HERE’S WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED

http://marvin00.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=9371
Gay marriage proponents are quick to tell us that opposition to gay marriage is not only hateful but an infringement of homosexuals' civil rights. With each passing day, we hear more and more inflammatory remarks from activists who are hell-bent on changing forever the definition of traditional marriage as we know it. What would America be like if fags were allowed to marry?

If gay marriage is adopted, 5,000 years of civilization will be affected. There will not only be social chaos from such an event, but legal validation will also result in moral anarchy in our social climate. It would usurp the traditional components of a union between a husband and a wife. Children do far better when you have a mom and a dad. When society confuses its inhabitants by changing a social order that has been the cornerstone for every major civilization since the beginning of man, the result would be a psychological view that is twisted and sick. Many idiots who have recently decided to support gay marriage have not thought things through to the logical conclusion. Gay marriage would corrupt heterosexual marriage in an effort to make fag relationships legitimate.

Legitimizing gay marriage in Scandinavian countries has been disastrous. With heterosexual marriage being socially de-emphasized in Scandinavia in the early 1990s, traditional marriage was gradually replaced by live-in relationships. Parents in those countries became less committed to their partners and to their children. If this happens in America, we would create a society where the state raises the children. This would be nothing less then sexual anarchy.

If homosexual marriage is validated, we will create a future where children as young as kindergarten are taught that two fags in bed is normal. With laws already in place that actively seek to enforce hate crimes (as loony liberals define them), churches will be forced to marry homosexual couples. Resistance from pastors would result in lawsuits, criminal charges, and hate crime prosecution. It would create a future where churches would lose their religious freedom ... and their tax-free status if pastors take a stand and refuse to marry homosexual couples.

I am convinced that gay marriage will lead to trivializing traditional marriage and will undermine society as a result. As in Europe, people would be embarrassed to be called married. In Europe there is an apostate Christian Church and a secularized immoral government. Without God, there is no absolute moral standards and the secular government makes whatever dumb laws they want to.

If gay marriage is validated in America, we would see polygamist groups in Utah taking legal action to validate those types of marriages. Further we have seen in England and other European states successful legal efforts to lower the age of consent. The Netherlands have even caused adults to form sexual unions in marriage to children.

Once marriage is broken, every type of lifestyle will seek to be confirmed no matter how bizarre and sick it may be. Perhaps this is why homosexual activists have now so deeply identified themselves with their support for trans-gender causes.

It is imperative for Christians to actively defend the institution that is the backbone for civilization itself. We need to communicate our convictions to our friends, to our pastors, and to our political leaders in Washington and our state houses. If we don't, society as we know it may no longer exist. What type of legacy ... what type of future does this leave for the children we love?

7,709 views 72 replies
Reply #2 Top
Dude, if there ever was an example of a reason for JoeUser to IP ban somebody, you would be it, you bigotted piece of shite! Remember the 11th commandment.
Reply #3 Top
Really now Marvin, don't you have better things to do than worry about a few homos out running around rogering one another? Shouldn't you be out taking up serpents or out looking for a devil or two that needs cast out? Please, give it a rest. GCJ
Reply #4 Top
There was nothing constructive in any of the above replys. Only people who don't have any arguments step away from the topic as you two have so nicely done.

Will gay marriage redefine the traditional marriage? No, it will undefine it. Gay marriage is being faught on the grounds that gays are being discriminated against. The same argument can be made for polygamy (which is legal is Utah), beastiality, and people who love in-animate objects. To simplify, once you open the door for gay marriage you must leave if open for everything else. So the traditional marriage is completely and totally debunked and UNDEFINED.

Going further, gays are far in the majority. There are about 2 million in the U.S. The vast majority is heterosexual and will take part in a traditional marriage. Thus, protecting the majority from the fringe element must be taken into consideration.

