Can someone please help me understand the argument that same sex marriage undermines "traditional marriage"?

I’ll try to play devil’s advocate, because these are some of the things I’ve heard people say.

“It’s a slippery slope. If you let gays get married, then what’s next? Brothers and sisters being allowed to marry? What if I want to marry my dog, is that next?”

“Gay people are shoving their beliefs down my throat!”

“As a Christian, I believe that gay unions are sinful and I don’t want to live in a country that allows people to carry on willy nilly.”

“It’s disgusting!”

“If you allow gay people to get married, you are in effect, saying that it’s OK, and if it’s OK, then it’s probably also OK to indoctrinate children into the gay life style. I don’t want my kids being indoctrinated!”

“If you allow gay marriage, you are saying, in effect, that my marriage is null and void, because you just changed the definition of marriage.”

In reality, gay marriage does not in any way effect the legality of any straight person’s marriage, it doesn’t change it, doesn’t make it less valid or anything else. But because some people believe that gayness is sinful and other people believe that gayness is icky, they don’t want any laws allowing gays to move about freely, or to be protected by laws.

@SuperMouse You are not the one who is missing something here. I would advise that you stop listening, because it’s never going to start making sense.

@SuperMouse – Thank you for asking this question. I have wondered the same thing for a long time. I wonder if the problem is that we’re trying to apply logic to emotional reactions?

If we allow 2 people of the same sex to marry, just because they love each other, then why should we stop 3 or 4 people from marrying each other if they all love each other. We will have group marriages, which will destroy the traditional family unit.

That’s the argument. It’s all crap

Don’t bother trying to understand the argument. It’s complete bullshit no matter which way you look at it.

If anything, “traditional marriage” undermines traditional marriage.

Let me put it this way. I know from experience. Back in 2004, “activist judges” legalized gay marriage here in Massachusetts. When this happened, it immediately invalidated my traditional marriage. Soon after, I was forced to attend same-sex weddings, and I had to protect my kids from all of the gay sex happening on my lawn. About 6 months later, people started pushing for the right to marry their sister. A year later, large groups met at the state house to demand rights to marry their pets. And last year, my cousin married a toaster oven.

Thanks a lot, activist judges. Massachusetts is now a pile of shit. We have no colleges, the worst hospitals, and highest poverty, and people are just raping squirrels on the front lawn.

Does that explain it foaah yaah?

@tom_g so we really are all headed for hell in a hand basket (as my dear grandmother used to say)? Thanks for the heads up, plus your response helps explain what that guy was doing with the crock pot on my lawn this afternoon. Ewww!

I live in a state neighboring @tom_g . I heard that if you stand near a gay couple some of the gay sloughs off and gets on your body and soon even straight people are making love to toasters. That might be just a rumor but you can’t be too sure.
I think Glenn Beck said something about it.

@LuckyGuy holy shit, this is worse then I thought! Is there any kind of protective clothing or maybe a spray that can ward this off? Perhaps something along the lines of the cootie spray we used in elementary school?

“Traditional marriage” is the transfer of property (women) between men as breeders (to produce male heirs). Women through much of history had no right to own or inherit property, no rights at all really. Fuck traditional marriage. Unless, of course, you’re using the term as a crutch to support your bigotry, in which case it’s some 1950’s Leave It To Beaver crap. Fuck that, too.

@SuperMouse I’m a resident of the first state in the union to allow same sex marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found our state’s prior marriage law unconstitutional over 9 years ago. Immediately the bluenoses, the Catholic Church Fathers (at least those who could spare a bit of time away from sodomizing choirboys), the Southern Baptists and others—the usual suspects—poured into our state with just such horror stories trying to push a ballot initiative to reinstate the discrimination they crave. The prime reason that they gave is just the one you quoted, the legalization of gay marriage will surely, inevitably lead to the utter decimation of “traditional marriage” and all it supposedly stands for. Fortunately, my fellow Bay Staters were too smart to fall for it.

