Religious Ones: So what exactly is your problem with gay marriage?

not "religious"

protecting marriage that can produce and raise children supports society and is reasonable

ALL people should have the right to medical and legal rights regarding those who they consider family, without regard to what society or religion thinks of their relationship... that is just fair

what i oppose is the discrimination against single people that is resulting from this whole argument!

First of all, if, as you say, there are so few homosexuals in the U.S., I honestly don't see why we ought to change the law just to accomodate them, but that is beside the point.

What I have against gay sex, is the danger involved in anal sex. Seriously getting poked in the behind is not healthy. Why, oh, why do we tell our kids that this is a "normal and natural" method of expressing our sexuality? It isn't. Why do we tout gay marriage as being a "healthy alternative life style"? When we know that it isn't.

Believing in God has nothing to do with it, other than the realization that He had good reasons for the laws He gave to Moses.

Why do you suppose the sphincter muscle tightens at the threat of penetration? C'mon, Dawinists, I'm sure you have the logical and reasonable answer for this...is it to protect the organism from anything penetrating this delicate area? Well, of course, it is, and whether you think the sphincter evolved, or whether you think God created it, it still serves the same purpose.

Then, think about what the anus is actually for. Seriously, gentlemen, poop is not a good substance to play in. The principle danger to those NOT involved in your poopy fun is that YOU might become infected with a very dangerous bacteria, such as staph. And, did you know...these little bugs are becoming more and more resistant to medication?

Also, you can infect other people just by breathing the same air. That's right, these nasty little critters are air borne.

So, yes, the people near you ARE affected by your homosexual boy-joy.

OH, yes, and, from what I understand ,staph infection is a problem that is spreading. How much of this is due to gay activity I don't know, or care. If there is even the tiniest chance that some gay guy might infect my child with something as nasty as staph, why should I endorse his "marriage"? That would be counter-productive, at least.

Gay marriage doesn't satisfy life's purpose

It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature's laws.

If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. Society should not legitimize the deviancy of homosexuality.

What was the original purpose of laws that pertain to marriage. They were passed because it was the general understanding that marriage was the best institution for our nation's children. So supporting, encouraging and protecting marriage was in the national interest, but only because of raising children.

If we no longer think that marriage is about having and raising one's own children, then we need to get government out of the marriage business (and civil union business) altogether.

What business is it of government to issue certificates that affirm people's personal affection, personal sexual preferences or personal commitments? It's ludicrous. A "stately seal placed upon a relationship". What possible business is that of government?

Because A. it devalues/cheapens the instituion of marriage and B. provides a precedent for celebrating other sexual abnormalities.

Regarding point A.: If the government suddenly decides that any piece of paper can count as money, all money becomes worthless.

Regarding pont B.: If you allow for "marriage" between a man and another man or woman and another woman, on what basis do you forbid marriage between a man and five women, a man and his 18-year-old daughter, a man and several men, a man and his pet?

In the end, there's a difference between tolerating evil and celebrating it. If someone chooses to engage in a homosexual relationship, I can't, won't and shouldn't force them to stop. But I draw the line when you try to force me to celebrate this behavior as a moral good.

"@JasonC: You're not making sense. In what way does it devalue marriage? Marriage is the stately seal placed upon a relationship, nothing else. If two people feel they have reached the highest level of love, they should be allowed to receive that seal. Also: You're comparing two adult men/women in love to bestiality and incest? Your comparisons are childish."

Funny...it doesn't sound like you're actually interested in hearing an answer to your question. But to answer it anyway:

Regarding your first point: Your definition of marriage as a "stately seal" seems to be unique to you. Not even proponents of gay marriage define it that way. Furthermore, your claim constitutes no refutation of my initial point. Even if marriage were merely a "stately seal" (you might look up the definition of stately, by the way) the fact remains that by broadening the definition to include something that it's not, one ipso facto destroys the singularity of the thing defined. If Gucci gives its label to any clothing designer that wants it, the label itself loses its value. Similarly, if the term "rabbit" is broadened to include chipmunks, one either has to come up with a new term for the soft-furred, large-eared, rodentlike burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae...or one has to admit that the name no longer has any real meaning.