It needs to be said, for the sake of this conversation that comparing gays to the historical plights of blacks and jews is totally bogus. These people have suffered through genocide, slavery, and sufferage. Gays definitely are not being marched to the gas chamber. On top of that, homosexuality is not an ethnic group. When applying to go to college is there a box to check for being homosexual? No. Is there one for being black or jewish? Yes. Thus, the comparison card should never be played.

Marriage is not an issue of individual rights either. It is for the benefit of society; to procreate, protect women, raise the next generation (can't be done in gay marriage without screwing the kid(s) up big time), etc. If you argue that gays should be able to marry because they are [fill in the blank], you don't understand the purpose of marriage in our culture as well as all the other cultures that have come before us.

Reply #5 Top
Marvin, I agree with the essence of what you're saying, although you certainly make it a difficult place to WANT to stand. I'm saying that you make the position you take sound about as ignorant as you possibly can, even though what you say is true. I think your object should be to first, say things no one can possibly disagree with in your opening paragraph so that people will see you as a rational person, if indeed you are one. Second, state your viewpoint logically. I think you attempted to do this, but using offensive language is NOT the way to win people to your side. Remember, Paul said in first Corinthians, Chapter three, in the very first few verses, that he could speak with the tounges of angels, but if he did it without love it would sound like clanging symbols. I think you came across as a clanging symbol, my friend. Love has to be the basis for all we say and do and through it should we do and believe all things. 1 John 4:8 says God is Love. (Note, it does not say LOVE is God, which brings me to my next point.) That said, I also do not believe that marriage should be (forgive the term) "bastardized." (The word means illegitamate. think of it that way.) When someone says, "I think just because someone is gay should not exclude them from rights," I say, "Like what?" They say marriage. I say and what makes that a right? they say because it entitles you to lower insurance and such. I counter, if it were a right everyone would have it. sometimes I say, "Why are you hatin' on the single people? Some people chose to be single their whole lives. Why do they have to have higher insurance?" Also, what about the people who've only found real, lasting love through a pet? You gotta admit, that's true, faithful love. And pet health care costs can be through the roof. See where I'm going? I"m just saying, the premise of the argument is that everyone ought to be equal. The reality is that we're not. Because we're living in a capitalist society, insurance companies can take surveys that tell them that married people are lower risks than single people (those surveys, mind you, are based on man/woman couples) and therefore can offer them special rates. We also have a representative government that tells us married people often have more family related expenses than singles so their tax break is greater. Children are the reason for this. (Note that gay couples cannot have children so this negates the purpose for the tax break.) I just simply point out that the premise for the arguments for gay marriage all point to either socialism or communism, not capitalism. Not representative government. As a single person who is very happy at her station in life, sure I'd like the discounts and all the advantages and all that. But shall I demand them from the majority. Not on your life. It's my choice. to be where I am. And jumping into decisions on either side of the issue without thinking it out well and without doing so with love (you three above are guilty of exactly this as well) is something I would rather not do. God bless you all and I hope you all give deeper thought to the issue and come to a moral decision rather than a reactionary decision.
Reply #6 Top
"But you can't impose your viewpoints on me!"

"Why not?"
Reply #7 Top
Oh yes gays were persecuted right along side of the Jews my friend. I don't know what history books you've been reading but you may wanna check that one again.
Reply #8 Top
(Our culture?) (Our?) You seem to be forgetting one little important detail, ITS EVERYBODY'S WORLD! Not just yours. Not just YOUR culture... Please give it a rest! GCJ
Reply #9 Top
Really now Marvin, don't you have better things to do than worry about a few homos out running around rogering one another? Shouldn't you be out taking up serpents or out looking for a devil or two that needs cast out? Please, give it a rest. GCJ


Oh yes gays were persecuted right along side of the Jews my friend. I don't know what history books you've been reading but you may wanna check that one again.


(Our culture?) (Our?) You seem to be forgetting one little important detail, ITS EVERYBODY'S WORLD! Not just yours. Not just YOUR culture... Please give it a rest! GCJ


GCJ- speaking of giving it a rest... this is pretty atypical of you. If you don't like the article and you think it's bull, say so once. Even I think the way he said it was ridiculous but you're just being obsessive.

