Are these your reasons for opposing gay marriage?

Question

1.)Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2.)Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.

3.)Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4.)Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5.)Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6.)Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7.)Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

8.)Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9.)Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10.)Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11.)Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12.)Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Answer 1

excellent! well said

Answer 2

Marriage is based on commitment.

What makes the commitment strong is children. How are children born naturally? When a man and a woman conceive.

So if two partners of the same sex cannot conceive their own child naturally, then that is going against the nature.

Think, if everybody became gay. Would there be a life? Women would be fighting to avoid being pregnant. Guys would be fighting to avoid responsibilities. yada yada yada!

So what is not natural deserves obligation for the sake of humanity, but not respect.

Answer 3

i'm guessing no count number what someone says it received't count number to you. If I were to run down your aspect i might want to assert that none of them are precise. some may comprise 0.5-truths, it really is what many proponents do; similar to the media. besides, that is not as a lot as opposing gay marriage because that is the states created legal marriage. What you do on your faith or non secular realm is as a lot as you. that is been found to be a valid reason behind states to favor the existence of their society to proceed, and this may purely take position if couples can procreate. sure, by no potential married couple does so, and some won't be able to, yet it really isn't any reason behind making the argument void. also, the sexes, male and woman are inately diverse and may grant diverse issues to little ones (understood that each and each and every that is ordinary to attempt this irrelevant of sexual orientation), besides the undeniable fact that that is been determined that is a rational reason that the states might want to favor the impression of a guy and woman contained in the residing house. i'm not putting forward that is authentic, and that i keep in mind that similar sex couples may be as powerful as opposite sex, yet in very truth rationally the states can come to this end and they don't favor authentic motives for doing so (legally) because marriage isn't a basic good (besides the undeniable fact that many courts are attempting to make it one). that is what it comes all the way down to. Marriage hasn't ever been a basic good, yet a state subsidized journey created as a structure to what they experience can rationally succeed to creating their society more effective. again, I even haven't any issue with gay marriage, yet legally, i extremely isn't the courts position to regulate this, besides the undeniable fact that the peoples.

Answer 4

You are quite full of yourself.

1) You say that homosexuality is not natural yet it has existed for as long as humanity has existed. In ancient Roman & Greek times it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have another man as a lover. It was society that changed...not the condition.

2) I know of MANY heterosexual marriages that did not produce women. By your definition this would make them "invalid". Clearly not a valid reason against gay marriage. Besides, gay couples are just as capable of raising a child as a straight couple. Clearly you are quite ignorant in this area.

3) You say that gay parents will raise gay children. Since we know that homosexuality is primarily a genetic condition how do you figure this? First, a gay couple cannot procreate so they cannot both contribute to the "gay gene." This also demonstrate another area of your ignorance. Most people who "learn" that they are gay are from "straight" parents...the parents are usually shocked when this occurs. Straight parents do not "only" raise straight children.

4) Gay marriage is no less meaningful. It is only less meaningful to YOU because you do not understand it.

5) You are very confused here...I think that you should research this one a bit. Besides, you appear to be stuck in a single mode of thinking...since it hasn't changed it must be right. It is this kind of think the impeded civil rights and rights for women. Time to wake up and smell the 21st century you archaic fossil!

6) Gay marriage IS being decided by people...why else do you think that it keeps coming up. Society is changing to accomodate them...it is only a matter of time. You say that majority elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities. What alternate universe have you been living in??? Historically the majority has always sought to proctect the rights of the majority!!! The minorities have always had to FIGHT for their rights...women, blacks, etc. Gays are simply the newest group of minorites....why are you the majority fighting to suppress the rights of this minority???

7) Lots of things are not supported by religion...anal sex, birth control, ect. This does not make them right or wrong. And we do not have ONE religion in America but many. You need to crawl out of that hole you're in.

Answer 5

Outstanding. Kudos to whoever drafted it, and if that was you, major respect. I love the way that no-one who opposes gay marriage here can offer the remotestly sensible answer.

Oh, and the irony bypass that a couple of these people have had fitted is staggering. Their answers are almost as entertaining as the list.

