Many feel that only the religous support continuing the traditional definition for marriage. However, some non-religious conservatives and even some on the left see the value in the government supporting traditional marriage.*
*The blogger, Ace, uses large amounts of sarcasm, profanity (though not in this post) and a lot of inside jokes that. He also has an ongoing “blog-fued” with Andrew Sullivan.
Also, the comments are unfortunately filled with a lot of gay slurs which illustrate two things: 1) it reiterates my point about more than Christians being opposed to gay marriage 2) people can be extremely corse, arrogant and hurtful over the internet. The sad reality of freedom of speech.
I post this only to draw from the points made from a non-religious standpoint about the state having the responsibility to preserve the species and a stable, two-parent traditional home being the best place to accomplish this.
I’m curious as to how those who support gay marriage respond to these points.
1. The best way to “preserve the species” is to stop overpopulation and environmental degradation, not oppose gay rights. To blame gays is ludicrous.
2. The left has always had a strong homophobic strain. Witness communist country’s and their record of anti-gay actions and policies (one reason I hate Castro).
3. You heterosexual supremacists don’t get to define what human relations are anymore. Marriage doesn’t belong to you. I have a right, under the Constitution, to equal treatment under the law. Just because you have been enslaved by ancient superstitions doesn’t mean you get to dictate to me how to live. So, shove it.
1. I think the point was that you must have children and only heterosexual couples can do that.
2. At least we agree on that, but today's left is the most supportive of gay marriage, so I still think it is noteworthy if someone outside of the norm voices some type of support for traditional marriage.
3. No I don't get to define relations. I hever have and neither do you. It is not my or your right to change how marriage is defined. You should be treated equally, but that does not give you the right to force everyone else to define marriage the way you would like.
As I said, pointless. I therefore withdraw from any further conversations with you.
I'm a bit confused. If we get to define our relations however we want, and our parents, our church, our community, and our friends call us married.
Who are you to call us anything else?
Sky cat doth think your argument has no merit.
On a related note, gay marriage became officially legal here in California yesterday, a day of joy and fulfillment for thousands of citizens. The L.A. Times had an article examining worldwide reaction, and the most interesting came from a faithful believer in God, one Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks:
"Evil laws are not the laws of God," he said at his trial, citing "laws allowing same-sex marriages" as an example.
Sounds just like seeker. What wonderful company you christianists keep!
Nice guilt by association. Did you know that Mohammed also believes in gravity? It must therefore not be true.
Just pointing out how similar religious extremists and fundamentalists are when it comes to certain issues. There's also the matter of the parallels between his rhetoric and yours (and, as I have previously noted, between yours and German Nazis) on this issue. Like minds think alike.
And I have pointed out why your superficial comparison is in error – because, while we may desire the same ends (sexual purity and health among people), our means are entirely different.
Liberal historic analyses of supposed 'Christian atrocities' rarely mention numbers, because the numbers are so low as to be not representative.
This is why modern liberals can't tell the difference between fundamentalist Christians and Islamists, nor can they see the historical and logical connections between liberalism and fascism, or between Darwinism and eugenics and racism.
It is why there is no outcry against the current fascism of hate speech legislation in Canada, where you can be fined and prosecuted for criticizing the morality of a 'protected group.' And by the time religion becomes 'protected' from criticism, it may be too late, and we'll be in the same boat as Holland, overrun by crazy Islamists.
I'm glad to see that you admit to desiring the same ends towards gays as the Islamists. For the moment, you differ as to means, but I'm sure that, if it had the power, your religion would soon revert to the violent tactics it once employed. Only a secular state, protected by "liberal" values, can protect those of us from your kind. The only religious liberties you miss are the right to rule over us all and to persecute those who don't kow-tow to your superstitious manure.