• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Somerville said:
Marriage can only be male-female because the whole purpose is to reproduce. A bit of a problem for straight couples who don't wish to have offspring.
Click to expand...

Actually, I saw when I just looked on my lap top tonight and saw that number 1 actually had something. When I first saw it on my phone via Tapatalk it was blank. I wondered why it was like that so I asked. Seems now like it was a glitch.
 
Somerville said:
Could you clarify your statement?
Click to expand...
I am curious what you see as the point in collecting and revisiting these arguments now. Scotus really is not likely to be changing their minds on the fundamental question beyond deciding if theists florists and bakers must yield to civil rights laws and even Conservative Republicans can read the polling data and see what their own younger membership sees opposing same sex marriage as untenable now. There is zero political will to change this outside the very heart of Christian conservative states. The dinosaurs are dying off and they are not laying eggs.
 
SDET said:
Destroying the nuclear family will facilitate making the state become the guardian of children.
Click to expand...

False argument. Same-sex marriage does not damage the “nuclear family” in any way.
 
SDET said:
Blended families advance the concept that parents are transitory.
Click to expand...

...how? Did your parents suddenly turn gay and split up? You think healthy, heterosexual couples break up because gay marriage exists?
 
Deuce said:
False argument. Same-sex marriage does not damage the “nuclear family” in any way.
Click to expand...
In their mind it does, because they falsely assume that a nuclear family consists of only a mother and father with kids, instead of parents with kids.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
In their mind it does, because they falsely assume that a nuclear family consists of only a mother and father with kids, instead of parents with kids.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Even operating off that basis, two dudes getting married doesn’t eliminate a heterosexual marriage.
 
The problem most rational people have with gay marriage is that it has and will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. This was initially washed away as a "slippery-slope" or "fear-mongering" argument, but nobody can deny many of them haven't come to fruition.

First and foremost is that a morally grounded society cannot encourage or facilitate homosexuality. The medical data is clear on this. It's a dangerously unhealthy lifestyle for the individual and carries a high risk of depression, STD, HIV, among other things. To counter the usual explanation for this, there is no clear link between treatment of gays and overall mental health of said gays (otherwise, gays in ultra-liberal places would in a constant state of euphoria given how much homosexuality is glorified in these places). To add to this, there is the tendency of gay individuals to act in a very certain way (upright posture, strutting buttock, forced accent and lisp etc), as well as for gay couples to often delegate the role of dedicated male and female among each partner, indicating that there is more here than simply a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a state of confusion and embodiment of mental tendencies which should be addressed and controlled, not celebrated.

Further, the bigger issue with this is that almost all major religions (which, like it or not are here to stay) condemn homosexuality. Followers of said religions should have the right to uphold these religious beliefs. That means if I choose not to take part in a gay wedding, the government should not be able to force me to do so, anymore than the government cannot force an atheist to attend mass or a Muslim to eat pork. That's a violation of religious freedom. So while I don't directly have a problem with what gays do in their own personal lives, I do have a problem when they try to destroy my livelihood because what I do in my own personal life. What ever happened to live and let live or tolerance, the staples of the gay movement? They went out the window as soon as gays gained a voice.

Then there's the issue of gay adoption, which is clear-cut child abuse. Should I pass away tomorrow and have nobody but the State to care for my children, I should have the right to mandate that my kids, born of a religious bond between a man and a woman, are not put into the care of a gay couple. Given the blatantly extreme hostility the gay movement has taken against religious people and their views, you cannot convince me that a gay couple would accept my 12 year old religious son. They would convince him that his views are wrong and that there's something wrong with him and needs to change, which ironically is the exact same thing gays have claimed makes them depressed when their own family does.

All of these moral dilemmas, which clearly impede on the rights of religious people, have been destroyed in favour of glorifying homosexuality. Excuse my willingness to think that more of my rights will be impeded as gays continue to dominate the mainstream political spaces. When the government has resorted to holding Christian businesses at gunpoint to make a gay marriage their business, I have little faith left that this movement has anything to do with love, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, or any of the other words adopted by the gay movement.
 
Somerville said:
With the recent news from Brunei about imposing the death penalty on gays and adulterers, I've been wondering just what is the justification fo opposing gay marriage. Why do some people really hate homosexuals, whether male or female?