Well, I’ve had 9 years now to wait and see. So you want help understanding the argument? I can now definitively say what that claim is. It’s a lie. Plain and simple. I’m still married to one woman. I don’t know of a single straight couple here in Massachusetts who “caught the gay” from some same-sex couple moving into their condo unit or sitting next to them on the T. Amazingly, there has been no rush by humans to marry canines, or equidae. Nobody’s suddenly decided that incest would be a terrific idea for our next move. It’s nothing but a lie, although I would conceded that, given the extreme gullibility that their belief systems expose, many of the pious pontificators preaching it actually believe their own hog-swill.

@ETpro I couldn’t have said it any better. Bravo. :)

@ETpro Reminds me of this

It’s a CONSTRUCT. There is no argument.

@syz

Unless, of course, you’re using the term as a crutch to support your bigotry, in which case it’s some 1950’s Leave It To Beaver crap.

I heard that only Eddy and Lumpy opposed marriage equality. ;-?

—and Massachusetts still has one of the lowest divorce rates.

@ETpro

the usual suspects—poured into our state with just such horror stories trying to push a ballot initiative to reinstate the discrimination they crave.

What happened to that initiative?

It’ll fuck shit up, like when they let women vote, or black kids go to the same school as white kids ~

@Brian1946 Here’s the whole sordid story of the duplicity and lies the bigots tried to use, and how they failed again and again.

More or less half of the world’s human brains are predisposed to invest in the idea that the meaning of something is rooted, in part, by the inclusion of like things and the exclusion of unlike things. For example, traditional marriage derives it’s meaning both from idolizing traditional marriage and marginalizing anything that is antithetical to traditional marriage. When an antithetical proposition is endorsed in society, it necessarily weakens the stature of the privileged proposition, because less cohesion makes it less enforceable as a standard of behavior.

By contrast, the other half simply aren’t wired to care about this and prioritize personal freedom and fairness within society.

@serenade You’re right about the dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism. But in this particular case, it’s not really that simple. Traditional marriage throughout most of human history included polygamy and many cultures threw in the idea of owning concubines and thus sexual slavery. The US did not outlaw polygamy until Mormonism began to rise. When it did outlaw the practice, it was not a defense of tradition, which had been to accept polygamy. It was religious discrimination aimed at destroying or imprisoning what was at that time seen by the majority mainstream Christian leadership as the rise of a new and dangerous religious cult. It was all about my imaginary friend is superior to your imaginary friend.

Just for the record, I’m not writing this to plead for a return to the old outrages of one man many wives, concubines, and sex slaves. I’d just like to throw some much needed ice-water on the tired and phony argument that DOMA’s rules of marriage were right in line with a tradition thousands of years old.

Loss of hegemony feels like persecution to people with limited empathy and abstract reasoning abilities.

Also, “the children!” Cause we all know that growing up in a household of straight parents is the only way to have normal, heterosexy’all, God-fearing American children. (Just look at me, my parents are straight and married, and I am all the fundamentalists could hope for in a human being.)~

Also, gay sex is really appealing, but God hates it or something, so the temptation must be warded off at all costs.

Oh no! Someone just told me that it already did spread across the border! See? And some of you wonder why we have guns here.
It’s obvious. The fulminate in ammunition primers wards off the gay.

This pretty much sums the whole thing up for me!

When marriages decline as predicted, the question will be: Which came first, 51+% of marriages ending in divorce or the Supreme Court decision to give federal marital rights and privileges to those in a gay marriage?

Wasn’t all this shit originally implemented by magistrates and cardinals who never got laid in the first place? Haha, losers.

It’s simply fear of change & the unknown, people lash out. God forbid people have choices in life like God wanted.

As a heterosexual guy I don’t see how marriage equality affects me, but I can definitely see the way which traditionalism affects my life in a negative way. Most religionists/traditionalists fear what they perceive as the domino effect as the result of society accepting the gay/lesbian lifestyle as normal.

