PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gay Rights Debates
     Sanctity of Marriage
       Do gays threaten the sanctity of marriage?

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
greenbabygirl

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I wonder how leaders of our country and others can say that allowing gays to join in holy matrimony threaten the sanctity of marriage.

Marriage is based upon love, trust, honesty and loyalty to your partner, whether that be man or woman.

I am not gay, but believe very much in every human's right to choose who they want to marry, and I'm sorry, but if a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman, it's okay by me, as long as they promise to love, honor and cherish one another, and stick next to each other in good times and bad, and in sickness and health for the rest of their lives.

Besides, what does Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Taylor, and millions of other people who have been married more than once or twice do to the sanctity of marriage?

Divorce does not mean you are loving and honoring your significant other, and it seems more and more like many heterosexuals are marrying without regard to the meaning of marriage.

That's what threatens the sanctity of marriage folks, when J.Lo marries whoever she fancies at the moment, only to find out later she would much rather be with Hollywood's flavor of the week. And that goes for everyone else as well.

Know what else threatens the sanctity of marriage? Adultery, Murder, Domestic Abuse, Verbal Abuse, and anything else you can do to harm your spouse.

It seems to me that men and women do more to threaten marriage than gays do.


-------
To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 5:21 PM on June 28, 2004 | IP
sailonsilvergirl

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This "article" will tell you how it will destroy the sanctity of marriage!!!

How my Marriage was Destroyed by the Homosexual Agenda
- a really very truly honest testimonial
by Eve Angelico

Once, I was a happy woman.

I was a mother. I had two wonderful children who knew how to behave themselves: Constance and Aaron.

I was a wife. My husband, Christian, was a good solid man I could count on.

That was just a few months ago. How could we have known, back then, that our blissful family would soon be torn apart forever by the forces of Satan?

Oh, as I look back on it now, I can see that there were signs, like when Mr. Penderglass down the street started wearing teal, or when attendance at the Boy Scouts pack meeting started going down, or when Father Hanlon, who holds mass down at the All Souls Grace Blessing Rosary of Our Lady of the Aching Lower Back Cathedral started a midnight solo boy's glee club, with rehearsals in room 204 at the Motel Six. At the time, of course, I just thought it was God working in mysterious ways.

If I had to choose one moment when my denial finally started to crumble, it would be the time when I found a smudge of bright red lipstick on the front pocket of Christian's best short-sleeved white wrinkle-free Sunday dress shirt. You see, every night when Christian comes home from work, I greet him at the door with a nice kiss on the cheek. The thing is, I only wear purple shades of lipstick, ranging from a light violet to a medium mauve. A few years ago, the Mary Kay representative on my block let me know, confidentially, that anything outside of this color range would be considered indiscreet, given my complexion. I don't even own any red lipstick. Too much red can give men the wrong idea.

Well, I was pretty upset seeing that red lipstick on my husband's collar. I confronted Christian that very evening, right after I kissed him at the door and brought him his evening glass of beer.

He didn't deny anything. He told me that had spent the afternoon in an alley, french kissing a woman named Tanya he had met in a tavern, after getting drunk on Schlitz malt liquor using money he had withdrawn from our children's college fund.

When I demanded an explanation, he looked at me with a confused expression on his face and asked me, "Haven't you heard that the Supreme Court in Massachusetts has said that it's legal for gay couples to get married?"

Suddenly, everything became clear.

I ran across the living room and fell into the Lazy Boy where Christian was sitting, and threw my arms around him. "Oh, you poor baby," I cried. "You must feel awful! Why didn't you just call me to let me know?"

Christian gazed deeply into my teary eyes. "What's the point of being honest with each other anymore, honey, now that gays can get married in Massachusetts?"

"Do you mean to say..."

"Darling, let's admit it. Our marriage is over."

To hear these words from my husband was a difficult thing. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that I just didn't care about him anymore, now that gay people were going to be getting married. The love was gone, thanks to that damn homosexual agenda.

I was about to ask Christian if he would like to experiment with some non-traditional lifestyle choices when I heard the front door opening. It was the kids coming home from school! How would we break it to them?

