A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


But what if they want to adopt? And they can adopt legally in some states.

And what about married couples without children, why would they get married?

I've already covered both of these points oh he who doesn't read.

Look it up.

[-Carnifex-]

That's valid.

I, however, don't see homosexuality as wrong.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


I've already covered both of these points oh he who doesn't read.

Look it up.

I am sorry I can't remember all of the 300 posts that have been made in this thread.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
That's valid.

I, however, don't see homosexuality as wrong.

And by the way, neither do I.

The only point I was making is that just because something is involutary doesn't mean you aren't accountable for it, or at the very least that society has to allow it.

[-Carnifex-]

Yes, but in this case it's like asking a heterosexual not to act on his urges. As long as people are responsible it doesn't hurt anyone.

[Rooster]

"I, however, don't see homosexuality as wrong."

So who is supposed to to decide what degree of deviance we except. Homosexual behavior? Polygamy? Public Nudity? Sadism? Lewd behavior in public? Arguments can be made that none of those hurt anyone but consenting adults. Sure someone might not want their children to see that stuff, but I don't want my children seeing homosexual behavior. Who is to decide how far we are going to go? Thats is the problem. The slippery slope argument is very valid. The question is not should gays be allowed to marry who they like. The question is, should anyone be able to marry who or whatever they like.

[shartley]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Shartley: I'm serious Shartley, the lack of education, i.e. use of condoms, on sex is what causes the spread of STDs in this country.


Rooster: That's certainly a valid aruguement. I'll have to change the arguement to consent and threat to others.

Poligamy, hurts society.

Bestiality, can hurt the animal, also consent cannot be given (by the animal).

Necrophilia, if consent is given, then there's no real claim except that it's icky.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Yes, but in this case it's like asking a heterosexual not to act on his urges. As long as people are responsible it doesn't hurt anyone.

that's not true at all.

Nobody is asking homosexuals to not "act on their urges". Being a homo-sexual is not going to be illegal anytime in the forseeable future. They are being denied access to a tradition that they have been barred from since the beginning of time. Nothing is being taken away, the status quo is being maintained. And while some people don't like that, it doesn't change the fact that nothing is being taken away.

And in fact, once civil unions become the law of the land, as is the intent of the marriage amendment, gays will see their rights increased as it pertains to life partnerships, not decreased.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

I'm going to agree with Shartley on this one, this arguement truely is just going in circles, and I don't see any people's minds being changed. So lets just let it die.

[-Carnifex-]

I totally agree Albino. I wasn't arguing for marriage. I was merely saying that it's unfair to ask people not to be gay.

Shartley: I don't think it's possible to pin sharing of needles leading to the spread of AIDs on homosexuals. The argument for homosexuals spreading it through sex is valid, though.

Poligamy hurts society in that it can raise the instance of inbreeding.

Necrophilia can be consented to before death.

I guess you're right on bestiality, but it isn't the same level of consent as with two people.

Rooster: You're right.

Everyone: Don't get me wrong, I'm not for homosexual marriage. I'm for civil union; I was merely playing devil's advocate.

[shartley]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
Shartley: I don't think it's possible to pin sharing of needles leading to the spread of AIDs on homosexuals. The argument for homosexuals spreading it through sex is valid, though.

Poligamy hurts society in that it can raise the instance of inbreeding.

Necrophilia can be consented to before death.

I guess you're right on bestiality, but it isn't the same level of consent as with two people.

Rooster: You're right.

Everyone: Don't get me wrong, I'm not for homosexual marriage. I'm for civil union; I was merely playing devil's advocate.

[71 LS6]

Everyone: Don't get me wrong, I'm not for homosexual marriage. I'm for civil union; I was merely playing devil's advocate.

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you weren't for it, but your last few posts confused me.

I agree with SHartley, like most political/moral/religious/car/whatever arguments on this forum, no one will win.

But for the record, I strongly oppose homosexual marriage.

EDIT: Just thought of this.

If homosexual marriage is allowed, will they tell their adopted kids fairy tales where one prince saves another prince, or where the prince is adopted because there are 2 Queens and no King? I can picture the Disney movies now: Billy and the Beast, The Hunchbacks of Notre Dame, Snow White and the 7 Other Women

[CaptaiN_JacK]

My point is clear, and your obviously missing it.
"Marriage is the final step that stable and loving couples take in order to raise children. It is not designed to make a relationship stable.

That's what the gay community wants marraige to do, to strongarm stability into unstable relationships. They want marriage to do something that it frankly, isn't designed to do." - albinonewt

albinonewt: it IS possible for gay people to have stable relationships, dont you understand that? why do straight people get married? to have kids? to make their relationship stable? it IS the final step in having a stable relationship. why cant gay people get married too?

its like playing monopoly for 8 hours, and when your about to win, they say you cant, because you were the dog, and dogs cant be real estate brokers, thats just not right.(even though they allowed you to play the entire time)

shartley: its a well known fact that a bisexual flight attendant is responsible for the spread of aids (by having more than 3000 sexual partners). saying that homosexuals are the MAIN cause of aids is just wrong. a bisexual started it, and some gay and straight people started spreading it, and now its the STRAIGHT people that have made it snowball out of control. does this mean we should ban straight marriage?

71 LS6: answering your question, its no. i know someone who has two moms (theyre gay), and he lives with them. hes as straight as an arrow. think about it, would you try to make your kid a social outcast by trying and turning them gay?

i know this have been pointed out already, but...

-should sterile straight couples be allowed to get married?

-a lot of people get married and dont have kids. are you saying thats wrong?

-gay poeple do have the option of adopting or having somebody else carry their child or go to a sperm bank.

-gay people dont just choose to be gay, and theres not much that can stop their feelings.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by ShortStrokeTX


I know for a fact that polygamy would not be started up again by the church of latter day saints because, after having been to the church quite a few times, that the practice of polygamy is condoned by 99% of the church. And also the big boss of the church says Polygamy isn't a good thing so the rest of the church will follow that.

You do know that condoned means approved of do you not?

Sorry about bringing up something from the last page but it really annoys me when people are ignorant of another religion so much that they would spew BS like that.

Speaking of ignorance, reread what you posted now that you know what the words you used mean!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by -Carnifex-
That's valid.

I, however, don't see homosexuality as wrong.

I don't think many of this thread have said that! I think most have a problem with how the gays are trying to "create" this right in the courts instead of in the legislature where it belongs.