Intolerance

[moovok]

As a Brit, I didn't understand some of that (I thought it was President Bush)

It's from the TV Show The West Wing.. The first 4 seasons of the west wing are some of the best TV Eps on the planet..


Ryoken

[scaramanga]

I can't tolerate people that don't tolerate people :p

[General Phoenix]

That's great, Ryo!

People sometimes quote that at me (elsewhere) as if they think it proves Christianity is wrong. All it does is prove that stereotypes are wrong and they probably put more stock in a TV show than they should.

West Wing was a very good television show.

I only use it against people who use it against me.. Ala you wanna follow the bible, fine.. No problems here... You want everyone else to.. well lets take a look at what's in here shall we.. And it works They always stop there "You gotta live by the word of god" lines aimed at me and normally just walk away..


Ryoken

[p.s. Cargile]

What I find interesting is that we wont see polictical cartoons that illustrate the intolerance that homosexual couples have toward the traditional institution of marriage.

From my keen observation post, I understand that Marriage is a religious institution recognized by law. It is not the opposite: a legal union accepted by the church. It is for this reason that any organization that has the sole power to decree what marriage is and isn't are religious organizations.
If homosexuals are looking toward a ceremony that bonds their commitments to one another, and/or seeking benefits that married people are privledged with, then I think the smart leaders in this country can come up with a solution that meets their needs and protects the sanctity of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The most obvious slap in the forehead is the civil union, which should not exclude heterosexual couples. This is the Law's answer to marriage that doesn't have to be recognized by the church and still be legaly binding.
I don't think that a constitutional admendment to protect marriage is neccesary, or beneficial to society. I understand the wants and needs of the homosexual community, as well as the wants and needs of religious community. Civil Unions between any two adults is the most viable solution. Well, make that human adults. Leave the animals out of marriage.

[General Phoenix]

I agree, Paul. As long as a civil union affords the couples the same legal rights as a marriage, I think it's a fine compromise. After all, the church, like any (and I know this will get misconstrued) "exclusive club," has the right to deny anybody it sees fit from participating. The issue comes when a religous ideal is used to limit the legal rights of the American people.

And, BTW, where do you get off keeping animals and people from getting married? If my cousin and her horse are really in love, who are you to stand in their way?

[p.s. Cargile]

GP, I'm merely standing in as an advocate to protect animals from becoming exploited by their masters. If the horse, or any other animal, can provide evidence without a doubt, to a court of law, of its intentions and capacity to nuture and provide for the spouse and possible offspring, then I have no problem with it.

hehe

[General Phoenix]

This particular horse has a Master's in economics - he handles several corporate accounts at Merrill Lynch. Of course, he works slower than the other brokers, since he has to express all the figures by stomping them out on the floor...

I'll pass on your best wishes!

[021310061976]

if marriage is a religious institution, and i'm an atheist, should i just tell my fiancé it's off?

becky (my fiancé) is a christian - lutheran, to be more specific. i consider myself nonreligious - what most people call an "atheist." her parents are concerned that since i don't believe in their god our marriage won't work. i say that it will, simply because we love each other.

in my opinion, if two people love one another, why should it be up to anyone else - church, government, etc. - to tell them they can't do the same thing as millions of other consenting adults?

Interesting topic we’ve got going on here. There’s a lot to reply to, and oh-so-little time to reply to it all. But there are a few things I would like to add to this discussion.

From my talks with various Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, and Catholic priests, ministers, and preachers (can’t they all just agree on one term?), I have learned that the old Hebrew “Holiness Code” does not apply to most (if not all) modern-day Christians. Included in this Code is a prohibition on tattoos, shrimp, pork, and eating rare meat (among other things). Also included is a line which requires Saturday to be reserved for the Sabbath day, and makes polygamy “legal” in the moral sense. These various clergy-people have all told me the same thing: These rules no longer apply to modern-day Christians. That is to say, Christians worship their God on a Sunday, curse Polygamy as a sin, eat pork and shrimp kabobs, and can be covered from head to toe in tattoos.

