Legal rights to vote or own property has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  You're saying that the "LBGT" community or whatever they call themselves, are comparing themselves to women's suffrage or the abolition of slavery? lol.  That is completely different.  Inter-racial marriage should be decided by the inter-racial people who are dating one another.  Marriage shouldn't even be something the government is involved in. 

Are you serious or joking?

Up until just a five or six years ago, it was in fact the dominant opinion throughout most of the world. It still is in many places, even in places where established religions aren't dominant. So that ought to tell you something.

The majority of the world's population is still opposed to the idea of same sex couples marrying. It ceases procreation. Those couples who are in that relationship could only ever hope to have others' children. It is just a fact. Argue with me and tell me I'm "homophobic" or "bigoted" all you want. Male and female sexes exist for a reason. Both are needed to continue our species. It's why we're here in the first place.

There are certain westernized countries, such as UK or the US, that seem to be moving in the direction of "anything goes", but for the most part, the rest of the world looks at what we're doing in our bubble and think we're all a bunch of crazies.

How? What exactly are the benefits?

Additionally, what is there to suggest that allowing gay marriage would result in something that negatively affects society? If the answer is "nothing", then why overlook the obvious benefits such as making certain homosexuals happy, and supporting freedom and equality?

This is a simple thing to fix. Remove the term "Marriage" From Government.

For things like Visitation rights, Tax Writes offs, etc, use the term "Civil Unions"

Then, let Marriage be what it should be: Between You and Your Partner + Someone who can Perform Marriages.

Done.

I think you may have misread part of my post,  I don't see the negative effects of gay marriage, time will be the judge on that one, I was just saying that for those that do have a problem with it shouldn't be labeled as extremist or radical when it isn't.

You asked about the benefits of marriage on society.  Considering that marriage has helped bring about the most productive time period ever I would say its benefits are obvious, you could say that our entire society, hat the past two hundred years probably wouldn't have existed without marriage.  Population rates were allowed to thrive while at the same time children were raised in more stable environments allowing them to be more productive.

Of course not every liberal is the same, we all our unique individuals, the same of course for conservatives.  But it is are leadership that defines us and that is especially the case with the liberal mind as it yearns for the centralized all in one government far more than the conservative mind that strives for the individual freedom and self reliance.

Hesitation is always prudent when making social changes, one could say had it not been for the conservative mind fighting against the liberal change that the much needed vetting of such changes would never occur.

Well, partly there.  What then follows is poly-marriages, with more than two adults.  This will then end up causing employers to end up removing all benefits for marital partners, particularly if the courts are used to demand marriage as a right.  So long as it gets to be argued a "right" you can't be denied, what will follow is poly-marriages.  A secondary issue has to do with how divorce happens in a poly-marriage.  Think divorce is bad now with the courts?  Add more than two people and it gets even worse.  Such can be handled with a prenuptual to iron the details out.  Still, the courts will get bogged down with issues here.

I know an ex-deacon who's about as far to the right on this issue as one can reasonably get, and I asked him his opinion, and after several moments of thought he said the following:

"I have no problem with homosexuals having hospital visitation rights, inheritances, tax statuses filing jointly, or any of the other cultural subsidies marriage receives. I just don't think the word marriage should be involved. Marriage is a sacred institution which predates all our modern governments, therefore governments don't have authority over it."

Note the phrase "cultural subsidies." He thought through the situation, acknowledged it was unfair, but also found the phrase "civil right" to be misleading because applying it here is technically inaccurate. Educated religious people can be very precise with their language, and that's not always a bad thing. He also drew a clear line on what's an acceptable compromise and what isn't, Even if you don't agree with the bottom line, you must admit this opinion is more cogent and carefully thought through than 95% of the liberal opinions floating around out there.


Personal opinion: politicians get reelected based on divisiveness. It's in their best interest for problems to exist because then they can demonize the other party and keep a loyal following themselves. The Achilles heel of democracy is that the only people who will voluntarily run for public office are the ones who should stay far away from it, because they're the ones who get drunk on power and want to maintain it. Actually resolving a problem while it is still politically useful is not in their best interest, either personally or as a party. That's the real reason gay rights has been so long-winded an issue.

just kill all those fags....we dont need them on this earth...there is only a man and a woman no other gender eal with it....

This post has been moderated by axumblade