Here, take a lemonade. Not everybody can be as accomplished a blogger as you are.

~Dan

PS to see a better and more logical argument for the case, see my mom's recent article on her JoeUser site:

Link

Reply #10 Top
I'll give you exactly the history books I have been reading and I don't need to check them again. Gays were killed by Hitler? Yes. Who wasn't? Hitler was willing to kill everyone except for white german christians. So you have no point GCJ. Were gays ever in slavery? Nope. They were never segregated. It's such a bad argument to compare them it isn't even funny. They aren't a ethinic group like jews and blacks. Being gay is a lifestyle. Blacks and jews are born black and jewish respectively. Almost every study has shown that early childhood and experience causes homosexuality.
Reply #11 Top
Umm, I'm pretty sure that polygamy isn't legal in Utah anymore, and I'm ALSO pretty sure that the Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore anyway. And gays ARE being segregated... hello, no marriage? What do you think that is???

And what do you have to say about divorce? I think that divorce is a million times worse than two people who truly love each other getting married, even if they're gay.

-Confessions Queen
Reply #12 Top
My oh my how some people around here are so narrow minded that they are intolerant to other people's opinions. Liberals are very tolerant as long as you parrot their drivel.

Maybe if Marvin were an Islamic terrorist preaching the same thing these same bleeding hearts would suddenly be torn about whose opinion mattered on the subject.
Reply #13 Top
Confessions Queen,

Sorry to take you off your throne but polygamy is legal in Utah and Arizona. Do Mormon's still practice it? The mainstream block doesn't but there are groups who still do. My cousin lives in Utah and he knows a few kid who come from polygamist families.

Gay's are being segregated? The dictionary defines segregation is, "The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination. " Homosexuality is not an ethnic group, it's a lifestyle. Thus, it can't be segregated against.

What does divorce have to do with this topic? I don't understand your reasoning. Just because you think divorce is worse doesn't mean it's a valid argument.
Reply #14 Top
Hey Marvin, you turn me on, you give me a hard on...

Wanna meet up in San Fran and get Married?

BAM!!!
Reply #15 Top
Sure! Bring your sister........we will have a threesome!
Reply #16 Top
Marvin-
How sad that you feel a need to be so assaultive in your assertion of ideas. One need not use rapit fire to make a point--besides, with that tone the only ones who will listen are the choir. You claim a moral standard if you align yourself with Christ. Does your Bible read as mine
"Don not let any unwholesome word come out of your mouth but only what is helpful for building OTHERS up according to THEIR needs that it may benefit those who listen."
"Reckless words pierce like a sword but the tongue (pen) of the wise brings healing"
"Jesus came into the world NOT TO CONDEMN THE WORLD BUT TO SAVE IT"
Reply #17 Top
con't from prev. tractorman.........

name calling, demoralizing, shaming, condemning--remember Marvin, we were all by nature objects of wrath but God who is rich in mercy saved us even while we were still enemies. No wonder Jesus hung out with the fringe, he couldn't stand the white washed cess-pool of religious hypocrites --------enough said.

joanofarc
Reply #18 Top
There are a lot of interesting replies, but I would like to add my two cents...The Bible calls for marriage, not laws, and the bible states a marriage to be between a man and a woman. Now while I do not agree with the federal government, especially King George, standing in his glass house, throwing stones, it should be a state's issue, not a US issue, nor should it be an issue at all. Why do you care, Marvin, if two gay men/women get married? Is it going to affect you directly? Is it going to make your marriage any less valid? Is it going to demoralize you, your wife or your children? If you say yes, to any of these, you are lying to yourself, and to others. The fact is, you don't like them, their lifestyle, whatever, and so you have deemed them inferior. Personally, I find that a civil union is just fine, but if they feel the need to get married, who the heck am I to tell them no? I'm certainly not perfect, and if you think you are, Marvin, perhaps you should try taking a walk on water sometime.
The only "problem" I can see with gay marriage, is that it would lower our nation's divorce rate, and personally, I would think that'd be a good thing. Nine out of ten gay relationships last longer than the average marriage in the U. S. Maybe we heterosexuals could take a lesson from the gay/lesbian community, instead of telling them they're going to burn in hell because they prefer a relationship with a member of the same gender...Remember, Marvin, "love the sinner, hate the sin"
Reply #19 Top

