Is it a good thing for same sex marriage to be legal in the US

****** Hi again, you said: "First off I"m afraid that I must disagree with you when you say "If it"s good for anybody, it"s good for everybody". A medicine that I use to take for my ADHD, would help me calm down, and focus better, but if anyone ells took it without being like me, they would have the opposite reaction and they would have such a powerful burst of energy that if they have a weak enough heart, they could end up having a heart attack" I agree. But you misunderstood my point of objectivity. For example, that specific medicine you take for ADHD is not going to be good for all people, in all places, at all times. However, Medicine itself as a scientific accomplishment is most certainly "good" for all people, at all places, at all times, even though the "type" of medicine is conditionally specific for every person. Make sense? That's what I meant. And I am not appealing to some "parallel dimension" as you put it; I am appealing to logical conclusions in regards to THIS dimension, not another one. I still argue that without science and technology, the pro-homo marriage argument falls apart, because, frankly, (as scientific history has proven) homosexual couples do not, and cannot, reproduce. And without In Vitro, there would have to be at least ONE male and ONE female in any given marriage, or else they would not have a chance at forming a new life (unless one of them commits fornication or adultery in the marriage, and produces a child, either with their mate, or another; and then the marriage would no longer be between two people anymore, but three...) In other words, homo marriage between two people makes about as much sense as an extension cord that has the same type of end on both sides. It would be a useless item that no one would buy" ...and I don't buy it either. ***** Should homo marriage be lawful? Well, that depends; it depends on whether it would be ultimately good for the nation and the citizens who live in it, which we will look at later. ***** You said: "Love and the law to marriage are two very important parts of a western culture marriage." Where did you get that info? As I said, if, in your opinion, "love" is just as important to marriage as the "law", then all it would take to change any law is the right amount of "love"... (ie. a person "loving" their dog enough for the "law" to change, allowing them the legal right to marry and have sex). You see, in my opinion, "love" and every other subjectivity, should have no place in legal matters. Besides, as you know, America was founded upon Biblical principles (ie. Love thy neighbour, as thyself) and the Biblical definition of "love" is purely, utterly, and completely OBJECTIVE, and yet you are appealing to the definition of love in merely subjective terms. Love is an act of the will, whether you "feel" it or not. You must "love" your children, even when they rebel against you and you don"t "feel" emotionally attached to them at the moment. Furthermore, in the Bible, Jesus said to "love your enemies"; does that mean that we are to marry our enemies, because we love them? Of course not. It seems that your definition of love is much different than what it was historically. ***** In regards to the question I asked about the father having sex with his daughter, you said: "So yes, as long as there aren't any problems, medically, or in getting consent from one of the 2 getting married, I believe that the law should allow it." It is interesting that you attempted to ridicule historical methods of courtship(ie, paying the dowry) and yet your own morals would legally permit a father to have sex with his own daughter whenever they want to? ".wow. So tell me, what if that father was your closest brother, and that girl was your own neice? Would you still be okay with it? ***** You said: "(And before you bring in statutory rape, I believe that an age limit dose need to be past, before you can give an informed legal consent)(Sorry pedophiles)" I never mentioned pedophilia. And to what do attribute your "age limit"? ***** You said: "By the way, my standard of what should be lawful is a case by case bases, but mainly I look at what harm something can do, and what good it can do, then calculate, whether it harms or helps the people that are being effected, in this case the LGBT community. So, what about the non-LGBT community? Do you not care about the "harm" it does them?? Well, what about the poor old church pastor who has been faithful to his little country chapel and has believed for 60 years that homosexuality is wrong? Would you have him fired and lose his church just because he doesn"t believe what you believe?? Oh, please tell us. ...and just because 2/3 of America believes you, doesn't mean squat. Popular opinion is not always right. Do I really have to mention 1940"s Germany? ***** You said that bestiality CAN cause dangerous diseases that we have no natural