It won’t nullify your marriage (unless the courts decide to tinker with that as well), it takes marriage (which was like money backed by gold) and made it like money from a Monopoly game.

Then again, it depends on if you are going to go by ideology or biology. Look at the facts, what can anyone do with two laptops and no software to run them or run on them? They would be the same as the person with two discs of Windows 8 and no laptop to run them on. One has two heavy paperweights that makes a nice humming noise but is not good for anything else; the other person has twin drink coaster. The only reason we can even post anything or do anything with our computers is because it is software mated with hardware. If you don’t believe in God but the all mighty evolution, even evolution got it right then. Regardless of Bonobo monkeys 80% (and I am being gracious) of the animal population you will always find at mating season, the females and males paring up, not the Phillies with Phillies, and stallions with stallions.

If it is all about ideology and fair rights to all, then there in no sound reason not to allow someone to marry their niece, brother, cousin, or whatever. You can’t even use genetics to back that claim to bar them because the negative side affects would only occur in such a small sampling as to be a non-factor.

If it is all about ideology and fair rights to all, then there in no sound reason not to allow someone to marry their niece, brother, cousin, or whatever.

Why is this always being brought up? Incest and multiple marriages are not the same thing. You go out and have more than one partner, not get married to your sister or brother. This is that same tired approach that anti gays will use to compare priest pedophiles to homosexuals or some shit. They are not the same thing, and you can’t make a valid argument by jumbling them together.

I mean, by your logic, we should be able to marry our siblings even with two people only marriages, as well. People choose WHO they want to marry am I right? Even if multiple unions are not permitted, we still get to chose who we’ll be married to, so your reasoning here does not justify the presence of incest as being related to multiple marriages only. It would apply to normal weddings too.
I don’t see where your incest thing comes into play here, and I don’t see where it sets the difference between normal unions and multiple ones by the logic you offer. Nobody was talking about slamming yo sistah.

Look at the facts, what can anyone do with two laptops and no software to run them or run on them?

So now we’re comparing love and marriage to hard drives and computers? Might as well start comparing lesbians to race cars at this point. :p

Race cars are awesome.

@Symbeline Why is this always being brought up? Incest and multiple marriages are not the same thing.
They are not the same in construction, but they should not be excluded simply because they are not the norm, or usual; that is the same claim those who want to wed the same sex tout. Once you depart from the biblical standard of marriage then there is nothing to prevent any for of marriage between sentient beings. It would be as hypocritical as to say “I hate guns, no one should be able to own a pistol, six-shooter, dear rifle, or assault rifle, but I and my friends like to go quail hunting so shotguns are OK”. Once you depart from the biblical standard of marriage then it becomes (and is already headed) to a secular act of civil rights. How can gays say they deserve the right to marry and deny that for polygamist? Polygamy has been here, open and accepted, (and still accepted today in nations where you would be killed for having sex with the same sex) for centuries. A same sex marriage, those between siblings, or those between plural partners have nothing in common on that they are free choices of those who wish to partake in them. One is no better or worse than the others if viewed under a secular microscope.

So now we’re comparing love and marriage to hard drives and computers? Might as well start comparing lesbians to race cars at this point. :p
It was to illustrate that certain things are made to go together to complete something or make things function, like a wing is to a plane and a plane is to the wings, together they work, apart they are quite useless.

@Hypocrisy_Central What I’m saying is your reason to bring up incest works just as well for the traditional wedding. It is in no way further apart than it would be for multiple spouse weddings. (that is, were it allowed)

Once you depart from the biblical standard of marriage then there is nothing to prevent any for of marriage between sentient beings.

How so? Not all weddings are religious in nature, but they still include rules and regulations; a nonreligious wedding isn’t going to accept a father and daughter’s union any more than a religious one would. And in places where weird ass crazy shit happens, it’s usually due to some warped up religious reason, anyway. I heard of a country where a man can have many wives, and where he is allowed by law to beat them physically; this is to remind them that he loves them. Search me how that works, but that’s what he said in the interview. It’s cultural norm where he’s from.

