Gay Marriage

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Actually I'm not trying to do anything. I'm doing exactly what the OP wanted, presenting arguments that the 'Rightys' will use against homosexuality. That argument is NOT meant as a standalone argument as you should have already noted by reading the one mentioning social acceptance and how it is intertwined with people's belief on the physiological aspects of the issue.

Ah.. ok ok. I should really leave this thread. As much as I love debating, I'm probably putting too much energy into this topic. It's cool you're presenting arguments and all.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Actually I'm not trying to do anything. I'm doing exactly what the OP wanted, presenting arguments that the 'Rightys' will use against homosexuality. That argument is NOT meant as a standalone argument as you should have already noted by reading the one mentioning social acceptance and how it is intertwined with people's belief on the physiological aspects of the issue.

Ah.. ok ok. I should really leave this thread. As much as I love debating, I'm probably putting too much energy into this topic. It's cool you're presenting arguments and all.

I'm with you. I should have known better than to jump in an 'open' debate when the issue is the one in the topic of this thread. Done and done!

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: PatboyX
kibbo, i have been looking for this same thing. strong arguments against. it seems like at this point in our existance as a nation, there are many more pressing issues to worry about but this one keeps coming back.
all the arguments made seem to be these sort of intangible ways to side-step the fact that allows gays to marry would validate the gay lifestyle in america, accept that homosexuality is not a choice and sort of bring a number of beliefs about the homosexual community being "wrong" down. or at least help lessen the taboo of it all.
ive heard all the arguments you have listed and none of them seem to hold up at all.
i have not seen a strong argument in here yet. and i feel you are correct that in 20-30 years it will look the same as it does to look back on the people who rallied against integration.

Here we go again. People fighting for gay marriage are the equivalent of those fighting segregation. :roll: You wish. I suppose it's completely escaped you that skin color is something you are born with and can't change. Homosexuality is something you are not born with and that can and often does change.

And, frankly, I haven't heard a solid argument FOR gay marriage that wasn't also based on emotion, so let's drop the hypocritical self-righteousness, k?

i would like it if you would not attack me personally again.
i apologize if i set you on the defensive, that was not my intent.

Dude, really, if you consider that an attack, then you are WAY too sensitive or defensive yourself. Look at this thread alone to see what I bear every time I post and then accuse me of attacking you.

but i thank you for bringing up a good point that i tried to touch upon (but failed.) i think a lot
of the trouble with allowing gay marriage stems from it validating homosexuality. if this is validated
it would suggest that it is NOT a choice and, as you pointed out, not everyone agrees on that issue.

I agree that that is a major issue which hasn't been settled in any way. Yet pro gay marriage people are proceeding as if it has.

it seems to me that the argument for allowing gay marriage goes as follows:
1. homosexuals are humans.
2. they deserve to have the right to marry.

Brothers and sisters are human...do they also deserve the right? How about multiple people being married. How about children?

The fact is, many rights are withheld from people because they don't meet the qualifications. Felons can't do certain things. Underage people can't do certain things. Rights aren't always granted based on someone being human.

i did not mean to set you off but i do feel as though your calling me "hypocritical" and "self-righteous" was uncalled for.
if you believe it was necessary, i would like you to do me the courtesy of pointing out why you felt this was a good way to make your point and perhaps you could show me where i was being hypocritical and self-righteous.

Sure.

i feel you are correct that in 20-30 years it will look the same as it does to look back on the people who rallied against integration.

So the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not even close to being settled, but you have no problem proclaiming anybody against assigning new rights to this group the equivalent of a racist. How is that not self-righteous? How is your argument based less on emotion and beliefs than mine? Yet, I'M the ignorant racist. No thanks. Hypocrite definitly applies too. But, as I said, if the worst you get called today is a hypocrite, consider yourself lucky...read the past few posts to see what I've just been called and then gather the nerve to ask me for an explanation and not them.

