse will come if gays are allowed to marry.. its ridiculous.

That study or quote comes from Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, p. 308, Table 7, New York: Simon and Schuster, not made up by the web site.

How many gays do you see nowadays act and admit openly that they're gay nowadays? Now compare that to how many straights you see. Now think about how many gays were open about it in 1978... How could ONE gay person find more than 1000 other gay people to have sex with? A dating site? Not likely since in 1978 dating sites weren't even out yet. This reason combined with the fact that, gay people are like heterosexuals, they DO NOT like every person they see, proves that this statistic is drastically wrong.

Actually no... You can't pin all these practices on heterosexual couples. With homosexuals that is their only way to stimulated themselves..

Second part of that statement is true, but all of the sexual practices ARE practiced by enormous amounts of heterosexuals. You may not do it, but that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either. Like it or not, oral and anal sex are widely used by all couples.

It's simply not true... Gay couples do not only adopt from orphanages. They adopt from many sources, and the child is usually too young to make a decision at that point.. Also there are cases where the parents want their Children back later and are not allowed to.

What kind of idiot would give their kid away and then a few years later "oh no wait i want it back." This is not a valid reason for not allowing gays to adopt. It's the parents choice to put a kid up for adoption, if they might want it back later then they should make an arrangement for that. Common Sense.

Health IS a huge part of the issue. Being a heterosexual, I have never engaged in any of the practices you have stated here.. So you think that every heterosexual engages in these weird sexual practices? Please don't lump us into the same category.. When you go against nature, there are consequences...

It is NOT because like i already said, you don't HAVE to be married to have sex, therefore the issue will -ALWAYS- be there. And if you REALLY want to know for sure that heterosexuals do the exact same stuff, go ahead and search for somthing like that on the internet (if you dare). You can't not do somthing yourself and assume that everyone else also won't do it.

We aren't talking about whether someone prefers the color blue or green here either. From God's perspective the practice of homosexuality, unlike other sins, has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing or the fact it is unnatural on many levels not just biologically. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Exactly what we see in the homosexual community today as their behavior mars their brains through a process known as negative neuroplasticity.

You would be the first person to argue from a religious standpoint. But like Reason 3 of "The Arguments Against Gay Marriage" in the essay i linked, religion does not take any part on the decision to make gay marriage legal because we as Americans have "Freedom of Religion." Heres that part again -->

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

[Imperial]

I'm just gonna post some of the main points made from the essay here, it seems like not many people are reading them.

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed?

The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

4. is in the post above (saving space)

10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

This Next one is from The Real Reasons Why People Oppose Gay Marriage

4. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners. The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.







I did skip quite a few ( most of them actually ) mostly to save space. These ones are what i think are the most common issues among the Gay Marriage argument.

[Gabrielman]

2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.

It's illegal for anyone who cannot reproduce to be married where I live.

4. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners. The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

If we go by evolutions idea of natural selection there would be no more gays cause they would not be able to reproduce, they would die out. Upon occasion one may pop up here or there, but if we are animals and we evolved then they would be considered too weak to survive. Survival of the fittest and who can reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural by this standard.
Just my opinion though. God bless!

[ageofknowledge]

We aren't talking about whether someone prefers the color blue or green here either. From God's perspective the practice of homosexuality, unlike other sins, has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing or the fact it is unnatural on many levels not just biologically. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Exactly what we see in the homosexual community today as their behavior mars their brains through a process known as negative neuroplasticity.

You would be the first person to argue from a religious standpoint. But like Reason 3 of "The Arguments Against Gay Marriage" in the essay i linked, religion does not take any part on the decision to make gay marriage legal because we as Americans have "Freedom of Religion." Heres that part again -->

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Simply putting words after what I said doesn't make what I said any less real or applicable or what you have to say as or more relevant. For example, you use a therefore-type transition from what I said to using Freedom of Religion to justify gay marriage. That's illogical and your argument is untrue: We have freedom of religion so are people permitted to marry multiple people or kids or animals or same sex or whatever they want to do simply because Freedom of Religion is protected (within a context) by the Constitution?

The correct answer is no. They cannot. And they shouldn't be able to for very good reasons some of which we are covering in this discussion. I just wish you were listening rather than reiterating a poorly constructed untrue argument that violates the laws of logic 101.

[Imperial]

Simply putting words after what I said doesn't make what I said any less real or applicable or what you have to say as or more relevant. For example, you use a therefore-type transition from what I said to using Freedom of Religion to justify gay marriage. That's illogical and your argument is untrue: We have freedom of religion so are people permitted to marry multiple people or kids or animals or same sex or whatever they want to do simply because Freedom of Religion is protected (within a context) by the Constitution?

The correct answer is no. They cannot. And they shouldn't be able to for very good reasons some of which we are covering in this discussion. I just wish you were listening rather than reiterating a poorly constructed untrue argument that violates the laws of logic 101.

Actually, what i said completly de-railed what you said. We're talking about -gay marriage- here, not bestiality or marrying children etc. And why do you think i can walk into a christian forum and assume that EVERYONE here is against gay marriage? Its because most christians are... Infact i dont know one that's not.