It was to illustrate that certain things are made to go together to complete something or make things function, like a wing is to a plane and a plane is to the wings, together they work, apart they are quite useless.

Not sure where you’re getting at here. I’m useless until I get married? That is no longer the case in our modern societies.

A marriage is what two people make it, surely, it is not undermined by others’ interpretation of marriage, no matter how different it may be from one’s own.

@Symbeline Never try to use obvious logic to interfere with religious bigotry in high dudgeon. It will not work. Logic is not what their hatred is about.

@Symbeline @Hypocrisy_Central What I’m saying is your reason to bring up incest works just as well for the traditional wedding. It is in no way further apart than it would be for multiple spouse weddings. (that is, were it allowed) I would concur, however, only in cases where the union between man and woman was believed to be instituted by God.

How so? Not all weddings are religious in nature, but they still include rules and regulations; a nonreligious wedding isn’t going to accept a father and daughter’s union any more than a religious one would. The lynch pen is if seen as being tied to religion, or more pointedly, God. If it is just a secular ritual, (as many have been) siblings have gotten married to consolidate power or to keep undesirables or commoners from the royal or noble bloodline. If there were such unions, I would have to investigate. The fact that there are none known today, at least by me, doesn’t say there will not be 50, 76, 120 years from now. Fifty years ago no one would have bet a penny on Larry marrying John and having the government force them to recognize it.

Not sure where you’re getting at here. I’m useless until I get married? Everyone has a use, many just choose not to be used in the way God intended. I was pointing out how there are two separate things that are made to go together, as a team, if you want to see it as that way, that allows a specific act to be accomplished. Those who believe in evolution should really be attentive to that. Look to nature and see over all the species what percent of the species have males forsaking a female in heat to go boink another male of the species. Or the female gets in heat and rejects the male in favor of another female of the species. Before we try to use the Bonobo Monkeys they do not even make 1/100th of a percent of the entire animal population, they can be seen more as an anomaly than the norm.

@ETpro @Symbeline Never try to use obvious logic to interfere with religious bigotry in high dudgeon. Where have you been? I am not speaking of religion, no matter how many misuse and mistake religion for relationship. There is more bigotry coming from those without a relationship with the Father than I could muster if I tried all day.

Logic is not what their hatred is about. Who are the ”they” you speak of? Unless you have god-like powers I certainly don’t fall in that. Oh, maybe you are speaking to those in sexual hypocrisy; this is OK but that is heinous and thus anyone doing it should be killed or at worse locked away for life, those hate people.

@Hypocrisy_Central who in the world are you to say how God intends to use anyone? What a ludicrous statement!

I really think it is a non-starter to use nature as an example of why same sex marriage should be prohibited. We have evolved beyond the level of animals so to say that since animals don’t do it we shouldn’t is makes absolutely no sense. Animals are also not prosecuted for murder, don’t hold jobs, and can’t have credit cards. Does that mean we should forgo all of these things as well?

You are indeed using religion to argue in favor of bigotry which is what makes people of faith look ignorant! Please stop.

BTW, you haven’t even come close to answering the question at hand.

@SuperMouse @Hypocrisy_Central who in the world are you to say how God intends to use anyone? What a ludicrous statement! “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.”. That is why it makes no sense. Pretty much often a child believes they know more than the parents, but we all know that the parents 97% of the time know way more than the child; the child says he/she has stupid parents.

We have evolved beyond the level of animals so to say that since animals don’t do it we shouldn’t is makes absolutely no sense. Evolved more to become stupid in our intelligence? Regardless of murder, fraud, and other things man do that animals done, man has not learned what nearly all animals do, that one sexual organ is for inserting and the other is for receiving? A penis with a penis is about as useful as having 1,000 laptops with no programs to make them work; they might as well be targets in a shooting gallery.

