Geez there are a lot of liberals on here.

There is no intelligent response against gay marriage.

The divorce rate is around 50% so the religious sanctity argument is out the window.

The lesser half of the US? What's that supposed to mean?

Here's the thing: most people don't care that homosexuals exist. I myself don't have anything against them. The problem arises when homosexuals in this country start to push for the legalization of gay marriage. Primarily, marriage is a legal union between a male and a female. From Merriam-Webster dictionary: [i]The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.[/i] I'd like to point out here that the marriage is first a legal definition before it is a religious one, no matter the culture. Think about it; a marriage doesn't officially begin until its sanctioned by a court, and doesn't end until the divorce is approved by the court. You might be wondering at this point, well, can't homosexuals just get married like straight people? Well, because it violates the aforementioned definition of marriage for obvious reasons. You are redefining the age-old definition of marriage if you allow homosexuals to marry under the legal term "marriage". This is where people of religious faiths are offended. There only request is that the civil union between two homosexuals be called something different. The term "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron, because again it conflicts with the original statement of marriage. The only reason homosexuals wished to get married (in the U.S, at least) is because they wish to gain the fiscal advantages that marriage brings (i.e couples can file taxes together, thereby saving money). To call it a civil rights issue is appallingly stupid. I think the real solution to this popular dilemma is to grant the civil union between homosexuals the same financial benefits of a normal marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution. The state has no right to intervene. Ever heard of this crazy thing called Separation of Church and State?

Legalize Gay Marriage across the country, provide an exemption that established religious organizations (Churches), are not required to host the event if they are that uncomfortable with it. Everyone wins.

Well, I am for Gay Marriage, but I have heard only one argument that makes sense: Churches. If gay marriage is legalized, then many churches would refuse to perform the services. This could, [i]could[/i] mind you, lead to many in the gay community to sue them for discrimination. Now, these cases would likely be tossed, but the churches would have to hire attorneys to defend them, which still costs money. So, legalizing gay marriage has the potential to open a season on religious institutions that disagree with gay marriage.

I'm offended that I'm not on your list of Trolls, I try my hardest Damn It! Where in the constitution does it say we have a right to marry? Don't say The right to Happiness, I'll laugh you out of the thread.

>Intelligent and logical >Against Gay Marrige Pick one.

I can't post with nothing, so here's a couple of ellipses for you to enjoy..

Let me just start this off by saying I am a Christian. Possible arguments people in favor of gay marriage may bring up 1. Marriage is the bondage of two people, so why can't two men or two women get married? a. Because marriage is NOT simply "the bondage of two people", it is literally defined as the bondage between a man and a woman. 2. Marriage is not a religious practice anymore. a. Many say that marriage is something far from being religious, but they could not be more wrong. Marriage was created by religion, and thus is controlled by religion. Until the church itself decides to make a change, marriage will always be a religious practice. The same thing could be said about Christmas; although most of the nation (non-christians included) celebrate Christmas, it still is a Christian holiday founded upon a nation that was founded upon Christianity itself. 3. Marriage has a lot of legal benefits; it's unfair that homosexuals cannot benefit from these. a. This is the argument I can never understand. Marriages and civil unions can provide two people the same legal benefits; why is it such a challenge for homosexuals to simply develop civil unions? Why is it so important that they need marriage rights?

Marriage itself is an outdated concept that shouldn't exist. they wanna live together and be miserable? go for it.

Marriage is a religious thing - should homosexual union bother that religion, then we shouldn't make them change their religion and its institutions. Marriage should, however, be purely religious and have no legal effects what-so-ever. Make it all a civil union, and then don't discriminate as then there [i]really[/i] is no argument against equality. Make marriage the activity of the religious - a union under whichever God is relevant, and nothing more. Just two people proving their love in front of their fellow believers. A nice day and all, but no tax breaks. Take the religion out of union and voila, who can complain? It goes against no-ones religious beliefs. Sure there is still the issue of gay couples not being able to have their union recognised by their religious institution, but at least the state isn't colluding in the issue.

[quote]This thread is testing my ability to not respond to idiots and trolls like Camnator, Cromy, PSU, or any other of their kind.[/quote] I stopped reading here, simply for the fact you are implying you arent in the group of idiots in the first place.

Started a new topic: Why don't they give civil partnerships the same legal rights as marriage?(19 Replies))

The first two comments is why I don't even waste my time trying to have intelligent discussions with Flood. Oh you have a different opinion that I do? You must not be very intelligent or you're a troll