Every Christian has a true underlying reason why they dont want gays to marry. This reason is that its a sin, bible says no, blah blah blah religion. But you ALL know that if that was your main reason, no one would take you seriously because of the freedom of religion bit. So then you have to go out and find small reasons why they shouldn't be able to marry and then make them into somthing bigger. Anything to make a gay look bad right?

I mean WOW... did you even see that "Gathering of the Storm" video or whatever? that was the biggest piece of crap ever, because they were LIEING THROUGH THE WHOLE THING!!! Why do you think there are so many parodies on it? It's pathetic.

So everyone here can go ahead and pretend that there are other reasons, but the fact is, it's all about going against one of the biggest things in christianity.

It's illegal for anyone who cannot reproduce to be married where I live.

Hopefully our President will fix that soon

If we go by evolutions idea of natural selection there would be no more gays cause they would not be able to reproduce, they would die out. Upon occasion one may pop up here or there, but if we are animals and we evolved then they would be considered too weak to survive. Survival of the fittest and who can reproduce. Homosexuality is not natural by this standard.

You're talking like homosexual's are a completely different species. They don't need to reproduce, only a very small percent of the US are homosexuals. What they CAN do is raise kids that they adopt. They will evolve just as we do, they're still human's, theres no way for them to be "considered to weak for them to survive" unless we all were too weak to survive, which will not be happening any time soon.

[ageofknowledge]

Simply putting words after what I said doesn't make what I said any less real or applicable or what you have to say as or more relevant. For example, you use a therefore-type transition from what I said to using Freedom of Religion to justify gay marriage. That's illogical and your argument is untrue: We have freedom of religion so are people permitted to marry multiple people or kids or animals or same sex or whatever they want to do simply because Freedom of Religion is protected (within a context) by the Constitution?

The correct answer is no. They cannot. And they shouldn't be able to for very good reasons some of which we are covering in this discussion. I just wish you were listening rather than reiterating a poorly constructed untrue argument that violates the laws of logic 101.

Actually, what i said completly de-railed what you said. We're talking about -gay marriage- here, not bestiality or marrying children etc. And why do you think i can walk into a christian forum and assume that EVERYONE here is against gay marriage? Its because most christians are... Infact i dont know one that's not.

--> Only in your own mind does it derail what I said and that is because you choose to hold on to and reiterate an illogical construct based on false suppositions. Homosexuals marrying each other is as bad as the others. My authority for saying that is both God's revelation (e.g. scripture), the legal system in the U.S. (which certainly has traditionally and still does in most places continue to forbid all of these practices), and science (e.g. general revelation). We aren't against gay marriage because it's unpopular to be so. We are against gay marriage because it is biologically unnatural, societally undesirable, scripturally forbidden, etc... We have very good reasons for being against gay marriage. Don't slander us friend. At least accurately depict what we are saying in plain english. And bring some real arguments. Saying "no it's not" and sticking out your tongue isn't good enough... lol

[Imperial]

--> Only in your own mind does it derail what I said and that is because you choose to hold on to and reiterate an illogical construct based on false suppositions. Homosexuals marrying each other is as bad as the others. My authority for saying that is both God's revelation (e.g. scripture), the legal system in the U.S. (which certainly has traditionally and still does in most places continue to forbid all of these practices), and science (e.g. general revelation). We aren't against gay marriage because it's unpopular to be so. We are against gay marriage because it is biologically unnatural, societally undesirable, scripturally forbidden, etc... We have very good reasons for being against gay marriage. Don't slander us friend. At least accurately depict what we are saying in plain english. And bring some real arguments. Saying "no it's not" and sticking out your tongue isn't good enough... lol

Are you kidding me? You're not even giving reasons as to why you really oppose it anymore. All you're doing now is saying everything that im saying is invalid. "Biologically Unnatural" and all that other stuff doesn't apply at ALL. Why? Because it doesn't matter if its unnatural and societally undesirable. The point is "Gay's Getting Married Does Not Even Effect You Or Anyone Else That Is Not Gay.". So WHY??? are you all trying SOOO hard to prevent it from happening? If anything i'd say what YOU'RE doing is a sin looking at a religious standpoint. You're not helping anyone by preventing gays from marriage, it's just selfishness. NOTHING bad can come from gay's getting married. STD's will be a problem no matter what as i stated before. This entire case shouldn't even be an argument, it's like arguing whether black coffee should be made illegal in some states because "its not desirable by many people, and without cream or anything to cool it down slightly you might burn your tounge more easily, therefore not good for health." Ya... it's THAT stupid of an argument.

Did i miss anything? Are you just going to say i responded wrong AGAIN even though i made plenty of sense? And if i didnt... please tell me HOW next time instead of just implying that its "not a real argument."

[zoegirl]

If the definition of marriage is now open to change, then ANYONE and ANY GROUP MUST be allowed now to marry. ANYONE. ANY GROUP. Because one you establish that the definition is not standard, than we must examine not only genders but numbers. What makes gays so special now that they should be allowed and not polygamists??!?!??!?

POlygamy...

Three women

Five men

Three women and two guys....

Bestiality...why not? Some could argue that animals are voluntarily in a relationship with the affection they hold with their owners.

If we declare that marriage by definition is open to change, then we *cannot* then discriminate against another group who all love each other.