Assuming that the US isn't a Theocracy...

[freealaska]

I have not yet begun to begin.

Wow you were trumped before you even began. Interesting how you attempted to justify theft, incest, and even murder yet in your mind Homosexuals are worse for society. Charming.

 

[Morcova]

And that reason is...?

It could only be because people who live in asia know it all...

That's the only reason I can come up with, all the countries she mentioned were asia.. unless she just wanted to use an appeal to popularity.

 

[variant]

You might wish to disallow and encumber homosexuals organizing their lives in a manner that doesn’t harm you because you are a bigoted individual.

That doesn’t have anything to do with religion.

But then again, I think the whole "religion" thing has been used as a cover for that for centuries on a manner of different issues.

 

[katautumn]

Well, this thread has turned out to be hugely disappointing. I was really hoping someone would post a completely jaw-dropping, completely secular, completely logical reason same-sex couples should not be allowed to wed. So far, we have the usualy tripe:

1. Being gay is gross. (well, I think it's gross when church's hold communion during flu season and everyone who has been sneezing and coughing on their hands dig around in the tiny cracker bowl looking for the "perfect" representation of the body of Christ to gnaw on and then pass it on to the next person. Should we make communions illegal?)

2. Gays can't naturally produce offspring. (Neither can my husband and me. Should we not have been allowed to marry?)

3. I don't want to be forced to endorse immorality. (You wouldn't be. Nobody would be forcing you to attend same-sex wedding ceremonies or even be friends with married gay or lesbian couples.)

4. Japan doesn't permit same-sex marriages. (Last time I checked the issue was pertaining to America, not Japan. In some countries it is illegal to speak negatively about the government. I guess we should make a constitutional amendment prohibiting freedom of speech and all violators will be executed. I mean, if it's good enough for our friends overseas, it's good enough for us...right?)

5. People in America don't have the right to marry a goat either. (You're right. The fundamental difference is that a gay person can consent to marriage. A goat cannot.)

 

[KCDAD]

1. Being gay is gross. (well, I think it's gross when church's hold communion during flu season and everyone who has been sneezing and coughing on their hands dig around in the tiny cracker bowl looking for the "perfect" representation of the body of Christ to gnaw on and then pass it on to the next person. Should we make communions illegal?) That is correct.


2. Gays can't naturally produce offspring. (Neither can my husband and me. Should we not have been allowed to marry?) That is correct. What benefit to society is your marriage that it should be rewarded with social benefits?

3. I don't want to be forced to endorse immorality. (You wouldn't be. Nobody would be forcing you to attend same-sex wedding ceremonies or even be friends with married gay or lesbian couples.) That is correct.

4. Japan doesn't permit same-sex marriages. (Last time I checked the issue was pertaining to America, not Japan. In some countries it is illegal to speak negatively about the government. I guess we should make a constitutional amendment prohibiting freedom of speech and all violators will be executed. I mean, if it's good enough for our friends overseas, it's good enough for us...right?)That is correct.

5. People in America don't have the right to marry a goat either. (You're right. The fundamental difference is that a gay person can consent to marriage. A goat cannot.)

That is correct. I think anyone should be able to get married. Plural marriages, arranged marriages by the parents of underage children, convenience marriages, marriages for power, money and trophy marriages... let's just take away ALL benefits like taxes, insurance and inheritance from it.

 

[TheMissus]

That is correct. I think anyone should be able to get married. Plural marriages,

Already exist in common law.

arranged marriages by the parents of underage children,

Already happens. The teenage boy gets the teenage girl pregnant and the parents insist on marriage of the underage couple. They wouldn't have gotten married without the parents' insistence, so it was arranged.

convenience marriages,

Happpens all the time. I could name off quite a few couples I know in real life who got married so she could be added to his insurance, or he could get a Green Card. It's pretty common.

It could also be argued that couples who have children outside marriage and eventually marry so they can raise the child together also have marriages of convenience.

marriages for power,

Look in the worlds of politics and show business for countless examples of marriages for power. TomKat is merely one example.

money and trophy marriages...

Donald Trump's latest wife is a supermodel. He may actually love her as well, but she's great arm candy.

let's just take away ALL benefits like taxes, insurance and inheritance from it.

Good luck with that. Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Well, this thread has turned out to be hugely disappointing. I was really hoping someone would post a completely jaw-dropping, completely secular, completely logical reason same-sex couples should not be allowed to wed. So far, we have the usualy tripe:

1. Being gay is gross. (well, I think it's gross when church's hold communion during flu season and everyone who has been sneezing and coughing on their hands dig around in the tiny cracker bowl looking for the "perfect" representation of the body of Christ to gnaw on and then pass it on to the next person. Should we make communions illegal?)

So you have a problem with people considering something disgusting, loathsome, degrading, yucky or whatever you wish to throw into the pot.
I suppose that in a free country, you'll have to get over it or go with the usual social engineering does - desensitize people to it or paint the topic as having good or admirable qualities.

2. Gays can't naturally produce offspring. (Neither can my husband and me. Should we not have been allowed to marry?)

No. If I am guessing correctly, an inability due to something atypical (not inherently impossible due to being the same gender) or choice is still included by society and not counted against you. Call it charity if you wish.
But the model of an infertile couple still consists of a man and a woman representation - both genders are there and it isn't a skewed counterfeit.

3. I don't want to be forced to endorse immorality. (You wouldn't be. Nobody would be forcing you to attend same-sex wedding ceremonies or even be friends with married gay or lesbian couples.)

