gay marriage

[suppitty]

what do u think of gay marriage?

[circumstance]

the most haunting, moral-crippling beast to threaten everything we hold dear. those gays will take us all down. we must act now, and fast! $87 billion for the new amedment.

[jporterweb]

Give me a break circumstance. It's about the fact that marriage is something that has been a constant for hundreds of years. Marriage was meant for a man and woman. But hey, if they don't stop this, then I want to be able to marry 2 other women. Oh, and my Sister-In-Law will marry her cousin. COMEON, where does it stop? The fact is, that once you allow anything but a man and a woman to get married, thats the point where marriage means nothing but words on a piece of paper. Marriage is an institution, not one that needs to come down.

[lakewinola]

What if my church decides to marry a gay couple in the eyes of god?

[jporterweb]

1 Corinthians 6:9 NIV
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Hrmm...according to this homosexuals are wicked. So it wouldn't be in the eyes if God. And your church would be wrong according to the bible.

What does God think about homosexual behavior? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22) If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." (Leviticus 20:13) In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul wrote that the law is good if one uses it properly. "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers; for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (ARSENOKOITOIS-the New Testament Greek word for homosexual practitioners)…"

Here's more.
http://www.mecf.net/past_messages/2003/sermon_09_07.html

[BigCountry]

What if they don't believe in what you believe?

[bfauble83]

Next we should let adults marry kids, because its not hurting anyone else, right?

[jporterweb]

Yes we should I guess.

[suppitty]

there is a difference between the two. i dont think it should be banned in the constitution, but there should be something done.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by suppitty
there is a difference between the two.

And that is what?

[circumstance]

Now I think you're just being difficult.

A child/kid is just that, a kid. Any adult who tries to marry a kid is taking advantage of said kid for the adult's benefit, whether they say they're in love or not.

Two homosexuals marrying involves two consenting adults, as far as I know. If a gay adult wanted to marry a kid, then I'd feel the same way if it were two heterosexual individuals and be strongly against it.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by circumstance
Now I think you're just being difficult.

A child/kid is just that, a kid. Any adult who tries to marry a kid is taking advantage of said kid for the adult's benefit, whether they say they're in love or not.

Two homosexuals marrying involves two consenting adults, as far as I know. If a gay adult wanted to marry a kid, then I'd feel the same way if it were two heterosexual individuals and be strongly against it.

It's OK for 14 year olds to get married in Arkansas, and OH YEA. With parental permission it's I believe 12 in Arkansas.

[circumstance]

wow. didn't know that. pretty crazy. can't say i'm cool with that.

[lakewinola]

Ok, here it is. The constitution as it is now, serves to protect the rights and give equal treatment to all citizens of the US. By adding this ammendment you are adding to the constutition an amendment that targets one group of people and strips any kind of rights away. It would be the first time in history such an act would occur. It is very unconstutional and un-american. I'm totally against changing the constution for this reason, I hope some kind of compromise can be reached that falls short of marraige but allows the same benefits ie civil unions.

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by lakewinola
Ok, here it is. The constitution as it is now, serves to protect the rights and give equal treatment to all citizens of the US. By adding this ammendment you are adding to the constutition an amendment that targets one group of people and strips any kind of rights away. It would be the first time in history such an act would occur. It is very unconstutional and un-american. I'm totally against changing the constution for this reason, I hope some kind of compromise can be reached that falls short of marraige but allows the same benefits ie civil unions.

No actually the amendment would just be there to define marriage. It's not targeting one group of people. It's targeting MANY groups of people. The ammendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So there is nothing unconstitutional about it or unamerican. I mean it would target Gays, Polygamists, Incest, beastiality. Because lets face it, if you play on the arguement that homosexuals are current playing on, you have to allow all types of marriage. Because it is that persons right to marry who they wish. And it's not even going to be to target people. Again it will DEFINE marriage

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jporterweb
No actually the amendment would just be there to define marriage. It's not targeting one group of people. It's targeting MANY groups of people. The ammendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So there is nothing unconstitutional about it or unamerican. I mean it would target Gays, Polygamists, Incest, beastiality. Because lets face it, if you play on the arguement that homosexuals are current playing on, you have to allow all types of marriage. Because it is that persons right to marry who they wish. And it's not even going to be to target people. Again it will DEFINE marriage

So if one partenr of a gay couple gets a sex change operation is it then ok for them to get married? How does this protect the institution of marriage?

