Why do some Christians seem to think homosexual marriage is a danger to society?

IMO, instead of everyone fighting over more government recognition, we should just unite in eliminating the need for it.

 

And for some it's male male or female female.

Of course it does.

 

At the risk of repeating myself, while I personally have no philosophical objection to that, the American People would simply never put up with it, so as a practical matter, it is NOT going to happen.

 

Brilliant ! Now all that you have to do is explain exactly what that would look like and how it would work.

Interesting how you failed to defend yourself against my observation of you. Apparently you are willing to plead guilty to all charges. My work is done here.

 

You miss the point again.

The point being that many species have members that naturally don't reproduce and it's reasonable to assume that homosexuality is a product of the same mechanism.

Even then, it still doesn't matter; we're above nature.

 

All legal standing with governments should be strictly through civil contracts. Marriage and any other form of sexual union need no recognition by any government. Homosexuslity will be recognized by those who wish to recognize it. Next of kin can be recognized through the civil contract.

It is childish to believe you have "won" a debate just because the other side does not care to repeat themselves adnosium. If you have a specific example you wish for me to address, feel free to ask it.

 

Sorry that train has long since left the station. At one time gays WERE fighting for civil unions and states decided to shut them down by even banning those. You can thank your fellow religious nuts for that one, they are the ones who put up the walls to where fighting for SSM was the only fight.

When SSM is legal across the country, YES, you have lost the debate.

 

Again, many species do things that would be horrific for humans to do. You make a huge leap into the twilight zone with this argument.

 

But homosexuality is not horrific. It's a natural par of humanity.

 

Well, not only religious people are against same-sex marriages, but people who still have some common sense are against too!
Because here will be the problem of teaching, two fathers can give "picture" of real world and "picture" of real women behavior.

 

This already happens WITH SSM being banned. SSM has nothing to do with what you say. Gays are not going to "go away".

 

Timmy, I know that your style is no never respond to any body. You just like to drop these stink bombs and then run and hide which is rather strange, I must say. However, I’m going to give it a try any way. Just a few questions if you don’t mind.

1. Do you really believe that all Christians are opposed to same sex marriage and see this as a battles between Christians and gays?
2. Do you not know or believe that many gays are Christians and in fact consider themselves good Christians and are members of Christian churches that welcome them?

A few more questions if you don’t mind. If children really need a mother and a father to learn how to relate to the “real world”, which of the following policies would you also support in addition to banning same sex marriage ?:

1. A ban on adoption by all single people-gay and straight.
2. A ban on divorce by any couple who has a child under a certain age, say ten
3. The removal of any children under, say 5 years of age currently residing with a single parent-gay or straight to be placed with a male-female adoptive couple.
4. The imposition of stiff civil and possibly criminal penalties for any woman who has a child outside of marriage
5. Free and available no questions asked abortion and contraception for everyone

I am being completely serious here. It’s just common sense. Any one of these measures would go a lot farther towards ensuring that all children have a mom and a dad, than banning same sex marriage. In fact, the only thing that banning same sex marriage will do as far as kid are concerned is to ensure that FEWER have two legal parents and the security of having married parents. Banning same sex marriage will have nothing but detrimental effects on children and no one has been able to refute that simple fact.


Now, tell us more about how concerned you are about the children.

 

But you do repeat yourself Ad-nauseam instead of actually dealing with the issue. You ignore what others are saying and fly in the face of reality by clinging to your appeals to tradition and ignorance. Now THAT is childish.

 

Source, please.

 

So you're agreeing that nature is irrelevant to human sexuality?

 

Historical accounts[edit]
Don Pedro Fages was third in command of the 1769-70 Spanish Portolà expedition, first European land exploration of what is now the U.S. state of California. At least three diaries were kept during the expedition, but Fages wrote his account later, in 1775. Fages gave more descriptive details about the native Californians than any of the others, and he alone reported the presence of homosexuality in the native culture. The English translation reads:

I have submitted substantial evidence that those Indian men who, both here and farther inland, are observed in the dress, clothing and character of women - there being two or three such in each village - pass as sodomites by profession.... They are called joyas, and are held in great esteem.[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit

 

And if the government does not formally recognize marriage - or restrict it - then churches who are so inclined will marry gay couples and any other persons who they want. As half the pastors in this country only became pastors to avoid taxes on their property, they tend to enjoy pissing on tradition anyway.

How will this help the concept of traditional marriage?

By the way - James Madison was gay.

 

Really? Other animals. I'm adhering to our(humans) natural state.

 

Sure, you just have to take a million precautions before engaging in sex.

It also adversely affects the morality of a society.

I thought liberals believe in life in prison.

Your purpose is subjective and imperfect. God isn't.

 

Not sure if you are correct about pastors intents, but I could careless what private sector recognition they have. Personally, I will not support a church that would marry gays/lesbians due to it would be an abomination, but I'm sure there are fake churches that will.

 

"Morality". By that, I assume you mean entirely arbitrary standards.

On life in prison: a) You're using the tu quoque fallacy b) No.

On god: I'm entirely sure that there's no god. If there were, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's right. If there was a god, I'd hold him to the same standards I'd hold anyone else too, and this hypothetical being sounds literally worse than hitler.

 

I could make a graph of this. I point out that nature is irrelevant and even if it weren't you're stiller one, you make this reply, rinse and repeat.

The thing is: you don't even know what nature is. You fundamentally misunderstand the basis of your argument. Nature includes non procreating members of a population. Not hard.

 

Your attempt to gray the simple black and white fact that we are a male female species is not working with me.

 

Homosexual marriage is a danger to society when people go out of their way to make a big deal about it. If you simply ignore it or choose to not mind it, you will see that it wont damage society. When we inflate the issue then of course it is going to cause rifts.

 

We have two biological sexes. Nobody is denying that. The fact remains that humans have evolved so that some people will be attracted to the same sex, which serves the purpose of adding contributors to the community that won't drain resources with more children, thus allowing children of others to thrive more.

It's not that I'm attempting to gray anything. It's already gray. Your worldview is just ignorant and simplistic.