10 reasons to oppose gay marriage

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Julius Caesar, for instance, was widely known as bisexual in his time.

when someone says that 'bush is in bed with halliburton' they don't mean that bush is actually sleeping with halliburton. but when someone in the ancient world says the exact same thing for some reason lots of people in the modern world think it means the liternal meaning of the words. for the vast vast vast majority of cases it did not, and was akin to the figurative meaning that is given them today. so no, caesar wasn't bi, or gay, or whatever. and neither were most of the politicians (though if you were to read the literal words you'd certainly think they were)

Caesar was definitely a nelly. That's why they killed him. 🙁

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Julius Caesar, for instance, was widely known as bisexual in his time.

when someone says that 'bush is in bed with halliburton' they don't mean that bush is actually sleeping with halliburton. but when someone in the ancient world says the exact same thing for some reason lots of people in the modern world think it means the liternal meaning of the words. for the vast vast vast majority of cases it did not, and was akin to the figurative meaning that is given them today. so no, caesar wasn't bi, or gay, or whatever. and neither were most of the politicians (though if you were to read the literal words you'd certainly think they were)

gays were very common back then

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Julius Caesar, for instance, was widely known as bisexual in his time.

when someone says that 'bush is in bed with halliburton' they don't mean that bush is actually sleeping with halliburton. but when someone in the ancient world says the exact same thing for some reason lots of people in the modern world think it means the liternal meaning of the words. for the vast vast vast majority of cases it did not, and was akin to the figurative meaning that is given them today. so no, caesar wasn't bi, or gay, or whatever. and neither were most of the politicians (though if you were to read the literal words you'd certainly think they were)

gays were very common back then

it's pointless and irrelevant to speculate.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: MAME

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: PanzerIV
Julius Caesar, for instance, was widely known as bisexual in his time.

when someone says that 'bush is in bed with halliburton' they don't mean that bush is actually sleeping with halliburton. but when someone in the ancient world says the exact same thing for some reason lots of people in the modern world think it means the liternal meaning of the words. for the vast vast vast majority of cases it did not, and was akin to the figurative meaning that is given them today. so no, caesar wasn't bi, or gay, or whatever. and neither were most of the politicians (though if you were to read the literal words you'd certainly think they were)

gays were very common back then

it's pointless and irrelevant to speculate.

We're not speculating. We're just very very old.

BTW, Caesar was a straight up freak. 😉

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Mwilding
you actually missed the retarded part of his statement.

He is basically saying the it is the goal of homosexuals to change societal morality. I'd argue that their goal is to live a normal life as is possible while getting their sex on mano a mano...

And the Mr. Naive award go to...

it's called the Gay agenda

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME
:| I blame religion!

Blame the homophobes that hide behind religion. They disgust me.

I'm not a homophobe and I'm definitely not religious, but I see no reason and none has been given in this thread why gay marriages should be allowed. Additionally, I think it is very clear that once you open up marriages to gays then it is only a matter of time before our society will (and maybe they should so we aren't hypocrits) have to accept other "types" of marriage - like polygamy and wedding a child.

BTW, can anyone answer what is the youngest a person should be legally married? Now, why do you think that age is appropriate?

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Mwilding
you actually missed the retarded part of his statement.

He is basically saying the it is the goal of homosexuals to change societal morality. I'd argue that their goal is to live a normal life as is possible while getting their sex on mano a mano...

If that is the case, what is the need to get married?

Of course it is a goal to change societal morality. By accepting gay marriages, society has changed what it believes is moral - because for the most part of history, societies have believed it is immoral to have gays married.

Not true.

Ancient Greeks elevated homosexuality and the Romans were completely tolerant (not to mention the REST of the ancient world).. . . it's the intolerant Judeo-Christian-Islam religions that screwed it up.

And -accoding to your judaeo-christian bible - POLYGAMY - MARRIAGE between A man and MULTIPLE women - was APPROVED by (your) god. 😛

i guess he changed his mind.

:roll:

Actually it is true! The ancient Greeks did not elevate homosexuality. In ancient greece it was a common practice for young noblemen in military service to have a homosexual lover. But when they finished their service and returned to life as a private citizen they were expected to marry (a woman) and raise a family. The Romans while tolerant of homosexual relationships never tolerated homosexual marriage. Marriage to women was always expected even of homosexual men for the production of progeny to secure familial succession.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME
:| I blame religion!

Blame the homophobes that hide behind religion. They disgust me.

I'm not a homophobe and I'm definitely not religious, but I see no reason and none has been given in this thread why gay marriages should be allowed. Additionally, I think it is very clear that once you open up marriages to gays then it is only a matter of time before our society will (and maybe they should so we aren't hypocrits) have to accept other "types" of marriage - like polygamy and wedding a child.