Regarding your second point...our legal system is based on precedent, so I ask again: on what basis does the government prevent the definition from expanding to include polygamy, consentual incest, or beastiality? The comparison isn't childish, but namecalling is.

because of the fact then they could have no longer something extra desirable to do with their loose time. I agree Tax paying regulation abiding voters of this united states should not be denied a similar rights as every person else because of the fact they're gay. right now marriage is already interior the tank and gay marriage won't impact that. hundreds of folk known and in my living house state no much less get married outdoors of the church without point out of god of their ceremonies on a daily basis. upload: and 'God' forbid they renowned that marriage predates faith and for the longest time had no longer something to do with god. Marriages have been a manner of gaining land, administration, peace if want via between warring factions. adult adult males had different better halves and based on the way of existence one replaced into ranked greater than the different. very few human beings have been given married because of the fact of love. adult adult males married women persons to have the means to tutor that their inheritor replaced into THEIRS and not another guy's. GOD had no longer something to do with this and for many nonetheless does not. ADD2: And as far because of the fact the advantages/money argument. A gay guy or lady spend 40 years with their lover. they at the instant are not married possibly they're enjoyed ones companions. One significant different gets sick finally end up interior the well being midsection. in keeping with the place you are the well being midsection might or won't understand that DP. whilst that man or woman needs their chum the main they're denied that convenience. That man or woman dies. in keeping with their family individuals their lover could be solid aside and have each and everything they have shared for 40 years taken from them in basic terms because of the fact they at the instant are not married and god forbid the family individuals fights the want etc. This situation has occurred and could proceed to take place till gay couples can get married or till civil dedication/enjoyed ones partnerships are on a similar equivalent footing as MARRIAGE. in the event that they have been right now having been jointly that long they could be elementary regulation spouses.

If one is a Christian, then one is diametrically opposed to what God clearly called "abomination".

There really is no argument.

As for how it affects me, something doesn't have to just affect me for me to see how wrong something is.

For example, after Prop 8 was passed in California and protests broke out in San Francisco (no surprise there), Christians were verbally accosted and threatened on the streets near where the protests were occurring, and right in front of police officers who did absolutely nothing.

Gay supporters went into a church in Michigan after Prop 8 passed and rudely and ignorantly disrupted the services while shouting "Gay is ok!!" and littering the front of the church with their rubbish, hate-filled, intolerant pro-gay literature.

Another student at a college in Conneticut was giving a speech that ultimately was disrupted by gays and lesbians crawling through the windows and screaming in his face and preventing him from exercising his 1st Amendment rights, so it's no wonder so many millions of Christians of whatever denomination are thoroughly against "gay marriage" and "gay rights".

And please don't try that weak argument that the reason why gays and their "supporters" (most of whom are young people who know nothing of what liberty and rights are all about) do this is because of their being "sick and tired' of being discriminated against" because as far as I am concerned they have no right in acting all uppity and self-righteous over embracing a lifestyle that no nation in earth's history has ever wholeheartedly tolerated or saw any advantage in tolerating in the first place.

Gay marriage is an insult to the family unit in any nation. Traditional marriage and family have enough troubles of their own; we don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot all over simply to accomodate people whose agenda is to ultimately use the courts to force their perversion on a society already overwhelmed with godlessness and perversion.

What is a fad?

Children will be children right?

The media plays favors with sex. Things are purchased because of sexual undertones.

What makes you think our girls will be boys and our boys will be girls.

If you try it you might like it mentality. The spirit may not be willing but the flesh can be weak.

Man is born in sin and shaped in inequity.

What does inequity mean? bias and unfairness.

Homosexuality is a behavior.Sexually.

Gay people have many interest in dealing with the weak they are good motivational speakers.

Not according to y'all, but according to the divinely inspired authors of the Bible. I know THAT won't wash with you either, but the Bible spells it out so plainly, that the only thing the Judeo-Christian people from the gay side of the argument can do is just blow off the whole Bible. There's no soft way to interpret the Bible on this point, though, God knows, many have tried.

Because they choose to ignore some sins and pay close attention to others.

Almost every Christian I know has had premarital sex, gotten a divorce, etc.

But, you know, that's ok. That has been deemed socially acceptable to the Christian community, so whatever. But gay, man, those gays are the worse.

Here is a website that lists sins: http://www.parentalguide.com/Documents/Bible_Studi...

But somehow its ok to ignore 90% of them.