Here's a list of arguments against same sex marriage that I found on the internets:
  2. It requires a new definition of marriage
  3. Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages
  4. Marriage is meant to increase population
  5. Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom
  6. Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage
  7. Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays
  8. Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia
  9. Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.
  10. Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.
Click to expand...
SSM is legal here. I'm not sure what's left to discuss.
 
Crusader13 said:
The problem most rational people have with gay marriage is that it has and will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. This was initially washed away as a "slippery-slope" or "fear-mongering" argument, but nobody can deny many of them haven't come to fruition.
Click to expand...
A slight change in this statement would be -- The problem most irrational people have with gay marriage is that they believe it will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. There is that small fact that same-sex marriage hasn't begun to "tread dangerously on religious rights" but there are many who believe if their religion doesn't control all social interactions then they are being oppressed.

Crusader13 said:
First and foremost is that a morally grounded society cannot encourage or facilitate homosexuality. The medical data is clear on this. It's a dangerously unhealthy lifestyle for the individual and carries a high risk of depression, STD, HIV, among other things. To counter the usual explanation for this, there is no clear link between treatment of gays and overall mental health of said gays (otherwise, gays in ultra-liberal places would in a constant state of euphoria given how much homosexuality is glorified in these places). To add to this, there is the tendency of gay individuals to act in a very certain way (upright posture, strutting buttock, forced accent and lisp etc), as well as for gay couples to often delegate the role of dedicated male and female among each partner, indicating that there is more here than simply a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a state of confusion and embodiment of mental tendencies which should be addressed and controlled, not celebrated.
Click to expand...
A well articulated and grammatically correct attempted justification of removing the legal rights of those who fail to conform to this person's religious beliefs. Doesn't mean the argument is valid but at least it is coherent while at the same time filled with lies.

Crusader13 said:
Further, the bigger issue with this is that almost all major religions (which, like it or not are here to stay) condemn homosexuality. Followers of said religions should have the right to uphold these religious beliefs. That means if I choose not to take part in a gay wedding, the government should not be able to force me to do so, anymore than the government cannot force an atheist to attend mass or a Muslim to eat pork. That's a violation of religious freedom. So while I don't directly have a problem with what gays do in their own personal lives, I do have a problem when they try to destroy my livelihood because what I do in my own personal life. What ever happened to live and let live or tolerance, the staples of the gay movement? They went out the window as soon as gays gained a voice.
Click to expand...
Actually there are "major religions" which disagree with you. Then, we get to the matter that the religious right is using as their basis for claiming the government is taking away their religious rights - "being forced to sell a business product to gays" -- which is being promoted with the same excuses as were used in the Jim Crow Days to deny black customers services supplied to white people. Selling a product or a service to those willing and capable of paying for said product or service is a necessary requirement for a civil, capitalistic society. If you are providing products or services to a specified group as a private club or gathering in which membership is a requirement, that is perfectlly legal. Operating a business on Main Street requires that you sell to all who wish to buy whatever you are selling.
 
Crusader13 said:
Then there's the issue of gay adoption, which is clear-cut child abuse. Should I pass away tomorrow and have nobody but the State to care for my children, I should have the right to mandate that my kids, born of a religious bond between a man and a woman, are not put into the care of a gay couple. Given the blatantly extreme hostility the gay movement has taken against religious people and their views, you cannot convince me that a gay couple would accept my 12 year old religious son. They would convince him that his views are wrong and that there's something wrong with him and needs to change, which ironically is the exact same thing gays have claimed makes them depressed when their own family does.
Click to expand...
Beliefs aren't always supported by the facts. The gay movement has not expressed extreme hostility toward all religious people, just that small segment which calls for imprisonment and execution fo gay people, as I have noted in other places. Why would a gay couple which attends church every Sunday try to tell your son that his faith is wrong, though his views on homosexuality are wrong. One can be a gay Christian, Muslim, Jew or believer of other faiths. I can see that is difficult if not impossible for you to accept but it is fact.