Reply By: BriRyJor Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2004
[...]
Will gay marriage redefine the traditional marriage? No, it will undefine it. Gay marriage is being faught on the grounds that gays are being discriminated against. The same argument can be made for polygamy (which is legal is Utah), beastiality, and people who love in-animate objects. To simplify, once you open the door for gay marriage you must leave if open for everything else. So the traditional marriage is completely and totally debunked and UNDEFINED.

The proponents of gay marriage are arguing that gender should not be an issue. It is founded on principles of secular humanism, in particular equitable treatment of living people. If successful, marriage will become a union of two people, not two or more people or a live and a dead person or a person and a table or even two dogs, though two pugs in wedding attire may be amusingly cute. Polygamy (by itself) is not supported because it gives special rights to men. In what cases polygamy and polyandry would be supported by the same arguments as for gay marriage needs closer examination (polygamy/polyandry where one spouse was unaware of other would, for example, not be supported).

Will gay marriage undefine the traditional marriage? Yes. You can no more redefine tradition than you can redefine Pi. However, traditional marriages would not be destroyed; gay marriage is about creating new traditions, not removing old ones. Moreover, the purpose of the gay marriage movement is to change the legal definition of marriage rather than the social defintion (though it is hoped gay marriage will be accepted socially).


It needs to be said, for the sake of this conversation that comparing gays to the historical plights of blacks and jews is totally bogus. These people have suffered through genocide, slavery, and sufferage. Gays definitely are not being marched to the gas chamber.

(but they were)

I'll give you exactly the history books I have been reading and I don't need to check them again. Gays were killed by Hitler? Yes. Who wasn't? Hitler was willing to kill everyone except for white german christians.

Hitler was perfectly happy to leave the English alone. The Third Reich did not gas American, British or Russian POWs. The Third Reich targeted Jews because thet were jewish, Blacks because they were black, Gays because they were gay, and all of the above because of eugenics. That was the Holocaust. Whatever case you may make for Hitlers' sanity, he could not expect to kill everyone but the Germans or all non-Christians (I know you don't mean to associate Christianity with Naziism, which would be a mistake), though he did believe he could create an Aryan world.

What would be unfair in comparing treatment of Gays today to their treatment & the treatmen of Jews by the Third Reich would be any parallels drawn between Nazis and modern groups opposed to gay rights (with the exceptions of the modern Nazi parties, the Aryan Nation, the KKK &c), but this is not what is being done. The reason historical treatment of gays is brought up is to establish their status as a repressed minority.


Marriage is not an issue of individual rights either. It is for the benefit of society; to procreate, protect women, raise the next generation (can't be done in gay marriage without screwing the kid(s) up big time), etc. If you argue that gays should be able to marry because they are [fill in the blank], you don't understand the purpose of marriage in our culture as well as all the other cultures that have come before us.


As mentioned above, the gay marriage movement is attempting to change the legal definition of marriage, which has nought to do with procreation (as it shouldn't) but much to do with taxes, insurance, hospital visitation rights &c.

The social institution of marriage in European and other cultures has been many things: a union of families, the cementing of a political alliance, creation of an economic unit, and (more recently) an expression of love and devotion. Granted, in the court of social marriage, there were times a wife was chosen because she would probably bear healthy children, when an aristocrat needed heirs. Another time spouses were picked with an eye towards progeny was in harsh environments when a large family was needed to survive, a purely practical choice. In the modern U.S., we have the luxury of small families and no aristocracy.

