Re: ...
U2LipstickBoy said:
Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America.
First off, that's not an area Bush needs to concern himself with. He's got many more things to worry about, things that will actually affect this country as a whole.
Second, before you go talking about the sanctity of marriage being "destroyed" with homosexuals being allowed to marry, you might want to look at the many
heterosexual marriages that have fallen apart in recent years, along with the fact that reality shows pretty much ruin the sanctity there as well, and those have all been heterosexual unions.
From the homosexuals I know, more of them are able to stay together longer than a lot of heterosexuals I know right now, so that tells me that homosexuals seem to be mature and smart enough to uphold the sanctity of a marriage just fine (and yes, some heterosexuals have been able to do the same).
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage.
First off, how do we decide what is "immoral"? What exactly is so "immoral" about two men or two women marrying each other and living happily ever after?
And I would sincerely hope that our country allows homosexual marriage to be legal all over sometime in the near future. Again I say, denying two people the right to legally marry because you personally have issues with the fact that it's two men marrying or two women marrying instead of a man and a woman marrying...that just seems awfully cruel to me. You'll refuse to let them be happy together because you personally have issues with their type of love...that just does not make sense to me.
Second, it's none of your business who marries in this country. You don't know these people, you're not going to be affected by their marriage in any way, shape, or form, so why do you care? It should never be up to the society as a whole who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, especially considering how many people in this country have a hard time keeping a relationship together nowadays-yeah, I'm gonna trust a bunch of people who have been divorced x amount of times to decide who I should and shouldn't marry. Right.
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.
Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of trying to keep the population under control. We already have enough people in this world, if a few couples here and there do not have any children, it will not be a huge deal.
Besides, no, they can't have children the natural way, but they could, you know,
adopt. There's millions of orphans in this country-heck, in this world-who desperately need homes, and a lot of these homosexuals would be more than willing to take them in and care for them and adopt them as their children.
But no, we can't have that either, because the kids will turn out messed up or something. To that, I say, "Baloney".
A family is made up of people who love each other and will take care of each other. It doesn't matter what the makeup of the family is, if there's love, that's all that matters. That's all that should be important.
Besides, as ILuvLarryMullen pointed out, what about the heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids for some reason or other. Are their marriages not valid, then? I know a lot of heterosexual kids who have no intention of ever having children. When they marry, will that make their marriages invalid? I mean, let's be consistent here.
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them.
Bad analogy, simply because your car or dog cannot consent to the marriage. They have no say in the matter. And your parents aren't allowed to marry you because incest is frowned upon in this country (even though it
is in the Bible, which is very interesting-but people never really seem to comment on that...).
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms.
No, we don't. Look at the areas in the world where homosexual marriage
is legal. Have you heard anything about those places falling apart at the seams? I haven't. I mean, there may be some problems in those areas, but they've got nothing to do with the fact that homosexuals are allowed to legally marry.
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.
What Bush also needs to realize, though, is that some people in this country
are in favor of homosexuals marrying. But he's not even considering their views on the matter. And if he wants to be re-elected, he's also got to learn that times are changing.
Besides, just because the majority says something's wrong doesn't automatically mean that it is.
Angela