However, when I bring up some of the other bans included in this Holiness Code, they say that those parts still apply. "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death...." That quote is from the Book of Leviticus, and is part of the Hebrew Holiness Code which no longer applies to Christians in any way shape or form. However, when I ask most preachers, ministers, and priests about this, they tell me that that still applies to Christians (one, a Methodist minister(?), expressed her dissatisfaction with her peers on this matter. She told me that homosexuality is not a sin in modern-day Christianity, and that others were merely trying to put a stop to something they don’t approve of). Unfortunately, the others can never explain to me why Christians only use part of the Holiness Code and not all or none of it. It seems to me that if there’s going to be a code on this sort of thing, one would surely need to completely follow it. But, since the Code has long since been disregarded by modern-day Christianity, it is fine to also disregard it if you are Christian. However, if you’re going to say that the Christian Church does not follow the Holiness Code, then you’re going to have to throw all of it out the window. You cannot pick and choose your religion based on your opinion about other people.

“I don’t like what they’re doing, so I’m going to quote a part of Leviticus that no longer applies to me to get them to stop!”

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t fly with me. If the Church hadn’t tossed out the Code, then fine! That would mean that your religion strictly prohibits sexual acts between two men, and I could say nothing about it. I would be able to understand where you’re coming from (even though I disagree with it), and understand your attempt to keep from acknowledging gay rights. However, the Church did toss out the Code, and since they did that, homosexuality is no longer a sin.

Furthermore, when Jesus the Christ (that’s right, Christ wasn’t his last name, but a title) formed the New Covenant of Christianity, it was understood that the Old Covenant was made obsolete. The Book of Hebrews (8:13, 9:13, 8:14, somewhere around there) says that when Christ says a ‘New Covenant’ he has made the Old obsolete. This would make me consider that the Old Testament no longer applies to modern-day Christians. My talks with many priests, preachers, and ministers support this idea. They tell me that I am not to be stoned to death outside the gates of the city in which I live for my beliefs. They tell me that the Sabbath day is no longer from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown as it was in the Old Testament. Somewhere during the New Testament it was made okay to worship on any day so long as it was made of the substance of Christ. And that working on a weekend does not warrant a public stoning. Good thing, too, because I’ve been working every Saturday for almost five years now. But, on the other side of that, many people still say that homosexuality is a sin. Here we see the clergy not representing their faith to the fullest, but picking and choosing parts of it to follow based on their own prejudices.

I’ve done a lot of study into this for various papers I’ve written over the years. I’ve found it very interesting that when a group of Christians decide they didn’t like something about their religion, they just tossed it aside. The Book of Solomon (I believe that’s what it’s called), for example, deals quite a lot with sex. Or what about Sophia, the Christian Goddess? How about the Christian’s belief in reincarnation up until the 660’s or so? Or the Book that describes Jesus’ teenage years, and his fights with his brother(s), as another example. (Mary may (or may not) have given birth to Jesus (who would later be known as Jesus the Christ) without knowing the touch of a man. But had they not had sexual intercourse after that and produced more offspring, their marriage would have been considered a sin.)

If you’re going to say that you believe in the power of Christ and Yahweh, and that the Bible is the word of God, then you need to take it all as fact. This includes the tossing out of the Old Testament. But, and this is important, you do not have to take it all as fact. I believe that the Bible was originally written not as the word of God, but as a series of stories (whether true or false) that were written to help people live their lives to their fullest. 2000 years ago, pigs had many diseases that could be passed on to humans even if it was thoroughly cooked. So, when the Bible says that you shouldn’t eat pork because it was unclean, there was a reason. Today, those diseases no longer affect pigs, and so that particular prohibition no longer applies as the risk posed by eating pork is no longer relevant. So, 2000 years ago, this probably saved peoples lives, but now it doesn’t matter. 2000 years ago, the human population was tiny (by comparison), so a homosexual act would do no good in furthering the goals of the particular tribe or village (that of procreation so the farmers would have labor to be able to produce food for the village). Today, we’re living with what, 6 billion people? Procreation is no longer a major goal in today’s society, and for good reason. We can barely feed the people that exist right now, so everyone having 3-8 kids would be detrimental to society as a whole. As such, homosexual acts are no longer detrimental to the goals of society.