You are indeed using religion to argue in favor of bigotry which is what makes people of faith look ignorant! Please stop. To use that argument of a concept people do not even bother to understand in favor of a system they make excuses for to explain obvious anomalies, makes people who believe their own theories seem clueless and two-faced; stop that.

BTW, you haven’t even come close to answering the question at hand. I did, but let me strip it to the basics. I will give you this much, aside from God creating marriage, all unions are as valuable as Monopoly money, being it is only as valuable as people put worth on them, be it an arranged marriage, polygamous marriage or a same-sex marriage. Regardless of where the ceremony takes place, most people believed marriage to be a consummation of the union between man and woman. The validation of the union of man and woman was marriage, it was like the gold that use to back up the dollar. Now, the Supreme Court is basically letting anyone print money, if everyone prints money, the cash is useless because it is backed by nothing. With anyone (and it will end up as that sooner if not later) is allowed marriage, unions between man and women are basically worthless, you might as well go on cohabitating and skipping marriage altogether.

@Hypocrisy_Central If you really believe that marriage was created by the Christian god, and that your marriage is therefore a holy thing, then how could anything that the Supreme Court does devalue that? How weak your god must be, if his works are so easily eclipsed.

Stop being a troll.

@glacial @Hypocrisy_Central If you really believe that marriage was created by the Christian god, and that your marriage is therefore a holy thing, then how could anything that the Supreme Court does devalue that? I do not know who a Christian god would be, I would suspect they aren’t really Christians; for they would give glory to God, not some god of stone, metal or wood. God established marriage hundreds of years before any believer was called Christians. That term did not come about until after the death and resurrection of Christ. So, yes, I believe God established marriage and it was between male and female, as He created them, hate on me for that, say I am a troll, but no one is going to make me deny or devalue God.

God is not weakened by this. If He really did not care to allow it, it would not have passed. How He ends up using this for His glory and wisdom I am waiting to see. From a human standpoint marriage is devalued, the same way same sex couples feel their unions had less value without the moniker of marriage attached, if they thought it was the same or marriage added no value they would have accepted the vote knowing it would not change what they actually felt.

Have you ever came into contact with a person and genuinely hoped that they have never and will never procreate? I had such an experience quite recently…

@Hypocrisy_Central Well, sucks to be you then, doesn’t it? I guess we won’t be seeing any more Christian marriages, since they are so worthless now. What a pity.

Why are you guys debating him? Do you expect to make him reason eventually?

@bob_ Oh hell no. Obvious troll is obvious.

@Hypocrisy_Central Well, sucks to be you then, doesn’t it? Not really, I know where I will be on my last breath here.

I guess we won’t be seeing any more Christian marriages, since they are so worthless now
There will still be marriages because though man doesn’t recognize marriage or its Author, many of us still do and will follow the plan as it was created out of respect of Him who established it.

I am very reasonable, if anyone can’t argue their point effectively I guess they call those who they can’t shale a troll. God bless you anyhow. :-)

@Hypocrisy_Central I would concur, however, only in cases where the union between man and woman was believed to be instituted by God.

Uh…way to prove my point, bro. Score! XD :p I may contradict myself in pointing out that some non christian societies do practice multiple spouse weddings though. Or at least, one man with a lot of woman…meh. But societies invent religion, not the other way around, so with love finally being accepted as an excuse to get married in our society, I don’t see why it couldn’t be legit. I mean, isn’t God about love and shit, anyways?

If there were such unions, I would have to investigate.

Right, you explained it perfectly. The origin of weddings comes from securing status and prosperity between houses and royalty and whatnot, and I dare say, ALL those practices came from societies who were heavily religious. Am I wrong? And I’m pretty sure this still happens today. Overseas, there are a lot of societies that still have arranged marriages, and they’re all religious. South Asia, Africa, the Middle East. Methinks you ought to take your investigation further. I realize none of those are Christian, but as far as I’m concerned I don’t see much of a difference between any religion, save for their societal and technological advancement which may define them modernly. and Christians did this all the time before, anyway
I command Christianity for giving people a choice on who they marry though, granted much.

