10 Reasons Why Same Sex Marriage is Wrong

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Jim Paint wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Jim Paint wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Cedric wrote: What about a older man and a younger girl? As in the guy is 40 and the girl is 10. You support straight marrige, is that right? If someone supported NABMLA, I'm sure they would support this.   If NAMGLA was a real group, would that mean we should outlaw Heterosexual Marriage?   ... Answer the question.

It doesn't make sense.

**edited** marriage isn't illegal because of NAMBLA

Cedric wrote: Jim Paint wrote: Cedric wrote: Jim Paint wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Cedric wrote: What about a older man and a younger girl? As in the guy is 40 and the girl is 10. You support straight marrige, is that right? If someone supported NABMLA, I'm sure they would support this. I used your logic against you and you failed to come back with something intelligent to say. Good job. Your logic failed. Remind me again why **edited** marrige is wrong?   It's because I dont really support NAMBLA, I'm just using it for arguments sake... No, but you're accusing anyone who supports same sex marriage that they also support NAMBLA simpley because it deals with same sex issues. Now, if you see how I can turn that on anyone who supports a marriage between a man and a woman, I'm sure you can see how stupid that logic is.

Alright, I see what you mean now.

I was saying that a member of NAMBLA could use the same arguments being used here for **edited** marriage.

Hades wrote: Also this raises another interesting question. Jessica Simpson was a hugh wait till marriage to have sex supporter. Now it appears she married the wrong guy and wasted her virginity. If she ever remarries all that previous waiting was for not. So in her case what is the point of waiting to have sex, marry the wrong person, and then have nothing to show for all the waiting.... Would she have made the same choice to marry Nick of she hadnt wanted to be married before having sex? So what is the difference between being married for three years and having sex with a person and then divorsing or having sex with someone for three years without getting married? the only difference I see is that the later is alot cheaper...

So, this is one bad example.  You can't say that everyone has this experience if they wait, or even that waiting and then losing it to the person she won't stay with is wrong.  She hasn't been risking STD's or pregnancy.  How is that a bad thing?

EDIT- Oh yeah, I forgot your abortion makes my lifestyle easier thing.

Well she hasn't risked STD's at least.

There is one central difference between homosexuality and pedophilia:  consent.

Most countries in the world have some age limit under which a child is deemed not capable of consent for sexual purposes.  It's not a magic number that suddenly makes you understand, but if are going to have a limit, then we have to pick a number.  In this country that numbers varies from 12 to 18, depending on the state.

That age of consent applies whether there is a two week age difference or a 90 years age difference (Romeo and Juliet laws aside).  NAMBLA is not troublesome at all (ickiness aside) so long as the boys in question are above the age of consent.  If the boy is below the age of consent, then it is a different matter entirely.

**edited** marriage is all about people who are well above the age of consent.  The comparison to NAMBLA is only interesting to Rick Santorum.  You cannot compare a fully consented relationship to a non-consensual relationship.  That's like saying that rape should be legal because marriage is legal.

Cedric wrote: How do you know that being homosexual isn't natural? Maybe everyone is born homosexual, but chooses to be straight.

That is a stupid joke, isn't it?

BearClaw wrote: Dudes a half witted comment made to point out the fact that homosexuality is UNATURAL and my proof was that if left alone homosexuality obviously cant survive their for its is NOT NATURAL.  That is how i come to my conclushion that Homosexuality is a mental illness or a Choich.

Ah, yes - the unnatural argument.

Ok, let's say it is unnatural, or a choice.  So what?  What possible relevance does that have?

Natural things:

Cancer
Idiots
Tornados
Drowning

"Unnatural" things:

Computers (like the one you are using now)
Medicine
Clothes
Houses
Paintball
Everything else

Since when is unnatural bad?  Since when is choice bad?  This must be the worst argument ever.

And, of course, homosexuality is perfectly natural.  There are plenty of homosexual animals around.  I guess they were made that way by MTV, or maybe they chose to be **edited**.

All of us are born with natural instincs and attractions correct?   Our insticts are to survive primarily just as a animals insticts do for them.  We strive not only to survive as a person but also as a race of human behings.  So if a person IS born without thes natural insticts are they not Missing a fundamental part of life mentally???? AKA a mental illness.

Yes doctor.

Actually, no - check in with an actual medical doctor or psychologist on that fine theory.  This is what happens when clergy pretends to be scientists.

But again - SO WHAT?  Retards are allowed to marry, and so are homocidal sociopaths.  I think we can all agree that they are quite mentally ill.  If Kyle Menendez and Charles Manson can marry, why can't Richard Simmons?

I thought it was rather clever myself...

If homosexuality is a "choice", then by logical extension so is heterosexuality.

Cedric wrote: How do you know that being homosexual isn't natural? Maybe everyone is born homosexual, but chooses to be straight.

I'm not sure how evolution brought male/female into play, but wouldn't those organisms have died off then?

NVM, I see.

Monkeys fondle each others goodies and then only make babies to survive.