[jporterweb]

That wouldn't happen. Think about it. If they are gay they are not going to get a sex change. Cause they wouldn't be gay anymore. But if someone did get a sex change, then I suppose it would be a loophole to said ammendment

[DC_Cowboys]

What does God think about homosexual behavior? "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Your argument builds on a shaky foundation that the bible was written by God. I still wonder how big Noah 's ark must be to get all those animals on it. And how did he get animals from other continents when they were not discovered yet.

[jsarno]

Gay Marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. It will make every marriage everywhere less important. I've been married for 7 years, and I hold it sacred, just because some others don't doesn't mean anything goes.
Civil unions were brought up and I thought that might be ok at first, but after more thought it shouldn't be. Do boyfriends / girlfriends get special rights? NO. Only married people do. You start allowing perverted marriages to occur (or civil unions) who is to say that someone won't demand a union to their dog and demand rights granted to a widow for instance?
If the Gays want to live together, that is their choice, and I'm not going to stop them, but dont make me or this world swallow that it's OK and is the same as a heterosexual marriage.

jporter, once again, you are right on the money.

[DC_Cowboys]

Gay Marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.

Why is it so ?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by MrWiggles
So if one partenr of a gay couple gets a sex change operation is it then ok for them to get married? How does this protect the institution of marriage?

We need to stick to the subject here, this is a valid question but one that is not needed to be addressed under this subject.

by the way, I do believe that even with a sex change operation the state may change your name but they will not change your sex. If you're born a boy, you will be a boy forever. (and don't forget your DNA is still the same as well)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Gay Marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage.

Why is it so ?

Do you understand what marriage is for and what sanctity of marriage stands for?

If you don't, then I suggest you think about it.

So far your posts have been less than impressive, and I know this question you asked was not asked with pure intentions, you know full well how it destroys the sanctity of marriage, if you don't then I'm sorry for you.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jsarno
We need to stick to the subject here, this is a valid question but one that is not needed to be addressed under this subject.

by the way, I do believe that even with a sex change operation the state may change your name but they will not change your sex. If you're born a boy, you will be a boy forever. (and don't forget your DNA is still the same as well)

This is on topic. Some people are suggesting that we define marriage as between a man and a woman. Lets say you are right and if you are born a boy you will stay a boy forever. Two boys can't get married. So one gets a sex change. Should they be allowed to get married? They now appear to be a boy and a girl. The only way to determine differently is to open their medical records to state review.

This is a real consequence of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There are transgender people that get married. There are couples that are married and then one of the two gets a sex change.

[DC_Cowboys]

Do you understand what marriage is for and what sanctity of marriage stands for?

I do, I just want you to state yours so I can point out your falsity. If you are afraid of that, you can hide it.

[MrWiggles]

For those of you that were suggesting that we end debate and just let majority rule on the issue of a constitutional amendment ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44084-2004Mar9.html?nav=headlines

Is ending the debate still a good idea?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by MrWiggles
This is on topic. Some people are suggesting that we define marriage as between a man and a woman. Lets say you are right and if you are born a boy you will stay a boy forever. Two boys can't get married. So one gets a sex change. Should they be allowed to get married? They now appear to be a boy and a girl. The only way to determine differently is to open their medical records to state review.

This is a real consequence of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There are transgender people that get married. There are couples that are married and then one of the two gets a sex change.

The point is it has nothing to do with the gay marriage topic right now. You're talking about a tiny percentage of the population, while Gays are what 7-10% ish? There can't be a consideration for every little thing.
I don't agree with sex changes, so you can imagine where I stand on that subject.

There are people born with no sexual organs, and some with both sexual organs, should they be brought into this too? I don't think so. I'm just trying to stick to the actual subject and not get off course.

So why does any gay couple HAVE to have a marriage liscense anyway? What does it matter? They already live together against nature (and God for those who believe in Him).

Gay marriage is just as wrong as marrying two wifes / husbands, or someone that is underage, or an animal etc. That is my opinion and I will be disgusted if America glorifies this behavior. We can be as PC as we want to be, but men were made for women and vice versa. No amount of debate will change that.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by MrWiggles
For those of you that were suggesting that we end debate and just let majority rule on the issue of a constitutional amendment ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44084-2004Mar9.html?nav=headlines

Is ending the debate still a good idea?