BTW, can anyone answer what is the youngest a person should be legally married? Now, why do you think that age is appropriate?

gay's should have the same rights as people who love someone of the opposite sex, that's all.

Polygamy should be allowed too, it's the most common form of life amoung all species and many cultures have already adopted it (including multiple men for the same woman). Just as long as it's not advantageous for money reasons then go for it.

Marrying a child should not be allowed the way our laws stand because you can't have sex with a child.

 

[konakona]

Marrying a child should not be allowed the way our laws stand because you can't have sex with a child.

That is your opinion.

What makes it any worse than having a sex with a same gender?

 

[JackBurton]

You should not have read any further than this line:

As we talk with relatives, neighbors, friends, co-workers and others, Christians need to be able to give sound arguments for why ?gay marriage? is bad for our society as well as for those who wish to engage in such a lifestyle.

After he admits to believing in magic people, all the rest of his speech should be ignored. He is obviously a delusional person and should not be taken seriously.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME
:| I blame religion!

Blame the homophobes that hide behind religion. They disgust me.

I'm not a homophobe and I'm definitely not religious, but I see no reason and none has been given in this thread why gay marriages should be allowed. Additionally, I think it is very clear that once you open up marriages to gays then it is only a matter of time before our society will (and maybe they should so we aren't hypocrits) have to accept other "types" of marriage - like polygamy and wedding a child.

BTW, can anyone answer what is the youngest a person should be legally married? Now, why do you think that age is appropriate?

What about the legal benefits of getting married? Why shouldn't gays be allowed to have that?

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: midori

Marrying a child should not be allowed the way our laws stand because you can't have sex with a child.

That is your opinion.

What makes it any worse than having a sex with a same gender?

it causes emotional and psychologic problems if sex is introduced at too young of an age.

However, the body is fully ready to mate at the young teenager level, and I would have no problems with sex then, EXCEPT that it also leads to social/emotional/psychological issues. Thus 18 seems about right for the way our society is today. (But many other cultures/societies introduce sex at a younger age which is totally fine in their environment).

Gay's having sex is COMPLETELY different. It's IDENTICAL to people of opposite gender having sex.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME
:| I blame religion!

Blame the homophobes that hide behind religion. They disgust me.

I'm not a homophobe and I'm definitely not religious, but I see no reason and none has been given in this thread why gay marriages should be allowed. Additionally, I think it is very clear that once you open up marriages to gays then it is only a matter of time before our society will (and maybe they should so we aren't hypocrits) have to accept other "types" of marriage - like polygamy and wedding a child.

BTW, can anyone answer what is the youngest a person should be legally married? Now, why do you think that age is appropriate?

What about the legal benefits of getting married? Why shouldn't gays be allowed to have that?

There's no reason why they shouldn't.

 

[0roo0roo]

just remember that race mixing was often argued against as an immoral thing in the past.

 

[MAME]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just remember that race mixing was often argued against as an immoral thing in the past.

true

 

[konakona]

it causes emotional and psychologic problems if sex is introduced at too young of an age.

However, the body is fully ready to mate at the young teenager level, and I would have no problems with sex then, EXCEPT that it also leads to social/emotional/psychological issues. Thus 18 seems about right for the way our society is today. (But many other cultures/societies introduce sex at a younger age which is totally fine in their environment).

Gay's having sex is COMPLETELY different. It's IDENTICAL to people of opposite gender having sex.

with all due respect, i still disagree with your opinion. male bodys are never meant and never will be ever ready to mate with each other. plus it does lead to its own share of social/emotional/psychological issues of people surronding them, which is exactly why we have these thread here spwaning dime and dozen every day.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: upsciLLion

Originally posted by: MAME
:| I blame religion!

Blame the homophobes that hide behind religion. They disgust me.

I'm not a homophobe and I'm definitely not religious, but I see no reason and none has been given in this thread why gay marriages should be allowed. Additionally, I think it is very clear that once you open up marriages to gays then it is only a matter of time before our society will (and maybe they should so we aren't hypocrits) have to accept other "types" of marriage - like polygamy and wedding a child.

BTW, can anyone answer what is the youngest a person should be legally married? Now, why do you think that age is appropriate?

so you believe in the slippery slope? is it reasonable to say that once we give black people the right to vote we're opening the door to have our children, dogs, and cats gaining the vote?

fact is this, gay marriage doesn't have the strikes against it that incest/polygamy/pediphilia have. it is not the same as incest, there are no groups of people predisposed to only wed family members. polygamy is fundamentally distabillizing to a society based on simple math. pedophilia involves consent which a child cannot give. none of these has any relation or similarity to gay marraige.