this is getting long, but i will try to be as concise as possible.
1.yes, i consider it an attack when you personally insult me. regardless of how much weight you have had to bear in this argument. i find it ironic that you call me self-righteous and then suggest that becuase you have suffered during this post, it allows you to insult me.
2. the issue of brother/sister as well as multiple marriages seems to be o'reilly's big line. but it is also a seperate issue. we will deal with that when it comes, if it comes.
3. children, as you well know, have very specific laws set about their rights in this country. that is, again, a seperate issue. felons...still another issue which can go on and on forever.
but for adult, capable, law-abiding citizens to be denied rights for no other reason then who they are attracted to/sleep with is absurd.
4. im not saying i am morally better than you, nor did i call you a racist. i am simply saying that this argument, too, will look obvious and ignorant in the future. no matter which side "wins"
whatever the decision and the eventual social acceptance becomes, people will look back 20-30 years from now with the same "how could they not know ____" attitude that we often do.
5. everything i have read suggests that homosexuality is not a choice. so, although you may see this as an emotional argument, it seems scientific to me.
thats all i can offer you, again, i did not mean to make it seem like i was attacking you in this. i dont consider you an "ignorant rasict"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
i dont consider you an "ignorant rasict"

At least not a racist.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin. The Devil works very cleverly to trap us in sin. He wants us to hate the sinner and not just the sin. He wants us to become the hate which is the sin. That is why it is absolutely vital that we apply understanding here. The Christian fundamentalist bigot is not evil, only his bigotry is. His pernicious hatred of homosexuality based on a literal interpretation of bible text is something he has been brainwashed form an early age to believe. And who can blame him. He was put into a catch 22 before he could think. If you don't think a certain way you will go to hell. Anybody with even half an ounce of weakness is going to buy into that. Why would he prefer charity to gays if it means he's going to hell. Forget it please. He would rather be a bigot than face that possibility. Can you really blame him for that. I don't think you can. All you can do is work to love all people in the hope that the love you show the bigot will eventually open his heart too. He can't help but embrace evil because he has the perfect excuse. His god is also evil and not the Living God. No man can read the Bible who cannot read his heart and no man who has found it will experience anything but Love.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin. The Devil works very cleverly to trap us in sin. He wants us to hate the sinner and not just the sin. He wants us to become the hate which is the sin. That is why it is absolutely vital that we apply understanding here. The Christian fundamentalist bigot is not evil, only his bigotry is. His pernicious hatred of homosexuality based on a literal interpretation of bible text is something he has been brainwashed form an early age to believe. And who can blame him. He was put into a catch 22 before he could think. If you don't think a certain way you will go to hell. Anybody with even half an ounce of weakness is going to buy into that. Why would he prefer charity to gays if it means he's going to hell. Forget it please. He would rather be a bigot than face that possibility. Can you really blame him for that. I don't think you can. All you can do is work to love all people in the hope that the love you show the bigot will eventually open his heart too. He can't help but embrace evil because he has the perfect excuse. His god is also evil and not the Living God. No man can read the Bible who cannot read his heart and no man who has found it will experience anything but Love.

This posts displays your own bigotry, MB. I honestly believe you have the most closed mind on this board.

 

[Kibbo]

The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.

I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!

Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

I agree 100%. I'm hoping gay marriage passes, because it will bring us one step closer to marrying my sister. I love my sister, and she loves me. I know it's not socially acceptable (yet), but we would love to marry. Sure, there are a few fringe ministers who will perform the ceremony, but it's not official until it's recognized by the state. Why should we be denied state rights just because we're related? We're two consenting adults who genuinely love eachother. I honestly think as soon as homosexuals can marry, it'll make our case that much easier. why should the government dictate who you can and cannot marry? VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS IN NOVEMBER (please, for me and my sister).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

I agree 100%. I'm hoping gay marriage passes, because it will bring us one step closer to marrying my sister. I love my sister, and she loves me. I know it's not socially acceptable (yet), but we would love to marry. Sure, there are a few fringe ministers who will perform the ceremony, but it's not official until it's recognized by the state. Why should we be denied state rights just because we're related? We're two consenting adults who genuinely love eachother. I honestly think as soon as homosexuals can marry, it'll make our case that much easier. why should the government dictate who you can and cannot marry? VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS IN NOVEMBER (please, for me and my sister).

Dude I bet your pet Gerbil is getting nervous!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

I agree 100%. I'm hoping gay marriage passes, because it will bring us one step closer to marrying my sister. I love my sister, and she loves me. I know it's not socially acceptable (yet), but we would love to marry. Sure, there are a few fringe ministers who will perform the ceremony, but it's not official until it's recognized by the state. Why should we be denied state rights just because we're related? We're two consenting adults who genuinely love eachother. I honestly think as soon as homosexuals can marry, it'll make our case that much easier. why should the government dictate who you can and cannot marry? VOTE KERRY/EDWARDS IN NOVEMBER (please, for me and my sister).

