Marriage is "the mutual relation of husband and wife", or "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family".  I see nothing in there about 2 guys, and I see nothing about two women either. 

 The fact is that marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals.  What is the best solution?  In my opinion it is to make a new kind of bond.  Call it a civil union or something, I don't care, but it isn't marriage.  I think that the only reason that some homosexuals are against the option that I sugest is because they just want to prove a point or are just stubborn.

 I am personaly against homosexuals, but I don't care what they do as long as it isn't against the law and as long as it doesn't affect me.

Marriage is "the mutual relation of
husband and wife", or "the institution whereby men and women are joined
in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of
founding and maintaining a family". I see nothing in there about
2 guys, and I see nothing about two women either.

The fact is that marriage has nothing to do with
homosexuals. What is the best solution? In my opinion it is
to make a new kind of bond. Call it a civil union or something, I
don't care, but it isn't marriage. I think that the only reason
that some homosexuals are against the option that I sugest is because
they just want to prove a point or are just stubborn.

I am personaly against homosexuals, but I don't care what they
do as long as it isn't against the law and as long as it doesn't affect
me.

DBibeau855 wrote: hashi2008 wrote: Marriage is "the mutual relation of husband and wife", or "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family". I see nothing in there about 2 guys, and I see nothing about two women either. The fact is that marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals. What is the best solution? In my opinion it is to make a new kind of bond. Call it a civil union or something, I don't care, but it isn't marriage. I think that the only reason that some homosexuals are against the option that I sugest is because they just want to prove a point or are just stubborn. I am personaly against homosexuals, but I don't care what they do as long as it isn't against the law and as long as it doesn't affect me. Two men can do this. Two women can do this. And a man and a woman can do this.

It says men and women are joined. You may take this as allowing two men or two women, but seeing as how almost every dictionary that I see defines it as A man and A women, then that's how I take it. If you want to get all technical, "men and women" could just as easily mean 3 men and 3 women, but that isn't reality either.

I have yet to hear a good reason to ban Homosexual Marriage other than

• Ewww its Icky!


• They cant have kids


• Bible says so

None of them can or should be bases for a law.

Regardless of whether or not marriage is a term you religious people go by, it is the same term that everyone (atheist and homosexual) go by. Get over it. If that is the conventially used term, then so be it. I refuse to call it a "civil union" just because people of faith are too insecure to allow those different from them from entering a bond of love in the same fashion. No new format, nothing that makes it different than the rest of the population. It should be the same regardless of who you are.

Fat Stalin wrote: I don't think it should be allowed because homesexuals are just doing it to do it. Maybe if they had a real reason as to why they should be allowed to marry...

We have a winner for the stupidest post ever. Doing it to do it? Of course you know, I mean, being homosexual and all. They are doing it because of love, trust, commitment, the same reasons straight couples do it. Don't post if you don't know.

Dune wrote: Wrong, the fact is you are too "proud" to let two men marry. The bible may say that it is for a man and a woman; however, as time and tradition changes, why should those who do not follow the book give a crap on what it says. If I can get married, then two men can also because we do not accept god into our lives. Marriage is also for christians, as it is for a man and a woman. It is the same, as I could care less what any christian thinks, and a homosexual shouldn't pay attention to anyone debating the semantics of a book so out dated that it too needs a new edition.

  It isn't just the Bible.  It is every dictionary ever made.  It is the DEFFINITION of a word.  It is what the word means.  The stupid thing is trying to change the word because YOU are to pround to accept something new.  If I wanted "blue" to mean "red" tommorow, I couldn't do it (at least not on a national or world scale).  You are trying to CHANGE things to accomodate growing practices.  I am trying to add something to accomodate for growing practices.

 Ohh well. It is useless arguing with you.  Your mind was made up on the day you confronted this issue.  This  is why I can't stand it when liberals call others "closed minded", because liberals have just as many closed minded people.  I was just trying to help, but if you think that creating something that SHOULD make everyone happy (I am giving everyone what they want besides a name.  WOuld you complain if you wanted a brand named product, but you got the exact same item with ONLY a different brand name?).  I have to get some sleep.  Try not to take too many sucker punches at my views while I sleep and then wake up to do something productive with my life.

Children Will Suffer Most (Eleven Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage — Part 2 of 5)
by Dr. James Dobson

2. Children will suffer most.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. Because homosexuals are rarely monogamous, often having as many as three hundred or more partners in a lifetime — some studies say it is typically more than one thousand — children in those polyamorous situations are caught in a perpetual coming and going. It is devastating to kids, who by their nature are enormously conservative creatures. They like things to stay just the way they are, and they hate change. Some have been known to eat the same brand of peanut butter throughout childhood.

More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers. They are less likely to be on illegal drugs, less likely to be retained in a grade, less likely to drop out of school, less likely to commit suicide, less likely to be in poverty, less likely to become juvenile delinquents, and for the girls, less likely to become teen mothers. They are healthier both emotionally and physically, even thirty years later, than those not so blessed by traditional parents.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning about the impact of fractured families. If present trends continue, the majority of children will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements; where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street, as millions do in countries all over the world today. Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. And have you considered what will happen when homosexuals with children become divorced? Instead of two moms and two dads, they will have to contend with four moms or four dads. How would you like to be a new husband a generation later who instantly had four or six or eight mother-in-laws.

We must also consider a world of the future where immorality is even more rampant than today, where both unbridled homosexual and heterosexual liaisons are the norm. The apostle Paul described such a society in the book of Romans, referring apparently to ancient Rome. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boa**edited**l; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (Romans 1:29–31).

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will rip kids apart emotionally.

3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality.

With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals. How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is, they can’t, but it is happening in the state of California already.

whatever man, read a bit into the history of various nations and it just may be coincidence, but just about all of the super powers of the past accepted that and fell within soon after.

And dont freakin flame me for it, I just brought a point to peoples attention. My opionion of it is very different from anyone elses, I'll guarantee you that.

Do your own research, youll learn more that way.

I simply added another point of view for people to ponder on and I'm done.....idiots, you all talk as if your the only correct one in the freakin world. And you all talk about your freakin freedoms, like freedom of freakin speech and all, then when someone states another opinion that you don't like you suddenly try to take that right away from that person.

Again, do your own freakin research because I don't care enough to waste my time looking for this crap that your all gettin your wet lil panties in such a bunch over.