Join Free! | Login    
   Popular! Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry
Where Authors and Readers come together!


Featured Authors:  Phillip Rice, iSara Coslett, iArthur Jackson, iLem Yedowicz, iNancy Jardine, iRobert Campbell, iPeter Oszmann, i

  Home > Essays > Articles Popular: Books, Stories, Articles, Poetry     

Eddie Thompson

· + Follow Me
· Contact Me
· Books
· Articles
· Poetry
· News
· Stories
· Blog
· Messages
· 128 Titles
· 727 Reviews
· Save to My Library
· Share with Friends!
Member Since: Oct, 2003

Eddie Thompson, click here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.

Featured Book
by Sara Russell

Co-written with Patricia DiMiere. Kedco's latest Multimedia CD-ROM. Quickies is fun, funky and often rather naughty! Less trouble than men, less fattening than chocolate,..  
BookAds by Silver
Gold and Platinum Members

The Argument Against Gay Marriages
by Eddie Thompson   
Rated "G" by the Author.
Last edited: Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Posted: Wednesday, February 18, 2004

  Print   Save    Follow    Share 

Recent articles by
Eddie Thompson

Hurricane Gustav
Does Evolution Explain Origins?
Lifestyles of the Spiritually Myopic
Praying For America
The Journey To Unity In Jena: Revival
The Journey To Unity: Jenaology
My Breakfast: Evolution Or Intelligent Design
           >> View all

(The burden of proof should fall to the homosexual lobby to change the historical and traditional idea of marriage. The author defends restricting gay marriages.)

We are bombarded by questions pouring from television commentators, gay activists, politicians, and liberal-minded publications: Don’t gay and lesbians deserve equal rights under the law? Why should we care what happens between consenting adults? If it doesn’t take anything away from others, why not allow for gay marriages? For some reason we never hear answers from those who conclude that homosexual unions should not be given the sacred stamp of marriage. Many are ambivalent or fashionably tolerant for fear of being labeled “ultra-conservative.” Let me attempt to answer those questions.


First, gay and lesbians already possess rights equally protected under the law. They have the exact rights that I have today. They can marry a member of the opposite sex if they so choose, just like I have done. I can't marry a member of my own sex, even if I wanted to. So, we have the exact same rights. What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not "equal rights" but "extra rights." They want to be allowed to reap the benefits of marriage without actually marrying in its traditional sense. There are many wonderful people who choose to remain single for myriad reasons, and these people are not clamoring for the rights granted to couples who marry. Why should those who refuse traditional marriage be granted such rights simply because they prefer sex with someone whose anatomy resembles their own? In fact, most of the so-called “rights” married couples have can be obtained through a lawyer’s legal maneuvers. What if they achieve this marital status? Does anyone really believe that it will stop there? Any heterosexual buddies could take the opportunity to garner for themselves incentives and privileges intended to support the traditional family structure by which our society survives.  Make no mistake; there is a deeper agenda at work here, even if all gay and lesbians are not aware of it.


Secondly, consenting adults can do many things, but there are some actions restricted even to consenting adults. Concerning marriage, we conclude as a society that incest is harmful and thus refuse to allow family members to intermarry. Also, we conclude that polygamy is harmful and restrict Mormons and Muslims from marrying more than one consenting adult at a time. We have age requirements on marriages as well. There are reasons we place restrictions on marriage. Homosexuals have never received marital status in the history of mankind until recently. There is a reason for that. It is not productive to continue to shred the fabric of our society. The burden of proof for changing history’s traditional marriage should fall upon the supporters of the homosexual agenda. I have heard of no compelling reasons that suggest homosexual marriages are necessary to the well-being of our society.


Finally, the agenda pushed by the gay lobby encourages behavior deemed unacceptable by every major religion, by the vast majority of our society, and by nature’s evolutionary track itself. They already have the right to participate in aberrant behavior, but that isn’t enough. They want us to validate something we consider wicked. Where are the defenders of the law who claimed Alabama’s Chief Justice Roy Moore must be fired for defying the law through civil disobedience when he placed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the courthouse? Where is the uproar for the firing of San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom for defying the law by granting marriage certificates to homosexual couples? There won’t be one. The double standard against Christianity in the public square will be ignored by most, but we should not succumb to those who mock our faith. If homosexuals win this issue politically, the victory will be hollow for them and harmful to our society. The truth of the matter is marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and nothing man does can ever really change that.