In Christianity, the religious institution of marriage was the only approved context for procreation but was not the defining factor; despite the directive to "be fruitful and multiply", childless married couples were still considered to be husband and wife. Moreover, basing marriage laws on Christian views of procreation and marriage ignores the traditions of (e.g.) Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu citizens.

As for gay coupling "screwing the kid(s) up big time", give references to properly conducted studies.


Sorry to take you off your throne but polygamy is legal in Utah and Arizona. Do Mormon's still practice it? The mainstream block doesn't but there are groups who still do. My cousin lives in Utah and he knows a few kid who come from polygamist families.


Polygamy is illegal in Utah (and Arizona) but (as you stated) still practiced by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly called "fundamentalist Mormons") and other polygamist groups, an illustration of the difference in legal & social definitions of marriage. For the position of the Mormon church on polygamists and the phrase "fundamentalist Mormon", see the Larry King interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley.


To bring a previous point out: childless married couples are still considered to be husband and wife under any tradtitional definition of marrige. In the light of this fact, how is marriage based on procreation?


Marvin C: Which traditional marriage are you referring to, the one where different races aren't allowed to intermarry or the one where wives are essentially chattel?
Reply #20 Top

Ah, liberals, "defenders" of the first amendment -- at least as long as you follow their party line. But if you don't agree with their views, they demand IP banning and get into petty name calling.

Marvin, calling homosexuals "fags", doesn't help your argument though.

Reply #21 Top
CURSE YOU HTML FILTER!
Oh, the perils of not bothering to get an account. Much of the above reply were quotes from BriRyJor. As I can't find a reference of what tags won't be stripped, try this replacement:

Reply By: BriRyJor Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2004
[...]
Will gay marriage redefine the traditional marriage? No, it will undefine it. Gay marriage is being faught on the grounds that gays are being discriminated against. The same argument can be made for polygamy (which is legal is Utah), beastiality, and people who love in-animate objects. To simplify, once you open the door for gay marriage you must leave if open for everything else. So the traditional marriage is completely and totally debunked and UNDEFINED.


The proponents of gay marriage are arguing that gender should not be an issue. It is founded on principles of secular humanism, in particular equitable treatment of living people. If successful, marriage will become a union of two people, not two or more people or a live and a dead person or a person and a table or even two dogs, though two pugs in wedding attire may be amusingly cute. Polygamy (by itself) is not supported because it gives special rights to men. In what cases polygamy and polyandry would be supported by the same arguments as for gay marriage needs closer examination (polygamy/polyandry where one spouse was unaware of other would, for example, not be supported).

Will gay marriage undefine the traditional marriage? Yes. You can no more redefine tradition than you can redefine Pi. However, traditional marriages would not be destroyed; gay marriage is about creating new traditions, not removing old ones. Moreover, the purpose of the gay marriage movement is to change the legal definition of marriage rather than the social defintion (though it is hoped gay marriage will be accepted socially).


It needs to be said, for the sake of this conversation that comparing gays to the historical plights of blacks and jews is totally bogus. These people have suffered through genocide, slavery, and sufferage. Gays definitely are not being marched to the gas chamber.

(but they were)

I'll give you exactly the history books I have been reading and I don't need to check them again. Gays were killed by Hitler? Yes. Who wasn't? Hitler was willing to kill everyone except for white german christians.

Hitler was perfectly happy to leave the English alone. The Third Reich did not gas American, British or Russian POWs. The Third Reich targeted Jews because thet were jewish, Blacks because they were black, Gays because they were gay, and all of the above because of eugenics. That was the Holocaust. Whatever case you may make for Hitlers' sanity, he could not expect to kill everyone but the Germans or all non-Christians (I know you don't mean to associate Christianity with Naziism, which would be a mistake), though he did believe he could create an Aryan world.

