Recent things that are really annoying...

And heres what the Concerned Women for America say

Polls indicate broad support for marriage that transcends religious affiliation, race and socio-economic status, and that Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the social fallout of homosexuality, especially on children.

By saying that sociological arguments against “gay marriage” suffer from “weakness,” Mr. Lindberg might consider that the best arguments are rarely heard. Media consistently ignore well-documented evidence that children do best in intact, married homes, and that homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even in places where governments promote homosexual unions.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

I notice that you don't post your source for that information.....I'm thinking you may have a hidden agenda by not doing so.

Either that, or you know the source is unreliable....i.e. not CREDIBLE.

I am not rightly sure who said that
Does it really matter?

It matters a great deal who said it.

If it was a scientific study done by totally unbiased researchers, as opposed to a study done by " People Against Gay Rights" (which I hope isn't a real organisation, I made it up, but it gets my point across) it would mkae a HUGE difference.

As for the moral argument, it’s easy to make to those who have not shut their ears to self-evident truth. But even if marriage were not created by God Himself as the fountainhead of human life, a powerful case can be made on purely sociological grounds. Sanctioning “gay marriage” would, among other things:



Further weaken the family, the first and best defense against an ever-encroaching government.


Encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, “gay bowel syndrome,” human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases.


Homosexual households are also more prone to domestic violence. For example: “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population,” according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).

A study in the Journal of Social Service Research reported that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians surveyed] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.” (G. Lie and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications,” No. 15, 1991.) More cites can be found in Tim Dailey, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Insight paper, Family Research Council, 2001.



Put more children at risk as adoption agencies abandon the crrent practice of favoring married households and begin placing more children in motherless or fatherless households.


Encourage more people to remain trapped in homosexuality rather than seek to re-channel their desires toward normal sexuality.


Pit the law and our government against the beliefs of tens of millions of people who believe homosexuality is wrong.


Create grounds for further attacks on the freedoms of speech, religion and association.

They also go on to say this(Concerned Women for America)i will start calling them CWA

Hmmmm.......Concerned Women for America? Sure, there's an un-biased group....NOT.

Mission Statement

The mission of CWA is to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

It matters a great deal who said it.

If it was a scientific study done by totally unbiased researchers, as opposed to a study done by " People Against Gay Rights" (which I hope isn't a real organisation, I made it up, but it gets my point across) it would mkae a HUGE difference.

Im not sure but i am sure it wasnt NAMBLA

Well, this one's certainly taken a few twists and turns. I'm not about to waste my weekend reading through almost 400 replies and dishing out the appropriate warning points.

As I close this, I'll leave both sides with two thoughts...

It's okay to hate the sin, but not the sinner.

In preaching tolerance, it would be hypocritical not to tolerate the opinion of others, even if it is something that you find objectionable.