Crusader13 said:
All of these moral dilemmas, which clearly impede on the rights of religious people, have been destroyed in favour of glorifying homosexuality. Excuse my willingness to think that more of my rights will be impeded as gays continue to dominate the mainstream political spaces. When the government has resorted to holding Christian businesses at gunpoint to make a gay marriage their business, I have little faith left that this movement has anything to do with love, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, or any of the other words adopted by the gay movement.
Click to expand...
Nobody is "glorifying" homosexuality, they are just saying you should accept that not every person believes as you do. Personally, I find that it is the so-called Christians who are the ones advocating for hate, intolerance, refusal to accept those others who are unlike them. They are the ones who seem to be violating the words of some ancient guy. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
 
Somerville said:
Marriage can only be male-female because the whole purpose is to reproduce. A bit of a problem for straight couples who don't wish to have offspring.
Click to expand...

If the state licenses marriage to reproduce and raise families and marriage licenses are presumed to weaken existing marriage, in which that conduct is not a factor , it is most weakened numerically by not sunsetting that marriage license after those children reach the age of majority. Why are Grandpa and Grandma Walton allowed to stay civilly married when the state can either nullify the contract after the children are raised or oblige these couples to re certify this union still serves the stated purpose every five years? No reason on earth that heteros should be allowed to stay married after the contract fails to serve its intended purpose. The day John Walton turns 18 and is presumed to be an adult , is the day his parents marriage union should be dissolved. Let Esther and Zeb cohabitate just like me and my partner do as long as they want. That should keep the state honest and the purpose of marriage pristine.
 
I am against same sex marriages w/out referring to the Bible. I understand there are so many of us afraid to speak out against these marriages but I don't agree with the punishment.
 
Somerville said:
There is that small fact that same-sex marriage hasn't begun to "tread dangerously on religious rights"
Click to expand...

Maybe if you ignore my entire post, sure. But the evidence is quite clear that it does and will continue to do so.

A well articulated and grammatically correct attempted justification of removing the legal rights of those who fail to conform to this person's religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

This point has nothing to do with religious beliefs. You're intentionally trying to downplay my arguments as religious zeal when they're actually secular ones.

A society has a moral responsibility to promote good health and discourage bad health. That's why we restrict smoking, alcohol, drugs, etc. By glorifying and encouraging those with same-sex urges to freely act on those urges, we knowingly and intentionally steer them towards a lifestyle statistically at a high-risk of countless unwanted effects. This isn't a religious issue; it's a societal and practical one.

Actually there are "major religions" which disagree with you.
Click to expand...

The fundamental dogma of the world's three main religions prohibit homosexuality. Should some choose to ignore that and call themselves proud gays and proud Christians/Muslims/Jews, good for them, but that doesn't change the widely accepted scripture and beliefs of the remaining 90% of followers.

Then, we get to the matter that the religious right is using as their basis for claiming the government is taking away their religious rights - "being forced to sell a business product to gays" -- which is being promoted with the same excuses as were used in the Jim Crow Days to deny black customers services supplied to white people.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Christian businesses aren't being forced to sell to gay people, they're being forced to participate in a gay wedding; an event explicitly forbidden by their religion. In the most prominent case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the owner had no problem selling to gay individuals. In fact, the gay couple that started the lawsuit admitted that they had bought cakes from him before. The issue was that they explicitly requested a gay wedding cake , to which he responded that his business doesn't make those (much the same way any regular bakery would say they don't do bar-mitzvah cakes, for example, which is perfectly legal, or a mechanic telling you he doesn't fix BMWs, or a plumber telling you he only does commercial plumbing, not residential).

A business has a right to pick and choose which products/services they offer. Anything otherwise is forced labor.

Selling a product or a service to those willing and capable of paying for said product or service is a necessary requirement for a civil, capitalistic society.
Click to expand...

Yet the very people making this argument have no problem with mainstream digital platforms like Youtube, Facebook, Paypal, Google etc denying their services to anyone with Conservative, pro-Trump views. Countless content creators have been kicked or de-monetized from these services simply because the platforms don't like their views and choose not to host them. Similarly, it seems that nobody has a problem with gay bakeries refusing to sell to Christians

YouTube

Or Muslim bakeries refusing to sell to gays

YouTube

Simply because it doesn't fit the agenda to attack and single-out Christians. What we are seeing here is a selective right to discriminate, where a certain freedom is granted only to a particular group of people/businesses and not to others (ironically the same thing gays allege is being done to them).
 