What would be unfair in comparing treatment of Gays today to their treatment & the treatmen of Jews by the Third Reich would be any parallels drawn between Nazis and modern groups opposed to gay rights (with the exceptions of the modern Nazi parties, the Aryan Nation, the KKK &c), but this is not what is being done. The reason historical treatment of gays is brought up is to establish their status as a repressed minority.


Marriage is not an issue of individual rights either. It is for the benefit of society; to procreate, protect women, raise the next generation (can't be done in gay marriage without screwing the kid(s) up big time), etc. If you argue that gays should be able to marry because they are [fill in the blank], you don't understand the purpose of marriage in our culture as well as all the other cultures that have come before us.


As mentioned above, the gay marriage movement is attempting to change the legal definition of marriage, which has nought to do with procreation (as it shouldn't) but much to do with taxes, insurance, hospital visitation rights &c.

The social institution of marriage in European and other cultures has been many things: a union of families, the cementing of a political alliance, creation of an economic unit, and (more recently) an expression of love and devotion. Granted, in the court of social marriage, there were times a wife was chosen because she would probably bear healthy children, when an aristocrat needed heirs. Another time spouses were picked with an eye towards progeny was in harsh environments when a large family was needed to survive, a purely practical choice. In the modern U.S., we have the luxury of small families and no aristocracy.

In Christianity, the religious institution of marriage was the only approved context for procreation but was not the defining factor; despite the directive to "be fruitful and multiply", childless married couples were still considered to be husband and wife. Moreover, basing marriage laws on Christian views of procreation and marriage ignores the traditions of (e.g.) Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu citizens.

As for gay coupling "screwing the kid(s) up big time", give references to properly conducted studies.



Sorry to take you off your throne but polygamy is legal in Utah and Arizona. Do Mormon's still practice it? The mainstream block doesn't but there are groups who still do. My cousin lives in Utah and he knows a few kid who come from polygamist families.


Polygamy is illegal in Utah (and Arizona) but (as you stated) still practiced by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly called "fundamentalist Mormons") and other polygamist groups, an illustration of the difference in legal & social definitions of marriage. For the position of the Mormon church on polygamists and the phrase "fundamentalist Mormon", see the Larry King interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley.



To bring a previous point out: childless married couples are still considered to be husband and wife under any tradtitional definition of marrige. In the light of this fact, how is marriage based on procreation?


Marvin C: Which traditional marriage are you referring to, the one where different races aren't allowed to intermarry or the one where wives are essentially chattel?

Reply #22 Top
Reply By: Brad Wardell Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2004

Ah, liberals, "defenders" of the first amendment -- at least as long as you follow their party line. But if you don't agree with their views, they demand IP banning and get into petty name calling.

Every group has it's dogmatics.
Homework: show that liberals intolerant of dissenting opinions are the rule rather than the exception.
Reply #23 Top
I believe that this is yet another rehashing of Marvin's only argument about gay people. What fun.
Reply #24 Top
Hey, I just made a comment on your other argument- the religious one- I just noticed that it's dated back to the 6th, so I'll just repeat what I said ...I apologize for the irrelevance to this particular post. Hopefully, you will eventually accept your friend as he is, and be happy for the life he has chosen to live.

You mentioned that, in God's own words, Homosexuality is an abomination. Here's something to put in perspective:

Leviticus 11:9-12 says: 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says: 9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: 10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.
Reply #25 Top
moderate spectator............ No, I cannot approve of my friend's choice. It would be like a sister choosing to become a purmiscuious whore or prostitute. Such a choice would put them at high risk of disease and also destroy them spiritually. likewise, if i had a friend who was a drug addict or alcoholic or compulsive gambler or glutton, I would be obligated to warning them of the consequences of their evil behavior. Any addiction will ultimately kill the addict.

Jesus died for our sins but that does not mean we have the right to commit endless sins and destroy ourselves. Jesus said he came not to abolish the TEN COMMANDMENTS but TO FULLFILL THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. This means that we must obey the law to the best of our ability.

Marvin