I thought I was quite clear on this, Rob. There are several.
Of course, but I really want to try and keep this as straight to the topic and civil as possible... To the point where we don't need exclamation marks.
The most pressing is the legal precedent we set, as a nation, when we bring the federal government in to define "marriage" outside of its understood definition already. The past has clearly shown us that when special interest groups get their paws into the legal system, a slippery slope occurs. It paves the way for other, more sinister happenings when OTHER special interest groups then decide that the previous ruling should encompass them, as well.
I'm not asking the federal government to step in... This, at least, we agree on. If an issue is not addressed in the Constitution, then it is not a matter of the federal government. The federal government shouldn't be allowed to tell us who we can and cannot marry. Regardless of whether it is a man and a woman, it shouldn't need the seal of approval from anyone higher than a city or MAYBE a state official.
This is a liberal tactic employed almost every time. The very meaning of "precedent," legally speaking, is to change or adapt a law. For instance, a gun-free school zone may be a very altruistic ideal, begun by a bunch of parents who wanted their kids safe. No harm in that on the surface.
I do realize what precedent means... It's like a gateway law... When you change a law, you have to consider other things.
But look where that precedent has taken us - expelling kids for even drawing a picture of a gun. One school in Texas is now considering a 100% ban on ANY physical contact. No hugs, no high fives, no nothing. Even the football teams are forbidden from the sportsmanlike and congratulatory pat on the butt.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. This is where this whole debate (and any debate really) gets murky very quickly... Where is the line and who draws it?
That is the slippery slope of a precedent. PC run amok, some would say. Others contend that is the doings of liberals seeking to change traditions. Still more conclude that our laws are just too open to interpretation. I fall, to a degree, into all three categories.
PC is DEFINITELY a big factor... The whole liberal conspiracy theory... Not so much... Liberals don't want change for the sake of change... They want change because they feel differently about the way things are and would like to see them go another direction. As far as the laws being too open... Closing them would only lead to a more conservative, closed-minded nation, and that wouldn't be good for ANYONE.
The more we allow the homosexual agenda a legal precedent over the will of the people, the more we relinquish our rights to have a say in the nation. Just like the school system, the court system, and any other number of areas where the government decides DESPITE the will of its people. The government is supposed to be here to serve the majority, not control the majority.
This is a good point... Perhaps homosexuals and those who support them should wait and let the dust settle before striking up the band again. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day... Though I do firmly believe that in the very near future, gays will be allowed to marry....
Then there is the increased tax burden. I agree that it will be a small one. But that doesn't change the fact that for 200 years the people of this nation have had a say in where their taxes are allocated. I no more want mine going to gay marriage than I want them going to abortion, elective surgery, or someone's desire to own a Ferrari. Therefore, I am vocally opposing the marriage amendments.
What would be the difference in a gay couple getting married and a straight couple getting married as far as your tax dollars went?
In addition, I do not want same-sex couples being touted in public schools as "normal," for I do not think they are any more normal than are alcoholics (I am one, so I am not casting stones) or the afore-mentioned criminals you exampled. We must not give children any ideas that behavior that is otherwise not socially acceptable is now okey dokey. A man having sex with another man is neither normal or socially acceptable. It goes against nature.
Sexual education, at least as far as childhood sex. ed., should only encompass abstinence and the workings of either gender's reproductive organs. We shouldn't be teaching our children about true sexual education until junior high AT MOST (and that should be upper level class junior high).
Finally, I fear that if we DO redefine marriage, we lend credibility to ANYONE who chooses to call their sexual acts a matter of natural inclination. If being homosexual is now socially and legally recognized, then why not pedophilia? After all, they are born that way. They should not be punished for their natural inclination, and they should be accepted by society. For theirs is the same argument: I can't help it, I was born this way, so I am entitled to the right not to be discriminated against.
See, this is where I disagree with you the most... Simply changing the definition of marriage to something along the lines of "A union between two consenting, sound-minded individuals of proper age" then we would provide ourselves with a cushion of sorts to those types of claims. Pedophilia is wrong because a child is not mature enough mentally or physically to understand the concept of human relationships other than those of friends and family. Zoophilia is wrong because no animal can understand the meaning of a legal document; which a person is required to sign in order to be recognized as married. Therefore removing any ability for these types of people to have any weight to their argument.
TOP 10 REASONS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