As for marriage... Yes, marriage is a religious institution recognized by the government. Government officials can also unite two people, and in that sense it is purely a legal procedure. Because of this, the Government should allow any two consenting adults to be united in a legal procedure and gain all the rights and benefits thereof. That is not to say that the Church must recognize this union, merely that the Government must recognize it. The mere fact that the government recognizes a religious ceremony as a legal union is odd. Especially when one considers that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." But, I suppose that's why they created marriage licenses to be recognized by the government to make it legal. Just find it odd.


God, that was long-winded of me. Well, if you read it all, thanks!

I’m going to throw a few more things into the fire here, for those of you that talk about people burning for all eternity in Hell.

1. Do you really believe that anyone deserves to live out an ETERNITY of torture and sorrow for anything they could do in ONE lifetime? Even Hitler, in my mind, does not deserve that fate. Of course he was a very bad person, but even what he did doesn’t deserve an ETERNITY of pain and torture.
2. Hell (with the fire and the brimstone and the burning) is not a place for mortals to go when we die. Hell was created as a prison for the fallen angel, Lucifer. According to the works of the New Testament, those who were not seen fit to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven were to be put in a place of distance. Here they would not feel God in any way shape or form, and they would be forced to live without God’s love for eternity.


Just my two credits...

a.hughes

[Darrell Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Vastator

1. Do you really believe that anyone deserves to live out an ETERNITY of torture and sorrow for anything they could do in ONE lifetime? Even Hitler, in my mind, does not deserve that fate. Of course he was a very bad person, but even what he did doesn’t deserve an ETERNITY of pain and torture.

a.hughes

...ummm My ex-wife fits the eternal toture catagory!

Originally Posted by Warrior

...ummm My ex-wife fits the eternal toture catagory!

Well, yeah.. But we all know ex-wives are a whole other class of people.

[p.s. Cargile]

Vastator, I saw your post the other day but didn't have time to read it. Now I've taken that time I feel yor opinion is accurate to fact and raises worthy questions.

Is Religion not but a study and documentation of human psychology? But more so, Religion was the prime basis for both government and science. Religion became an expotential extrapolation of the goal of Life, which is to Survive by any means neccesary. Evolution is that very survival of life. As such, Life is replete with change.

One criteria of marriage that is popular today is the concept of romantic love. Commonly it is taken for granted that people get married because they are in love. Love has become an important part and often couples are required to council with the wedding official prior to the event. But in some cultures, present and past, love had nothing to do with marriage. People were betrothed at early ages to unite families, or even kingdoms, to solidate power, or form alliances. Such acts were accomplished not soley on the act of marriage, but in the birth of children, who were neither of one or the other, but of both. In such circumstances, love would have been a fringe benefit.
Today, Love is more a reason for marriage than a consolidation. But no matter how much a homosexual couple loves one another, they cannot breech the fact that it takes semen and ovum to create a new life form.
Marriage is the nucleus of civilization.
The role of woman is to tame men. Guys, we all know how we act around one another outside the prescence of a woman. And we all know how our behavior changes when a woman is added to our mix. We act in a manner that makes us preferable to that woman as a potental mate. We compete for her attention. And that is that we show her we are great Father material.
The role of parents is to civilize children. This is because that children that grow up learning how to adhere to certain rules have been taught how to survive.
Women tame men. Parents civilizes children. The species is strenghtened and continues.
Marriage is then not an act love, but a commitment, not just of propogating the species, but of honoring the tradition of civilization.
Because an homosexual marriage cannot naturally bear children, such is an uinon is of only love, and an union to take advantages of benefits and priviledges held in reserve to heterosexual marriages.
If the purpose of marriage is the production of civilized children, yet homosexuals together cannot have children, is the debate then about homosexual rights, or childrens' rights? Is the question then Who's rights have a greater imact on the survival of the species?