Everyone has a use, many just choose not to be used in the way God intended. I was pointing out how there are two separate things that are made to go together, as a team, if you want to see it as that way, that allows a specific act to be accomplished.

Perhaps, as is thought of by humans and their washed out ideas of pride, glory and perfection. What are we, Vikings?
But I have a job, I have fun, and I have a good life. I don’t need a husband, and if God’s not happy with me being happy, well, tough shit. Imma be happy anyways. And I live in a society where I am allowed to have choice and be independent. and if I don’t feel like it, I know bob will take care of me, and way the hell better than The Bible suggests a man should treat his woman.

I know this is getting off the subject, but societies change, and if God was so hardcore and didn’t want this to happen, it wouldn’t. Free will is the shittiest argument I’ve ever heard about God’s plan not working out, considering what Him and His demands amount to.

Those who believe in evolution should really be attentive to that.

I hate to be an evil tree hippy murderer, but seriously, what am I supposed to do then? Crawl around in the front yard naked, on all fours, pooping on the lawn and jumping on badgers and tearing them apart with my teeth? not that I don’t already do all that, but it’s my understanding that most people don’t.

Incidentally, I totally agree with you that man is an animal, and that our behaviors, no matter how disguised by intelligence, are very similar to that of animals. However, to me that has absolutely nothing to do with God because I believe in evolution…and therefore I fail to see how I should be attentive to it, in that respect. I mean, what? Should believers act like animals because…that’s what evolution is…even though Christians don’t believe in evolution? Duuuuude I am so confused.

@Hypocrisy_Central : OK, we get it. Gay sex creeps you out. I have good news for you!!! You don’t have to have any.

@Hypocrisy_Central I am sorry, but your responses are so utterly ridiculous there is really no way to consider them anything but trolling at this point.

Your first response to my question is an extrapolation at best! You are trying to convince us that you know what God wants by sharing a quote about how we think we are clever? How does that even make sense? You are saying that you know exactly what God wants which means that you think you are more clever then God. You are contradicting yourself.

In your second paragraph are you asserting that homosexual relations are stupid? What an offensive assertion and how ridiculous for you to argue that on God’s behalf!

Finally, you seem to be arguing that because people usually believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman it must stay that way. African Americans used to be counted as three fifths of a person, should we have left it that way because that is what people believed? It used to be argued that we should “kill the Indian save the man” should we send all Native Americans to boarding school so we can rid them of their ancient customs and beliefs simply because that is what people believed was right?

Your arguments make zero sense and you still have not answered how same sex marriages threaten my heterosexual marriage.

@glacial I think marriage is a sacred institution for some of us, and less than a piece of paper for others. Additionally, I feel that my LGBT friends are able to create a marriage that is sacred and holy, too. So in regards to your post above, some Christians twist the teachings of love to suit their purposes, that doesn’t make it right or them good Christians.

@KNOWITALL I couldnt’ agree more, on all counts. My comments were directed at @Hypocrisy_Central‘s personal (and bizarre) interpretations.

@Symbeline As to what Bible, you can try the King James, the NIV, any decent translation. God most certainly did tell you to stone homosexuals. It is the same in any Bible that didn’t make up its own interpretation. So I will know how much work I have to clear up your misunderstanding of the Word, let me ask this: do you know, or have any clue of the basic differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

I mean, isn’t God about love and shit, anyways?
YES, GOD IS ABOUT LOVE You got that right. People love their children but they might not love that their children goes around the neighborhood shooting others pets with a pellet gun. God doesn’t hate gays, neither do he hate murderers, swindlers, child molesters, rapist, mass murders, liars, fornicators, drunkards, and the likes; God hates the iniquity we do, not the person doing it. So, I do not hate gays because they are gay.