(The current debate, spawned by President Obama's support of gay marriagse, continues to miss the point: We all have equal rights already. The gay lobby desires "extra" rights that will open the door for many unintended consequences within our society at large. To equate gay marriage with "civil rights" is an insult to a people who were discriminated against on every single level of their lives for centuries in this country. Gay couples need to seek validation outside the realm of religion, which has historically spoken on this issue. Civil unions are already available, affording gay couples rights of which honest heterosexuals don't avail themselves. The burden of proof concerning why we should change our society to accomodate gay marriages falls upon the homosexual community. Until now, there is no compelling proof our society would benefit.)




Web Site: Alabaster Publishing Company

Reader Reviews for "The Argument Against Gay Marriages"

Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!

Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!

Reviewed by Edward Phillips 4/11/2013
Your argument is flawed in many ways. LGBTs do not want “extra” rights; they want the equal right to marry the person they love, and the 1,100 legal benefits that come with marriage. While it is true LGBTs cannot procreate, it is equally true that infertile and older heterosexual couples cannot procreate, yet we do not deny them the right to marry. It therefore seems to me that love is the true basis for marriage, not procreation. And love is a gift from God. He (or she) encourages it; he does not condemn or forbid it. God also created us all, yes, even our sexual orientations. Judge his judgment at your own risk! Better to honor God by honoring love, and by showing your acceptance toward others with tolerance and understanding. There is not too much, rather, too little love in this world. Love is surely the bond that holds society together. Distrust, hate, greed, tyranny, jealousy, and a few other flaws pull us apart. We dishonor God when we harbor and resort to our flaws; we honor ourselves and our God with love for all.
Reviewed by Sirena Childress (Reader) 10/11/2011
Powerful article! I agree whole-heartedly and I believe that it is a sacred union between man and woman which God ordains, he also wanted us to be fruitful and multiply. That can not be done if it is of the same sex. Awesome argument.
Reviewed by Nathan Salo Tumberg (Reader) 8/7/2011
Since I can't trackback, here's the link to my response:
Reviewed by random lickspittle (Reader) 3/24/2011
John Gonzales, what you are saying is absolute rubbish, you are encouraging our children to oppose diversity and anything outside what they have been taught with disdain and scorn. Humanity thrives on diversity, if all people held the exact same oppinions, then humanity would be nothing more than unthinking drones, set in their belikefs with no purpose in being there. It would be a bland unfulfilling life. I also must ask one thing, what damage has homosexuality actually done, name me onesittuation where it has had horrible consuquences.
Reviewed by Paul Eccleston (Reader) 2/2/2011
I will offer a non-US perspective, as the points of view expressed have generally (almost exlusively from what I have read) been focussed on the laws and sensibilities there. We do have some similarities with the US, in regards to separation of Church and State, though our legal system owes more to the UK than the US.

In Australia, we have also had many debates (arguments) on the proposal of same sex marriage. Many of the arguments against gay marriage come back to religion. Because the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran state that homosexuality is an abomination (at least there's one thing they can all agree on), then it must be so. Being part of a largely secular society means that if we were to follow all of the strictures of whichever religious text happened to be supported by the majority, then there would be very few who would not be breaking the law in one way or another.

Addressing a number of the claims made in this article. First, that gay and lesbian people have equal rights. They do, if they choose to ignore their preferences and marry someone of the opposite sex. If however, they want to acknowledge that their partnership is more than a couple of people living together, they do not have that right. They do not have the right to a share of their partners estate in the event of a death. They do not have the right to intervene in their partners affairs should that partner become incapable of managing them themselves. They do not have the right to claim against their partner if their relationship should fail, leaving one of them financially disadvantaged, or having to support children.

The final portion of the argument, that it "will not stop there", is as poor an argument as can be made. Stating that just because x, then y will happen next (eg. "just because the Democrats are in power, now they'll destroy America with their lefty, pinko policies") is frankly nothing more than scare tactics. Nowhere has anyone advocating same sex marriage ever advocated polygamy, incest or underage marriage. Claiming that there is a hidden agenda, but it's so hidden that the people advocating same sex marriage aren't even aware of it is patently ludicrous.

On the second point, that it is not traditional. Traditions change. It's traditional in some countries following Sharia law that a woman who has had sex outside of marriage (even if she is raped) must be stoned to death. It is also not traditional to have divorce (Henry VIII had to create a whole new religion in order to do that), but it is now so commonplace that I am sure many Catholic couples avail themselves of the practice. According to tradition, contraception should never be used. But even the Catholic Church can change it's stance on traditional views in the face of new information and changing societal values.

The final point again is not about how the law views the relationship. but how religion views the relationship. In most countries, including the US and Australia, it is not illegal to have a homosexual relationship. The "traditional" marriage may be a sacred union ordained by God, but marriage is no longer restricted to those who enter it through a religious institution. I was married in a civil ceremony. My relationship is officially recognised under my country's laws. The advocates of same sex marriage are not asking to be married in Church. They are asking for the same sort of ceremony I had, one that will be recognised under the laws (not religions) of their country.

