Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should I allow you to dictate what source I use?
You wouldn't if you could argue your case without siting some religious source...which I know you can't. Which proves my point that all arguments against same-sex marriage stems from a religious source.
If you could have argued why same-sex couples could not get married in a strict secular meaning, then do so; however, seeing as you can't you're doing the next best thing - spouting bigotry and ignorance.
It may be incidental, but it seems the more people push for gay marriage, and the more some of their proponents trash traditional marriage, the fewer young people who view the importance of marriage.
Or maybe they see all these Conservatives with 4 wives, or 72 hour marriages, while hypocritically claiming it's a sanctified institution, and they realize it's a total load of hogwash junk.
Sure. Children deserve to be born into a loving home with committed married parents regardless of gender. Gay marriage will have no effect on children. You are doing all that you can to justify your prejudice.
The only motive behind homosexuals being allowed to adopt children is to legitamize homosexual relationships and sex. No one in their right mind can actually believe that a gay "family" is superior to a household with a mother and a father for the purpose of raising children. Yet, we have the lives of children being treated like sets of dice - and we are allowing homosexuals to adopt children when there are heterosexual couples willing and able to adopt - just so we can satisfy the selfish desires of the gay agenda to be seen as legitamate. It is pathetic.
That is ignorant, to allow people to adopt, and then hamper their ability to best raise that child.
Welcome to the religiously conservative South. That's kind of the point of this whole thread. They passed an Amendment banning any type of union other than one man/one woman marriage, in an attempt to make gay marriage permanently illegal, even though it was already illegal, which in the end will only hurt heterosexual couples and their children who now are not legally protected.
So again, why can't same sex couples get married and why is it that this definition of marriage you're so fond of is only between a man and woman?
oh and do so without quoting the bible or any other religious source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Why should I allow you to dictate what source I use?
The Bible is my source. It is God's law, it's what I believe. I need nothing else.
Marraige is a Covenant with God, Man, and Woman. There is no debate, for me.
Who is this phantom "the rest of us," and how would your tax dollars be involved? I am a straight female taxpayer, and I'm not concerned with these things - so please don't speak for all of us, mkay? Furthermore, I hope you realize that gay people are more often in the higher tax brackets, have more disposable income, and overall have higher salaries and less government dependence compared to the straight community. So if anything, they should be telling us whether or not we can marry... I mean, since you think paying taxes gives you the right to dictate what other people do with their lives and all.
None of the above is your business, nor is it relevant to the legalities of being a married couple... double standard much?
so give money to the gay men's club for all I care, just dont expect me to. The "us" is in the collective, as in the taxpayers who do not wish to subsidize them.
I'm not dictating to anyone, they can already get married in private, but now they want the "rest of us" to endorse it for them. so now it becomes my business, since they will also be subsidized by the "rest of us".
You wouldn't if you could argue your case without siting some religious source...which I know you can't. Which proves my point that all arguments against same-sex marriage stems from a religious source.
If you could have argued why same-sex couples could not get married in a strict secular meaning, then do so; however, seeing as you can't you're doing the next best thing - spouting bigotry and ignorance.
You didn't answer my question. I have answered yours using non-religious sources many times in this thread - I don't feel like repeating myself now - because it is clear that no matter what I say - it will not change your mind - because your mind is closed. Go back and read so of my early posts - I made some pretty good arguments without using religious ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