Now that I've got you thinking about this, know also that one method of survival amoungst all species is a trait called Dominance.

Hello, long time no see.
your points are very well put Paul, but there is something you haven't mentioned.....what about adoption? Anyone can adopt a child. this then bypasses the natural selection process. There's also In vitro fertilization.

Paul, I tried emailing you, but it came back dead. can you email me please?

warmest regards,
Lucas

[Darrell Lawrence]

Regarding adoption, it still comes down the to female/male thing of creating a child to be adopted

At least at this point...

Cloning may make having female/male biological requirements mute some day.

Marriage is there for the creation of new life?
I thought that is what the pleasures of sex are for (and the fun, of course)

Marriage is a bond of lovers - nothing more, nothing less. At least today.
In the past it helped - as you rightly said, p.s. Cargile - to strengthen alliances and unite families.
But today we get married to get benefits from the tax office or because we are in love.
But there are also many people today who only get married because they created new life by mistake "I thought you took the pill!?!?!"

I guess you, p.s. Cargile, are also against the pill and condoms, right? Sex should not be fun; we all (humans) have to feel guilty when we **** all night - using all kinds of contraceptives - and do not create new life while we are at it. At least that is what the church was/is telling people around the globe.

Originally Posted by Proximo

love them as humans that God wants to save,

It's the 'saving' that I've never understood. Save them from what? What I have always felt is this:

I don't need to be 'saved.' I'm not lost. I have never been lost. God has always known exactly where I am.


ojai22

Quite right, Cargile. Marriage, in the past and in select cultures in the present, has been used merely as a tool to unite kingdoms and provide financial security and such, and many marriages were arranged when the couple were quite young and had probably not even known one another.

However, you said that “one criteria of marriage that is popular today is the concept of romantic love. Commonly it is taken for granted that people get married because they are in love.” And my post reflects this fact. My earlier post also reflected my views on religion and how many things have changed over the last several thousand years. In the majority of modern American culture (and the majority of modern Western cultures), marriage is considered a bond between two people who are in love. As you said, it has become a prime requisite for marriage in modern times. Not the consolidation of power, nor the need for creation of new life to ensure that power stays strong. Simply put- things change. The concept of marriage has changed constantly throughout its history, as everything does.

Marriage is no longer about creating new life in most modern day cultures. As I have demonstrated in my previous argument, the creation of too much life is actually detrimental to society as a whole. We do not need to be farking and procreating like bunnies anymore! Marriage has become about the bond that forms between two people and the love they share, and, to a lesser degree, about getting the rights and privileges that comes from the legal uniting of two people. Why, exactly, should any two individuals who have made a commitment to one another not be allowed to visit each other in the hospital, or to be allowed to have some say in what happens to an incapacitated partner? Why, exactly, should anyone be disallowed the rights that others get simply because a book that was written several thousand years ago, that the religion which follows it has since disregarded, says it’s bad? These are rights that heterosexual couples receive. So, why can’t homosexual couples receive the same rights?

--
As an example,
Hypothetically, let’s say that I am homosexual and I fall madly in love with someone and want to get married. Let us then say that, because I am homosexual, I cannot get married and receive the same rights as others despite the fact that we’re in as deep a love as any two heterosexual couples, if not more so. So, I ask why.
Of course, the response is, in essence,
“Because this big book here says it’s a sin and you’ll go to hell.”
“Okay,” I say, “I don’t believe in your book, nor do I believe in hell. So, now can we get married now?”
“No.”
“Uhh… Why not?”
“Because, my book says so.”
--

*blink* Do you honestly think that that’s a good reason to disallow two people who are in love to get married? Why, exactly, do they have to follow your book’s rules, if they don’t believe in your book? Why should they be punished for something that they don’t even believe in? Why should they be treated as second-class citizens because a book says they’re evil?! And why, oh why, would anyone use the King James Version of the Bible? (sorry, personal argument there)

Furthermore, why, exactly, is our government being ruled by a religion that not everyone here believes in? This country is a majority rules state, yes, but it should not extend to the state that you disallow the minority their due human rights. Period.


a.hughes

Seems I missed a post by Proximo...