For a country, founded on the rights of the individual, and set up by people fleeing from religious intolerance, I find it surprising that it is unprepared to acknowledge the rights of these individuals, and will target them with their own religious intolerance. I'd suggest a re-read of Animal Farm.

Reviewed by Kyle Bullen (Reader) 6/30/2010
Maybe God created a perfectly harmonious system and within that system he knew people might over-populate the world he created an thus destroy it. So he added to his masterplan the process of homosexuality, whereby couples pair together so that they can truely love (which is the purpose of our existence) but do not contibute to the rapid growth of our population. In fact, he has also given rise to the opportunity for healthy couples to adopt abandoned children. Its morals like these that support the continuation of our existance because the child left starving in the street or improperly nutured in the orphange didn't grow up, or grew up with a gun in his or her hand.

So ask yourself, what threat does gay marriage pose against your personal existance? Will you continue to reproduce? How can it actually hold our existance back? If it seems to occur naturally and not by choice, which 99% of homosexuals claim, is it possible it is part of our perfectly harmonious natural existence created perfectly by God who does in fact have a master plan trying to effectively work?
Reviewed by Lionel Anthony 3/11/2010
The unfortunate result of proposing an argument based upon a belief system is that the argument stands or fall upon the veracity of that belief system. It is therefore a dangerous manouvre. "marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and nothing man does can ever really change that". Suppose the 'sitter on the fence' replies, 'Fair enough, but I am an atheist, I do not accept the intellectual premise of a deity, so why have you based your whole argument upon something I cannot believe?'
There are better arguments, most of the species of this world display some form of homosexual activity as seen in common seals and even post adolescent lions. Critically the overwhelming status of all species is an heterosexual one and the homosexual element, as heterosexual mating opportunities are presented, tend to revert to normality. The crux of this being that no species makes provision for its "gay" members, the whole evolutionary structure depends upon propagation of all species (hermaphrodites etc excluded) via heterosexual union.

Queen Victoria is reputed to have said of homosexuality, "Well, as long as it does not frighten the horses." Although her mind was so fixed that when legislation was proposed against homosexual, she would not believe that females would indulge in such things and therefore throughout its life, legislation in England only ever referred to male homosexuals.

We are assailed with expressions of homophobia a nonsense compilation of inappropriate Greek words as emotional blackmail to prevent us speaking out against practices we feel are against nature. Well, North America's Harvard University is said to be the birthplace of the very worst curse to be inflicted upon homo sapien, I speak of political correctness, that warped thought process that has all but destroyed Christianity and that has opened the pathways for all forms of degeneracy and eccentricity.

Reviewed by Sam Eaton (Reader) 1/25/2010
Courtney B,
I understand that you are frustrated by this article. However, I do not see where you come up with your information. Why do you think the Bible contradicts itself? In response to your theory about the world being created through incest, when the world was created, it was created as perfect. Also, after sin entered the world, it was purely a cultural thing. God said multiply and fill the earth. This was the only way possible at the time. I don't know if I exactly believe that homosexuals are asking for extra laws, but I do believe gay marriage is wrong. The Bible states in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Therefore, gay marriage is wrong because it promotes homosexuality. If homosexuality was right, then God wouldn't keep homosexuals from entering the Kingdom of God. The Bible is not contradictory. If you need more references, you can check out Romans 1:26-28, Leviticus 18:22, or Leviticus 20:13.
I think that the reason people say it is gross is because it is not what they are accustomed to. In regards to your insights on how we, christians i mean, live our lives, all people are sinners. It is in our nature. Jesus is the only person capable of being perfect. So we try to live by the Bible, and to please God, but we are only human and we do make mistakes. When we do, we ask for forgiveness. For some it may be so they don't feel guilty, but that is not the original intent.
Reviewed by Courtney B (Reader) 12/16/2009
I think all of you fanatics are ridiculous! First off homosexuals are not asking for extra laws, they want what we love, and be loved and to show love the way we do!!!!
For the person who asked for all the stupid people to read the bible....why don't you go a head and read it again, and see how unbelieveably contradicting the bible is....and how this world was actually created Incestuously!!!!!
any one has the right to live how they want to live, there should be no one telling them how and wjhat they are doing is gross, and evil! because it is not!
some one also mentioned the bible says to love thy neighbor, and most of you finatical wretches do NOT!!!!!
All of you speak of god, and Jesus, and the bible and how you should live life by what it says.....but how many of you commit sins daily? And go repent, and say 5 hail marys and your sins are gone!!! Please!!!! That was created so you people could sin, and have no guilt after!!!
One of the worst things in this world, and the people who take religion too far!!!
THis article, I have to say made me very upset that there are people out there like you, who think there is one way, and only one way to live life!! When there isn't....It's not the devil, it has nothing to do with heaven and hell!!!! THese are people, who have a different out look on things, and you people are just scared of it!!!
Reviewed by Annie Le Voguer 11/18/2009
I beg to ask what human has a right to bang a moral drum. Every nation, faith, creed, male, female, blah blah, has a flaw. Spouting American justice - tell that to the Native Americans. Family members can't marry as they risk abnormal children. Polygamy isn't harmful, it's just not viewed appropriate in today's 'society', but still exists in some states.