Last edited:
The gay movement has not expressed extreme hostility toward all religious people, just that small segment which calls for imprisonment and execution fo gay people
Click to expand...

Yep, demonizing Christians who don't want them to get married while openly embracing and partnering with religions that explicitly call for their execution or stoning. Excuse me for not taking their selective tears seriously. If the gay movement has shown anything it's that they despise the typical white Christian religion. Given the way they've treated innocent business owners who just want to abide by their beliefs, I am not thrilled with the prospect of how they would treat a child they adopt if that child was a proud Christian and did not agree with their sexual choices. Of course people can be pro-gay and religious, but my point is that most won't be since the two directly contradict each other. So if my child was adopted by a gay couple and held onto the beliefs I raised him with, ie that homosexuality is wrong, first and foremost you are putting my child in a knowingly hostile and incompatible environment, and I see no evidence to suggest gay parents would love him "just the way he is" like they claim should be done for them.

Personally, I find that it is the so-called Christians who are the ones advocating for hate, intolerance, refusal to accept those others who are unlike them.
Click to expand...

I am seeing very few if any cases of religious platforms openly and selectively attacking gay rights. The gay movement managed to get Mozilla's CEO axed from his own company for simply donating money to an event celebrating traditional male-female marriage. Show me mainstream cases were Christians have tried to run gay business owners out of their livelihood or deny them an education. I'm not hearing of these, meanwhile there are countless cases Christians being targeted in every capacity for not succumbing to the gay movement.
 
Crusader13 said:
Yep, demonizing Christians who don't want them to get married while openly embracing and partnering with religions that explicitly call for their execution or stoning. Excuse me for not taking their selective tears seriously. If the gay movement has shown anything it's that they despise the typical white Christian religion. Given the way they've treated innocent business owners who just want to abide by their beliefs, I am not thrilled with the prospect of how they would treat a child they adopt if that child was a proud Christian and did not agree with their sexual choices. Of course people can be pro-gay and religious, but my point is that most won't be since the two directly contradict each other. So if my child was adopted by a gay couple and held onto the beliefs I raised him with, ie that homosexuality is wrong, first and foremost you are putting my child in a knowingly hostile and incompatible environment, and I see no evidence to suggest gay parents would love him "just the way he is" like they claim should be done for them.



I am seeing very few if any cases of religious platforms openly and selectively attacking gay rights. The gay movement managed to get Mozilla's CEO axed from his own company for simply donating money to an event celebrating traditional male-female marriage. Show me mainstream cases were Christians have tried to run gay business owners out of their livelihood or deny them an education. I'm not hearing of these, meanwhile there are countless cases Christians being targeted in every capacity for not succumbing to the gay movement.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe the words you type, (maybe you believe the words, I don't know) indicates an inability to learn anything which contradicts what you believe. I feel sorry for you and people like you who have come to believe such complete and utter nonsense.
 
Crusader13 said:
Or Muslim bakeries refusing to sell to gays

YouTube

Simply because it doesn't fit the agenda to attack and single-out Christians. What we are seeing here is a selective right to discriminate, where a certain freedom is granted only to a particular group of people/businesses and not to others (ironically the same thing gays allege is being done to them).
Click to expand...

Deleted most of your post simply because it is reiterating the same old crap.

The Muslim bakery refusing Crowder's "gay marriage wedding cake" is funny. Naturally, the part where the baker says they don't do wedding cakes for anyone was cut from the video. He recommended the baker across the street for wedding cakes. Yes, there are lots of websites with the video, which - shall I say -- was heavily edited in order to create a video that 'verifies' the Islamophobia of some Americans. Steven Crowder is not gay and he is also not a very good actor as he utilised every gay stereotype in his attack on the Muslim community of Dearborn, MI.
 
SDET said:
Blended families advance the concept that parents are transitory.
Click to expand...

Parents can be transitory for many different reasons. That is simply a fact of life that some people have to adjust to. Humans, especially younger humans, are really good at adapting if given enough support in areas that really matter.
 
Crusader13 said:
The problem most rational people have with gay marriage is that it has and will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. This was initially washed away as a "slippery-slope" or "fear-mongering" argument, but nobody can deny many of them haven't come to fruition.

