Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
Let me demonstrate why your argument fails. Remove all mention of age as well.
Click to expand...
Age in only in statutes now to insure that both parties have the capacity to consent. That is a relatively new addition as girls as young as 14 got married in this country 150 to 200 years ago
 
So far I have seen nothing worthwhile in the arguments against gay marriage.

The laws have already been changed, so one more change won't destroy marriage.

There is no real claim of an effect on straight marriages that stand up to any logical test.

And it would bring us closer to equality for all.
 
for the 9th time:

the laws that banned interracial marriage....how did that work out for them?

your link proves that the law had to change due to ambiguity....as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...

how you ignore constitutions is beyond me...how you ignore the fact that CA had to amend its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....how you ignore the fact that approximately 26 states have had to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....

if the constitution didn't matter, pray tell why CA and the other states had to CHANGE/AMEND their laws in order to ban gay marriage? why are you not against that change? it is intellectually dishonest for you to support that change while arguing that you are against changing the definition to allow homosexual marriage....

and maybe when you finally address the interracial marriage ban, you will see why i keep bringing it up....so i ask again....how did those statutes fair on the ban of interracial marriages? trust me, the scotus will strike down the ban on statutes that define interracial marriages and i believe they will also strike down the constitutional amendments/changes that have altered the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman....
Click to expand...

4

looks like PMP is still running away
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I've dealt with the relevant issues.....I have no intention of debating race with you on this thread....feel free to jump ahead to 14, it will save you typing time.....
Click to expand...

there is not only race in that post....i suggest you read it again instread of running away...

answering the race issue would take less than 30 seconds....and the rest of post is at the heart of your change debate....why don't you man up and address that part of post

its amusing to see your hypocrisy of chasing others to answer your posts, yet you will not do the same
 
Southern Man said:
Children will have to be taught a lie, that queer marriage is normal.
Click to expand...

Those who are raised to believe the bible is accurate will still believe it is a sin.


Children are already seeing gays in long-term relationships. Seeing them marry will teach them thay being gay is not about sex, but also about who they love.
 
Yurt said:
4

looks like PMP is still running away
Click to expand...

the laws that banned interracial marriage....how did that work out for them?

your link proves that the law had to change due to ambiguity....as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...

how you ignore constitutions is beyond me...how you ignore the fact that CA had to amend its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....how you ignore the fact that approximately 26 states have had to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....

if the constitution didn't matter, pray tell why CA and the other states had to CHANGE/AMEND their laws in order to ban gay marriage? why are you not against that change? it is intellectually dishonest for you to support that change while arguing that you are against changing the definition to allow homosexual marriage....

and maybe when you finally address the interracial marriage ban, you will see why i keep bringing it up....so i ask again....how did those statutes fair on the ban of interracial marriages? trust me, the scotus will strike down the ban on statutes that define interracial marriages and i believe they will also strike down the constitutional amendments/changes that have altered the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman....
Click to expand...

5

i even colored coded the topics for you so you can't falsely claim i am only talking about loving v. virginia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top