It's a slippery slope - it opens up doors. If it wasn't being shoved down our throats (no pun intended) then I wouldn't care if it was legalized, but it's very strange there is a lot of propaganda going on. 15 years ago no one cared now it's a bigger issue than the economy, border security, overseas wars, the debt, etc. etc.

Yes it's a HUGE fucking issue because its 10% (probably higher) of the worlds population being denied equal rights!! Why people fail to grasp this is staggering! If an entire country's worth of people was denied rights the world would be up in arms but "the gays" want it and were "shoving it down people's throats"! Give me equal rights and I'll STFU but till then I have to keep shouting from the rooftops or I'll just have to lie down and take all the crap I'm given! And to be frank I'd rather die (which I'm sure some would love) than lie down and accept that this is just the way it is. If people stopped caring about something which a) doesn't affect them at all and b) is harming NOBODY (maybe, just maybe, even ENHANCING the lives of a couple of people) then the world would be much nicer and much quieter!! Because there would be no gays screeching for equal rights haha

I don't totally agree with the slippery slope thing, but regardless the only reason there is a slippery slope is because of the government, because the government is involved in marriage.  Also because the government is involved in education and marriage everything has to be PC at all the schools and every other government agency.  The rights of the homosexuals and religious people should BOTH be preserved, and the only way to to do that is to get government out of marriage.

It's adam and eve, not adam and steve. Damns that's religion.

Anti-homosexuality didn't become associated with Christianity until the 20th century homosexuality became a punishable offense in the Roman Empire in 29 BC under Octavian, hundreds of years before the Empire was Christianized. The Greco-Roman historian Plutarch also writes homosexuality as the lowest kind of vice. The Roman Empire was less liberal towards homosexuality than current society, they deemed the act as immoral on the basis that they saw it as an unnatural act. Homosexuality was actually considered an insult to the Romans, it was one of the most common forms of political slander along with incest, drunkenness, greed, and stupidity.

For the record, not all Christian churches are against homosexuality, some even have openly gay ministers, and hold gay marriage ceremonies; and it's about the only religion in the world to do so. The Christian world is a diverse one and hardly unified in their belief systems, even under the same Church - which is why you'll find liberal minded Catholics and conservative minded ones, even among the congregatio (The reason why Catholicism is a significant example is because the network of its order is one of the strictest and most rigid in the Christian world. Most chirches are much less unified.).

bad?  yes.

deliberately bad?  sadly, yes as well.

The problem is not in marriage itself, by now it's mostly a legal related term, but if homosexual (or whatever couple outside of traditional... really, my imagination goes further than just "gay couple") family should be allowed to become a foster parents, or any parenting at all in any shape or form. A sane society should decline such proposition. At least that's what, I believe, most people who said "no" would think.

Why do you persist in asking me questions you already know the answer to?  I've said at least three or four times that I do not in any way support the government being involved with marriage, so how would it be possible that I would support the government forcing heterosexuals to marry against their will?

As I've said time and again, I do no advocate marriage for anyone, nor do I oppose it.  Do whatever you want.  The only thing I've said is that personally, within my realm, which is my family and my home, I do not agree with homosexual marriage and indeed I find it abhorrent.  It is perfectly my right, as is your right to support homosexuals marrying.  I don't like it, you apparently do.  Regardless, we'd both vote the same way.  We both agree, I think, that so long as marriage is a legal act, one has no basis for prohibiting anyone, homosexuals included, from being legally wed.

Is there any reason to continue this conversation?

Except polygamy has existed since ancient times, so why is it that when it comes to same sex couples it's something that's against the 'tradition' of marriage (whatever that means)? Divorce didn't exist until somewhat recently in human history, why is that allowed since it destroys the 'tradition' of marriage?

It's very simple which side of the debate to be on for me, one side is forcing the other side to not do something because it bothers them (for religious reasons, homophobia or whatever other factor) and the other side isn't forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want gay marriage then it's pretty simple, don't marry someone from the same sex.