Hah, you don't need to vote for kerry or edwards for that. We already allow that sort of stuff down here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin. The Devil works very cleverly to trap us in sin. He wants us to hate the sinner and not just the sin. He wants us to become the hate which is the sin. That is why it is absolutely vital that we apply understanding here. The Christian fundamentalist bigot is not evil, only his bigotry is. His pernicious hatred of homosexuality based on a literal interpretation of bible text is something he has been brainwashed form an early age to believe. And who can blame him. He was put into a catch 22 before he could think. If you don't think a certain way you will go to hell. Anybody with even half an ounce of weakness is going to buy into that. Why would he prefer charity to gays if it means he's going to hell. Forget it please. He would rather be a bigot than face that possibility. Can you really blame him for that. I don't think you can. All you can do is work to love all people in the hope that the love you show the bigot will eventually open his heart too. He can't help but embrace evil because he has the perfect excuse. His god is also evil and not the Living God. No man can read the Bible who cannot read his heart and no man who has found it will experience anything but Love.

This posts displays your own bigotry, MB. I honestly believe you have the most closed mind on this board.

That's because I make you see yourself.

 

[Moonbeam]

It would be in the best interest, however, for the moral fabric of America, if the Fundies were sterilized. They do fight so hard to contaminate their own children with their disease. It's an evil that requires societal intervention, as anybody who can see the Truth will tell you.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin. The Devil works very cleverly to trap us in sin. He wants us to hate the sinner and not just the sin. He wants us to become the hate which is the sin. That is why it is absolutely vital that we apply understanding here. The Christian fundamentalist bigot is not evil, only his bigotry is. His pernicious hatred of homosexuality based on a literal interpretation of bible text is something he has been brainwashed form an early age to believe. And who can blame him. He was put into a catch 22 before he could think. If you don't think a certain way you will go to hell. Anybody with even half an ounce of weakness is going to buy into that. Why would he prefer charity to gays if it means he's going to hell. Forget it please. He would rather be a bigot than face that possibility. Can you really blame him for that. I don't think you can. All you can do is work to love all people in the hope that the love you show the bigot will eventually open his heart too. He can't help but embrace evil because he has the perfect excuse. His god is also evil and not the Living God. No man can read the Bible who cannot read his heart and no man who has found it will experience anything but Love.

This posts displays your own bigotry, MB. I honestly believe you have the most closed mind on this board.

That's because I make you see yourself.

:roll:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

You're proving my point, thanks. Homosexuality IS the same as religeon, being a nerd, or being goth...it's a lifestyle choice. Heterosexuals don't identify themselves by their heterosexuality...it's a function of being human...like having two lungs...something they take for granted and don't even think about.

I, personally, identify myself a the supreme commander of the world and think laws should be passed to accomodate my identify whereby I am given control over all decisions...anything less is oppressing my identity!!!111!!111!1!!

Sorry, LOL, but that's just a weak weak weak weak argument.

Having developed those lungs is not a matter of choice, is it.. Being a Goth, a Baptist or a Nerd is not really a matter of choice either when you think about it. It is a matter of finding a niche (sorta) where one is comfortable. I am comfortable breathing so I keep the lungs.
Why are they comfortable in that niche? That is the reality. Is there something about the mind that disdains effort to be what one does not wish to be?
We are a creature of our Genetic makeup and the Environment where we are. It is what makes folks happy or depressed or stressed (unhealthy stress). The mind knows based on its system of chemicals and physiology what it is at ease with and it continues to strive to achieve it. When it is not where it wants to be it reacts with all manner of negative events until it gets what it wants..
All human behavior is controlled by 'motivators'. Freud indicated few and Jung more than a few. But, one thing is for sure. Each of us is different and this is because we are! A lower percentage of us find comfort in being a Baptist than being a Muslim but, more than being a 'Moonie'. So why don't the 'Moonies' convert to become Muslims?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is important in any discussion of homosexuality to remember from time to time that we shouldn't hate the sinner only the sin. The Devil works very cleverly to trap us in sin. He wants us to hate the sinner and not just the sin. He wants us to become the hate which is the sin. That is why it is absolutely vital that we apply understanding here. The Christian fundamentalist bigot is not evil, only his bigotry is. His pernicious hatred of homosexuality based on a literal interpretation of bible text is something he has been brainwashed form an early age to believe. And who can blame him. He was put into a catch 22 before he could think. If you don't think a certain way you will go to hell. Anybody with even half an ounce of weakness is going to buy into that. Why would he prefer charity to gays if it means he's going to hell. Forget it please. He would rather be a bigot than face that possibility. Can you really blame him for that. I don't think you can. All you can do is work to love all people in the hope that the love you show the bigot will eventually open his heart too. He can't help but embrace evil because he has the perfect excuse. His god is also evil and not the Living God. No man can read the Bible who cannot read his heart and no man who has found it will experience anything but Love.

