10 Reasons why gay marriage should be illegal:

[Croosch]

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject
unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[:MoD:Shade]

Is this supposed to just be funny I hope. . .

[DarK.]

yes shade it is supposed to point out how stupid some of the arguments are...

[:MoD:Shade]

Rgr, I wasn't sure at first.

[BFG]

Ahahahahaha thanks krush i needed that to kick my monday morning off to a good start. i'll be laughing all the way to work

[cO.libre]

jesus christ man, you scared me .. i almost changed my whole outlook on you.
pretty funny shit though.

[Croosch]

jesus christ man, you scared me .. i almost changed my whole outlook on you.
pretty funny shit though.

psh... you honestly think I care who gets married to who?  That's honestly one of the dumbest arguements I've ever heard the U.S. gov. (and others) make.

[beefyfigure]

Well...

Already evidence suggests that de facto homosexual marriage destroys the traditional family because both cannot coexist within society as they are completely opposite each other. This trend is already noticeable in the Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands.

The trouble is, when the State allows homosexual relationships, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, sexual purity, emotional bonding and the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides sexual convenience but that cannot offer the intimacy required of it, bringing about cohabitation and short-term relationships as a result. Furthermore, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead to polygamy and other alternatives to one man, one woman unions.

Undoubtedly marriage between homosexuals destroys the traditional marriage. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more outrageous objectives. Presently, homosexual activists, rash with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell the world what they have wanted all along. However, their intention is to create an entirely different legal structure that does not entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy the legal benefits of marriage—such as custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, healthcare, spousal citizenship inter alia—without confining the number of partners to their gender. Nor would couples be bound to each other in the eyes of the law.

Thus marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one that is is definitely not monogamous.

What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the State will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

These are just a few reasons why homosexual marriage is truly revolutionary.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime—some studies say it is typically more than one thousand—children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to children, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to remain just the way they are and loathe change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

Kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced? Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads.

We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm.

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.

Every public school will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals. How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is they can’t, but it is happening already in the U.S., specifically in the state of California.

In addition, courts will not be able to favor a traditional couple of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Moral training, at least as it applies to sexuality, will be forbidden. Again, this is the current law in California.

This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage. Every HIV-positive patient needs only to find a partner to receive the same coverage as offered to an employee. It is estimated by some analysts that an initial threefold increase in premiums can be anticipated; even with that, it may not be profitable for companies to stay in business.

And how about the cost, for instance, to American businesses? Will they be able to provide health benefits? If not, can physicians, nurses, and technicians be expected to work for nothing or to provide their services in exchange for a vague promise of payments from indigent patients? The entire healthcare system could implode.

With millions of new eligible dependents, what will happen to the Social Security system in the U.S.A. that is already facing bankruptcy? If it does collapse, what will that mean for elderly people who must rely totally on that meager support? Who is thinking through these draconian possibilities as we careen toward “a brave new world”?

In order to get a perspective on where the homosexual activist movement is taking us, one can simply look at Canada is leading the way on this revolutionary path. Numerous examples indicate that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed, on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed bill C 250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality. Anything deemed to be “homophobic” can be punished by six months in prison or by other severe penalties.

This kind of censorship is careering toward the United States. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.

Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind. Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality in this domain, and its influence is global.

The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning. Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Is the United States going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself?

This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance. At this writing, large segments of the world still appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril. This reticence is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament. Tampering with it is for the family immoral and wrong.

[th.Sentinel]

Lol, this is the biggest crap I've read/heard in years. What kind of narrow-minded guy are you?
Are you homophobic?

Is the United States going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself?

Prohibited by God himself, lol. Your entire statement is based on something a guy (Jesus) has said 2000 years ago and that has been passed on from human to human and finally written in a book called "The Bible". Can you proof "God" has said this? Even knowing that people change stories in their own advantage when passing them on to others?

You probably don't believe in the "chaos-theory" aswell then.

Nice post Krush, I'm glad some people still have common sense.

[Croosch]

Kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

wow.... shut your trap.  This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen on these forums.

