Why do gays want to get married?

[Meow Mix]

Here's a response to each point from the Concerned Women for America (henceforth CWfA) article/link:

1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

This is bigoted nonsense that ignores the whole crux of the issue. There have been laws against inter-racial marriage in many countries throughout history: can you guess what some of the arguments against inter-racial marriage looked like? Let me demonstrate the same flawed reasoning:

"Inter-racial couples are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the same race."

Can you see how this "argument" is flawed?

2. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.

This "point" is utterly superfluous; and actually factually incorrect. For one, nobody denies that males are biologically compatible with females for reproduction; but there is more to human emotion (notably, love and sexual attraction) than biological compatibility.

Secondly, homosexuals only comprise 10% of the population at the extreme highest estimates -- I'd hardly say that puts the species in danger of failing to reproduce enough. If the capacity to reproduce were really an integral part of marriage then barren couples wouldn't be allowed to marry either, then, would they? No -- marriage isn't only about reproduction; but about love and commitment between mature adults that have such a strong bond that they wish to spend the rest of their lives together in union. That some people allow something as fickle as the presence or absence of a y chromosome in one or both of the members of a union truly baffles me.

Thirdly, marriage isn't at all required for reproduction: as you are probably well aware of, reproduction seems to happen biologically just fine without marriage. Clearly, marriage is something more than just that.

3. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.

This is nothing but vitriolic and baseless dogma. I don't see any argument here other than "I don't like it, it's icky to me." That's not an argument.

4. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.

A person is entitled to their religious belief on this matter, of course -- and I wouldn't have it any other way. However, that doesn't grant them the right to deny others of their equal rights as a citizen of a country -- particularly in a country founded on the notion of equality. Besides, there seems to be something of a double standard here.

I'm not sure if you're American, but I'm going to speak within that context here since I'm familiar with it. Americans have religious freedom such that Christians can believe and practice how they like; but even groups that are considered anathema to Christians are also free to believe and practice how they like.

Here's where the double standard comes in, though: from my experience, some American Christians will usually say that they support religious freedom for all (even the "pagans" that their religion condemns); but in the next breath condemn homosexual marital equality as an abomination. I fail to see the difference: why agree to abide by the notion of equality as far as the government is concerned in one respect -- but not the other?

5. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.

Based on what reasoning? Where is the similarity?

6. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

Not all homosexual couples have any intent to parent children. Even if they do, they don't necessarily have to bring third parties into the relationship (recall that there is a spectrum of femininity/masculinity in both sexes); but even if they do, so what? Children of heterosexuals often enjoy the benefits of extended families and friends of families, too -- what's the objection here?

7. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

Is this seriously being presented as an argument? Do I really have to comment on the asinine nature of this "point?"

Marriage isn't just about sex. It's so ironic to me that oppressors make arguments like this -- arguments that objectify marriage as being exclusively sexual -- when they're normally the ones that try to cheapen the love between homosexuals by asserting that it's only sexual.

8. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued.]

This isn't a point or an argument whatsoever either -- just preaching to the choir. Where exactly is the argument that establishes homosexual unions are somehow "lesser" in value than heterosexual unions?

If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too.

There's that assumption again -- just because things are different doesn't mean they have some ultimate lesser or greater value. Yes, an individual might value something less than something else; but that's subjective. A better analogy might be if a museum were to display the Mona Lisa next to the Hope Diamond -- we might individually prefer one or the other or hold them in equal regard.

If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you?

What if the robot is sentient, conscious, and experiences emotion and feeling? Surely you've seen movies like Bicentennial Man, A.I., etc.

If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters.

Marriage isn't just about raising children. Why all these misleading and fundamentally nescient analogies?

9. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.

How ironic -- the very same person who composed this list seems to bring up points throughout the list that seem to equate marriage with sex ("Point" 2 comes to mind); and then they have the gall to assert that "engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage?" They can't have their cake and eat it too. Methinks the list-maker and those that agree with the list-maker simply entirely miss the point.

As for "point" 10 on the list, that was already covered in my original response above.

This list by the Concerned Women for America is nothing but a hodgepodge collection of fallacies, circular "reasoning," ignorance, and outright bigotry.

 

[nnmartin]

This is bigoted nonsense that ignores the whole crux of the issue. There have been laws against inter-racial marriage in many countries throughout history: can you guess what some of the arguments against inter-racial marriage looked like? Let me demonstrate the same flawed reasoning:

"Inter-racial couples are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the same race."
Can you see how this "argument" is flawed?

The inter-racial issue is different - it's basically more political.

In the past we did not have multiculturalism so there was more segregation due to lack of understanding. However, men and women have been living together for centuries without the desire for same sex marriages. It's only been in the last 20 years or so that people have gotten wind of the fact that they can try and manipulate the so-called process of modernity to suit their own agendas.

No -- marriage isn't only about reproduction; but about love and commitment between mature adults that have such a strong bond that they wish to spend the rest of their lives together in union

.
And so they can but they cannot call it 'marriage'.

Marriage is intended for man and woman as laid down by the wise men of history.

That some people allow something as fickle as the presence or absence of a y chromosome in one or both of the members of a union truly baffles me.

You can hardly call the absence of a Y chromosome fickle.
Is the absence of an X chromosome also fickle?

If it were then there would be no human race.

Thirdly, marriage isn't at all required for reproduction: as you are probably well aware of, reproduction seems to happen biologically just fine without marriage. Clearly, marriage is something more than just that.

Bringing up children is really the cornerstone of marriage though.
Same sex couples cannot do this naturally.

Not all homosexual couples have any intent to parent children. Even if they do, they don't necessarily have to bring third parties into the relationship

How can they possibly not bring in a third party?

(recall that there is a spectrum of femininity/masculinity in both sexes); but even if they do, so what? Children of heterosexuals often enjoy the benefits of extended families and friends of families, too -- what's the objection here?

Feminine men or masculine women are hardly the same as the real thing.

Young children need real role models not gay men acting as women - it certainly is not the same.

This isn't a point or an argument whatsoever either -- just preaching to the choir. Where exactly is the argument that establishes homosexual unions are somehow "lesser" in value than heterosexual unions?

The point is that if anyone can get married regardless of gender then the family no longer means the family. Mr and Mrs ceases to exist. It loses its cherished status.

Marriage isn't just about raising children. Why all these misleading and fundamentally nescient analogies?

It is the main reason.

his list by the Concerned Women for America is nothing but a hodgepodge collection of fallacies, circular "reasoning," ignorance, and outright bigotry.

The same could just as easily be said for your reasoning.

 

[Kerr]

The inter-racial issue is different - it's basically more political.

In the past we did not have multiculturalism so there was more segregation due to lack of understanding. However, men and women have been living together for centuries without the desire for same sex marriages. It's only been in the last 20 years or so that people have gotten wind of the fact that they can try and manipulate the so-called process of modernity to suit their own agendas.

Same-sex marriage is to my understanding nothing new. Just searching wikipedia brings up examples. Sure, they where maybe not marriage in the form we think of, but they where still marriage.

Also, marriage symbolizes love, so of course people who are in love want to marry. Beyond that marriage has, to my understanding, legal aspects that are important to consider. Legal aspects that means that gay couples wont have the same legal rights as hetro couples. Gay couples will naturally want to ensure that they have the same legal protection as everyone else. Is any of that wrong? I fail to see how it is.

And so they can but they cannot call it 'marriage'.

What makes the word "marriage" so important? I mean, if the only difference is the term used then the idea that "marriage" should only apply to a man and a woman is rather irrelevant since it would just boil down to a game of words.

Marriage is intended for man and woman as laid down by the wise men of history.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about hermaphrodites and marriage?

You can hardly call the absence of a Y chromosome fickle.
Is the absence of an X chromosome also fickle?

If it were then there would be no human race.

You can say that about any of our chromosomes, you know. The X and Y chromosomes are just a small part of out genetic data.

Bringing up children is really the cornerstone of marriage though.
Same sex couples cannot do this naturally.

What about the people who had children first and then fell in love with someone of the same sex?

The point is that if anyone can get married regardless of gender then the family no longer means the family. Mr and Mrs ceases to exist. It loses its cherished status.

Are you saying a family with two dads or two moms are not a family? What gives you the right to dictate what a family is? And in what way is Mr and Mrs relevant to same sex marriage?

It is the main reason.

What about people who cannot have children when they marry? Like my parents, they where well over 60 when they got married.

Feminine men or masculine women are hardly the same as the real thing.

Young children need real role models not gay men acting as women - it certainly is not the same.

Why cant a gay man be a role model? And what about the hetro men who are bad role models? Like the fathers who cannot stop drinking and ends up putting their wife in a hospital because they are idiots when they drink.

 

[Kerr]

It's time for a link.

This is not something I usually do but I have found a webpage that I believe to be about 90% correct and this will save me having to keep on saying the same thing over and over. I may even do some cut and pasting from here if necessary to save time.

note: the title of the webpage implies it was written by women - interesting to note because it is usually the feminist brigade that are at the forefront of the homosexual marriage crusade which I may well delve into later.

Concerned Women for America - TALKING POINTS:<BR>Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Wrong

for those that don't fancy going to the link I have selected a brief extract which I think to be the best of the whole article.

In what way would same-sex marriage devalue marriage? In my opinion it would make it even more valuable.

EDIT:

Also, about that link.

Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

Which pretty much takes away the true value of marriage.

It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.

It does not deny anything. Marriage has nothing to do with biology.

Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together.

1. Homosexuality is natural (does not matter that much if it is or not, though, since unnatural does not imply immoral).
2. It would not be a counterfeit, it would be the real thing. Marriage is not static, is changes, just like everything else.

Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.

I have never had homosexual sex, so I dont know much about it, but considering how dangerous and destructive hetrosexual sex is then I fail to see the issue. Sure, it is powerless for human reproduction, but we humans are not just mindless baby-pooping machines.

Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.

Irrelevant. This is an argument based on faith, there are many of us who do not share that faith. To ban same-sex marriage would be a huge blow to religious freedom.

Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.

Comparing apples and oranges, are we?

Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad.

Not according to this guy who was raised by two moms.
http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/?rc=fb.fan
Same-sex marriage will not harm children. Abusing and bad parents will.

The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

Again, how does this apply to other groups that cannot have children? Should they not be allowed to marry as well?

The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not.

Its about love, not sex. People want to be able to marry the one they love.

The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.

I disagree. Same-sex marriage will not make any issues worse. It will not be a counterfeit either, it will be a union of love. Ideally at least. There will of course be people who are abusive to their partner, but that is not because they are gay but because they are just like the rest of us.

If you really want to improve these issues then focus on more important matters then allowing people to marry of love.

 

[gnomon]

Being gay may not be a choice, I agree you are born that way.

However, who you marry is a choice therefore it is up to you whether to marry a man or woman.

Therefore a gay man can marry a woman or vice versa - no discrimination there.

What he cannot do though is marry another man as then the word 'marriage' would have to be redefined.

In many places gays can have civil unions that are exactly the same as marriage except they use a different word. Yet, there are still complaints about this because they cannot use the same vocabulary.

So It comes down to principle only and really is a moot point in the final analysis.

A man marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a woman therefore it needs a different definition.

Actually, by telling gay men to marry a straight woman you have removed their choice. Your argument is defeated.

It does come down to principle. That the morality of religion is a failure in this issue and should no longer be regarded as relevant.

Why are you so fussed about the issue anyway when you are not even gay yourself?

sounds like Troll to me!

He is demonstrating a greater morality than your own.

Originally Posted by nnmartin
1. You can be heterosexual
2. You can be homosexual.

However you cannot be both.



Not at all.

If you are bisexual then you are not heterosexual.

Semantics. Who cares. A person can be exclusively attracted to the same sex, the opposite sex or they can be attracted to people regardless of their sex.

Or an individual may be intersex. What personal choices will you deny them because they do not fit into an idiotic religious world view.

 

[SMSummer]

they feel they need to have the same rights as others. "it's not who you love, it's how you love"

 

[fantome profane]

You can hardly call the absence of a Y chromosome fickle.
Is the absence of an X chromosome also fickle?

I don’t think anyone without an X chromosome should be allowed to get married. Or vote, or drive a car. Call me bigoted if you want but that is just how I feel. The Y chromosome however is not necessarily required.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Bringing up children is really the cornerstone of marriage though.

No, it is not. The number of married couples who chose to remain childless has risen sharply in since the 1950's. The men and women in these relationships tend to be more educated, earn higher incomes, and are less likely to follow religious dogma.
The cornerstone of marriage is a loving couple who make an informed and consensual choice to spend the rest of their lives together.

Same sex couples cannot do this naturally.

Nor can sterile couples or those beyond childbearing age.
Does that make their marriage any less valid?

 

[9Westy9]

I wasn't talking about marriage.

The legal choices are:

1. You can be heterosexual
2. You can be homosexual.

However you cannot be both.

This is not discrimination merely a sensible approach to two different lifestyles - very similar in fact to the law that you cannot vote two times in an election.

It is a choice - Be gay or not be gay.

Can you prove being homosexual is a choice? and have you ever heard of bisexuals?

 

[McBell]

How about we heterosexual couples abandon the word "marriage" and get our own, un-tainted word?

How long do you suppose it will take the gays to feel left out about it and protest vehemently?

No answers?

Oh.
So sorry.
You mean you were serious?

I just thought that with as asinine, ignorant, and ridiculous as that post was, that you were being sarcastic.

Seems I was not the only one......

 

[Draka]

I think it is fair to say now, after all this running in circles and walls, that nnmartin really has no logical or reasonable basis for his statements. It has become quite apparent that he cares not for any evidence, studies, facts, or the like. He has his bigoted view, which he won't admit is bigoted, and is just pulling out nonsense to try to somehow substantiate his bigotry. His statements are unvalidated word soup which, it seems, nothing is capable of straining and reassembling into something coherent. At this point I'm left with just continuing to shake my head in my palms, let out huge sighs, and resign myself to the notion that it isn't that he can't understand reality, it's that he doesn't want to.

 

[dust1n]

Homosexuals aren't trying to "exploit financially," they're asking for the same rights that heterosexuals have -- a notion theoretically guaranteed by the American constitution on one hand; and a notion that appeals to basic human dignity, civility, and ethics on the other hand (for non-American systems that I'm unfamiliar with).

Why would you call their desire to have the same 1,000+ marital-specific rights that heterosexuals enjoy "exploitation?"

I've been asking the same question for another word. He calls gay marriage a "corruption" of marriage, not a "change" or "revision." I've been asking him why for about 15 pages now. It's no surprise he tactfully avoided your question in his responses. Apparently he doesn't have reasons for choosing the words he uses.

 

[McBell]

To many, the word "marriage" has sanctity.

So what?
It matters not what importance, emotional attachment, fluff, and or window dressing people ADD to the legal contract of marriage, it is still a legal contract.

If gays are allowed to corrupt the definition of the word, why not corrupt other words which hold meaning...like "mother"?

So your whole argument is that you do not want gays to "corrupt" marriage, but it is just fine for straights to corrupt marriage?

 

[McBell]

The inter-racial issue is different - it's basically more political.

No it's not.
The reason it is not different is because they exact same "arguments" against inter-racial marriage are being recycled against same sex marriage.

Those "arguments" did not work for those against inter-racial marriage, what makes you think they will work for you against same sex marriage?

In the past we did not have multiculturalism so there was more segregation due to lack of understanding.

Either this is a bold faced lie or you are far to ignorant of the facts to further intelligent conversation.

However, men and women have been living together for centuries without the desire for same sex marriages. It's only been in the last 20 years or so that people have gotten wind of the fact that they can try and manipulate the so-called process of modernity to suit their own agendas.

Wow.
You can shovel bull **** faster than anyone else I have met on RF.
And that is saying something.

And so they can but they cannot call it 'marriage'.

Sure they can.
Your disliking it is beside the point.

Marriage is intended for man and woman as laid down by the wise men of history.

You keep saying this as though you think it some kind of trump card.
Fact is, it only works on your choir.

Bringing up children is really the cornerstone of marriage though.

then why are infertile couples allowed to marry?
Your blatant double standards are most revealing.

Same sex couples cannot do this naturally.

more blatant ignorance.
Of course, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are merely ignorant and not just telling bold faced lies.

Young children need real role models not gay men acting as women - it certainly is not the same.

This is nothing but your own uninformed biased opinion.

The point is that if anyone can get married regardless of gender then the family no longer means the family. Mr and Mrs ceases to exist. It loses its cherished status.

If a same sex couple getting married undermines your marriage then your marriage was not worth a damn to begin with.

The same could just as easily be said for your reasoning.

Yes.
But then you have already thoroughly demonstrated that what you say may well be completely untouched by reality.

 

[not nom]

If a same sex couple getting married undermines your marriage then your marriage was not worth a damn to begin with.

indeed.

 

[Draka]

I know I'm failing to see the record-breaking sky-rocketing increase in divorces in Iowa since same sex marriage became legal. I also fail to see how the mere fact that a gay couple who may live down the street or across town from me may get married and, consequently, tear apart my own relationship in doing so. I don't see society crumbling and heterosexuals suffering in any way in the places where same sex marriage is legal. I simply don't see any of that. I wonder if that's because it isn't happening?

Somebody, please, show me where Cindy and Luann getting married has crumbled a society and undermined the marriages of the heterosexuals around them. Show me.

 

[waitasec]

It is the main reason.

that isn't true... it's obvious you're desperately reaching for an excuse to justify your bigotry


i remain unimpressed...

 

[dust1n]

This is probably wrong, but I can't do it anymore. I'm just going to assume that in Cambodia, dislike for homosexuals is still just ingrained in the culture, and then dismiss it as such, and go talk about something else...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It's time for a link.

This is not something I usually do but I have found a webpage that I believe to be about 90% correct and this will save me having to keep on saying the same thing over and over. I may even do some cut and pasting from here if necessary to save time.

note: the title of the webpage implies it was written by women - interesting to note because it is usually the feminist brigade that are at the forefront of the homosexual marriage crusade which I may well delve into later.

Concerned Women for America - TALKING POINTS:<BR>Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Wrong

for those that don't fancy going to the link I have selected a brief extract which I think to be the best of the whole article.

Let's address this list point by point:

1. Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

Yes, it does. Homosexuals may have the right to a heterosexual marriage like everyone else but the problem is, they're not heterosexuals. This would be akin to telling black people in the sixties - that did not have the right to ride at the front of the bus - that they still had the right to ride the bus like everyone else. Or that they could ride at the front if they could make themselves white.

Denying them the right is insulting and using this fallacious argument is doubly insulting.

2. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces.

No one denies this. But it still doesn't give a practical reason to as to why we should deny gays the right to marry.

3. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage.

A true marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to build a life together. This argument is based on an outdated Christian ideal and on the erroneous assumption that Christianity owns the trademark on the definition of marriage.

3a. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud.

Was blacks riding at the front of the bus unnatural? No? So why did we deny them that right? Also, a man and a woman marrying doesn't make them one flesh either. This is another outdated Christian ideal. But even if we allow that when a man and woman marry they become one flesh, it's the love that makes them one flesh, not their genders.
What about a case where someone marries for money or some other reason that doesn't involve love? Can you honestly say that just because they're man and woman that they are one flesh?

3b. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction.

Dangerous and destructive how? And any idiot knows that a homosexual couple can't procreate. But hetero couples get married every day who have no intention of having children.


4. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.

This of course is just a faith-based opinion that cannot be supported other than by referring to a book known to contain contradictions and errors.

5. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group.

How so?

6. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad.

Let's reword this slightly and take another look at it:

Heterosexual marriage can harm children by denying them love and nurture because of a mom or a dad that abuses them.

6a. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

Reworded:

The only "procreation" infertile heterosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship.

7. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified.

Reworded:

Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a marriage license to heterosexuals because they engage in sex.

Sex has absolutely nothing to do with why two people want to wed.

8. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage.

So if gays are allowed to marry this means hetero couples will no longer love each other?

8a. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing.

"Real thing" of course being subjective and, again, based on outdated Christian ideals.

9. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings.

The assumption seems to be made solely by people like the ones who compiled this list considering that they believe that the love shared by two people can be devalued merely by changing the definition of a word.

10. The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.

If things are as bad as all that and gay marriage had nothing to do with it, why not start by going to the root of the problems and deny marriage rights to adulterers, divorcees, unmarried pregnant women and fornicators?

 

[Viker]

"why not start by going to the root of the problems and deny marriage rights to adulterers, divorcees, unmarried pregnant women and fornicators?"

They would lose a greater socio-political support base and alienate potential supporters.