This posts displays your own bigotry, MB. I honestly believe you have the most closed mind on this board.

That's because I make you see yourself.

:roll:

No need, really to roll your eyes. You look a whole lot better to me than you do to yourself. It's the sin I don't like, not the sinner.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are tolerable.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Having developed those lungs is not a matter of choice, is it.. Being a Goth, a Baptist or a Nerd is not really a matter of choice either when you think about it. It is a matter of finding a niche (sorta) where one is comfortable. I am comfortable breathing so I keep the lungs.
Why are they comfortable in that niche? That is the reality. Is there something about the mind that disdains effort to be what one does not wish to be?
We are a creature of our Genetic makeup and the Environment where we are. It is what makes folks happy or depressed or stressed (unhealthy stress). The mind knows based on its system of chemicals and physiology what it is at ease with and it continues to strive to achieve it. When it is not where it wants to be it reacts with all manner of negative events until it gets what it wants..
All human behavior is controlled by 'motivators'. Freud indicated few and Jung more than a few. But, one thing is for sure. Each of us is different and this is because we are! A lower percentage of us find comfort in being a Baptist than being a Muslim but, more than being a 'Moonie'. So why don't the 'Moonies' convert to become Muslims?

Serial killers are also victims of their genetic makup and environment...but that's not an excuse for their behavior. You see, you can't lower and change standards to accomodate every abberation or you end up with a lack of standards. I understand the orgasmic glee with which liberals view a world potentially free of standards, but that's not a healthy world.

 

[Moonbeam]

As sick as a world without standards is, one with unhealthy standards is also.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Having developed those lungs is not a matter of choice, is it.. Being a Goth, a Baptist or a Nerd is not really a matter of choice either when you think about it. It is a matter of finding a niche (sorta) where one is comfortable. I am comfortable breathing so I keep the lungs.
Why are they comfortable in that niche? That is the reality. Is there something about the mind that disdains effort to be what one does not wish to be?
We are a creature of our Genetic makeup and the Environment where we are. It is what makes folks happy or depressed or stressed (unhealthy stress). The mind knows based on its system of chemicals and physiology what it is at ease with and it continues to strive to achieve it. When it is not where it wants to be it reacts with all manner of negative events until it gets what it wants..
All human behavior is controlled by 'motivators'. Freud indicated few and Jung more than a few. But, one thing is for sure. Each of us is different and this is because we are! A lower percentage of us find comfort in being a Baptist than being a Muslim but, more than being a 'Moonie'. So why don't the 'Moonies' convert to become Muslims?

Serial killers are also victims of their genetic makup and environment...but that's not an excuse for their behavior. You see, you can't lower and change standards to accomodate every abberation or you end up with a lack of standards. I understand the orgasmic glee with which liberals view a world potentially free of standards, but that's not a healthy world.

Great... You agree with the basic premise... Now on to the meat of the matter... Our Laws...

It is legal to be homosexual but, not to be a serial killer. The law is what we've all agreed to be the moderator of behavior. So long as it is legal it must also be moral... from a societal point of view. Religious views notwithstanding, what is legal is moral! Healthy is part of what makes Law. So, I'd argue that there is no basis in claiming that Homosexuality is unhealthy.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Serial killers are also victims of their genetic makup and environment...but that's not an excuse for their behavior."

It is an excuse, if by excuse you mean explanation. But the fact that the serial killer is not to blame for his condition, doesn't mean he cannot be held accountable for it. We can't let him run around taking the lives of other people. It violates their right to life. So we lock him up where he can do no harm and hope for the day when we have enough knowledge to cure him. The gay person, on the other hand, does not threaten your rights. When did it become a crime to be gay, here in secular America, of course.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
The potential biological nature of homosexuality is irrelevent.

What is relevent is that it is viewed by them as a fundamental part of their identity. Much like heterosexuality. Much like Religion. Much like being a nerd. It's part of who they are, regardless of whether it came from environmental factors or genetic ones.

