Comments on: Why Same-Sex “Marriage” is a Bad Idea

By: Sandy

Sandy — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:08:44 +0000

Why is it a bad idea? Because kids don’t need to be the guinea pigs for a social experiment, that’s why.

By: Orville Mudrian

Orville Mudrian — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:18:42 +0000

12 year olds can “consent,” so long as we redefine our broadly shared understanding of when young people become capable of reasonably making such decisions. Just as the homosexual lobby currently is seeking to redefine our broadly shared understanding of what the definition of marriage is.

If one cultural practice of long standing and widespread agreement can be undone by a targeted political effort, so can others.

The homosexual lobby talking about ‘we only want to change this, nothing else’ is like a home invader saying ‘I only want to steal _these_ things, nothing more, and I have no interest in attacking you or your children, or setting up residence here and later trying to have you evicted, etc.’ Good luck to you if you want to trust those claims. I prefer resistance to such people.

By: Orville Mudrian

Orville Mudrian — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:33:36 +0000

Jarod, you cannot even write in complete sentences. You should work on that before you try to make arguments about complex matters.

By: Bill Brinker

Bill Brinker — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:10:47 +0000

i just cant understand how we can keep ignoring God’s laws. Sexually immortality is plainly wrong and not natural. I mean look at how God created the male and female body. they fit together perfectly. You cant put a round peg in a round peg. It just not meant to work that way. Quit trying to justify it. It can’t be done

By: Jarod

Jarod — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:13:21 +0000

My response it not incoherent. It addresses all 3 points clearly. Although the points in the article are rather weak.
As to Jerry’s comments, the key here is it is a union between two consenting adults. An animal can’t consent, a dead person cannot, etc.
The first step to getting a person to understand is to have that person get over the perception that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. That exactly what I am doing, one person at a time.

By: Orville Mudrian

Orville Mudrian — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:32:25 +0000

Exactly right.

If you look at any of the official homosexual activist responses to those questions, they are remarkably weak. The most concerted effort to argue for homosexual marriage, J. Rauch’s book _Gay Marriage_, is a good example. Rauch claims, with no real argument, that once homosexual are allowed to marry, we’ve reached the natural resting point of change in the institution. “One person, one spouse” is his principle.

But why that principle, once he and his friends have rent the existing principle defining marriage of “one man, one woman”? What “natural” resting point? For within his own principle, one can then argue for legal pedophile marriage (just define “person” as “anyone over 11″ or however you’d like to define it). And there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe his principle is any “natural” resting point. Indeed, some of his fellow activists are ALREADY pushing beyond him toward group marriage and other more extreme forms.

By: Bill Brinker

Bill Brinker — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:37:24 +0000

Did we forget how this country was founded?? Our forefathers believed that God the almighty rules and we must obey his laws . It is God’s law not ours that sexual immortality is a sin. That means it is against God’s will. If it wasn’t for that being God’s law I would not dispute gay marriages. If the Government passes this law, we will experience God’s wrath in this country. May God have mercy on our souls.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:31:43 +0000

Indeed, in this discussion, gay marriage advocates should be pressed as to why only they and heterosexual partners should be allowed to marry. Why shouldn’t polysexuals (oriented to more than one partner), pedosexuals (oriented to children), necrosexuals (oriented to dead bodies), zo-osexuals (oriented to animals), etc. Sure these orientations seem bizarre, but wasn’t that the same perception of gays 50 years ago? Are social conservatives the only bigots in this discussion?

By: Orville Mudrian

Orville Mudrian — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:42:10 +0000

Jarod’s response is incoherent. It doesn’t even address the points made in the article.

Homosexuals and their allies in the culture have no responses to the points made; just silliness about “fear” of homosexuals and nonsense about how homosexual marriage will “enrich” society.

By: Jarod

Jarod — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:38:33 +0000

Ok, so to point 1: When inter-racial marriage was legalized was there a rush to also legalize other types of marriage immediately after? No, there was not. So this argument makes no sense.

Point 2: Being designated a “trustee or heir” is not the same as spouse. Especially when it comes to tax and legal purposes. Also, only 2 things are mentioned when in reality a married couple gets access to about 1200 additional advantages. Filing taxes jointly, immigration rights for the spouse, adoption of children. This is a very weak example.

Point 3: Gay and lesbians have a love for their partner the same as any straight couple does. It is not just about “sexual love”.

Stop treating homosexuals differently and fearing gay marriage. Instead, you should be trying to understand how gay marriage will enrich society, because when we are truly all treated equally everyone benefits.