Aaron set down his backpack to kiss me on the cheek. He was wearing a navy blue blazer with a matching tie, ornamented only with an American flag lapel pin. "Gosh mom," he said as he passed us by on the way to change into his Eagle Scout uniform, "what a long day at school! Still, I know that the Lord wants us to study hard so that we can read the Bible."

As Constance walked into the kitchen, her ankle-length grey flannel skirt brushed up against Christian's wrist, and I saw his cheeks grow red. "Hey, honey," he leaned over to whisper, "Now that we're going to get a divorce, do you mind if I ask Constance to go out with me to the drive-in tonight? I promise I won't go past third base until she's ready."

What the hell, I thought. Sure, she's our daughter, but now that gays are going to be allowed to get marriage licenses in downtown Boston, all concepts of morality are destroyed, and it doesn't really make a difference anymore. I wondered to myself which of my neighbors' houses would be the easiest to break into - I needed a cup of sugar.

Constance turned on the radio in the kitchen to the Christian AM station we always listen to, and that's when our family's fate was finally sealed. The Lord's news update was saying that gay people in San Francisco were being allowed to get married right then and there!

Constance turned around suddenly, with a strange look on her face that I had never seen before. All of a sudden, she started running towards the front door, ripping off her clothes. The last I saw of her, she was skipping down the street, wearing nothing but a flower in her hair, screaming, "I'm sexually promiscuous now! Does anyone want to have some casual sex so that I can get a sexually transmitted disease and then have an abortion?"

Aaron came downstairs with a hurt and confused look on his face. "Golly," he whispered to Christian, "do you think that Constance has been influenced by the 1960s culture of permissiveness?"

Christian frowned and said, "Son, all that you need to know that gay people are getting married in San Francisco."

Immediately, Aaron ripped the merit badges from his uniform and threw them on the floor. "Fucking shit, Mom," he said to me. "I guess I'd better drop out of school and join a gang of juvenile delinquents."

"Okay," I said, feeling all my parental authority melting away, "But try to be home before midnight. We'll be getting Cinemax now, and I'll bet there will be a really sexy and violent movie on after prime time. Maybe we can even illegally record it on our VCR."

Aaron told me to shut up, then burped and walked out the door.

Christian and I sighed. It was hard to say goodbye to him, but I knew the time had come. The homosexual agenda had succeeded in destroying our family, even though we had been happy, secure, and God-fearing just a few hours before.

Who knows what will happen next? I suppose that as the news of gay marriages in San Francisco spreads, everybody in town will be getting divorced.

I'm not sure where I'll end up, of course, but I'm taking my first steps in this new world shaped by homosexuality. I suppose I'll have to become a lesbian now. I've put in a call to the local Lions Club asking if they know about where I can get in touch with a baby-killing satanic cult in our area, and I've cancelled the check I wrote last week to the Christian Coalition.

To think that it all could have been different, if gay people had just left well enough alone and not wanted to get married.


~sailingonby~

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 03:45 AM on July 25, 2004 | IP
Muffility-12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The "sanctity" of marriage is already destroyed, even without gay marriage. I'd say let gays marry: it's a mercy-killing of a meaningless institution.  
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 4:14 PM on July 27, 2004 | IP
btimsah1

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In a fundamentalist's mind, it ruins the sanctity of marriage because they find homosexuals evil and/or sinfull.

:-(


-------
"You're Bias Decides You're Opinion About Everything".
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 01:09 AM on July 29, 2004 | IP
tinkerbell

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I personally think that marriage should be only be between a man and a woman. Thats the way it was intended to be.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 8:11 PM on December 31, 2004 | IP
Jaxian

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is okay to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, but your beliefs are your own.  Simply stating "That's the way it was intended to be" is not enough to justify taking a stance against same-sex marriage.

Suggesting that marriage was intended to be a certain way implies that someone wanted marriage to be something specific when it was created.  To explain what I mean, I'll examine the different possible ways marrige could have been intended to be between a man and a woman.

