Gay marriage destroys heterosexual marriage. (faith, preach, morality, woman)
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? What business of his is it anyway? If God didn't want gays to marry he shouldn't have created them in the first place! Just like God chose to create gays and God gave mankind free will, these people are exercising that God given free will. They are in reality doing God's will. Remember that God created man in his own image and saw that it was good. Gays are made in God's image! They can marry and will probably be blessed by God too.
It redefines it. It states that marriage is anything a person wants it to be and it doesn't hold a high standard for it.
No it does not state that marriage is anything a person wants it to be. It is still two unrelated adults making a lifetime commitment to each other and to potential children. That is just as high a standard as your commitment your wife or my commitment to mine. How does the gender of the participants set the bar differently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Having said that, I've not suggested that it's a reason to deny SSM. SSM should be denied because there is no need in our society for it. We don't create a special form of marriage to cater to and patronize a very small minority of people. That's now how our society works.
Why is the love of two people for each other sanctified and holy if they are a different gender but just a whiny demand if they are the same gender? And who says society has to patronize anyone? Maybe what society should do is respect people, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation.
No it does not state that marriage is anything a person wants it to be. It is still two unrelated adults making a lifetime commitment to each other and to potential children. That is just as high a standard as your commitment your wife or my commitment to mine. How does the gender of the participants set the bar differently?
You honestly don't see how fundamentally changing the definition of marriage alters it in any way?
Really? I'm sorry. That's nuts.
Quote:
Why is the love of two people for each other sanctified and holy if they are a different gender but just a whiny demand if they are the same gender? And who says society has to patronize anyone? Maybe what society should do is respect people, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation.
Because at it's most basic form, marriage is not a marriage if there is not a husband and a wife. That's what it is. For the same reason a square is not a circle. Words have meaning. If you're so post-modern in your thinking that you can't grasp that, perhaps you're part of the problem.
It redefines it. It states that marriage is anything a person wants it to be and it doesn't hold a high standard for it.
Having said that, I've not suggested that it's a reason to deny SSM. SSM should be denied because there is no need in our society for it. We don't create a special form of marriage to cater to and patronize a very small minority of people. That's now how our society works.
That's how a moral society is supposed to work...The majority does not always rule. People like you would love some kind of religious law....Too bad, but those days are long gone, and they will never come back.
If the rate Christianity is declining remains the same, in twenty five years it will no longer be the majority in the US.
That's because the proposition is a fallacy from the start. You place a constraint, demand me to operate in that constraint and then smugly claim victory because I don't meet that requirement. In other words, why do I need to prove that gay marriage must somehow directly affect heterosexual marriage? That has nothing to do with the position that gay marriage is harmful for society. I pointed out that if you lose the right to protest against things like incestual marriages since they don't harm heterosexual marriages directly either.
It can be harmful in other areas. Here is a good article detailing all the harms and this is one of the least ones:
You haven't created a better society. You've created one ugly confusing mess of a society with screwed up generations to come. Great job.
So let me me get this straight, you make a false claim and if we don't accept it you then change the topic and then make claims about something else.
You said you made valid points that were ignored and I am claiming that you didn't even bother making a point on the topic.
You may want to a return to the 50s where homosexuals were beaten and jailed, blacks kept in their place away from whites, neither rape or impaired driving were serious matters, discrimination was fine but Christians dominated society. If your only proof of the harm is a vague claim by a religious group you have nothing to stand on. How will ssm sexualize children unless it is an attempt to paint gays as pedophilia.
Go back and read your posts like I asked you too and you will see that you did not make any points on topic that you claimed to do. But that is your way, you make a claim that something was said or not said and who ever bothers to investigate to see if it was not said or was said your repose is an attack. You made no valid or even invalid claims on how ssm was destroying heterosexual marrages and on that the case is closed. If you wish to make an actual claim d9 s9 but your claim that you already had done so is falsel
That's how a moral society is supposed to work...The majority does not always rule. People like you would love some kind of religious law....Too bad, but those days are long gone, and they will never come back.
Why must you continue to attack personally and lie about me? I've never suggested I want any kind of theocracy, nor have I ever given religion as a reason to refuse SSM. It's sad that your go-to response always seems to be that. Why can't you give a rebuttal for what my actual arguments are instead of the ones you wish I gave?
Why must you continue to attack personally and lie about me? I've never suggested I want any kind of theocracy, nor have I ever given religion as a reason to refuse SSM.
You honestly don't see how fundamentally changing the definition of marriage alters it in any way?
How has the definition of marriage changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Because at it's most basic form, marriage is not a marriage if there is not a husband and a wife.
Viz, that is how we see it. That's our perception and it is the perception that makes sense to us. We have a right to that view and our right is upheld by law. All that has changed is that a marginalized group can now also participate in the tradition of marriage. It does not harm us or our marriage nor does it change the basic meaning of marriage for us. It is about being fair and just and having consideration for others who are different.
I've said this before, gay marriage does not make sense to me. But that's my problem, I must get over it. I must suck it in and accept it. And I do.
I've never claimed that it personally hurt my marriage. Why is that even a valid question?
Ummm, because it's the thread topic?
So, after umpteen posts, finally an anti-SSM person admits the obvious - SSM does not destroy heterosexual marriage. Anyone else?
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.