Forums | MacLife

I am also doing an argumentative paper for my college english class on this very subject.  I am strongly opposed to the fact that the government in our country is even considering gay marrige as an option in any state.  It is totally immoral and against everything the Bible teaches.  This country was founded UNDER GOD and the union of the same sex, I believe, is not what GOD had in mind.  Marrige is defined as a union between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.  God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, we are supposed to go by that example.  What are we trying to teach our children.  No wonder this world keeps getting worse and worse, it seems all of our traditional morals and values are being thrown right out of the window.  As far as the children that are being forced to live in these situations, what in the world do you think that generation of children are going to grow up and be like?  It is a crazy world now, just think, about twenty years from now what our world will be like, expecially if gay marrige becomes a legal and an accecpable practice.  Right now advocates of homosexuality want a union of the same sex to be legal , not too far down the road some of these sick individuals are going to advocate for three and four way marriges or heaven only knows what else.  Is this what our country wants to become?  We were put on this earth to procreate not to marry the same sex and them adopt some innocent child just to corrupt them further than this sick world already does.

Crikey, what is it with the zombie threads lately?  Methinks they need to keep the web spiders from indexing the contens of MAF.

As for the latest comment - almost the exact same things were said about mixed-race marriage not too long ago.  It was sinful - against God's plan, yadda yadda yadda.  They were wrong and so are you.  Children raised with same-sex parents do just fine.  Believe it or not, we're just as boring as heterosexual couples.

talk about cliche rhetoric...

stevenson wrote:

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

omg it rhymes. That's kinda cute if you ask me.

We were put on this earth to procreate

Get a crappy job, loose the condoms and start smurfing. That's your purpose in life, apparently.

[edit]bleh...  saw that this was a zombie thread.  oh well.[/edit]

[Tycho?] wrote:

Ok, I am doing a debate for school, I am arguing against gay marrige. I honestly have no idea why anyone would be opposed to this, so I ask you people here who are opposed to give why exactly you are opposed, preferably with info to back it up. Thanks.

nice...  let us know how it goes.

i could go on and one about the reasons why i oppose gay marriage from a Christian stand-point, but since most of you could care less what the Bible says i'll share some of my other reasons.

there are two (three if combined) reasons for getting married...  legal reasons and out of love.

if it's out of love (and yes, i do believe two people of the same gender can fall in love - contrary to what other people may spin on here), then have a ceremony.  have family and friends over, say your vows, kiss the.....groom.  should i think it should be a traditional Christian marriage, no...but again, i'm not going to try my best to keep that argument out.  however - for symbolic reasons, to create a moment in your life, etc...  sure.  go for it.

now for the legal reasons...

first, legally defining something as prominent as "family" is a struggle because it's at the root of all of us.  we all came from the sexual encounter of one man and one woman.  thus, the basis for many arguments to keep family legally recognized as such...one man and one woman.  not one man and one man, not two men and one female, etc...

people who want these lines blurred in legally defining "what is family" are doing so because they're wanting the same benefits that traditional families receieve.  which brings up a question...  should we abolish any legal benefits and legal recognition for all "families"?  because where are we going to draw the line on the definition of "family"?

not having a line drawn in the definition will open up a flood gate.  that's a fact.  people are intense when it comes to having recognition and living out their lives as they feel they should.  there are extreme examples - but true to life - where people honestly feel they're to suppose be with a young boy, or with an animal, or with multiple partners, etc...  it sounds farfetched, but it's for real.  they want their recognition, too.

what about the bisexual?  they like both men and women.  why shouldn't they be allowed to marry another man and a woman?  are they going to be kicked out of the "GLBT" circle due to this debate?  just something else to think about...

legally recognizing a "family" forces everyone to legally accept that definition.

with all that said, i feel that legal recognition of "family" should be drawn at "one man and one woman, over 18" because that is a solid requirement from which all of us are derived.  one man, getting with another woman and producing having us...something we can all relate to.

don't look into what i've said any further because i don't think it should be based on "one man and one woman because their job in life is to reproduce".  i disagree with that stance cause not all people want to have a child together...and not all people can.

also, i've noticed it's popular to compare the struggle with gays/bis/trans to that of the blacks...  again, comparing behavioral to something that's not.  don't lump all those who oppose gay marriage into the "we oppose interacial marriage" group.  the people who oppose interacial marriage simply because someone is a different shade of color are in a while other group.

Last edited by NokX (2006-02-27 8:47 am)

NokX wrote:

people who want these lines blurred in legally defining "what is family" are doing so because they're wanting the same benefits that traditional families receieve.  which brings up a question...  should we abolish any legal benefits and legal recognition for all "families"?  because where are we going to draw the line on the definition of "family"?

This simply doesn't make sense.

fam·i·ly     P   Pronunciation Key  (fm-l, fml)
n. pl. fam·i·lies
1. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
2. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.
3. All the members of a household under one roof.

"Families" do not require legal recognition.  Marriages do.  You can suggest that the definition of the word "marriage" is being blurred, I suppose (though not so in the case of civil unions, which you probably also oppose).

What are these "benefits" you speak of (that are meant more for "families" than for married couples)?  Name them.

*edit*

...and I thought you were so opposed to government interference?  Why not completely remove the government from marriage, and make it a civil contract between two people?

Last edited by bratboy (2006-02-27 9:20 am)