If the creator of marriage is a human, and he or she intended marriage to be a special right given only to certain couples, then we, as a just and morally good people, should take initiative to help those couples who are not granted these rights.  We should alter what the creator of marriage intended in order to bring about happiness, freedom, and equality to those couples who do not have the same access to these things as opposite-sex couples.

If the creator of marriage is nature, then there can have been no intentions behind marriage, really, because nature does not have thought.  It could be argued that nature has made us evolve in a manner that only permits a male and female to reproduce, but this does not suggest that nature would rule out two males or two females becoming a family and raising a child if the situation warrants it.  In fact, it is a more viable interpretation that nature intended marriage between individuals of any sex, considering that a child with parents is better off than a child without parents and that two members of the same sex are able to develop a love so deep that they would wish to marry.

If the creator of marriage is God, then the intentions of marriage are unknown and widely disputed.  You may believe that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman, but I may believe that God created marriage to be between anyone at all.  If that were the case, you could certainly force your beliefs upon me by attempting to make them law, however if you are morally justified in doing that, then I am morally justified in imposing anything that I believe upon you.  If I believed that worshipping a God who disagrees with same-sex marriage is blasphemy, I would be morally justified in putting in place any law that discriminates against you.

But I will here make the argument that despite what you or I believe, neither one of us is ever justified in putting in place a law that harms some people while hurting others, despite what our beliefs may be.  Removing same-sex marriage gives extra rights to opposite-sex couples, which strips equality.  It allows families of a specific type, and not of another, which limits freedom.  It removes money, health insurance, and the peace of mind that comes with equality from same-sex couples, which limits happiness.  These are all harms that come from limiting marriage.  You have not mentioned any harms brought about by same-sex marriage, and I can think of none that make sense.  Using this reasoning, I feel it justifiable to say that banning same-sex marriage harms some people while helping no one.

Looking at it in this light, I do not think it is anything but illogical and morally evil to ban same-sex marriage.  Think that marriage is between a man and a woman if you like, but harming people, taking away their rights, is out of the question.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:57 AM on January 6, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not 'taking away anyone's rights' if those rights were never meant for them to have to begin with.

If you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, as I do, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring that it is illegal.   It's not 'harming' anybody to prevent them from doing evil, sinful things.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 03:49 AM on January 9, 2005 | IP
justforfun000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not 'taking away anyone's rights' if those rights were never meant for them to have to begin with.

If you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, as I do, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring that it is illegal.   It's not 'harming' anybody to prevent them from doing evil, sinful things.


Jumpin Jiminy, are you ever relentless!

"If you believe". So ANYONE who believes something strongly should find nothing wrong in ensuring that certain actions are made illegal? Do you realize how idiotic that sounds? First of all, you'd have a million conflicting laws because EVERYBODY and their dog can have a different "belief".

Of COURSE it's harming them, but in a REAL way, not your personal dream world that thinks being gay is a transitory aberration.


 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 7:42 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I personally think that marriage should be only be between a man and a woman. Thats the way it was intended to be.



I hate to burst your bubble, but marrige was never "intended" to be that way. It's culturally relative, but that doesn't mean you have to abide by convention. THere are myriad cultures around the world that don't have the same narrow definition of marriage. In fact, there are many that hold just the opposite. THe argument from diversity disproves the idea that marriage has that one intent/purpose.

It's a relativistic concept. Marriage can be between a man, a woman, 5 men, 5 women, etc anything. Marriage is about love, familly money, mutal aid/trust, fun, children etc. many functions.


-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:56 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
Tigerlilly

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's not 'taking away anyone's rights' if those rights were never meant for them to have to begin with.

If you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, as I do, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring that it is illegal.   It's not 'harming' anybody to prevent them from doing evil, sinful things.


I believe Religion is immoral, therefore there ought to be a law against it. You don't have rights, since, in my system of Ethinomics, no one has rights, especially catholics. You cannot be denied what you don't have.

It's not harming anyone preventing people who don't have rights from exercising them.