One doesn't one day wake up and say "I think I'll be gay"... Think about what you're saying for a second, I mean really think, then come back with a little common sense.

And if christians are really that afraid of gays then I guess you can call me and athiest... I don't care what the bible sais about gays, if their is a god I'm 100% positive he's not throwing all gays in hell.  Anybody who hates gays because of religion should be thrown in a nuthouse as far as I'm concerned.

Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind.

And here I thought people couldn't get any dumber.... I'm not even about to comment on that statement.

Children raised by divorced parents are just as likely to do drugs as a child raised by a homosexual couple... And many children raised by very loving straight parents wind up doing drugs.

[Ethion]

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

is not entirely true.

[spike]

I didnt even read beefy's whole post, but I call bullshit.

The arguement that it will destroy the instituion of marriage is stupid. The institution of marriage has been changing drammatically in the past hundred years. Hell, women havent even been able to own property for that long. The instituion of marriage has been constantly changing since its inception, and the idea that the union of two loving individuals of the same sex will destroy it is simply ridiculous.

Marriage is also not a sacrement, its a union of convience created out of simple economic necessity. The concept of "marriage for love" is something that is unique to our age, and would have been laughed at a hundred, two hundred years ago.

There is no reason to believe that two loving and caring individuals cannot raise a child with equal skill and love just because they are of the same sex.

[BFG]

Well...

Which homophobic, bigoted website did you cut and paste that from Beefy or did you write all that yourself? Given your previous posts im guessing not but if so well lets rip it to pieces bit by bit in a good old 'bucc breakdown' (old guys will remember what im talking about )

Already evidence suggests that de facto homosexual marriage destroys the traditional family because both cannot coexist within society as they are completely opposite each other. This trend is already noticeable in the Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands.

1. homosexual and heterosexual marriages are not 'completely opposite to each other'. Both are about a devotion of love and caring to another human. Etc etc, no need for me to go on any further that point is not true.

next.

The trouble is, when the State allows homosexual relationships, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, sexual purity, emotional bonding and the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides sexual convenience but that cannot offer the intimacy required of it, bringing about cohabitation and short-term relationships as a result.

Erm okay where did you pluck this one from? Please backup such absurd statments with some form of evidence/support other than 'my local priest said so'. There is no evidence that the younger generation has become 'confused' haha and in fact i would argue that quite the opposite it reaffirms the understanding of lifelong commitments and how people can care for each other so strongly. How does this provide sexual convenience anymore than hextrosexual marriage?  it dosnt.

Undoubtedly marriage between homosexuals destroys the traditional marriage. The history of the gay and lesbian movement has been that its adherents quickly move the goal line as soon as the previous one has been breached, revealing even more outrageous objectives.

Hahaha. Undoubtedly you wouldn't make such absurdly stupid claims without something to back them up with would you... no of course not. So all these heterosexual people who go to vegas get pissed and get married for 45-minutes arn't destroying 'traditional marriage'?

Presently, homosexual activists, rash with power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell the world what they have wanted all along. However, their intention is to create an entirely different legal structure that does not entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints.

Yes thats right. Homosexual activists are actually in league with Al-Quieda. they are in the political sauna together getting all hot and steamy, their intention to create hot man lovin man jihad all across the world. They are threatening our very way of life, its a war of good and evil, normal and 'everyone else'

wow my sentence sounded more intelligent than yours... big shiny star for me.

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy the legal benefits of marriage—such as custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, healthcare, spousal citizenship inter alia—without confining the number of partners to their gender. Nor would couples be bound to each other in the eyes of the law.

QUICK QUICK! GAY PEOPLE WANT EQUAL RIGHTS!!! NOOOOOOOO RUN AWAY!!

Thus marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three or more individuals (however weakly or temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. We must all become soberly aware of a deeply disturbing reality: The homosexual agenda is not marriage for gays. It is marriage for no one that is is definitely not monogamous.