Ah the liberalization of America at it's best. It says civil unions though, not marriage. Why am I not surprised you live in the People's Republic of Arlington? They tried that same sex benefits thing but the Commonwealth struck it down.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by MrWiggles


Is ending the debate still a good idea?

Well, we can end it, but the problem isn't going away. There are too many people that feel extremely strongly opposing same sex marriage, and there are a lot of P.C. people and gay people that are strongly for it. There is no meeting in the middle. This debate will last forever no matter what the outcome.

It's really sad that this is even an issue, what is our country coming to?

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Ah the liberalization of America at it's best. It says civil unions though, not marriage. Why am I not surprised you live in the People's Republic of Arlington? They tried that same sex benefits thing but the Commonwealth struck it down.

The first line of the article refers to civil unions. This is the line I was referring to ...

"Support for giving states the right to decide on who can get married stood at 58 percent in January, dipped to 45 percent in February and now stands at 53 percent in the latest Post-ABC News poll."

Sounds like if we took a vote right now, 53% would be for states rights and against an amendment. I think it is more imortant to note that these numbers are obviously very fluid.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jsarno
The point is it has nothing to do with the gay marriage topic right now. You're talking about a tiny percentage of the population, while Gays are what 7-10% ish? There can't be a consideration for every little thing.
I don't agree with sex changes, so you can imagine where I stand on that subject.

There are people born with no sexual organs, and some with both sexual organs, should they be brought into this too? I don't think so. I'm just trying to stick to the actual subject and not get off course.

People are proposing an amendment that defines marriage as between a MAN and a WOMAN. If we can't define those terms, and consider what real world implications those definitions have, it will cause more litigation then it hopes to avoid.

First I can't talk about gay marriage because the amendment simply defines marriage as between man and woman. Now I can't talk about that definition because it is irrelevant. It sounds like opponents of gay marriage just don't want people that support it to talk at all.

[DC_Cowboys]

There are too many people that feel extremely strongly opposing same sex marriage, and there are a lot of P.C. people and gay people that are strongly for it.

Why are people for it P.C people ? Does it ever occur to you that perhaps they are for it because they think that it's the right thing to do ?

It's so funny when these closed minded individuals attach labels to those who disagree with them.

[TexSkin]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
There are too many people that feel extremely strongly opposing same sex marriage, and there are a lot of P.C. people and gay people that are strongly for it.

Why are people for it P.C people ? Does it ever occur to you that perhaps they are for it because they think that it's the right thing to do ?

It's so funny when these closed minded individuals attach labels to those who disagree with them.

My goodness I find myself agreeing with a Cowboys fan...j/k good point DC.

[RedskinsDave]

I get a little tired on being referred to as close minded because I think marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't base my belief on what the bible says or think that having same sex couples will ruin the "sanctity" of marriage (we heteros have done plenty of that). If gays want to have a union where they consider themselves to be together forever, no one is stopping them. I just don't think that the government or any church I attend needs to recognize it.

[DC_Cowboys]

I get a little tired on being referred to as close minded

Perhaps there are other people who also get a little tired on being referred to as P.C people. The point is if you disagree with other people, fine, don't call them P.C people because they disagree with you. If you call me P.C, I'll call you closed minded.

[PennSkinsFan]

Personally, I am married and have a beautiful wife and two healthy children. What he or she does down the road, I coudl care less, i am not a nosey, too good person, they can do what they want

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
I get a little tired on being referred to as close minded

Perhaps there are other people who also get a little tired on being referred to as P.C people. The point is if you disagree with other people, fine, don't call them P.C people because they disagree with you. If you call me P.C, I'll call you closed minded.

P.C. Person :D

[DC_Cowboys]

Jporterweb.

Thank you for your self introduction :smash:

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Close minded homophobic boonbocks living rednecks :)

Translation: your average Cowboys fan

[jsarno]

Originally posted by MrWiggles
People are proposing an amendment that defines marriage as between a MAN and a WOMAN. If we can't define those terms, and consider what real world implications those definitions have, it will cause more litigation then it hopes to avoid.

First I can't talk about gay marriage because the amendment simply defines marriage as between man and woman. Now I can't talk about that definition because it is irrelevant. It sounds like opponents of gay marriage just don't want people that support it to talk at all.