Got something more than your opinion on that?
I really don't get where some think we are all supposed to pretend forced propaganda or organized indoctrination isn't already happening in the school systems, that the ever-growing government isn't simply an instrument in the ideology wars for some, that insurance premiums aren't a shared load, that the people being participants in a government, business, the world, etc. don't have any connection what-so-ever with the same, etc.

Sure, pretend that it is that strawman about how it is all an isolated and personal issue about "2 people and a bedroom" if you wish. I'll pass in favor of the more factual.

4. Japan doesn't permit same-sex marriages. (Last time I checked the issue was pertaining to America, not Japan. In some countries it is illegal to speak negatively about the government. I guess we should make a constitutional amendment prohibiting freedom of speech and all violators will be executed. I mean, if it's good enough for our friends overseas, it's good enough for us...right?)

5. People in America don't have the right to marry a goat either. (You're right. The fundamental difference is that a gay person can consent to marriage. A goat cannot.)

Umm... with your number five...
I'm pretty sure that the meaning of "gay" doesn't mean legal age of consent, being of sound mind, shown not to be in an existing contract regarding the same body and all those other requirements to enter into a 'legal contract'. But I suppose you were going for the simplistic over-generalization there. Still, there are qualifications that even the 'gay' must meet... even in those U.S. states that permit civil unions or call it a marriage.

 

[sbees]

That is correct. I think anyone should be able to get married. Plural marriages, arranged marriages by the parents of underage children, convenience marriages, marriages for power, money and trophy marriages... let's just take away ALL benefits like taxes, insurance and inheritance from it.

Well I don't think that would ever happen. However something that would almost certainly happen if the homosexual agenda crowd ever succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to side with them would be a whole bunch of Southern and Midwestern States simply ending the practice of giving marriage licenses alltogether.

So the homosexual crowd still wouldn't get their state certificate that they want to make their behavior "legit", all they would have succeeded in doing is ending state licenses for everyone.

 

[variant]

Well I don't think that would ever happen. However something that would almost certainly happen if the homosexual agenda crowd ever succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to side with them would be a whole bunch of Southern and Midwestern States simply ending the practice of giving marriage licenses alltogether.

So the homosexual crowd still wouldn't get their state certificate that they want to make their behavior "legit", all they would have succeeded in doing is ending state licenses for everyone.

Only if the majority in those states wanted the states to stop state licenses for marriage rather than license a homosexual couple.

It hardly seems like a government would be serving the people if they stopped a service that people still wanted.

 

[sbees]

Only if the majority in those states wanted the states to stop state licenses for marriage rather than license a homosexual couple.

It hardly seems like a government would be serving the people if they stopped a service that people still wanted.

There is a majority in many states who would rather see government licenses and benefits ended alltogether rather than see marriage perverted and redefined by activists.

You might not think that majority exists, but it does. I would agree that this is most likely would be limited to the South and Midwest though.

I don't ever foresee a situation where Mississippi, South Carolina or Alabama are going to issue homosexual "marriage" certificates.

They'd rightly end all certificates first, and in that situation there wouldn't be a thing that anyone could do about it either, courts can't make the States give out marriage licenses. A State could end the process tommorow if it so chose.

 

[Belk]

There is a majority in many states who would rather see government licenses and benefits ended alltogether rather than see marriage perverted and redefined by activists.

You might not think that majority exists, but it does. I would agree that this is most likely would be limited to the South and Midwest though.

I don't ever foresee a situation where Mississippi, South Carolina or Alabama are going to issue homosexual "marriage" certificates.

They'd rightly end all certificates first, and in that situation there wouldn't be a thing that anyone could do about it either, courts can't make the States give out marriage licenses. A State could end the process tommorow if it so chose.
[/color]

<sarcasm>
But then civilization as we know it would collapse. Without marriage no one would ever procreate.
</sarcasm>

I really doubt any state would stop handing out licenses, the impact of the lost revenue would be devastating.

 

[Belk]

So you have a problem with people considering something disgusting, loathsome, degrading, yucky or whatever you wish to throw into the pot.
I suppose that in a free country, you'll have to get over it or go with the usual social engineering does - desensitize people to it or paint the topic as having good or admirable qualities.
No. If I am guessing correctly, an inability due to something atypical (not inherently impossible due to being the same gender) or choice is still included by society and not counted against you. Call it charity if you wish.
But the model of an infertile couple still consists of a man and a woman representation - both genders are there and it isn't a skewed counterfeit.
Got something more than your opinion on that?
I really don't get where some think we are all supposed to pretend forced propaganda or organized indoctrination isn't already happening in the school systems, that the ever-growing government isn't simply an instrument in the ideology wars for some, that insurance premiums aren't a shared load, that the people being participants in a government, business, the world, etc. don't have any connection what-so-ever with the same, etc.

Sure, pretend that it is that strawman about how it is all an isolated and personal issue about "2 people and a bedroom" if you wish. I'll pass in favor of the more factual.


Umm... with your number five...
I'm pretty sure that the meaning of "gay" doesn't mean legal age of consent, being of sound mind, shown not to be in an existing contract regarding the same body and all those other requirements to enter into a 'legal contract'. But I suppose you were going for the simplistic over-generalization there. Still, there are qualifications that even the 'gay' must meet... even in those U.S. states that permit civil unions or call it a marriage.

CC, not sure if you saw this or not, but I really would be interested in your response.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29112522&postcount=63