Re: A strong argument Against gay marriage.

[LifeLibertyLove]

In some civilizations marriage did not exist, a brother was to take his sister's child and raise them as the father. Imagine a culture where you could have sex with someone and then have no moral obligation to take care of that child? That is what it was like in a world without marriage. Marriage guarenteed the male had to take care of the female he was having children with, in principle.

[davidspade200]

@LifeLibertyLove That's exactly what I'm trying to say. A heterosexual marriage model is important for society. It encourages procreation, gay marriage does not. Gays are redefining this as a civil rights issue. Marriage is a responsibility. With out-of-wedlock birthrates rising, marriage declining, STDs, etc, something needs to be done. Gay marriage will do nothing about this and may increase it. Look at Scandanavia.

[LifeLibertyLove]

@davidspade200 It is a matter of principle not necessarily practice. For example an apple may have a worm in it but in principle the apple is not part of the worm. Homosexuals who want a legal marriage are not asking for the right of marriage they are asking to change the principle of marriage. Civil unions are for everyone male to female and male to male these in principle are 2 people living together. Marriage is a man and a woman who in principle will have children.

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove what kinda shit are you babbling about

when you have all these freaky separate divisions then the rights also get separate and divided

taxes, adoption you name it. fags cant breed children but neither can infertile couples

both can adopt if the laws are not archaic

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate Principle does not take into account anomolies.

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove again you are babbling shit

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate It is your personal opinion that principle is "shit".

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove no , that gays are " anomalies" its not some sort of astronomical improbability, you idiot

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate No you are saying that just because some men and women can't reproduce means that you change the principle of marriage. A car is for transportation but race car drivers who are rich enough to have helicopters only use cars for fun and use their helicopter for transportation that does not mean we define a vehicle as a toy. The same analogy applies to marriage.

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove th e "principal" of "marriage ( an arbitrary , man-made agreement ) has ALREADY BEEN COMPROMISED BY THE POPE IN THE FIFTIES when he allowed DIVORCE into the KATHOLIC CHURCH

you need to shove it up your ass and shut up

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate Everything we perceive is man-made all principles are man-made because our mind has to reproject and interpret reality. I don't see what your first point is. As for yoru second point of the Pope allowing divorce, the Catholic Church nevr allowed divorce and if you do manage to get a divorce you are never allowed to remarry so that point is invalid as well. Yes of course principles change with time and culture however at least admit your trying to change principle.

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove somebody is wrong and lying and uninformed about the history of the Catholic church

instead of spouting shit here, just read instead and shut up

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate Your right someone is uninformed and that person is you. Divorce and remarriage is forbidden in the Catholic Church. You are wrong. Maybe you need to stop believing everything you read and start talking more to people who are Catholic instead of pretending you are the person you are criticizing. All you end up doing is attacking your fictitious conception of your enemy.

[poosaypirate]

@LifeLibertyLove NO

its "forbidden" but its nevertheless PERFORMED ( NOW) where historically it wasnt until the 1950s

stop trying to lie and re-write history to suit your homophobic bullshit

[LifeLibertyLove]

@poosaypirate Sorry but you simply do not understand. Divorce always existed since the time of Moses, Jesus forbid divorce because it is supposed to be a lifelong commitment for better or worse between a man and a woman who will in principle have children and multiply. The Catholic Church has always taught this and has not changed the principle one bit. In order to get a divorce you needed express permission from the Pope. Nothing in principle changed in the 50s your wrong.

[iandresari4]

i think at the crux of the matter, gay marriage is really about having the right to share your life with a person regardless of gender,and thatt the union is legally recognized; the same right that is given to heterosexuals. probably why gay marriage is almost synonymous with equal rights.

[iandresari4]

i am inclined to agree with what you say about equal partnerships being more 'ideal' but to use the origins of marriage to debunk the gay marriage arguement may be a little irrelevant because marriage, like society, has evolved over time and serves different purposes, plus different people interpret marriage differently. i'm sure many husbands didn't get married to their wives just to 'claim ownership'.

[Texasjim2007]

We all had an equal number of biological parents...one male and one female...but we are not equal in all things. A couple of nuns claiming to be in a polygamous marriage to a dead Jew are not taking an equal risk of dying of AIDS to create future taxpayers and voters as our mothers did. Lesbians have equal rights with nuns.

[noel720104]

Equal partnership is good however the woman you speak of is just mad she has to do what shes told.

[TheInvisibleSkyDaddy]

Damn. Youtube sucks! I totally got cut-off from my main point, being that if we used the term 'equal partnership' rather than marriage, the PRINCIPLE of marriage argument loses all momentum and would become an antiquated term and concept - something that needs to happen in order for the so-called American Liberty to prevail. That's all. Thank you for your time, and have a good day!