1 John 4:7–11
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Before anyone gets it twisted, just because I have to love my neighbor doesn’t mean I have to love him sneaking around the neighborhood stealing from everyone’s cars. This is one passage but without the full context I see why so many get it wrong.

The origin of weddings comes from securing status and prosperity between houses and royalty and whatnot, and I dare say, ALL those practices came from societies who were heavily religious. Am I wrong? Those in the Polynesian Islands and such I have no knowledge of their concept of God. Those who had a concept of God did not do a good job of understanding it. Many people have a form of godliness that is not God, the Jews that crucified Christ was a glaring example. Because they have a form of religion, and not a relationship with God, I do not hold them as any authority on marriage.

And I live in a society where I am allowed to have choice and be independent. God lets you have your choice, some of those choices comes with consequences; even if they are not immediately seen.

Free will is the shittiest argument I’ve ever heard about God’s plan not working out, considering what Him and His demands amount to. God has all the time in the world and then some for His plan to work out. Need proof, look at Israel. God said through the profits thousands of years ago He would scatter then over the earth and drive them from their homeland because of their stiff-necked disobedience. Israel is a nation today; even being scattered to near every nation on the globe, they still remained a people, a nation. God said it, and it was so. He is infinite, He has time to wait to show man his folly; it is but moments to Him where it seems like a lifetime to man.

@bookish1 OK, we get it. Gay sex creeps you out. I have good news for you!!! You don’t have to have any. Reread what I said, then react. If I let my mind go carnal I love to see two attractive lesbian going to town. Would I want to see two bearded men sucking face? HELL NO! I can be honest enough to say I have a double standard with that. If they are two fat, sloppy lesbians I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to engage in homosexual sex and I won’t, thank you. Acquiescing to having two hot lesbians having monkey sex would be for my pleasure to satisfy my flesh, their enjoyment notwithstanding.

@SuperMouse You are trying to convince us that you know what God wants by sharing a quote about how we think we are clever? How does that even make sense? You are saying that you know exactly what God wants which means that you think you are more clever then God. You are contradicting yourself. First off, I rebuke that in the name of Jesus. The only way I know what Gods desires because I read His word daily, NOT MY OWN. I am not perfect of holy as He is the only one perfect and holy. Do you know what the constitution of Russia wants to accomplish? I know you most likely never read it but you seem to imply one can understand something without having read it. I only go by what He teaches me by His Word. Me thinking I am smarter than God is utterly ridiculous. I just have to say it that way.

African Americans used to be counted as three fifths of a person, should we have left it that way because that is what people believed? It used to be argued that we should “kill the Indian save the man” should we send all Native Americans to boarding school so we can rid them of their ancient customs and beliefs simply because that is what people believed was right? Did those things come from God or man? If they didn’t come from God, you should know the answer.
I get it, you want to do what is satisfactory to your own flesh, desires, and creature comforts and you will fight and deny anything that has the power to keep you from that aim. You don’t have to believe in God, same as I don’t have to believe gravity, I can believe I am held on this planet by suction, magnetic energy pulling on the iron within my body, I don’t even have to call it gravity, but let me fall off a cliff (you may wish but it ain’t happening) this thing I don’t believe might kill me when something stops me from falling. Have any more questions PM me. (handing the butler the keys to the Bentley)

@Hypocrisy_Central your arguments are so utterly ridiculous I have neither the energy nor the desire to engage with you on this.

As long as marriage has legal implications than the typical religionist/traditionalist paradigm falls apart in my eyes. I also get a kick out of the secular libertarian minded folks who want same sex couples to have civil unions over marriage, which I find to be a gigantic form of hypocrisy from the live and let live get your hands off of my money type of folks. If traditionalists don’t want the traditional definition of marriage to be compromised than get your damn legal incentives out of it and confine marriage to your religious rituals only.