I find it funny that people who are against Homosexual marriage never mention the atrocious celebrity marriages that have occured as doing damage to the American Family based on nothing more than the heterosexual nature of their relationship. You can't stand it when you see two guys in a monagamous relationship want to get married, but if Britney Spears gets married for 55 hours, it's okay, because she has a v****a, right? On top of this, the only valid basis that anyone has had for an argument against homosexual marriage that has come up in a "valid"(read:Monotheocratic, and based in Christian Belief) sense has downplayed the First Amendment; freedom of religion means I don't have to believe what you believe, and the last time I checked, marriage was not soley a Christian institution of showing monogamy. Spare me the "civil union" bullshit-you are the same calibre of bigot that thought that "seperate but equal" was a valid social institution, and made sure to divert your eyes when the truth of inequality was shown.
The problem is that eventually the majority, which do have religious beliefs, will not be allowed to expound them because it "wouldn't be fair" to the minority. That's just as bad.
This differs not from what's happening in America right now: the Christian majority is in effect mobilizing to step on what minority groups (yay for blanket statements) would view as civil rights. The difference between what you're illustrating, what I'm illustrating, and what more often happens, is that fairness is evaluated on a basis of allowing things, not disallowing them. You're declaring the allowance of freedom to a minority is a barrier to the majority; this is only true if the majority seeks to do the exact same thing.
Consider your conscious efforts, consider who's trying to restrict the freedoms of whom, and then consider what it means to practice religion freely, and then you can come play in the sandbox again.
Edit: Christian minority changed to Christian majority. It's 1:19 AM.
Did you go to the website and read it? I thought I made it plain those were highlights, and they are not my words. He goes into some detail about each subject.
Alot of the disagreements I hear fro you are based on: lack of evidence, "slippery slope logical fallacy," and established Constitutional parameters like age of consent.
And they're all valid, and need addressing from you.
Any by the way, that stab at slavery in the Bible was lower than I expected from you. I'm not using the Bible as a final authority on law and politics, and you know it. Stop twisting my words -- I take offense to it. Slavery was an evil institution, now its gone. Just because it existed in the Bible, and because the Confederacy tried to use it as an excuse to justify slavery during the civil war, doesn't mean we all agree with it.
The point there was that biblical values are not, by definition, good ones.
First of all, I can no more prove to you the effects of homosexual marriage on our society in the future than you can disprove those theories. We can't see the future, we can only make assumptions on it based on our understanding of the past and present.
In which case, Sotek cites the loving decision and the ramifications thereof, and I point out that I'm Canadian. I know exactly what homosexual marriage will do to a nation:
"Slippery slopes" in action: slavery-emancipation, religious tolerance and the protestant era, women's rights movement, voting rights for nobles vs commoners.
How were these slippery slopes?
Each chapter of history shows a pattern: It starts with one revolutionary idea, say that slavery should be abolished. Then it moves on. Equal pay. Equal facilities and schools. Equal representation in taxing. Equal representation in the government and the right to vote. Equal property rights.
OH NOES, WE'RE MAKING PEOPLE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW!
(Isn't tht a constitutional right down there? I know it is up here.)
Why, exactly, is this a bad thing?
The article I posted (which I am now sure NO ONE will read) basically says that, just like in every other rights movement, a victory will be won, a line will be crossed, and do they stop? No. They find another line, fight for it, cross it. It won't stop. Constitutional barriers didn't stop the civil rights movement. The Constitution bent under the pressure, and it will do it again. Don't think that because a law exists today it will exist forever, because attitudes change and laws break when enough people scream loud enough. The article even gives you some cases which are setting legal precedents for this imaginary slippery slope. It also gives you statistics for the Netherlands and Belgium, which have both crossed this line already.
What about Canada?
Furthermore, if at least three major industrialized nations, all leaders in the world community, have already crossed that line, then you lose the "Other nations will follow our lead and it will spread throughout the world!" argument.
Also, everything Dobson says fails, because ither he's pulling unsubstantiated bullshit out of his a**, or his arguments were made vs Loving, and fell apart then, too.