You are engaging in logical fallacy here. The exact opposite is true, actually. If states legalize same-sex marriage, what is to stop heterosexual cohabitating couples from demanding the societal benefits conferred upon marriage? There is your proper comparison.
There are many contributors to the decline of marriage, but not all of them can be legally remedied. For example, divorce. It's a legal must have, even though it is the greatest contributor to the demise of marriage--there's simply no legal way to force people to stay marriage, without reverting to enslavement.
We do not have to add to the decline by conferring marriage benefits on people incapable of producing offspring. Our children pay for those benefits, btw.
Oh, and so far as how I ';feel'; about these cohabitating couples? I think the women are stupid.A question for gay marriage opponents. How do you feel about those who never get married at all?
I am not a ';gay marriage opponent,'; because I do support legalization. But one thing I will say about the opponents is that they are not truly concerned about ';traditional marriage,'; so much as they are concerned about their traditional superiority to homosexuals. Nearly all people who oppose gay marriage believe that homosexuality is immoral. Therefore heterosexuality is morally superior to heterosexuality. Don't ever forget that belief system that so many people have had.
Opponents to gay marriage are the insurance companies that don't want to pay for anymore spouses on policies. THey think that gay marriage will open the floodgates (how many do they think there are? Homosexuals are a minority). So they send their lobbyists to Washington and find a buyer of their gifts and turn it into a moral issue.
Let's find all the Senior citizens living in sin so as not to lose their SS benefits.
Gays can get married, I don't care, I just don't want to have to pay for it. There will always be immorality in the world, you can't completely eliminate it, but that doesn't mean I should be taxed by the government to support it.
What's next pedophilia? You laugh, but being gay was only whispered about 20 years ago and now it's the new ';cool'; thing, you know, sorty like pedophelia is now...
The bottom line with those people... they hate gay people. It has nothing to do with disgracing marriage, it has everything to do with making them invisible.
If the ';hurting traditional marriage'; argument was valid, they would be more p*ssed off at Britney Spears than a nice gay couple from Massachusetts.
Old and sterile people don't produce offspring so they should also be barred from marriage. Dumb people should not be allowed to marry either. There should be an IQ test before a marriage license is issued. Given that gay women can reproduce they should get a pass and maybe a turkey baster to insure that they don't harm 'straight' marriage. Gay guys should be sent directly to the nearest church for reorientation. Holy @#$%...do people really give a flying #$%^ about this issue?
Those that never get married at all obviously know themselves well enough to know they shouldn't be married. This is a very weak argument and that holds no water. If you talk to most opponents, they will tell you they are against the term marriage, not civil union.
no. marriage isn't about numbers. if someone doesn'twant to marry, they shouldn't be forced to. what does hurt traditional marriage is people who divorce becuase they are unhappy or bored or too immature to work things out.
Good point. It is a sin to have a child out of wedlock - they should force parents to marry as well - if we are going to preserve marriage.
Your logic is an excellent example of those that ';don't get it';... And yet another irrelevant argument.
Gay people can get married all they want no problems, just don't bring innocent children into the equation.
Doesn't matter what all the nutcases rant and rave about it's about 2 people who care about one another
Stuff everyone else
No I'm not gay straight as an arrow
Fine with me...as long as you don't eat shell fish or touch a pig, like the other rules in the Old Testament.
how much did u have to drink to come up with this??
in 1 corinthians chapter 7 ';it is good for a man not to marry';..i would like you to be free from concern. an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs-how he can please the Lord. but a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world- and his interests are divided. an unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. but a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband. i am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord';... but if you marry..ephesians chapter 5 verse 22-33... ';husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, ..husbands should love their wives as their own body...a man should leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become on flesh...each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
homosexuality is a sin... 1 corinthians chapter 6 verse 9, but a sin just the same to God as sexually immoral, idolaters, adulters, prostitutes, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. homosexuality is just as forgivable as any other sin.
but God did not create a man or woman with homosexual desires, that is his choice. to give sanction to gay marriage would be giving approval to that lifestyle that the bible says is a sin. we all should be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their lifestyle.
i hope this helps a little, but i don't think the government will come and force people to get married in order to save traditional marriage, since that is a choice. it is also against the law in most states (and a sin) for a couple to live together, but they don't enforce it.
No comments:
Post a Comment