Ok everyone hold hands. lets all be aware of the soberly deep disturbing reality: some people havn't got a f*cking clue and rather than address their own problems they would like to find someone else that they can blame for everything and generally make themselves feel better about it. If it isn't about marrage then what exactly is it about? oh sorry i didn't see your explanation...
marrage is for no one that is definately not monogamouse

excellent use of the english language there well done. do you actually know what your talking bout or did you just have problems with the cut and paste keys?

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime—some studies say it is typically more than one thousand—children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to children, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to remain just the way they are and loathe change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

Yes... because really 90% of the worlds population are GAY! Everyone is going to get married and there will be no more babies. OMG GAY PEOPLE ARE AT WAR ARE TRYING TO WIPE US OUT!!

Kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Kids do better if they are raised by level headed open minded intelligent individuals, who above all else care for and love their children. it helps if they aren't homophobic bigots. If you need a reference point, imagine someone with the opposite ideas of yourself and your probably on the right track.

Please do find a stupid statment to tell me why a homosexual couple cannot provide everything a child needs in terms of love and support.

Ah Part two will arrive tomorrow i can't write more now or i'll explode with frustration from reading such uneducated small minded bullshit for too long.

[Croosch]

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

is not entirely true.

this whole original post was sarcastic... I know it's not true... sorry if the topic name is a little deceiving

[Ein]

Ok... Like spike, I couldn't bring myself to get through beefy's whole post but thank you all for disecting the idiocity of it... And on a somewhat side note, I have a political announcerment.

"George W Bush wants to amend our Constitution to make it illegal for gays to marry. But evidently, he has no problem with terrorists getting married. Even now, terrorist couples are plotting to sanctify their love for each other in holy matrimony--and then blow up the Holland Tunnel. Call George W. Bush. Tell him that America can't afford a presidewnt who is soft on terrorist marriage. Because unlike gays... Terrorists can breed."

 -Paid for by the Committee  to Distract You from Real Issues.

[:MoD:Shade]

I can smell this will just turn into a flame war - it was supposed to be humorus but obviously some people don't get it - even I had to catch myself at first.

Actually right now it's just all vs. one.

[spike]

I fail to see how our society can condemn homosexuality when the basis of western civilization (greece/athens) was completely fine with it.

Secondly, to those who say that its a sin: There is a reason to prohibit a union that will bear no children when the continued survival of your civilization is constantly in jeopardy. When the bible was written, and beforehand, the infant mortality rate was huge, and humans, as a species were still grappling with mastering the earth. However, we now have no reason to fear for the continued survival of our species. We have to worry about the birthrate being too high, not too low. We can afford to allow unions that do not produce children.

In fact, I think it would be more beneficial to the earth to legalize gay marriage than to ban. Legalizing it produces unions in which it is difficult to have a child, thus possibly bringing the birth rate down. Banning it produces hate, disention and strife. With a world population of almost 6 and a half billion, what are you going to chose?

[BFG]

Shade Krush was joking - Beefy was not. hence the different reactions!!

[c| Lone-Wolf]

Given your previous posts im guessing not but if so well lets rip it to pieces bit by bit in a good old 'bucc breakdown' (old guys will remember what im talking about )

I miss Bucc.     I bet he would have had fun with this post, but in his stead, I give you a hearty round of  , BFG.  Well done.  Brought back the old days.  Makes me all nostalgic and sniffly.

Sorry to sidetrack the topic, I didnt think I could respond in a non-flaming way, so I went with humor instead.  Besides, post count += 1.

[DarK.]

Kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

  Beefy this is absurd.  Thousands of people (not only americans) are raised by one parent, two seperate parents, or a whole slew of parents.  The thing that keeps kids away from drugs is a parent who instills high moral values and ethics into a child.  If the child knows from a very young age that "alchohal is bad, drugs are bad, smoking is bad" and doesnt see the parents doing it,  (here's a shocker) has a very high chance of not doing it himself (absurd!).  And for the girls, parents should instill ideas of abstinence.  I don't think it would be that hard to do to convince a girl she'd rather wait till her 20's and or gets married, then have to deal with a child while in High School or College (or university for our foreign friends).