protection from. Yet you cannot empirically prove that it ALWAYS DOES. So what? I can prove that homosexuality CAN (and does) also cause dangerous diseases that we have no natural protection from (ie, AIDS). So according to your logic, homosexuality is just as dangerous as bestiality. And yet you are against bestiality but not against homosexuality? Well, that should deal with the "medical" aspect of the dog-human relationship.. You also say that "most animals that I know of don"t know enough to be able to give consent"... so what? Firstly, you don"t know the case of every single animal do you? I, personally, have seen a dog trying to literally "hump" a human being before...does that qualify as giving consent "in a human system" enough for you? How many 5 year old humans have you seen do that? "... And there goes the non-consent argument against a dog-human relationship. In other words, if your "standard of what should be lawful is a case by case bases", then in the case of an adult dog humping an adult human, there should be "no problem" in having the laws changed so they can marry each other and have sex, provided the human is a-okay with it. ***** You said: "As for incest, many pregnancies by way of inbreeding have a much higher chance of having a miscarriage, or the child having birth defects which has a much higher chance of leading to the child having a short and painful life." So, let me get this straight; your argument against incest-births is: Possible defects in the child being born. Again, you cannot prove that every single incestuously breeded child has defects".(many do not have serious defects at all) In fact, many children born of NON-incestuous relationships have multiple birth defects as well. So, according to your logic, non-incestuous relationships should not be lawful; albeit, to a lesser extent, but the argument is the same against both. ***** Well, it was interesting hearing your evidence for your points, but I think they fall short of being convincing, since they are not absolute, and can be reversed, as I showed. ***** you said: "(by the way Polygamophobe, Incestophobic, and Beastiophobic are not words, and have never been part of the English language)" Neither was "Islamophobia" or "homophobia" for that matter, until recent years... ***** I appreciate your opinion on the lifestyle of homosexuals, and their stories, but I also have met a few, and a couple of reasons that I perceived they became homosexuals was that: 1) they were rejected and hurt by the other sex so extensively at some point in their life that they turned away from it, and 2) they felt the urge to "fit in" and so they "found out" they were bi-sexual or homosexual. But to me it seemed a sham, since one of the guys was chasing girls like a rabid dog earlier in his life. Apparently, it didnt work out for him, and I believe he just gave up on it". And if he ever does adopt with his "boyfriend", I don"t expect he would have many kind words to say about girls... Just a thought. And I didn"t say that all lesbians hate men, you said that. And yes, its ridiculous. ***** And yes, I would deny 4 million people from NOT making 4 million more children which would only build up our nation. Damn right I would. And you would too if you gave a damn about our nation, and not about people"s "feelings" so much. Any nation that wishes to survive needs to have families; history has proven this. Destroy the family, and you destroy the nation. Period. ***** you said: "If you are against people of the same gender being together in a sexual relationship, what are your feelings on people who are hermaphroditic , do they only have the right to be with people who are also intersex? Or can they be with someone who is half their gender in either direction?" I am not familiar with any hermaphrodites. In my opinion, there should be a dominant gender in the child. Does every hermaphro have a uterus and a sperm bank? Or are they just external? ***** you said: 2.Do you recognize how a lot people who are against same sex marriage, argue in similar ways with similar arguments that the people who were against cross racial marriage did? No, I do not. ***** you said: 3.What about people who have a sex change operation done on them, do they get to be with people of the gender that they used to be a part of? Or do they have to be with the gender that they are now? Still making them homosexuals. Trans(across)gender is not even a scientific word in my opinion. I remember hearing of a woman who became a man, and then sometime later got pregnant" Ultimately, what God made you in the womb, you will always be. Women and men are biologically and mentally different. Its just the way it is. ***** you said: 4.How dose same sex marriage effect you personally, what harm does it do to you? What if I told you my poor old dad was that old pastor who was fired because of his beliefs against homo marriage... (PS: it is "affect", not "effect") Thank you