For or Against Gay Marriage

I know that you were being sarcastic in your comment, but there is some truth in your statement none-the-less. The concepts of self-actualization and self-functioning professed in the 60's and 70's led to the legitimizing of the "If it feels good, do it" generation and its concommittant immorality.
I had the good fortune of meeting Dr. William Coulson, an associate of Maslov and Rogers, back in the mid-90's when he was doing a lecture tour apologizing for the widespread use of their theories of process education and self-actualization in every day life and how it was screwing up the general population, particularly kiRAB in school. The shift in schools from one of authoratative to non-directed teaching created a generation of moral relativists amongst other things.
Here's a short interview with Dr. Coulson on the topic.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ACADEMIC/ROGMAS.HTM
 
If you live in Canada and can get married in Canada, why are you so worried about what the US does? Last time I checked, we had a border between the two countries and a completely different set of laws.
If the US wants to allow gay marriage than it should be put to a vote of the citizens as defined in our Constitution. Oh wait, it already has been and it failed 19 straight times in 2004.
 
Majority oppression. The fisical sitatuion of the entire country is more important then giving equal rights to the gays. The majority denying rights to the minority is majority oppression no matter how you cut it. Give me another one.

Bunch of lies, fallacies and majority oppression arguments by Jaaaman



Lies. The family unit has been decimated by the high levels of single mothers, single fathers, abusive parents, neglective parents, high rates of divorce, rising rates of infeditelity, and those are just a few examples. Besides, as we have seen, many of those being married in Oregon and Massachuests have been together for years, some over 20 years. People who are aganist agay marriage often ignore that fact but at the same time call for stability. If a relationship can surivive for 20+ years, there must be a solid foundation. As for child raising, children are no more likely to be gay then straight under any parentage. The American sociology report has found no conclusive evidence pointing to problems of gay parenting. Besides, if marriage WAS about rasing children, life in America would be radically different. As for best defense aganist intrustive government, that would lie in community interaction in the government and a constant fight for civil rights. Family has little to do with government intrustiveness. Next.



Your point is? The very foundation of Western Society was completely accepting of homosexual relations. Also, a significent amount of straights practice anal sex. And who exactly defines "normal sexuality?" What we do today would be enough to lock you up or have you killed 300 years ago. Fallacy.



Fallacies. That only will happen with a complete lack of any sexual education. Besides, that argument can easily apply to straights. Do you really believe that legalizing marriage, a known partner reducer, will increase disease transfer? Laughable argument to say the least. What will put more kiRAB at risk for diseases is lack of education. Besides, if you wanted to lower all of that, you'd turn off the TV and stop going to PG-13/R movies. KiRAB associate sex with movies and TV far more then the stingy old concept of marriage. Your argument is in the wrong direction. And you argument is essentially a lie. All of your listed diseases have exploded in hostilely gay countries, and countries with little sexual education. What does that say?



American sociology report says you have a argument based on lies. They have found nothing conclusive even remotely supporting that argument.
Google "American sociology, does the sexual preference of parents matter?"
Know what? I'll link it for you. It says you have no argument



Lies. And I believe someone else has proved it for me. Therefore, I won't waste time disprove your lies.



You just admmited majority oppression. What the majority believes is irrevelant in terms of equality under the law. The majority has, is, and will be wrong. Simply because more people believe in something does not make it right. This theme is repeated throughout history. Test me if you wish to be crushed.



Irrevelant. Besides, this is another majority oppression argument. Would you want to remove all of the hate speech aganist blacks? How about latinos? How about Jews? Because you seem to represent the majority, it is okay to bar the rights of the few because them majority, at this point, think it is right.

Every argument aganist gay marriage boils down to lies, fallacies and majority oppression.
 
Name me one state , where brother and sister can go thru all the blood tests, and then be allowed to wed ? :xchicken: :xchicken: :xchicken:
 
I am also a RC and how you as a RC justify condoning gay marriage when it is against everything the RCC teaches?

You mist know as a RC that the sex that gays engage in is a Mortal sin in the eyes of the RCC.........

Aren't you living by a double standard?
 
Can you prove that?.........Straights that molest girls are straight pedophiles.........Gays that molest boys are gay pedophiles.........

They are both disgusting perverts that should be at the very least castrated.....
 
I wonder if he thinks that the framers of the constitution (or of at least the 14th Amendment) would have forseen the advent of black women marrying white men?
 
You missed the point, entirely. You keep bringing up your gay frienRAB to I guess back up your arguments. I was saying that I doubt these frienRAB as you describe them really exist. They seem to be in the closet and scared to come out because of the possible negative reaction, yet confide in someone with your prejudices.
 
It's not about "blame", it's about stemming the spread of infection. And the TWO biggest routes for HIV spreading are gay men and intravenous drug use. Intravenous drug use is already illegal. The other avenue to explore is to discourage homosexual activity. And THAT isn't done by rewarding homosexuality as a lifestyle.
 
Government should have no part in marriage, as it is totally a religious/traditional institution. The governemnt should only be allows to give extra rights to common law marriages, whether sanctified in a church or a temple, between a man or a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
 
Still, there is no reason that the State has to subsidize these "immoral" marriages.

There is a way to have equal protection without subsidizing oddball marriages. It's called GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE, and it's very easy to understand.
 
Back
Top