First and foremost is that a morally grounded society cannot encourage or facilitate homosexuality. The medical data is clear on this. It's a dangerously unhealthy lifestyle for the individual and carries a high risk of depression, STD, HIV, among other things. To counter the usual explanation for this, there is no clear link between treatment of gays and overall mental health of said gays (otherwise, gays in ultra-liberal places would in a constant state of euphoria given how much homosexuality is glorified in these places). To add to this, there is the tendency of gay individuals to act in a very certain way (upright posture, strutting buttock, forced accent and lisp etc), as well as for gay couples to often delegate the role of dedicated male and female among each partner, indicating that there is more here than simply a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a state of confusion and embodiment of mental tendencies which should be addressed and controlled, not celebrated.

Further, the bigger issue with this is that almost all major religions (which, like it or not are here to stay) condemn homosexuality. Followers of said religions should have the right to uphold these religious beliefs. That means if I choose not to take part in a gay wedding, the government should not be able to force me to do so, anymore than the government cannot force an atheist to attend mass or a Muslim to eat pork. That's a violation of religious freedom. So while I don't directly have a problem with what gays do in their own personal lives, I do have a problem when they try to destroy my livelihood because what I do in my own personal life. What ever happened to live and let live or tolerance, the staples of the gay movement? They went out the window as soon as gays gained a voice.

Then there's the issue of gay adoption, which is clear-cut child abuse. Should I pass away tomorrow and have nobody but the State to care for my children, I should have the right to mandate that my kids, born of a religious bond between a man and a woman, are not put into the care of a gay couple. Given the blatantly extreme hostility the gay movement has taken against religious people and their views, you cannot convince me that a gay couple would accept my 12 year old religious son. They would convince him that his views are wrong and that there's something wrong with him and needs to change, which ironically is the exact same thing gays have claimed makes them depressed when their own family does.

All of these moral dilemmas, which clearly impede on the rights of religious people, have been destroyed in favour of glorifying homosexuality. Excuse my willingness to think that more of my rights will be impeded as gays continue to dominate the mainstream political spaces. When the government has resorted to holding Christian businesses at gunpoint to make a gay marriage their business, I have little faith left that this movement has anything to do with love, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, or any of the other words adopted by the gay movement.
Click to expand...

It doesn't tread any more on religious rights than either interracial or interreligion marriages or even marriage after divorce. In fact, several religions are very much against people of two different religions getting married, and some people have religious beliefs that are against interracial marriages.
 
Somerville said:
The Muslim bakery refusing Crowder's "gay marriage wedding cake" is funny. Naturally, the part where the baker says they don't do wedding cakes for anyone was cut from the video.
Click to expand...

So tell me what happened in the Christian bakery refusing to serve the gay wedding cake. That's right - you can't. There's no evidence of what was said by either party yet this didn't stop the leftist crowd blowing up over it. The Muslim bakery used the same reasoning that Masterpiece Cake Shop used - their business doesn't offer a certain type of product.

He recommended the baker across the street for wedding cakes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and so did the Christian bakery. In fact, they also offered to sell the gay couple a standard cake and provide them with the icing/decorations to design it themselves, which is a very reasonable thing to do. That didn't stop the outrage from the gay movement and leftist group-think who wanted to convince the world that the Christians are being evil.

There is nothing significantly different about the Muslim bakery or the Christian bakery. Both politely refused to make a gay wedding cake for religious reasons and they both offered reasonable alternatives to the customers. The only difference is the selective outrage of the leftist media and gay movement who wouldn't dare apply the same standards to a minority religion, which is outright obvious proof that they're full of **** and not to be trusted.

Steven Crowder is not gay and he is also not a very good actor as he utilised every gay stereotype in his attack on the Muslim community of Dearborn, MI.
Click to expand...

I agree he's a bad actor, but he was good enough to fool the Muslim bakery since they clearly treated him and the issue as if he was really gay, so your reasoning is flawed. You claim that a heavily edited video is not valid proof to condemn a Muslim bakery of a crime yet there is no video at all of what actually happened in the case of the Christian bakery yet you did not feel inclined to make the same sort of excuses for them. You're blatantly applying your outrage selectively.
 
btthegreat said:
If the state licenses marriage to reproduce and raise families and marriage licenses are presumed to weaken existing marriage, in which that conduct is not a factor , it is most weakened numerically by not sunsetting that marriage license after those children reach the age of majority. Why are Grandpa and Grandma Walton allowed to stay civilly married when the state can either nullify the contract after the children are raised or oblige these couples to re certify this union still serves the stated purpose every five years? No reason on earth that heteros should be allowed to stay married after the contract fails to serve its intended purpose. The day John Walton turns 18 and is presumed to be an adult , is the day his parents marriage union should be dissolved. Let Esther and Zeb cohabitate just like me and my partner do as long as they want. That should keep the state honest and the purpose of marriage pristine.
Click to expand...