Originally Posted by Proximo

No, there's little point in quoting chapter and verse at you. You or someone else will simply retort with the idea that it's a mistranslation, or just mis-written, or just plain wrong.

Now, while I'm sure you know the exact chapter and verse (Leviticus 18:22) where it (in many translations) calls homosexuality a sin, my first thought when reading this was: "Well, shiat, he seems to be just talking out of his ass!" Anytime someone responds with a "well, I could, but..." response to a request for information, it really starts to bother me. As I said, red flags go up that make me think the person is just making shiat up as they go along, or just repeating fundie motto. It's always a good idea to respond with the information someone requests, or at least a link to where the person can receive said information. Just a thought.
And there's nothing wrong with saying it's a mistranslation if there's hard evidence that it actually is a mistranslation! At least, I don't think there is. I'm sure you'd agree to that, wouldn't you? With the Dead Sea Scrolls, we're learning so much about the original language of the Christian scriptures, and how many mistranslations there were. I'll try to find the corresponding links some time when I'm not at work for you.

But there is one that I always thought was very interesting:

Spoiler There is a part in the Old Testament (Exodus, I would assume) where Moses is said to have parted the Red Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that this translation (while very close to the original) is, in fact, incorrect. The translation was a single character out of sync with the original: It was translated: Red Sea It should have been translated: Sea of Reeds (a swamp!)

(figered there was no need to post that in plain view for anyone who isn't willing to learn )

Also, please keep in mind that the Bible is chock full of purposeful mistranslations (of course, if it was done on purpose, it's not really a mistranslation, is it?). The King James Version of the bible has a section which reads "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," but none of the other translations have that saying. They read sorceress, poisoner, etc. James was pathologically terrified of witches, and his translation reflects this. There are 50 some odd translations that replace certain words with "witch." Keep in mind this is just one example from one translation of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Proximo

In fact Jesus had little to say on the matter, but it's a good rule of thumb that where he didn't speak, then previous words from the old testament still stood. This is how his disciples and followers intepreted things and this is how we should too.

Hebrews 8:13, "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
Actually, Prox, it is a good rule of thumb that where the Old Testament exists, one should not follow it. That is, if you actually read and follow the bible.

Also, the "it's been done like this for a long time, so it must be right" mentality irks me. Just because you think that something has been done a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean it's the right way to do things. The US has been acting as the World Police for a long time now, doesn't make it right. Priests have been diddling kids for who knows how long now, doesn't make that right either. The Church has been moving pedophile priests from parish to parish without informing the new congregation of the priest's background for just as long now, and it certainly doesn't make that right.

My point is this: Challenge the old. It may have been done a certain way for a long time, but it doesn't make it the right way or the best way, so challenge it and see what it's supposed to be like. Maybe you can help do something about it, or at least not live in ignorance (not saying you're ignorant, just making a point).

My other point is this: Keep an open mind, be willing to learn new things, especially about that which you believe in so dearly. Knowledge can only make it that much more rich.




a.hughes
/just sayin'

So it really IS written in that book - thanks for pointing me to that verse.

[021310061976]

www.godhatesshrimp.com

this guy uses bible passages to prove that eating shrimp and other shellfish, like homosexuality, is evil and will result in an eternity of torment in hell.*






* please note that this is sarcasm, and not the way i truly feel.

^ That´s a good one!

