Because men are better than women. If two guys get married they'd be too powerful. It would be unfair to the straight couples.

They eat the poo poo, says some african dude.

I'm fine with gay marriage, as long as churches aren't forced to marry the couple, as this would infringe on the "separation of church and state"

I consider myself Pizzasexual, what are you gonna do about that OP? *eats pizza sensually*

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/187522060/0/0 They just announced the finding of a Ninth Planet. Anything you say is irrelevant

As a Catholic, I was raised to be against gay marriage, and the LGBT community in general. I was supposed to look them in the eye with a smile, but condone their actions as bad and immoral. However, as I aged, I got off my proverbial religious high horse and made friends who identify as LGBT. Am I against gay people and gay marriage now? No. Am I against the sin of homosexuality? As much as I am against other stuff like judging other people, or wearing different fabrics, or shaving. Essentially, I treat people with the amount of respect they give me back in return. When people irl find out that I am a Catholic, it goes only one way: they don't care. I don't shove my beliefs down other peoples' throats, and they do the same to me. tl;dr: Even though it's against a particular set of beliefs in my religion, I am for gay marriage.

Your Yale link didn't work for me for some reason. But from what I understand, and from what I already know, it's talking about how animals exhibit homosexual behavior. [quote]There are also countless other studies saying the exact same thing, that there are plenty of wild animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. [/quote] Well, like someone down in the comments said, what is natural is not necessarily right or wrong - it's only natural. The behavior itself might not be uncommon, but the fact is that everything we know about biology and evolution points towards homosexuality being [i]against[/i] the best of interest for the survival of the species, and evolution is all about survival. With today's world, homosexuality is hardly a threat to humanity as a whole, but that's because of today's world, which is not by any means natural. So, we agree that being natural doesn't make it any more or less right. What we can agree on is the science, which strongly suggests that homosexuality is merely a byproduct of social/external forces, and that it is problematic for the survival of the species. Take that for what you will, interpret it how you want. Maybe that article answers me, but like I said, it wouldn't open for some reason. [quote]"Its against my religion!". And? Ever hear the term separation of church and state? Completely invalid[/quote] I'm surprised that someone used that argument about the religion thing. I think it's weak, and I agree with OP. [quote]Give me one valid reason gay marriage should be illegal.[/quote] -- Well, prior to not that long ago, marriage was defined legally as the union between a man and a woman. So I would have said that gay marriage should be illegal because it would violate what the determined definition of marriage is. Similar to how I'd say that using someone else's credit card is illegal because I am not that person, or how I'd say that getting into a game where the Panthers get beat by the Falcons (lmao) is illegal to anyone who does not have a ticket to get into that game. ---- What happened is that someone suddenly felt that their rights were being restricted. But, not that long ago, this wouldn't have made sense. If you were gay back then, then why would you'd have wanted to marry, if marriage, by then-definition, only included 1 man and 1 woman? I mean, I can see how you'd [i]want[/i] to, but giving everyone what they want defeats the purpose of having laws. It's like me saying that my rights are infringed upon because JASON is only for leading scientists, or that my rights are infringed upon because Grammy awards are only given to musicians, even though I'm an animator. ------- If gays want to get married, then fine - have at it, y'know. What's done is done, I don't give a damn about it anymore. I do not think, however, that gays should be allowed the choice to adopt children (that's a discussion on a different topic, for a different day). On top of this, I'd like to bring up the polygamy argument that someone else brought up: I'm actually going to ask the same question I put on that thread a short while back that no one answered - What makes the bond of two more crucial than the bond between a man and a woman? I mean... I'll twist the OPs own statement - Give me one reason why polygamy should be illegal. Prior to us changing up what it meant to be married, we could give a whole host of reasons. But now that we're taking marriage to include same-sex, then our definition of what a marriage is becomes ephemeral. And so I'm simply wondering why I can't marry 2 women like Scarlett Johansen and Emma Watson at the same time. Aren't you infringing upon my rights by removing my choice of how many I can marry? You changed it for the homosexual people. I want to get shit changed for me as well! Aren't you infringing upon my rights when you tell me that I can't marry Scarlett and Emma (I could do it if I had just 1 opportunity to meet them both. I'm lightyears ahead of you kids in the talk-to-women department)? Before someone falsely jumps to the slippery slope fallacy, please re-read what I said carefully and realize that I didn't once say that polygamy will therefore happen. [i]A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone argues that a specific event/series of events will follow from some other event without some sort of rational argument to back up the claim.[/i]

Americas first rules were established upon God's word if we break those rules bye bye America...

The Ninjas need to get rid of this thread, too many stupid ass people.

Promoting this culture will make us weaker as a species

It makes no sense to give tax breaks intended to help create families to couples that do not create families.

I don't have a problem with it being legal. But there should be some limits. Say a man and a little boy decide they want to get married. Or a woman and a little girl. Is that wrong? If those are fine then what's wrong with interspecies relationships? Incest? It all depends on what you think. Personally, I'm okay with how it is, but I wouldn't want it to progress into the scenarios I listed above.

Alright, well if everyone was gay then you can't make babies

I'll say it now "inb4butthurts" it's a disease that's why. That I think should be treated if they want it to be treated. If not, then let them be of course. You, me, and everyone else in this thread how do you think we came to be? By a man and a woman also known as your mother and father. The human race as a whole has evolved through Intercourse of a man and woman. I'll put a very simple analogy so you guys with simple minds can understand. Does it seem normal to you when someone tried to open a key with another key? This is reality, all you soft sympathetic people who bash people that say this is a disease need to wake up. This world has become so soft that sooner or later everything will be ok. I wonder how long until pedophilia becomes the new normal.

[b] [/b]

Look up mini ladd's video with chimpbot. He actually sums it up. It's become a way of getting tax breaks. The original purpose of marriage was to be a time where you were allowed to have kids now that you were married. Now people go and do whatever they want. So the sole purpose of marriage has been taken out of it. Why not let some gays have "sex" and adopt kids in that 2 dad house environment? "It doesn't hurt anyone." It hurts the people who have to be around them, it hurts their "kids" (if they want them(which is wrong in the first place)) who have to grow up not having a mother figure in their lives. It hurts the world because of how it hurts the balance between good and wrong. "If they want it they should have it!" That's the phrase some idiots in our country say. THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! THE WORLD WOULD BE MUCH BETTER WITHOUT MEN OR WOMEN MARRYING THE SAME SEX!!! HUMAN ANATOMY IN ITS VERY ESSENCE POINTS OUT THAT THEY REASON FOR SEX IS TO HAVE KIDS, NOT TO PUT THE PENIS IN THE ANUS! IT HURTS THE PERSON ITS HAPPENING TOO! Sex was meant as a means of showing love towards someone in the meaningful way of having children. The world is so corrupt...

You said one? Ill give you more To accommodate gay marriage, the whole meaning of marriage has to be warped and twisted. The religious content has to be taken out and marriage has to become just one more reason to file paperwork with the government. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there's no chance it's going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it's more consistent with religious values, it produces children -- there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status Furthermore, once that door is opened, where does it stop? How about brother and sister? Marrying the dead sound any better? How does man and dog strike you? Adults marrying children? How does marrying a tree or a clay urn hit you? It infringes on Religious Freedom. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all anti-gay marriage

When everyone is gay and no proper "season" of -blam!-s is in law, humanity will become extinct due to "equality"