And right now, they are denied access to a funtion of the state because of it.

Remove marriage as a function of the state, give it back to the people.

Everyone happy. Problem solved.

 

[KFCrispy]

marriage is not a religious term or idea, and neither is Government supposed to impose religious ideas upon our people.

this argument is easy to sum up for those who want to follow our Constitution: people have the right to persue happiness (as long as he doesn't violate others rights) and have freedom of speech and expression. we have no right to tell anybody who they can, should, or cannot marry. we can express our opinions, but that's no reason it should be in our law book.

God nor the Bible is not part of our Constitution, and what you believe God wants is different from what someone else believe God wants. so you can't even argue what God wants, especially since it's questionable if He even exists or not. and then there is the separation from Church and State, which throws this whole entire argument out the window.

plus, gay marriages can adopt a lot of abandoned kids

As sick as a world without standards is, one with unhealthy standards is also

sick or not, people have to right to be free and do what they want to do, as long as they do not violate another's rights. just like a male-female marriage, a gay marriage is a formal declaration of one's love to another and the desire to be recognized as the other's partner.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KFCrispy
marriage is not a religious term or idea, and neither is Government supposed to impose religious ideas upon our people.

this argument is easy to sum up for those who want to follow our Constitution: people have the right to persue happiness (as long as he doesn't violate others rights) and have freedom of speech and expression. we have no right to tell anybody who they can, should, or cannot marry. we can express our opinions, but that's no reason it should be in our law book.

God nor the Bible is not part of our Constitution, and what you believe God wants is different from what someone else believe God wants. so you can't even argue what God wants, especially since it's questionable if He even exists or not. and then there is the separation from Church and State, which throws this whole entire argument out the window.

What fscking cracker jack school did you go to?
The unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness is not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence, and IS NOT LAW.

Marriage itself is not mentioned once in the US Constitution and as such falls under the 10th Amendment, which reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Your entire argument is the one that's out the window. The federal government has no constitutional right to legislate or regulate marriage at all, so the seperation between church and state does not apply. Marriage belongs to the states and the people.

Here, read up on the Constitution. You obviously need to. You might want to try studying logic too.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

LR, It's nice to have some honest debate. Thanks for presenting an argument without calling me an ignorant redneck bigot.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So long as it is legal it must also be moral... from a societal point of view.

I disagree. Pornography is not moral, but it is legal. But our laws prevent the encouragement of pornography by forcing stores to veil its existence. Good I say. Don't make it illegal, but discourage it for the good of society because porn has a documented negative effect on many males. Same with drinking. Again, it's immoral behavior, but it's legal, but it's discouraged by placing age limits and advertising limits on it.

Healthy is part of what makes Law.

I totally agree. We have laws that make people jump through hoops to acquire alcohol and pornography because they are legal YET immoral and unhealthy.

So, I'd argue that there is no basis in claiming that Homosexuality is unhealthy.

I disagree. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no matter to anyone. But I don't view this as declaring legal or illegal a sexual orientation; I view it as altering the definition of marriage. I believe that would be very unhealthy for society. That's what I said in my first post. The standard of a husband and wife is the perfect and ideal marriage. It's two chromazonally different individuals balancing each other and, should they choose to, raising a child who, again, gets the healthy experience of both a male and female parental role model so they grow up with both aspects of their persona being developed properly. This is a standard...a healthy one and a natural one--it's the way God (or mother nature ) engineered us for a reason and its how we are and should be should some manner of environmental variable not intervene. It's a model which children and other people should observe and emulate so that they, themselves, can benefit from its strengths. Two men living together isn't unhealthy for society, but two men being married invalidates the standard of marriage...the sanctitiy of the male-female relationship. Even homosexuals should, in fact, look up to the standard of a monogomous male-female relationship as the model for their own relationship. That's what usually happens anyway as one of the partners will take on the characteristics of the opposite sex to give the relationship, as much as is possible, the balance inherent in a heterosexual relationship.

I mean, geez, I'm not going to march around and burn flags if gays get to be married. Hell, I'll trade you abortion banning for gay marriage and high taxes any day of the week. But I'm going to defend the protection of standards as well as the discouragement of unhealthy behaviors with my vote and voice.

I've got a gay cousin and a gay friend and they're both great guys. We had an Elton John song featured prominently during our wedding reception. I don't hate gay people.