[p.s. Cargile]

St-One: No I'm not against the pill or condoms, or any other method of preventing pregnancy. As it is, my wife is currently on the pill, but we plan to go off so that we can hopefully progenate. If she becomes pregnant, carries the child to term, and gives birth, I'm sure she'll go back to the pill until menopause. Very pleasurable sex ensues.

Vastator: You assume I'm religious, whereas I'm not. I merely understand how religion became a philosophy after being a primordal premis for government, which was just a means for tribal survival.
The rights that homosexuals desire can be achieved by changing the rules of hosipitals, insurance companies, and so on without changing the time honored definition of marriage. I've already stated that I favor a legal, non-religious union between two adults. I further understand that even if the legalese term is civil union, people will still refer to it as a marriage.
Furthermore, I do not believe in the consequences of homosexual marriage as being an afterlife eternity in Hell. I'm not convinced of an afterlife. I'm not convinced of a Hell seperate from personal experience due to ignoring consequences of actions. My point of view on Right and Wrong/Good and Evil has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with Evolution. And when I analyze Marriage, I see that it is fundamentally a system for the benefit of the resulting children, and for society as a whole, not as a selfish endeavor for the two individuals to benefit from social programs. I don't like when people assume that their problems are going to be solved if society sacrifices its values and methods that have allowed the human species to not only survive, but to advance to this level we currently enjoy.
Homosexuals are unique and deserve their rights, but we shouldn't endanger our civilisation by ignoring the fundamental princibles of marriage.
A man and a woman can perform intercourse and produce a child. It takes the commitment of those two individuals to teach that child to adhere to the rules of the society it is born into. The rules that that child is born into reflect the best way for the group to survive.
Can homosexuals do this? Well, homosexuals cannot produce children amongst themselves, but they can raise children.
I define Marriage as an institution soley devoted to the production and raising of Children. I have a child by one ex-wife. I want one by this one. Possible children was a reason for marriage for me. If I didn't care to have children with this woman, I wouldn't have considered marriage, because the arrangement we had was saticfactory. It is important for me, being a child of divorce and having to make my daughter a child of divorce, that any offspring I have with Erica will benefit from this much stronger union of marriage. It is important for me that any child I have now can claim to have a mother and father that stills lives together and loves each other.
Homosexuals seem more interested in obtaining rights by marriage that they could get by other means. Marriage seems to be the easy way to solve their problems without any regard to the problems that such a solution would arrise. Homosexuals are not considering the consequences of their actions. It is because conservative heterosexuals are making those considerations that they oppose such marriages.
But I don't care if gays get married. They are getting married for the fringe benefits. So be it.
There is going to be a time in our future when homosexuality is understood to be a genetic mutation, and there is going to be an in utero genetic treatment to "cure" it. This will begin as a treatment for the wealthy, but it will become common OB/GYN practice, and homosexuality will be damn near irridicated. This is not some homophobic atitude it have. I just know that if parents are allowed to chose, they will chose heterosexuality for their children. Homosexual marriage will become a moot point.

Oh and Bunch-of-numbers-Guy, don't be an idiot with me. Don't tell your fiance its off. Compromise. You already knew that, don't ask me to state it.

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

... Homosexuals are unique and deserve their rights, but we shouldn't endanger our civilisation by ignoring the fundamental princibles of marriage...

Why should our civilisation be in danger if gays are allowed to get married?

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

... Well, homosexuals cannot produce children amongst themselves, but they can raise children.

Yes, we can

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

There is going to be a time in our future when homosexuality is understood to be a genetic mutation, and there is going to be an in utero genetic treatment to "cure" it. This will begin as a treatment for the wealthy, but it will become common OB/GYN practice, and homosexuality will be damn near irridicated. This is not some homophobic atitude it have. I just know that if parents are allowed to chose, they will chose heterosexuality for their children. Homosexual marriage will become a moot point.

