In doing some research for earlier posts, I accidentally stepped into the swampland of freeperville and I stumbled upon a student who posted the following question:
I am a student. I personally do not support homosexuality, and I find the idea of gay marriage repulsive. However, I struggle during discussions to persuade my liberal peers and professors that it is harmful. Most liberal professors and students at my college do not view homosexuality as abnormal, and treat me like I am nuts when I suggest that marriage should not be altered to include gays and lesbians. Please help to supply me with some ammunition by posting below.
Here is a smattering of the responses:
Please help me understand the purpose of having to have the government recognize two guys who want to play husband and wife. Can they reproduce? Does one have to stay home and take care of the kids? If they want to pretend to be something they are not, that is their business, but don't drag everyone else into it.
Um – who’s dragging anyone anywhere?
It's not marriage. It's not natural. It's not according to God's word...and make no mistake about it, this nation was founded upon, has prospered according to, and has its roots and foundation built upon traditional Christian values.
In reality, that is why we are so tolerant...but should not (and indeed, cannnot) be so tolerant to the point of calling right wrong and wrong right. Otherwise our Republic, our prosperity, our very freedoms and lives will be at risk.
Oooh tolerance – bad, very bad.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman in order to create a family. when a man can have sex with a man, or a woman have sex with a woman, and create a child, then they can get married.
Note to self, call to mom right away.
I agree with you completely, however secular liberals do not respond in a very friendly manner when any mention of God or God's will is used in defining political ideas.
Well uh … I’m not a “secular liberal”, but I do resent you substituting your first grade interpretation of the bible for the brilliance of our constitution. Try again.
It's the slippery slope... Today it's homosexual marriage. Once you redefine marriage, though, why limit it there. Why not any union? When marriage is no longer a special and sacred institution, it will no longer be an institution at all. In the end, this is their agenda: the destruction of marriage.
Uh boy, stench of desperation?
It's aberrant behavior. The Bible says so. One more thing: You can't argue with drunks and idiots. That's a lesson you can't learn early enough in life. Odds are, your prof is a creep who's never really worked for a living, and most of your fellow students are too dumb and innocent to know any better 'cause they never went to church or temple while growing up. That's the fault of their folks.
Ok, I can’t think of a good argument, so just call them names and question their intelligence, that oughta do it.
It's about the kids, kids do best in a traditional family(man and woman).A child who doesn't learn about the Yin and Yang will grow up deformed.
Unless we obey God's word we will suffer consequences.
Ok, let’s recap:
**It seems the ability to reproduce is a prerequisite, so homos need not apply. (Note to self: call mom and let her know her 3 year old marriage is no good unless she can figure out a way for 70ish year old women to have babies.)
**Tolerance is bad and will destroy our prosperity and freedom and put our lives at risk. And besides God says it’s not ok (and they should know since they have a bat phone to heaven).
**And when all else fails throw in the kitchen sink: slippery slope, marriage with animals next, homo agenda = complete destruction of marriage.
**God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, and did I forget to mention God?
**Anyone who disagrees with our view on marriage is just plain stupid.
**It makes me uncomfortable therefore you can’t do it.
**Oh the kids! What about the kids? We must protect the kids! Oh the kids! Oh the kids! And did I mention that it’s all about the kids?
There, did I cover all of the arguments?