No state is licensing marriage for reproduction or raising children though, since reproduction nor child rearing is a requirement of marriage. In fact, in at least a couple of states, in order for first cousins to legally marry, they cannot be able to reproduce, which means the only conclusion that can be drawn for at least those states is that marriage is for some other purpose other than reproduction just from the laws that actually exist in those states.
 
roguenuke said:
No state is licensing marriage for reproduction or raising children though, since reproduction nor child rearing is a requirement of marriage. In fact, in at least a couple of states, in order for first cousins to legally marry, they cannot be able to reproduce, which means the only conclusion that can be drawn for at least those states is that marriage is for some other purpose other than reproduction just from the laws that actually exist in those states.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to notice the two letter word at the very being of my post? There was also an 'and' in that same sentence. They suggest that there are at least two premises on which the rest of the post must rest for any of it to be valid that are subject to question. I sure as hell was not intending to leave those words out. I viewed them as very important to my reputation as a serious poster.
 
Crusader13 said:
The problem most rational people have with gay marriage is that it has and will continue to tread dangerously on religious rights. This was initially washed away as a "slippery-slope" or "fear-mongering" argument, but nobody can deny many of them haven't come to fruition.

First and foremost is that a morally grounded society cannot encourage or facilitate homosexuality. The medical data is clear on this. It's a dangerously unhealthy lifestyle for the individual and carries a high risk of depression, STD, HIV, among other things. To counter the usual explanation for this, there is no clear link between treatment of gays and overall mental health of said gays (otherwise, gays in ultra-liberal places would in a constant state of euphoria given how much homosexuality is glorified in these places). To add to this, there is the tendency of gay individuals to act in a very certain way (upright posture, strutting buttock, forced accent and lisp etc), as well as for gay couples to often delegate the role of dedicated male and female among each partner, indicating that there is more here than simply a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a state of confusion and embodiment of mental tendencies which should be addressed and controlled, not celebrated.

Further, the bigger issue with this is that almost all major religions (which, like it or not are here to stay) condemn homosexuality. Followers of said religions should have the right to uphold these religious beliefs. That means if I choose not to take part in a gay wedding, the government should not be able to force me to do so, anymore than the government cannot force an atheist to attend mass or a Muslim to eat pork. That's a violation of religious freedom. So while I don't directly have a problem with what gays do in their own personal lives, I do have a problem when they try to destroy my livelihood because what I do in my own personal life. What ever happened to live and let live or tolerance, the staples of the gay movement? They went out the window as soon as gays gained a voice.

Then there's the issue of gay adoption, which is clear-cut child abuse. Should I pass away tomorrow and have nobody but the State to care for my children, I should have the right to mandate that my kids, born of a religious bond between a man and a woman, are not put into the care of a gay couple. Given the blatantly extreme hostility the gay movement has taken against religious people and their views, you cannot convince me that a gay couple would accept my 12 year old religious son. They would convince him that his views are wrong and that there's something wrong with him and needs to change, which ironically is the exact same thing gays have claimed makes them depressed when their own family does.

All of these moral dilemmas, which clearly impede on the rights of religious people, have been destroyed in favour of glorifying homosexuality. Excuse my willingness to think that more of my rights will be impeded as gays continue to dominate the mainstream political spaces. When the government has resorted to holding Christian businesses at gunpoint to make a gay marriage their business, I have little faith left that this movement has anything to do with love, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, or any of the other words adopted by the gay movement.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of bigoted, religious right bull****.
 
PTF said:
I am against same sex marriages w/out referring to the Bible. I understand there are so many of us afraid to speak out against these marriages but I don't agree with the punishment.
Click to expand...

Your feelings will change when a family member comes out as gay. Just as it did with the Cheyney family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom