Undoing vandalism
← Older revision
Revision as of 15:58, September 23, 2014
Line 6:
Line 6:
}}
}}
{{TOC|float=right}}
{{TOC|float=right}}
−
==Why did gay marriage make 9/11==
+
==Arguments against same-sex marriage==
−
JESUS CHRIST WASNT GAY BUT HIS DOG WAS.ILLUMINATI WILL FIND YOU IF YOU LIKE IT IN THE BUM
+
The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a male and female can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature.
+
+
How we define a word is absolutely important in this debate of same sex marriage. To start, Hetero is the greek word for "other" used as a prefix in the word heterosexual. Homo is the greek word for "same" and is used as a prefix in the word homosexual. First, let's stop using other languages to say what needs to be said. Let's be politically correct. People with the same gender want to be contractually bound in the same way that two people of opposite sex are joined together under the marriage contract. Why? For the sake of benefits?! Taxes, retirement, sex and any other perks?! If this is the case then single adults should have the right to these perks as well. That's where morality comes in. Out of all the benefits of marriage, sex is the ultimate benefit. Sex is the most pleasurable human experiences. Consequently as with anything that is so valuable, it must be protected from abuse. The abuse of sex is destructive to humanity from a civilized point of view. Let it be said that no one can protect sex better than the Law. If the Law relinquishes its protection from sex, the world is in for a fatal shock. It is the responsibility of Law to protect that which cannot protect itself. For example, children need to be protected because they cannot protect themselves. If parents don't protect their child than that child now becomes an infant of the Law, child of the state. In other words sex is a child of the Law.
+
+
To justify the use (abuse) of sex, most same sex partners are trying to get the Law to turn it's face from the nature of this delimma.
+
The question needs to be asked, why are these benefits given to a man and a woman under a contract by consent (married) and not to any other type of contract. The truth is that Law must protect itself. A man and a woman joined together by contract are the closest representatives of Law simply because they offer two of the most important perspectives from a coinciding point of view... a male and female point of view. For example, in the case of race, it is easy for people of the same race to be bias, hence slavery and the holocaust. Another example would be women's liberation... this was needed due to the fact that influential men ruled the world. The point is that two men will most likely not have the best interest of sex in mind but their best interest in mind. It is not in their nature to do so. They will not provide checks and balances in a sexual relationship. The same with two women. Same sex marriage is one the most unnatural acts on the face of this earth. When sex loses its innocence and purity, it becomes a tool of destruction. Same sex marriage is just the beginning step of destruction. What if sex was becomes lawless?
+
+
Darwin's law of natural selection dictates that only sexually reproductive specie can survive, thus it's natural that a sexually reproductive species like the human race would be unlikely to evolve a purely non-reproductive life style.
*Please rename this section. It only briefly mentions Darwin's theory and it does not draw on any scientific evidence. In summary, this is not a scientific argument, but a moral and political one. --[[User:Waldsen|Waldsen]] 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
*Please rename this section. It only briefly mentions Darwin's theory and it does not draw on any scientific evidence. In summary, this is not a scientific argument, but a moral and political one. --[[User:Waldsen|Waldsen]] 15:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 22:
Line 22:
{{rebuttal|Same-sex marriage/Pro|Counterpoint_to_natural_order_argument}}
{{rebuttal|Same-sex marriage/Pro|Counterpoint_to_natural_order_argument}}
−
===Slippery slope is a nope in da bum #DENIED===
+
===Slippery slope===
When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account.
When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account.
Line 37:
Line 37:
{{rebuttal|Same-sex marriage/Pro|Counterpoint_to_religious_imperative}}
{{rebuttal|Same-sex marriage/Pro|Counterpoint_to_religious_imperative}}
−
===Gay people have to adopt little niglets in Africa===
+
===Rebuttals===
This section is for rebuttals to points made in [[Same-sex marriage/Pro]].
This section is for rebuttals to points made in [[Same-sex marriage/Pro]].