Well, considering that there are people that get sex changes AFTER they are married and thier marriage license is not revolked, I think this is a non issue. If you stick to the guideline of man and woman you'll be fine. I think going off on sex changes is getting too sticky and not necassary.

[Spence]

Yeah, clearly DC Cowboys is not your average Cowboys fan. Pity. It's saves so much time for me to hate everything about Cowboys fans. This guy will only let me hate his favorite football team. Hell, he might even be a nice guy.

Jeebus, this is too complicated for me. Zzzzoooooooooooooooooooommmmm!!!

[jsarno]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
There are too many people that feel extremely strongly opposing same sex marriage, and there are a lot of P.C. people and gay people that are strongly for it.

Why are people for it P.C people ? Does it ever occur to you that perhaps they are for it because they think that it's the right thing to do ?

It's so funny when these closed minded individuals attach labels to those who disagree with them.

Whether or not you think it's the right thing to do is irrelevant when referring to PC, is it or is it not the "P.C." thing to do?

ps- it can't possibly be the right thing to do since it is sooooo unnatural. We people can twist things the way we want to make it seem like the right thing, but the fact remains it's not the way mother nature intended.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jsarno
ps- it can't possibly be the right thing to do since it is sooooo unnatural.

It seems pretty natural for homosexuals.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by MrWiggles
It seems pretty natural for homosexuals.

No, it's not natural for them, it's still against nature, it's just something they partake in.

I actually still hold the idea that homosexuality is a brain disorder. There were studies done years ago about the size of male and female's brain part (forget the name but it's near the hypothalimus). They found that a male homosexual had the same size brain mass (in that area) as a heterosexual female, and found the female homosexual had the same size as a male heterosexual. Of course to call homosexuality a brain disorder is a no-no in the P.C. world.
It does make me wonder if someday it might be cured by a pill or somethign. (just a thought)

[TexSkin]

Originally posted by Spence
Yeah, clearly DC Cowboys is not your average Cowboys fan. Pity. It's saves so much time for me to hate everything about Cowboys fans. This guy will only let me hate his favorite football team. Hell, he might even be a nice guy.

Jeebus, this is too complicated for me. Zzzzoooooooooooooooooooommmmm!!!


I think Spence just went crosseyed. :D

[RedskinsDave]

Come on jsarno, you can't be serious with that?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Come on jsarno, you can't be serious with that?

I do believe in science when it comes out and says stuff like that. It might not be true, I have no idea, but it would explain alot. Let's look at this objectively, homosexuality is abnormal (we can all agree on that), so why is it this way? What if it was a brain disorder? Last I knew they were still doing tests to prove this further or not. I even saw a special on it on the discovery channel maybe 2 years ago. I'm not saying I am 100% sure of it, bacause they haven't come out and said they are 100% sure, but it certainly makes sense and it's the only logical reason I can come up with as to why there is homosexuality.

[DC_Cowboys]

but it certainly makes sense and it's the only logical reason I can come up with as to why there is homosexuality.

To a frog at the bottom of the well, it's only logical for it to think that the size of the universe is 3 feet wide.

[DC_Cowboys]

Yeah, clearly DC Cowboys is not your average Cowboys fan. Pity. It's saves so much time for me to hate everything about Cowboys fans.

Spence,

I do hope you are better than "I don't do nuance" :)

[Spence]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Yeah, clearly DC Cowboys is not your average Cowboys fan. Pity. It's saves so much time for me to hate everything about Cowboys fans.

Spence,

I do hope you are better than "I don't do nuance" :) Touche, my friend. Well done. Yes, I do nuance, whether it is popular or not.

Okay, okay. I admit it: You seem like a very decent person. I'm pretty sure you vote correctly.

[RedskinsDave]

I think it's far more important who a person cheers on in pro football. You sir have your priorities out of whack!!

[DC_Cowboys]

Okay, okay. I admit it: You seem like a very decent person. I'm pretty sure you vote correctly.

Not only that, I cheer for the right team too :)

[jsarno]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Okay, okay. I admit it: You seem like a very decent person. I'm pretty sure you vote correctly.

Not only that, I cheer for the right team too :)


:banhim:

[DC_Cowboys]

Ban me ? Why ? Afraid I spank you again ?

[jporterweb]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Ban me ? Why ? Afraid I spank you again ?

Dude, grow up. He was joking.

