Everyone should see this.

I think we can all agree on this

Oh hell, if they ever so much as say "it's in the Bible" I got a few things you can bring up! I had to look up some of the more extreme things for a story I was writing a while ago.

Exodus 21:7, Exodus 35:2, Corinthians 11:14, Leviticus 15:19-30, Leviticus 18:19-20, Leviticus 20:18, Leviticus 21:9, Corinthians 14:34-35, Leviticus 11:10, Proverbs 13:24, Matthew 5:29, Deuteronomy 22:5, Matthew 23:9

I'll get the actual text later

The thing is, whilst rational people know that there is no valid reason why homosexual couples shouldn't be allow to marry, the people who oppose it won't listen to reason and aren't likely to change their opinion because they are incapable of expanding their minds that teeny, tiny fraction.

That's true, but at the same time, that's also why you should put up a good argument. Not to change their mind, but to hold your own and perhaps persuade the minds of others who are open enough to accept a shift in opinion.

Edit: Also, if they ever bring up how America is a "Christian" nation; Treaty of Tripoli.



You could also go into the declining percentage of self-identified Christians.

you forgot the other very very common argument, 'homosexuality is a lifestyle', which may be the sillest one yet

but, yeah. i completely agree. while i do respect others opinions, seriously, be more open minded.

True, some are so locked in their ways they wouldn't budge if a social hurricane was to hit.

This could sway those who're on the fence or those who don't know/care much about the issue. It could make them not support groups like Mormons or Evangelicans.

I remember two mommies told me that they had to drive up to Canada for getting a marriage about eight or seven years ago. As a witness, I saw how awesome their family was, and their kids were behaved so well. I think every couples have a right to marry they love. Let them be happy. =)

It just goes to show how little the people who oppose same-sex marriage know about the real world. You never hear a peep out of them about banning marriage between BDSM people, or banning marriage between people who like to cross-dress, or between people with (insert any random fetish here).

There are tons of people out there doing things that are just as "icky" as gay sex (and note how often they specify male sex and forget about lesbians. . .wonder why that is?) If they only knew. . .

And that's what it is. The "ick" factor. They like to pretend that it's about morality and protecting the institute of marriage, but it's really all about the buttsecks.

It is because the majority of homophobes are male... and are specifically upset about the idea of gay males. I don't know exactly why this is, but I think we have all observed this.

i really dont think gay marriage should even be a government issue.

theres really no room for a third wheel where marriage is concerned.
marriage is private, personal, and intimate.

others have no valid reason for interrupting or dictating a marriage UNLESS it is inflicting harm of the emotional or physical kind upon THE PARTICIPANTS.

basically: its none of the churches business, grow up and butt out.

I often find that children brought up within a gay marriage are usually better behaved and have a more positive and expanded look on sexuality. Just let them be.. People can marry whoever they want and It's seriously not harming anyone. I don't think the government should be involved in their choices.

http://io9.com/5577804/a-drug-for-p...sbian-daughters - Anyone seen this drug? This is the most stupid thing I've ever seen, and 29 mothers participated. This terrifies me. How on earth could a mother put her unborn child's life on the line like this? Remember the Thalidomide tragedy? Stuff like this leads towards that.

(Sorry for throwing this thread the other way lol)

I'm reading a very good book right now called "The Blank Slate", and it includes an appendix that lists a lot of things that every culture has in common (found through firsthand study of lots of different cultures); marriage is one of these. Clearly, marriage is not a Christianity-specific institution.

That is scary!

At some point you start to wonder whether these doctors are really doing these things to help people... or if they're just trying to squish everybody into their narrow idea of how they think all people should be. You could say the same thing about opponents of gay marriage, really.

And while people here mostly agree that there really isn't any good reason to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, some groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM for short) are doing a "national tour" to promote their opinion that same-sex marriage should be a big no no.

For those interesting to know about what's going on, like me (even though I'm canadian), you can follow up news about the prop 8 trial (currently awaiting a decision from the judge), the blog posts of the first hearings and the closing arguments (and the links to the official docs) are full of those silly arguments as well.

Neerie - Yeah, I saw that link before. It's very good place to visit. =)

EDIT: Oh, wait. Never mind. I confused with that website with the another website. I thought I saw something that I've visit before. Silly me. ><;

Last edited by DarkCougar555 : 3rd Jul 2010 at 8:53 AM. Reason: Change the position of my thought.

Damn! They are going to be near me, but on July 4. I'm not giving up my fun for a bunch of whackos.

What are these people so afraid of?

I wish I belonged to an organisation with the acronym NOM. Hmmm... National Organisation for Making Nekkid 'Omosexual Men Needlessly and Ongoingly Makeout. NOMNOMNOM.

Shhh. It's not a stretch. I'll make badges.

And here's the message from the other side! And they even titled the page "talking points!" I can't even begin to express how idiotic this is. Their claim of "harm" all boils down to --"We define marriage and nobody else can!" Idiots.



http://www.nationformarriage.org/si...king_Points.htm

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
Answering the Toughest Questions

Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.



I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Why are they called marriages? Why not call all legally binding contracts of such a manner Civil-Unions?

Then any religious unions under a Church/Mosques/Other Place of Worship are called Marriages/Nikahs/Other religion-centered title.

Because marriage is a civic, not religious, institution.

Another thing that many gay couples are doing is adopting the children who aren't getting adopted by anyone else. Older children, special needs kids, nonwhite children, and such can stay in the system until they age out, never having known a permanent home. Amazingly enough, there are some very vocal people out there who think that going from foster home to foster home, living out of a bag, and becoming homeless at 18 is a better option than being in a household with two mommies or two daddies. I think that's kind of sick and sadistic.

I've also thought along the lines that if people want to "preserve marriage," then let them. Legally, everyone will have to have a "civil union," which will grant a couple ALL the legal rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage. Then if they want to be "married," they can go to their house of worship and have a separate ceremony, which does nothing but give them an official OK from their religion. Problem solved.

And I love the slippery slope/biblical marriage pairing. "If you let two men get married, then what's to stop them from marrying animals or children?!?!?!" Well, if you let the Bible be the defining standard for marriage, what's to stop men from marrying hundreds of women and keeping others as concubines?

Why can Christianity or the church claim ownership of the term 'marriage'? They didn't invent the term or the idea.

Amtram, there's no point in trying to argue with a Christian from a religious standpoint. It's fatih; no matter how much reasoning and logic you use, they won't be swayed, even if they compherend and understand what you're saying.

Saying, "Well, the Bible also states..." won't make much difference. They'll pull out some half-assed mumbo-jumbo. Or better yet, completely deny it, ignore it, or just end the argument.

That's why we have to talk to them from a legal standpoint. We have to get them to see it from an entirely secular, legal POV. Then, we could possibly see some progress.

NOM's basic argument seems to be that the main goal of marriage is to provide a mommy and a daddy to children. But not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Does that mean that, if those people don't plan on having or adopting any children, they should be banned from getting married (and lose out on all the rights that go along with marriage)?

There are already lots of different reasons why people get married. Sometimes it's to start a family. Sometimes it's for immigration purposes. Sometimes it's just because two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives (or at least the next little while -- let's be realistic here) with each other. It sounds like NOM is the one trying to redefine marriage... not gays and lesbians (and their supporters).

QFT. 100% correct.