[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by bigred90gt

Absolutely.

Somehow I knew you would say that. Advocates and defenders of homosexuality, often religion-haters, are so predictable it's almost funny.

You and everyone else that says gay marriage (and gays in general) shouldnt be, are saying just that. Marriage is a form of self expression, showing the world that a person is straight (or in some cases gay). It is a commitment between two people. I have already posted the definition of marriage, marry, husband, and wife, and in none of the definitions does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman. Please show me where the "legal definition" of marriage specifies that it only applies to male/femal unions, and I wont post in this thread again.

Unfortunately - for your argument - dictionary definitions are not law. The 'discrimination' ploy used by advocates of same-sex marriage is admittedly effective and gives a lot of folks legal as well as assumed moral 'cover' to promote and defend the indefensible. Any sentient being understands that 'marriage' was is and always will be the union of a man and a woman with a family usually not far behind. Millions and millions of marriages over thousands of years attest to that simple fact, now disputed by a tiny group of people. Marriage is not a statement of anyone's 'self-expression'. That's simply absurd. Where do you get this stuff?

Tell you what: lets look at how we got to where we are today with this issue:

Each state has it's own legal definition of marriage. It's not a federal law but a law specific to each state. State marriage law, as in Massachusetts, never mentions anything but 'man' and 'woman' when outlining the requirements to be legally married. It was obvious to all, for centuries, that only a man and a woman married or even qualified for marriage. Now, homosexuals have decided that they should be included in the legal definition of 'marriage'. They have no basis for this demand other than that to not do as they say is 'discrimination'. They went to court and were rebuffed, as homosexuality is not an inate condition, such as race, and as such, it is not 'discrimination' to disallow homosexuals to 'marry'. Finally, the liberal Supreme Court of Appeals of Massachusetts, in a 5-4 decision, granted that the marriage law in Massachusetts had to include homosexuals because to not do so would be 'discrimination' and contrary to the state constitution. In short, homosexuals found a loophole in the law. Since it didn't specifically exclude homosexuals (but inferred that marriage meant a man and a woman) to not include homosexual 'partners' as eligible to be defined as married was now called: 'discrimination'. The court then ordered the state legislature to change the law.

Even in liberal Massachusetts, the majority of the citizens disagreed with this too-cute play on words and legal end-run around the democratic legislative process, not to mention the violation of the Separation of Powers act. The Massachusetts legislature is attempting to change the state constitution to specifically state that marriage in the state of Massachusetts is limited to a man and a woman - but that will take a few years. Meanwhile, homosexuals will be legally allowed to marry in Massachusetts starting next week.

I have been civil until some schmo fired off at me about being gay because I have no problems with gay marriage. I have no problems with relgion, and people's right and abilities to practice it. I was raised in a strong christian family. I went to church twice a week every week. I prayed every day, sometimes several times a day. I made my peace with god, and what did it do for me? Not a whole lot of much. I choose to steer clear of the whole religious thing.

I always know what's coming when a poster starts to offer a long autobiography about how he or she was raised in a 'religious' home. An attack on 'religion' and religious people. Here it comes, right on schedule:

Religion is a tool to give the weak minded something to believe in. God (as percieved in the bible) is a fictitional character devised to give the faithless something to have faith in, becaue they have no faith in themselves. That doesnt mean in any way that I have a roblem with people expressing their religious beliefs. And believe me, gay marriages wont affect me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Atheism is a tool to give the weak-minded something to replace the God they know exists but that they refuse to honor, much less acknowledge because they wish to do as they please and set their own standards of morality and right and wrong, changed to suit their situation and whims. They have faith in themselves as long as everything goes well and they can take credit for it but blame the God they say they don't believe in if anything bad happens to them. I've seen this happen and it's as sad as it is amusing.

I have no problem with atheists expressing their disbelief and, FYI, I've never used 'religion' in my arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage. You must have missed that.

BTW - Just so you know, because you assume you know me, the only person on this planet that I hate, to the point that if I ever cross paths with him again one of will die, is my ex stepfather. 10 years of hell, and he cheated on my mother for about the last 6 or 7 of those 10, and then threw us out of the house on my graduation day. I am by far not a hateful person. This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

I don't assume to know you at all but I know the mind-set same-sex marriage advocates usually have, which is a deep animosity toward anything remotely 'religious'. You just proved me correct.

The personal situation you describe going through is a tough one and I can understand your anger but the fact remains that you and many that hold the same views as you do on same-sex marriage are quick to label any opposition to to it as based in 'hate', a very strong word, usually misused. I don't 'hate' anyone either, including relatives, atheists or homosexuals. My opposition and the opposition of millions to legalizing same-sex marriage is based on a belief that such legalization is detrimental to the institution of marriage, to society and ultimately to our nation. Marraige was never intended to be anything but a joining of a man and a woman on the basis that this is both biologically normal (society acknowledging what already exists) and a benefit to building a strong society of families, something homosexuals cannot do (without adoption - which depends on hetrosexual procreation). The generally accepted belief in your crowd seems to be that opposition to same-sex marriage is (a) religion-based and, (b) if same-sex marriage law is enacted, that it won't effect anyone but homosexuals are both mistaken, as I've gone to great lengths to point out in my many long posts on the issue on this thread. I see no need to re-argue the point all over again again with you. My posts are there to read, if you wish. If not, so be it. Whether you happen to agree with it or not, my point has been made.