Why is gay marriage part of the anti-Christian movement….

Certainly not for a gay couple. For gays marriage is all about trying to gain acceptance from the rest of society.

Using the institution of marriage that has nothing to do with them, for their own selfish benefit. Desparately wanting to mimick the nuclear family, believing it will bring the acceptance they so desparately crave. Really kind of pathetic when you think about it.

 

You are imagining that you are correct; what you say is not a fact.

More bigoted BS; you should really look at the meaning of what you're saying.

Again, YOUR imagination tells you that's 'true' (when it is not).

Why should anyone take you seriously? (I wonder.)

 

You are truely the master of writing without even a shred of content relevant to the topic of discussion. Just your generic denials of others views, seemingly unable to express your own. Might as well just say "is not" in your posts, without anything else because thats all you got. That and your opinions of me. When Frankly, Scarlett, I Don't Give A (*)(*)(*)(*) what you think of me.

 

Again the question is, if marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because they are the only ones who make babies, why are infertile couples allowed to marry?

And yes, I can't find a single culture that allowed gay marriage, but things change. Many cultures have prearranged marriages but ours does not accept that anymore. In many cultures, women are considered property of their husbands, but that has changed too. It is time for a change and let homosexual couples enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples. There really is no reason not to.

 

Because when marriage evolved, we had no ability to determine who is fertile or not. And because even today we cant determine that a couple is fertile with any level of accuracy. So government encourages all heterosexual couples to marry

 

Indeed, your arguments are quite pathetic, and they really don't take that much thought to figure out.

 

You've made that a necessity, and I do regret it to a large degree.

That's all it takes, when another's denial of truth is as blatant as what I see in your posts. My mistake is responding to you at all; I realize and will rectify it in time.

In fact, that is all that is needed to refute you the vast majority of the time; still, "ignore" would be the better option indeed.

My "opinions" are about the meaning of what you SAY; I don't know YOU one iota.

 

Another lie. WHY do you do that so blatantly?

 

In my experience, Homophobes often lie.

 

There's no biblical support for anything you just said, so clearly you're not a Christian, or drawing from Christian beliefs.

Based upon what? My love of fellow man?

I did not "invoke" the name of Christ in this thread. Period. To suggest otherwise is laughably wrong.

The name of Christ was "invoked" in the OP, in opposition to gay marriage. I merely pointed out the fallacy in that position. That's not an invocation, it's a response. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of that word?

That would be strange, though... the word "invocation" is probably printed in your church bulletin. That's that thing you're reading when you're ignoring the message.

LOL... It didn't evolve for that, it evolved over property rights and estates. Really more legal than romantic or reproductive.

But there are many cases in which we do know for 100% certainty that heterosexual couples will not reproduce. Postmenopausal women, for example. I've pointed that out to yo... oh, excuse me, another poster called Dixon... many times.

At any rate, it does not matter. This is allegedly a free society. In a free society, people are allowed to do as they wish unless they are harming someone else. We don't look for excuses to deny people the right to do something. We shouldn't be denying same-sex marriage because it doesn't provide other people benefits. We should be allowing it, because it does not cause harm.

 

I've heard a lot of arguments against marriage equality for gays but I don't think I've ever come across one that wasn't rooted either in religious prejudice i.e some vision of God's law aka Natural Law, or some variation of the slippery slope argument.

Okay, that's not quite true. I have heard people assert that making us equal would somehow cost too much, but that one is usually dragged out when the other ones fall apart.

 

lol! Is that all you boys could come up with? And what in the world would lead you to believe I fear you? I am mildley amused by you, but no fear.

 

LOL! Marriage has been around much longer than estates evolved, around the 13th century. And who did the estate go to? Why the first born son. English common law marriage served the purpose of assuring the legitimacy of the first born son.

Which of course isn't an issue with two gays.

 

Thanks for such a beautiful demonstration of my point. Not a shred of substance relevant to the topic.

 

You don't have that. You have love for what's rotten in your fellow man - most likely because it's good for business.

Post #5 says you're lying.

I know exactly what it means, and the record is clear that you invoked the name of Christ in support of "gay marrige".

 

Considering I am the only one making the argument in the last 3 pages of posts, and none of my arguments even mention gods law, natural law or slippery slopes, I'll take that as your admission that you don't have a thing to say in response to the only argument being made.

 

You're right in that I neglected to mention appeal to tradition in my list above. You also go on and on about bi-sexuality in another thread, which at least is kind of creative.

 

Has nothing to do with tradition. It's biological science. Thats why you can look across different cultures in different regions throughout history with different traditions and they all have the same tradition of marrying men to women. Husbands and wives joining together to become fathers and mothers. Fathers are always men and mothers are always women and children are only an issue when two people of the opposite sex join together.

I'll take that as your second admission that you have nothing in response to the only argument being made. Thats why you want to argue against the arguments that nobody is making.

 

Yeah and the world was believed to be flat for a really long time too until someone broke that status quo.

Do you have problems with 'new' or even different customs, traditions, beliefs, ideas and lifestyles?

 

Well at least I'm not arguing against myself, jb.

So tell me then. How would straight couples with children be adversely affected by same-sex couples with or without children having the same bill of rights that they do?

 

Not at all. But we are talking ablout government endorsement, encouragement with tax breaks and governmental entitlements, a discriminatory preference that benefits one class of people to the exclusion of others. I think government should only endorse those customs, traditions, beliefs, ideas and lifestyles which provide some benefit to society as opposed to only benefiting those who are preferred.
We could endorse "Goth" customs, traditions, beliefs, ideas and lifestyles with governmental entitlements and tax advantages, but what would be the point?

 

Fact is, there is no reason that the "government" should discriminate (in any way) against homosexual people (couples). Most people (and the government along with them) are beginning to acknowledge that in real (legal) ways.

 

The formation of households made up of homosexual couples provides no benefit to society. The formation of households made up of fathers, mothers and the children they have created does provide such a benefit. Fewer single mothers left on their own to raise their children and fewer children put into an orphanage or foster care because she doesnt have the ability to both provide and care for the child and herself.

 

You are wrong about that. If you disagree, try to PROVE it.

See, that is your belief/opinion. You may 'believe' that, but that is NOT the case. It has been shown (already) to be something other than you are saying. So... why do YOU believe/think what you do?

Actually, two women or two men can provide a child with exactly what they need. YOU may not see that as right or 'optimal', but reality challenges your view. All of this has been shown already, and I don't think too many reasonable people would be willing to argue this with you.

Again, I understand that you think or would opine that something is wrong with two gay people being a "family" or a "positive" to society... but what you're thinking isn't supported in reality. Sorry.