Answer 6

Your right everyone should be gay lets all stick with our own kind and be homosexuals. Then there will end up being males or females because no more babies can be made(except for all you smart ones who will think of artifical insemination) but even so that will only last so long. Hopefully females are the only ones left after we all turn gay because males have done nothing but destroy the world any how! So now that we are all gay lets rejoice, because some body seriously messed up evolution God allah, etc... when they created us! If we were supposed to be gay there would have been only one sex. Vaginas and Penis would never have been made it would have been either or!

Answer 7

Nope, none of the above. My problem with it is this, be patient with me, while I use an analogy:
Many people say that our federal government can't legislate morality. Is that true? Then why was slavery illegalized? Perhaps the fact that it was (and IS) morally WRONG had something to do with it. That is just one example of many that our government CAN and DOES legislate morality.
Now, same-sex marriage is, of course, morally wrong according to most religions. But let's forget that for a moment.
How, exactly, would the legalization of same-sex marriage be implemented? Would it take place at the federal level, or would it take place at the state level? If it took place at the federal level, do you HONESTLY think that the states in the Bible belt would go along with that?
So, letting it revert to the states would be the best route, right? Wrong. Doing so would make it legal in one state, but illegal in another. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that...unless Mary and Beth get married in New York and then have to move to Tennessee. Guess what? Their marriage is now invalid, and they are again "living in sin."
Not only that, but consider who performs most marriages. Who would that be? Oh yes, RELIGIOUS men, e.g. priests, pastors, reverends, et cetera. Well, most denominations don't condone same-sex marriages, will not recognize them, and will not perform them. I wonder...does that mean they could be sued for discrimination, if Mary and Beth decide to marry in the local Baptist church, and Pastor Tom won't do it? Quite possibly.
My point is, it would either have to be legal in EVERY state, which wouldn't go over well in the Bible belt, or it would have to be legalized by state, which wouldn't be fair to the same-sex couple.
Instead, they should just settle for civil unions, or commitment ceremonies. Many fundamentalist Christians don't want them to even have that much. Many non-Christians want them to have more.
So, wouldn't a compromise be the best route?

Answer 8

As in Jesse James. It was with the second great lust of her life, Jim Reed, that Belle Starr had her son Eddie. Like so many stories of the Wild West that were being printed in dime novels for sale among the gullible back East, Belle Starr was a legend in her own time.

http://www.bestglasseshome.com

Answer 9

There is right and there is wrong. such things as killing, stealing and dare I say homosexuality are wrong. There is a God and truth. If you don't believe this, then you wouldn't mind me killing you right now. but you would mind that, so you'd just be contradicting yourself. It is not like being gay or going against all morals is new or anything. Every generation has done it. The Roman and Greeks were worse than America is right now. And it is funny that they lost all their power. just like America is doing.

Answer 10

No, I oppose the trend in society to normalize perversion. Sorry if you don't like that word because it has negative overtones but it is an accurate description of what happens when two people of the same sex act like they are two people of the opposite sex. It's a distortion of reality and an attempt to change the meaning of a word to make it mean something that it hasn't meant since it was invented.

As far as I'm concerned, if two people of the same sex want to live together in a monogamous sexual relation that's up to them. Just don't try to get society to pretend that it's normal by co-opting the word marriage to describe such a union.

Answer 11

amazing question. i'm not a supporter of it however because it's not natural. i mean, it's like that one chic said up top "it goes along the lines of.......... yucky".

but what it seems like to me is they want the WHOOOOOOLE world to know about it and rub it in our faces because they finally got what they wanted. let the gays who want to be married because they love each other get married. don't publicize it. my marriage will be for my family, friends, wife's family and their friends. that's all. it just sounds like to me the majority of gays just want the attention.

and im DEFINATELY not all, hardcore holy-christian bullshi-t either. i mean, if being gay is a sin and shouldn't be done, shouldn't we all stop having sex? i mean, sex is the original sin after all.

as long as it doesn't effect me and my lifestyle and doesn't cause trouble in the world, do it.