zelda

It's funny how so many people have shown many non-religious reasons that just go totally ignored.

1. Precedent
It's already been set as between a man and a woman.
This is not racial bias or religious preference.
It's the precedent that has been set for over a century by the overwhelming majority.The majority of people are heterosexual.(over 95%)
The people that are trying to change this precedent are the gays. More than 60 % of the entire population supports civil union so that blows your theory that the religious people won't be happy or satisifed with C.U.'s.
It's the gays that probably won't be satisfied with civil unions because they want to redefine marriage and lower the standards.

2. Parenthood
Having two good loving parents as role models is very important. A daughter usually wants or needs a mother along with a father. A young boy needs a mother along with a father.
This was rather easily dismissed by people saying marriage is screwed anyway so why not screw it up some more. Who cares or gives a shit ? What a great philosophy.
You are highly qualified to dictate rules and laws.
F%^&k it , who cares ?


3. Sexual preference.
Heterosexuality is practiced by over 95% of the population.
That would be considered the normal standard.
5 % or less practice or prefer to be homosexual.
Why would you allow the 5 % to dictate laws, rules or precedents to the 95% ?
If these people are normal and they only have different preferences then why wouldn't they be satisfied with civil unions ? It's plain to see that it's not the religious people trying to take away anything here. Most of them agree with civil unions.
It's the gays trying to take away or lower the standards of marriage.


So, go ahead and scream religious zealots !!!
Call people bigots for trying to defending their own institutions and precedents which they hold as true.
You people are blind to your own bigotry.

************************
It seems to me that the only bigots here are the people who hate or despise religious people.

The only thing anyone is trying to take here are the good values ,decent principles and a set precendent of what constitutes marriage by the majority. Then, they want to lower this precedent to include sexual preferences practiced or prefered by a scant minority. Why not allow incest then ?
These people are normal too, they just like their own relatives.
How about age ?
Why not allow 14 year olds to marry ?
That law is repressive and is age discriminatory.