Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. The primary evolutionary purpose of a man and a woman is to propagate the species and raising children.

Which has nothing to do with marriage.

2. Homosexual men are more than twice as likely to spread HIV and other STDs than straight men, which applies to lesbian woman too.

Which has nothing to do with marriage.

3. Homosexual men and lesbians are much more likely to have serious substance abuse problems.

Simply not true.

4. Gays are not the proper role models to raise children. Children need a real female mom and a real male dad, one of each. All recent studies prove that children are best raised by a man and a woman. New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter.

Simply not true.  Biased studies don't qualify as evidence.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

Conservative bullshit.  Unproved and unprovable.

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

Since the overwhelming majority of marriages are currently heterosexual ones, this hardly seems to be an issue with gay marriage.

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

So this dimwit would deny the right of widowed people to raise their own children, and would prohibit marriage between people past childbearing age.  My wife and I once attending the wedding of two people unlikely to ever have children.  He was 81 and she was 77.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?

The state has no business denying either of these unions under the aegis of marriage.

Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.



So what?  If six people of various genders want to marry, who's business is it but their own?  Someone might want to tell this feep that marriage between one man and one woman has NEVER been a universal during the history of our species.

I suppose that it just goes to show that atheists can be as bigoted and fearful as anyone else.

Don't like gay marriage? Fine - don't marriage a gay person.

Boru