-------
If it hurts no one, then there's nothing immoral about it.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 8:58 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
sketerpot

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marriage is like a degree in political science: it can mean as much or as little as you make it mean. It has been this way ever since it was invented. Gay marriage isn't going to change that. I don't think anything can.
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 8:59 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
SJChaput

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The thing that makes me sick is that gay couples can't join in a civil union. They cannot shgare health care, if one is hit by a bus the other cannot visit him in the ER. They are denied all of the legal and civil benefits of being married. After all every other aspect of marriage is all in what you make of it. I don need a ceremony to join with love another person, but to get the benefits I do, and that is only fair everyone shold get them

after all we are all created equal aren't we
 


Posts: 32 | Posted: 5:12 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I cannot belive that no one has pointed out how stupid sailonsilvergirl post was. That story is complete BS, if a family is so weak and there morals are so weak that that happens to them when they find out gay people can get married they don't deserve to be in a family at all.

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, the only reason it isn't legal is because it goes against the bible didn't say that it was wrong then it would nather have been ilegal. Once again Sol is trying to impose his opinion onto peopl that don't agree with him and don't want to live that way.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:26 PM on January 14, 2005 | IP
sketerpot

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SJChaput at 5:12 PM on January 14, 2005 :
The thing that makes me sick is that gay couples can't join in a civil union. They cannot shgare health care, if one is hit by a bus the other cannot visit him in the ER. They are denied all of the legal and civil benefits of being married. After all every other aspect of marriage is all in what you make of it. I don need a ceremony to join with love another person, but to get the benefits I do, and that is only fair everyone shold get them

after all we are all created equal aren't we


Someone else said it better than I can:

"You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them." -  Mike Wong
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 11:11 PM on January 15, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 9:26 PM on January 14, 2005 :
I cannot belive that no one has pointed out how stupid sailonsilvergirl post was. That story is complete BS, if a family is so weak and there morals are so weak that that happens to them when they find out gay people can get married they don't deserve to be in a family at all.


I think, just on the off chance, that story was a joke. ;)

It's not 'taking away anyone's rights' if those rights were never meant for them to have to begin with.


HAhahahahahHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, get back in the field, slaves!


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:51 AM on January 19, 2005 | IP
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 2:31 PM on July 5, 2005 | IP
JustineCredible

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peter; I think what Sailorgirl posted is what is known as; A PARODY...

I believe it was intended as a joke. I didn't see her come back here trying to defend it as being real.




Quote from Peter87 at 9:26 PM on January 14, 2005 :
I cannot belive that no one has pointed out how stupid sailonsilvergirl post was. That story is complete BS, if a family is so weak and there morals are so weak that that happens to them when they find out gay people can get married they don't deserve to be in a family at all.

There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, the only reason it isn't legal is because it goes against the bible didn't say that it was wrong then it would nather have been ilegal. Once again Sol is trying to impose his opinion onto peopl that don't agree with him and don't want to live that way.






-------
"All those who believe in physcokenetics ~ Raise My Hand!"
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 3:49 PM on July 6, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes I understood that, I was simply pointing out that it was so rubish it held no relavance.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 07:18 AM on July 9, 2005 | IP
JohnDSM

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am gay...yes Gay's threaten the sanctity of marriage...SO DO ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE MARRIED AND NOT COMMITTED!!!  How many swinging couples are out there that are married...how many open relationships are out there where they are married...how many closed relationships are there that they are having affairs...EVERYONE IS A THREAT TO THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!!!


-------
I am a demon...
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 11:50 AM on October 21, 2005 | IP
Foeke

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Sol at 12:49 PM on January 9, 2005 :
It's not 'taking away anyone's rights' if those rights were never meant for them to have to begin with.

If you believe that gay marriage is morally wrong, as I do, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with ensuring that it is illegal.   It's not 'harming' anybody to prevent them from doing evil, sinful things.


Based on your description of same-sex marriage as an "evil, sinful thing", I think I can conclude that that is also your opinion on homosexuality in general (please correct me if I'm wrong). If that is so, I think someone else mentioned in this forum scientific studies have found that NOT coming out is much more harmful to someone's health than being open about it ;)

 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 1:04 PM on January 7, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.