My god...
You know, some 60 years ago my country (Germany) was ruled by the Nazis and they had (far too) many followers. And in that time people said almost exactly the same what you wrote here.
This is an intolerant, inhuman point of view.
It is sad to see that there where no lessons learned from what happend during WWII

[p.s. Cargile]

I'm just envisioning where science, technology, and human behaivor may lead.

And the Nazi Analogy doesn't have any bearing with me. It's a common practice the Left uses to attack an opponent when nothing else will suffice.

No, I´m just stating the obvious
You make homosexuality sound like an illness - which it isn´t

[p.s. Cargile]

Instead of asking me to further explain, how about taking those quotes of mine and offering your opinions on why I'm wrong.

-----
Although some illness are caused by genetic mutations, not all mutation, or variations if that is more accurate, are illnesses. I put cure in quotes for a reason. That reason was to imply that homosexuality is not a disease.

Originally Posted by p.s. Cargile

St-One: No I'm not against the pill or condoms, or any other method of preventing pregnancy. As it is, my wife is currently on the pill, but we plan to go off so that we can hopefully progenate. If she becomes pregnant, carries the child to term, and gives birth, I'm sure she'll go back to the pill until menopause. Very pleasurable sex ensues.

Vastator: You assume I'm religious, whereas I'm not. I merely understand how religion became a philosophy after being a primordal premis for government, which was just a means for tribal survival.
The rights that homosexuals desire can be achieved by changing the rules of hosipitals, insurance companies, and so on without changing the time honored definition of marriage. I've already stated that I favor a legal, non-religious union between two adults. I further understand that even if the legalese term is civil union, people will still refer to it as a marriage.
Furthermore, I do not believe in the consequences of homosexual marriage as being an afterlife eternity in Hell. I'm not convinced of an afterlife. I'm not convinced of a Hell seperate from personal experience due to ignoring consequences of actions. My point of view on Right and Wrong/Good and Evil has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with Evolution. And when I analyze Marriage, I see that it is fundamentally a system for the benefit of the resulting children, and for society as a whole, not as a selfish endeavor for the two individuals to benefit from social programs. I don't like when people assume that their problems are going to be solved if society sacrifices its values and methods that have allowed the human species to not only survive, but to advance to this level we currently enjoy.
Homosexuals are unique and deserve their rights, but we shouldn't endanger our civilisation by ignoring the fundamental princibles of marriage.
A man and a woman can perform intercourse and produce a child. It takes the commitment of those two individuals to teach that child to adhere to the rules of the society it is born into. The rules that that child is born into reflect the best way for the group to survive.
Can homosexuals do this? Well, homosexuals cannot produce children amongst themselves, but they can raise children.
I define Marriage as an institution soley devoted to the production and raising of Children. I have a child by one ex-wife. I want one by this one. Possible children was a reason for marriage for me. If I didn't care to have children with this woman, I wouldn't have considered marriage, because the arrangement we had was saticfactory. It is important for me, being a child of divorce and having to make my daughter a child of divorce, that any offspring I have with Erica will benefit from this much stronger union of marriage. It is important for me that any child I have now can claim to have a mother and father that stills lives together and loves each other.
Homosexuals seem more interested in obtaining rights by marriage that they could get by other means. Marriage seems to be the easy way to solve their problems without any regard to the problems that such a solution would arrise. Homosexuals are not considering the consequences of their actions. It is because conservative heterosexuals are making those considerations that they oppose such marriages.
But I don't care if gays get married. They are getting married for the fringe benefits. So be it.

Homo-marriages don´t put our western civilisation in danger!
Why not? you may ask.
Well, because!!
The very thought is idiotic at best.
Todays most people get married because of the benefits the state grants married couples. This may not be very romantic but it is the truth of todays society. And gays just want the same privileges that hetero-couples get just because they happen to be of different sexes.
You say marriage is the institution for producing an raising children and therefor a man and a woman gets financial help.
But what about those men and women that can´t create life together but still get married? They get the same financial benefits and rights as those who are 'married, with children'.
Why not grand homo-couples the same?