So...only those who promise to procreate can marry.

__________________
"I consider Homo anal sex to be a religion." - Wow, AWE poster.

Homosexuality is already a norm...homosexuals are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who are not yet given their equal, civil rights as per the Constitution.

Then, don't marry a homosexual.

__________________
"I consider Homo anal sex to be a religion." - Wow, AWE poster.

Dont even pretend to know anything about Socrates. The Greeks did do quite amazingly during the time of boy fucking. Alexander the Great. Socrates. Aristotle, Plato, (and the list goes on for a long time). They founded the principles of democracy, of the republic, they invented the phalanx unit. they were the first people to explore as far east as india. they defeated the Persian empire. need I go on?
the population will never become predominantly homosexual in America, seeing as it is predominantly homophobic. I personally wouldnt start ass fucking just because it became socially acceptable (ass fuckign another guy that is). Would you? So why assume other people would? Even amongst Greek pederasts, the number of homosexuals weren't a majority.
I love how you ignore my part about how homosexuals are the victims of severe forms of violence and rape because of their demonized standing in out society, most people like yourself do ignore those points, because they're inconsistent with how the Bible tells you to proceed. Think about the other thread, the one we're talking about morality in. You asked if I would save a strangers life if he were shot. I said I would. Would you not give up the so called sanctity of marriage simply to save the lives of homosexuals?

I had an arguement typed out for the greeks, but accidently hit backspace and it went to the previous page. Anyways, we were side tracked from the discussion anyways.

Generally speaking, the law treats you differently if you are married, because the law presumes that marriage makes you and your spouse three things: (1) next of kin, (2) financial partners, and (3) exclusive sexual partners.

Why does marriage exist as a legal institution?

The reason marriage was singled out for special legal attention is that it is the only human relationship that can both (a) produce the next generation of babies and (b) connect those babies to both their mother and father.

Sex makes babies. Society needs babies. Babies deserve mothers and fathers. Together these three ideas explain the public purposes of marriage, its shape and form.

Research clearly demonstrats that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage.

So...those who do not/will not/cannot have children should not be granted legal marriage.

__________________
"I consider Homo anal sex to be a religion." - Wow, AWE poster.

lol, so you ignore my point about violence towards homosexuals, then you ignore my post commenting on you ignoring it. im not going to respond to this, especially since i have already disproved what your saying beyond a shadow of a doubt and your stuck repeating yourself.

Who cares of the violence brought upon homosexuals? I feel that they bring alot of it opon themselves, just as christians do. Then complete senseless crimes against the homosexual, merely because of their sexuality is completely wrong.

But in the same sense, why not defend pedifiles from violent mothers? The reason being, they have a choice in most instances. There are hate groups for everything in this world, EVERYTHING. We don't give benefits to these people because of it. We simply allow equality for it. Now, homosexuals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to marry. They cannot procreate on their own, and they are more likely to seperate, because of slack morals.

Homosexuals have a greater chance of seperating per capita.

But towards the matter of violence and homsexuality, it is much like that of African-Americans and their fight for equality in and only in the way that they fight for themselves. If I were alive during the MLK times, I would have walked with the protestors, and would not be shocked if I got my ass beat, plain and simple.

Many people look at homosexuals in the "Oh, poor homosexual, you got beat up in a bar fight." Well, lets look at the circumstances in the event.
1. That person has chosen to live in georgia/texas/mississippi or some other hate mongering state.
2. That person continuesly boasts that they are gay and proud.
3. That person tries to force people to change their understand of marriage, to accommodate their own need for acceptance.

My question is, why don't you defend laws to defend the pedifile, rapist, or racist?

Because they commited a crime? Are they not people too? Especially if these people have been released back into society because they are re-habilitated. Should these people be entitled to alterations of the law to make them feal better or to normalize these instances so they are not targeted?

No, the truth is, only a fool passes laws to help protect a generalization such as this. Your arguement is because the homosexual is targeted by hatemongers, we should allow them to marry as compensation?

FreedomFromBrains.

Ignorance is Bliss.

Furthermore, what if I said we should teach about christianity in schools, so that atheists and people of other religions would see it more as normal. Christians are killed every day around the world for their beliefs, why not protect them?

Nice crowley, I notice your lack of contribution. Name calling is a refuge of a moron.