[DC_Cowboys]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Dude, grow up. He was joking.

Dude, right back @ ya :p

[jporterweb]

Well, from what you said, you didn't appear to be joking. His was obvious.

[jsarno]

Spanking huh...just wait til gibbs gets ahold of your skirts and gives you the ass whoopin of a lifetime. Just like the good ole days.

[DC_Cowboys]

Just like the good ole days.

Good ole days ? Like when Parcells spanked Gibbs. Gibbs had losing record against Parcells, dude :)

[jsarno]

Just like the good ole days of Gibbs whippin up on the lowly cowpatties. Parcells was not a cowboy when Gibbs was coaching the SKins you know.

[jsarno]

TIMES ARE A CHANGIN!

[DC_Cowboys]

Originally posted by jsarno
TIMES ARE A CHANGIN!

Geez, If you want that then you shouldn't say like good ole day

I frequent many political boards, no conservatives can put together a cohesive polical argument. Either they shoot them selves in the foot or they just regurgitate the same rhetoric over and over again.

May be that's why they elect a simpleton.

[SkinsGuru]

Originally posted by lakewinola
What if my church decides to marry a gay couple in the eyes of god?

obviously your church doesn't follow the bible then does it.

[Keino]

Originally posted by DC_Cowboys
Just like the good ole days.

Good ole days ? Like when Parcells spanked Gibbs. Gibbs had losing record against Parcells, dude :)

But the Cowboys don't have a Linebacker named Taylor.......

[SkinsGuru]

Originally posted by jsarno
I do believe in science when it comes out and says stuff like that. It might not be true, I have no idea, but it would explain alot. Let's look at this objectively, homosexuality is abnormal (we can all agree on that), so why is it this way? What if it was a brain disorder? Last I knew they were still doing tests to prove this further or not. I even saw a special on it on the discovery channel maybe 2 years ago. I'm not saying I am 100% sure of it, bacause they haven't come out and said they are 100% sure, but it certainly makes sense and it's the only logical reason I can come up with as to why there is homosexuality.

I think homosexuality is a type of depression. Caused by an unfulfilled sex life, being sexually mistreated by someone of the same sex, being ashamed of oneselfs looks, AND/OR etc.

The reason I believe this is I had a cousin who WAS a homosexual. He was diagnosed with bipolar depression. After about six months on anti-depressants and about six months of couseling he gave up his homosexual tendancies and since has been married for 4 years and has two children.

peace

[akhhorus]

Im bi-polar and I'm straight...actually, when I dont take my medication i go to strip clubs...

[SkinsGuru]

Originally posted by akhhorus
Im bi-polar and I'm straight...actually, when I dont take my medication i go to strip clubs...

thats great!!!! . . . i glad you have youself under control . . .

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by akhhorus
Im bi-polar and I'm straight...actually, when I dont take my medication i go to strip clubs...

Gay strip clubs?

[akhhorus]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Gay strip clubs?

transsexual, does that count? lol

[RedskinsDave]

Originally posted by akhhorus
transsexual, does that count? lol

Perfect!!

[akhhorus]

ROTFLMAO

[thickskin]

I love how the gay marriage thread finds its way back to hating the cowboys. anyway, I disagree with most everything jsarno says except the neurological stuff. i'm not a strict behavioralist or anything but i do believe ultimately most of our characteristics are rooted in physical properties of the brain and that this empirical approach is in many (but not all) areas a better guide than the so-called ethics of religion or even philosophy. for instance, the earlier mentioned biblical reference to lying with men as you would lie with women is from leviticus, where alot of "rules" are laid down, and it should be mentioned that nearly everyone picks and chooses from those rules ( jews get their kosher eating rules from leviticus). so back to the brain-- it gets tricky deciding what's a normal brain and what needs to be "cured with a pill." more importantly though, why do these different versions of the brain exist in the first place. what evolutionary forces shaped them and made them "fit" the environment? i've heard speculation that homosexuality, whether or not it's more cultural or biological, is a natural result of overpopulation, though I don't know enough to give that theory my full endorsement. nevertheless, as for marriage, i'm affraid it's not as written in stone as this thread makes it seem. alot of things about marriage change drastically depending on the culture and environment. polygamy in the middleeast for instance, is a consequence of constant warring between nomadic tribes which for hundreds of years ensured a disproportionate number of females to males, who were being killed in the wars. perhaps when a nation is small and increasing its population makes it stronger, we see a strengthening of institutions such as marriage which benefits those individuals who try to reproduce. the inverse though would also make sense, that when a nation is overpopulated institutions which limit the rate of reproduction are strengthened (china for instance). i don't know enough to say that there is an increased rate of homosexuality at large so nevermind that, but certainly there is an increased awareness and openness to issues concerning homosexuals; could this increase be an indicator that we are too poulated as a nation?

