Same-sex marriage is stealing rights from God

[Crossless2.0]

There is almost no power on earth that can stop a full-of-shit jesus freak from running his fucking mouth.

Fortunately, it seems that there is also no power on earth (or in heaven) that can prevent a full-of-shit Jesus freak from sounding like a fucking imbecile the moment he starts running his mouth.

[Rev. Rye]

Let's start by identifying the main reason we have marriage laws in the first place. The main reason the government is involved in marriage is not to recognize that two people love one another or have a romantic affinity for one another. We don't have marriage laws to recognize the fact that you get a tingle when Barbara wears that blouse. Why should the state care about just romantic feelings?

Because they've made a commitment to stay with each other for the rest of their lives. At least that's the theory.

That benefits children and all of society because children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations.

Why is this so? Because men and women are different. Mothering and fathering are different. A mother brings unique benefits to her child that a father cannot provide and vice versa. Same sex couples always deny children in their care either a mother or a father.

The first part may be accurate, if a little narrowly applied, but part 2 is definitely so oversimplified it's useless.

Wherever same sex marriage becomes law, the public doesn't come to see two types of marriage-natural and same sex. It comes to understand that marriage is genderless.

In other words, by dropping the gender requirement, the law helps teach society that marriage is a genderless institution merely about the romantic desires of adults and nothing about the needs of children.

Marriage hasn't been primarily about bearing children in over a century. Come to think of it, even before then, it was more about social standing.

If marriage is all about my happiness and not the needs of children, then I should get divorced if I'm not "happy." The law is teaching me that if the tingle is gone I should move on. No wonder families break up at alarming rates, and children are damaged in the process.

And yet, if marriage is solely about having kids, then the point I made earlier still stands: if Marriage is solely about kids, and if your wife can't have any, then it should be a moral imperative to dissolve the union.

Making marriage genderless also impacts what we teach our children. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it.

Any particular reason to opt out of it? They'll learn about it anyway, so why not when they're early.

Why are we indoctrinating five year olds with any information about sex, especially homosexuality?

Because even a five-year-old should know the difference between a good touch and a bad touch.

And why is California now mandating that homosexuals must be identified in public school curriculum and only depicted in positive ways? Nothing negative can be said even if it's true! That's not education; that's propaganda.

Is it really any different than insisting that famous figures in American history be depicted only in positive ways, as has historically been the case?

California, along with New Jersey, now make you a criminal for counseling your own child out of unwanted homosexual desires. Do you realize the totalitarian nature of this?

It's criminal because it's been repeatedly shown that A) It doesn't work, B) It Causes far more harm than good, and C) IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK!

I didn't make up the universe in such a way that children tend to turn out better when raised by a biological mom and dad.

I haven't seen any studies that show kids raised by two same-sex parents end up any worse off than those raised by a heterosexual couple. Maybe you should show us one.

It can be summed up this way: Conservatives try to adjust their behavior to fit the facts of nature. Liberals try to adjust the facts of nature to fit their behavior. No matter how well intended, the latter is an impossible approach that often leads to tragic results.

If they're the facts of nature, why would behaviors need to be fixed in order to fit them?

[DarkHorse]

So basically, stay in a marriage you're miserable in, for the sake of the children? It's worse for a child to grow up in a loveless home, or one with constant fighting between the parents. Isn't this obvious? This guy knows nothing.

As for children having same sex parents, I've also yet to see a study where it's detrimental to a child's development or future. Apart from the bullying they might encounter (thanks to xtian and other religious assholes), as long as they have a strong support group (grandparents, etc) and loving family, I don't see why there should be a problem.

[Kitan Etos]

[Rev. Rye]

And another interesting point: if marriage is mainly about children, why don't wedding vows (except for the occasional customised vow) even mention the possibility of future children?

[Chas]

[Kitan Etos]

He avoids ever addressing the idea of equal rights.

Clearly, the only ones who deserve any rights are Christians.

[Elskidor]

Why the hell are we stealing God's rights, and why did he create gays, knowing well they would try to steal his stuff? This is getting too confusing.

[SteelCurtain]

As for children having same sex parents, I've also yet to see a study where it's detrimental to a child's development or future. Apart from the bullying they might encounter (thanks to xtian and other religious assholes), as long as they have a strong support group (grandparents, etc) and loving family, I don't see why there should be a problem.

More salient to the point: Can these people show that a child is better off in foster care or a children's home---statistically more probable to be subjected to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, rarely with real structure, continuity, or love---or in the loving care of a same-sex couple? I don't think even the most liberal person would argue that a child is not better off in the care of both biological parents, if those parents have even a moderately healthy relationship. But the fact of the matter is, there is a large need for taking the pressure off of the foster system in this country, and there are a lot of homosexual couples willing to take that burden for the sake of having their own families.

[Faith No More]

It can be summed up this way: Conservatives try to adjust their behavior to fit the facts of nature. Liberals try to adjust the facts of nature to fit their behavior. No matter how well intended, the latter is an impossible approach that often leads to tragic results.

Here we have the classic conservative mentality where up is down and facts are just roadblocks to an ideology. The fact of nature is that organisms with the same gender are attracted to each other throughout the animal kingdom, and marriage, a monogamous union, is actually the unnatural thing. You can't impose your will upon nature and then appeal to it as a justification.

The fact that Heywood could even type that last sentence through the cognitive dissonance he must have felt is astonishing.