Gay people marrying is a threat to the institution of marriage?

[JohnnyCougar]

Alcohol is a threat to marriage.
Selfishness is a threat to marriage.
Lack of communication is a threat to marriage.
Money issues are a threat to marriage.
Drugs are a threat to marriage.
Immaturity is a threat to marriage.

But how does what two people do with their own lives threaten anyone else's marriage? How are gays going to break up the marriage of heterosexual religious fundamentalists? If a homosexual couple can break up a religious fundamentalist marriage simply by getting married themselves on their own time in their own church, than that fundamentalist marriage is pretty weak and fragile, and they don't know the true meaning of love.

[babylonsister]

1. Not mine. It's a bogus argument. Period. nt

[Cleita]

2. Now that you have figured all that out,

spread the gospel truth to any one who will listen.

[Clio the Leo]

3. You forgot "infidelity."

This is my biggest problem I have with the right is this passion some have to want to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" by outlawing the rights of same sex couples yet turning a blind eye to the rampant divorce and remarriage among their group. I cant find anywhere in my Bible that says that one is worse than the other.

You know what else is a sin? Hypocrisy.

[yardwork]

6. Actually, I can. Jesus specifically said that divorce was bad. He was silent on gay sex.

The Ten Commandments specifically mention that adultery is bad, but they are silent on gay sex.

I conclude that the Bible does say that one is worse than the other, and the bad one ain't gay sex.

[Indenturedebtor]

9. Well there's some not so choice bits in the Torah about gay sex being a "nono"

But then again it also tells you to stone people for adultery. So as long as we're being choosey, why don't we go ahead and ignore the part about gay sex too? :shrug:

[yardwork]

10. Is that a polyester cotton blend shirt you're wearing?

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Actually no... IT'S MUSLIN!!!!!!! RUN FER YER LIVES :P n/t

[Clio the Leo]

13. Until you get to Paul......

... but that's a sticky wicket we don't want to go down. We'll just agree to disagree. :pals:

[yardwork]

15. Paul.....!

Let me put it this way. Paul "had issues."

[JohnnyCougar]

18. I figured that was covered under "selfishness"

I thought about that, though.

[TheKentuckian]

4. I don't know man!

The logic is really strained on that one. Being gay could become as popular as free money and I'd stick with women so I can't see how gay marriage would affect straight people AT ALL.

They get off on the "gateway" theories though.

[krawhitham]

5. General Discussion: Presidential

[Clio the Leo]

14. YES! Please get back to talking about the darned dog!

Ha!

[Fridays Child]

7. Actually, gay people NOT marrying may be a threat to the institution of marriage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4427295&mesg_id=4427295

[leftstreet]

8. Two people who WANT to marry may be a threat to unhappy couples

:shrug:

A whole LOT of people are married for the wrong reasons. Especially older religious wingnuts.

[melody]

11. Only to idiots. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Gay people marrying is not a threat to the institution of marriage.

I can't understand how people think that it is. It boggles the mind.

[MichaelHarris]

16. it's easy if you think about it,

it really is a threat. Gay people would snap up all the better wedding gifts and the straight couples would have to settle for Target stuff. What? Target is already the number one wedding registry? Man those fucked up white Christians getting married have absolutely no taste.

[salguine]

19. They need SOME rationale. They can't just say "Gay people make me feel icky."

[Marrah_G]

20. Hasn't effected anything in a detrimental way in Mass.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I read the tortured "argument" on a Mormon forum.

The "thinking" goes: marriage is defined as between man and woman. If you allow same sex marriage, then you change the definition of marriage. Therefore the marriage between man and woman no longer exists. Because the definition has ceased to properly exist.

:nuke:

I wonder what document they thought they were signing when they bought their marriage license. Did they think it was just like getting dog tags?

[Orsino]

22. Apparently, a marriage must contain only one penis.

Too many, and there's chaos. Too few, and the lawn doesn't get mowed.

Or something. Scripture isn't clear on the required size of the member in question, but the number seems to be an absolute. :crazy:

[paparush]

23. Divorce seems to be a Massive threat to "traditional" marriage.

[LiberalFighter]

24. They figure that it was their almighty god that created the marriage ceremony.

And only they have the right to get married and only by their tradition.

They have absolutely no proof that marriage began first in the Christian/Jewish religion.

And how about what was allowed in the sacred marriage in the Old Testament? Marriage to more than one woman?

[zulchzulu]

25. We should ban pepper because if you pour a whole bottle of it on a birthday cake...

...the cake is ruined! Ruined, I tell ya!

[sweetpotato]

26. Because if women discover they can marry each other

then who cleans the bathroom?

Gay marriage *affects* straight marriage by upsetting the status quo. Paul clearly says in the bible that women are to be submissive to men. If women marry women, then they have no man to submit to - no man to tell them what to do. If two men marry, then who is the leader? Which man submits to the other? Which one makes the rules? If this happens, then maybe more women will want to *not submit* and there goes the whole show. Anarchy in marriage. That is what the fear is - the creation of marriage anarchy - where the old rules of man/wife, submissive wives, and wives as property no longer apply.

Any attempt to challenge the patriarchy must be quashed by the fanatical religious folks.