[jsarno]

or could this be natures way of phasing out humans as the dominant force on earth? total Homosexuality = no children no future generations.

[SkinsGuru]

Originally posted by jsarno
or could this be natures way of phasing out humans as the dominant force on earth? total Homosexuality = no children no future generations.

I guess all us "homo's" will have to change the law on cloning then.

[thickskin]

i didn't mean to suggest homosexuality signals the end of the human species or anything and certainly didn't intend to offend anyone. i take it for granted that every individual is just as significant as the next (cowboys fans notwithstanding) and was only trying to offer comments of a theoretical rather than judgmental nature. i'm not against homosexuality or cloning. in fact--and this is top secret--i was gay once myself, but it was only to gather a sample of michael vick's dna so that as soon as cloning is legal we can start him at QB, RB, WR, and CB.

[WinslowRedskin]

Gay marriages = the downfall of the country
Birth rate will drop while death rate will stay same or rise. I don't want to see this country go down the craphole with all of this "We love eachother and it's SUPER! WE ARE GAYS AND WE ARE PROUD!" BS. If they want to be gay in the privacy of their homes, fine with me. But when they start coming out and demanding rights, marriages, benefits etc, that pisses me off. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else. Next thing we will have people marrying dogs, and maybe some hippies marrying trees. Doesn't work like that, sorry.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by WinslowRedskin
Gay marriages = the downfall of the country
Birth rate will drop while death rate will stay same or rise.

Birth rate will drop?? Really?? Are you suggesting that there are people out there that are having kids but would be gay in a second if they were allowed to get married?

I highly doubt anyone is going to 'turn gay' because they are allowed to get married. Furthermore, I highly doubt that anyone that is gay is going to have kids with a partner of the opposite sex simply because they can't get married.

[circumstance]

Originally posted by WinslowRedskin
Gay marriages = the downfall of the country
Birth rate will drop while death rate will stay same or rise.

Haa. Man, you really put some deep thought into that one. Gays aren't having kids in the first place, so what do you care? The birth rate wouldn't change in the least. And why would the death rate rise?

So, let me ask you this, would it be better then if gays supressed their homosexuality and entered into heterosexual marriage and then procreated thus ensuring the 'survival' of our country? That would certainly preserve the rock that is marriage in modern America, right?

How then do you feel about celibates--nuns, priests, etc.? Are they doing us a disservice?

[circumstance]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004760) from the Wall Street Journal on gay marriage from a Tennessee pastor.

Excerpt:

"I believe that this state of affairs is contrary to the will of God. But traditionalists, especially Christian traditionalists (in whose ranks I include myself) need to get a clue about what has really been going on and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it."

Don't exactly agree with him, but there you have it.

[thickskin]

thanks for the article i enjoyed it. i especially liked how he employs the scriptural allusions early on to lure in the readers who view the bible as sacrosanct. and again the "against god's will" part before making his final point--it's a clever piece--maybe even as convincing as a fist on the pulpit. frankly i'm surprised this guy's from tennessee, where everyone sucks. memphis is the crack capital of the world. roll tide!

[jsarno]

Originally posted by circumstance
"and face the fact that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it."

He very much has a point. There are tons and tons of heterosexual marriages that are totally based on wrong ideals. We do not have a law against such marriages because we have a free country.
So I guess we need to choose which path we as a country want to take. Protect the sanctity of marriage, or allow the complete degeneration of such an institution and make it even more of a laughing stock than it already is.

Even the heterosexuals need to take responsibility for thier actions in marriage, because if it was (as a whole) such a pure thing, then this wouldn't even be an issue. But since (seemingly) the majority don't take it seriously, how can we avoid such perverted actions from taking place?
Those of us that do take this very seriously, and put LOTS of thought into who to marry and why we are getting married are a minority now.
I wonder if this "sexual revolution" has anything to do with it?