That's a load of crap, The government engages in regulation of marriage for revenue purposes, it government was truly interested the future of society through regulation they would A) not make it so easy to divorce, B) not tax married couples higher than non-married people, and C) not legalize the murder of fetuses (read: the future).
"That is, the society establishes an ideal environment for the raising of the next generation of citizens."
Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?
By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?
"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"
I love it!!!
It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!
Luis, it would be easier to take you seriously if you could maintain the context of an argument. When John O. gives you the historical context of marriage, pointing to relatively recent changes in that context doesn't make his argument a "load of crap."
The same disease that has allowed our society to embrace queer sex also allowed our society to embrace abortion. In fact, (IIRC) many of those who argued against legalized abortion in the beginning were concerned it would lead to grosser immoralities such as homosexual marriage.
Shalom.
Just because the last generation twisted it doesn't mean that the original purpose ceases to exist. All of the issues you mention are things we need to roll back. All of them are immoral and anti-biblical. They are all contrary to the ideals of our founding fathers. They are 'bad law'
Is this the same society that murders a million citizens yearly prior to their birth?
Again bad law made by liberals. The same folk who are trying to force sexually deviant behavior down our throats
By the way, how would the openly gay couple living down the block having the ability to marry one another impact my marriage, or my enviroment for raising my kids?
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse. Any children raised in that house will have a far greater likely hood of being social misfits, criminals, perverts etc. They will be more sexually promiscuous (at a younger age) then children rasied in a healthy household. They will have a greater incidence of mental disease (above and beyoind SAD). The damging effects go on and on.
Now lets assume that the 'gay couple' have no kids in their own household.
The chance that a typical 'gay' person will molest a child is something like 15-30 times more likely than a healthy person would. (Remember Jesse Dirkhising. Raped, tortured and murdered by a monagomous 'gay' couple). Even if these two do not molest, they will have friends over, resulting in your children being exposed to a greater and greater number of likely molesters.
It is highly likely (if they are men) that they will break up in two years or less. Domestic violence runs rampant in the 'homosexual' lifestyle. Your children are likely to be witnesses to language and activities that you don't want them to see (and which no child should see).
The concept of fidelity doesn't really exist in the 'gay' community. your neighbors will be bringing a stream of sicknesses through your neighborhood as they sleep around.
All in all they are not a good influence on your kids.
(Of course there plenty more bad effects listed in the databse. Follow scripters link and read up on it)
me->"A 'homosexual' couple will never be the best environment for children"
you->It's the "it takes a village" argument!!!!!
I'm totally at a loss here LG. How does recognizing that sexually perverse households are not the best environment for children equate to 'it takes a village'? Especially since the 'it takes a village' person is decidely pro-homo?