And bringing God into it - isn't God meant to love all his children????? Who are we to judge whether he loves only those that conform to present society. The Bible is 2000 years old, times change. Anyone that recites the Lord's prayer should actually take note of what it says and also take note of what the Bible also says - there are many areas that don't ring true in today's 'society'. Isn't a Christian supposed to love his neighbours. Or does he just love those that meet the criteria.
If a Catholic does wrong, he can go confess, and all is forgiven. You go to heaven, God forgives you. Again, is that just heterosexuals? Using God as a reason to discriminate against someone is going against all Jesus died for is it not.

Love is a human right - the anti gay lobby should look deep into themselves and ask if they feel justified denying a human being the right to openly love another.

My son is gay and in a civil partnership and you couldn't find two gentler thoughtful people, who don't make a big deal of it.
I would rather he were gay than a woman hater, of whom there are many in the 'straight' world. I actually thank God for him every day.

Tell me where the harm is in our society as a result of someone being gay as opposed to the harm done by people who like to take the moral high road.

One more thing - being gay is NOT limited to the human population, it is a proven FACT that animals can also be gay.

Reviewed by James Nesmith (Reader) 8/26/2009
Eddie you have a good a point. I really wish people would read the bible because it clearly states those who are perverse, wicked, HOMOSEXUALS, and all who do evil biding will not ever enter heaven, so therefore being gay is not right and yes the other religions state that marriage is a special bonding between a MAN AND A WOMAN (I made it in bold so all the idiots and ignorant people can read and understand,SO ALL YOU PEOPLE READ THE BIBLE AND READ OTHER RELIGIONS BELIEFS AS WELL THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING).
Reviewed by Jennifer Christian 6/3/2009
Okay, so what are we straight people supposed to do? Shall we go about mentioning our sexual activities, calling it our right to free speech? Personally, I don't want to know what some stranger does in bed. Anyone else confused about this?
Reviewed by Eileen Donohue (Reader) 5/3/2009
It has long been decided throughout our history, our customs and traditions that the Amercian family is key to our thriving society. In fact, the very purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is for the protection of our legacy, our children. Gays have no inherent right to marry because they do not meet the requirements to qualify for such protection. They can't reproduce between themselves, even with artificial insemination or test tube, it would not be a production of them both.
Reviewed by Z McClure 4/6/2009
Eddie, you are right about the burden of proof. The whole gay agenda is based on an appeal to emotion rather than logic, and deception rather than honesty. The 'civic union' idea was a ploy to buy radicals time. The intent has always been to gain acceptance of a perverse life-style at any cost. The whole agenda is incredibly selfish and full of hatred for heterosexuals and against the Creator God. Satan is behind it and is skillfully manipulating those in their ignorance and darkness to eventually obliterate all gender and sexual differences. Satan is thinking long-range- centuries even- into the future. When Christ returns,and removes His people, then those left on earth will finally get their way for seven years, but at the end, God will cast them into the Lake of Fire. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Homosexuals can repent and be made normal by Christ.
Those caught in Satan's deception will not agree with your article, so do not be discouraged. The darkness HATES the light but we are called to tell them the truth in love, which I believe you have done.
Reviewed by shawn rohrbach 2/10/2009
Hey Eddie, I think the point was made by a few people that your logic is flawed. "marriage has always been between a man and a woman, so therefore..." or some such nonsense. In fact, the Christian Church, prior to the Protestant split, had in their ceremonies a clearly defined celebration of marriage between men and men and women and women, just as they once allowed priests to marry. Another responder here made a good point; you seem to very emotionally wrapped up in this issue and your writinig suffered as a result.
Reviewed by m j hollingshead 11/21/2008
while I am straight, Christian and married; I know very well that a piece of paper is not ordained of god, or causes anyone to be faithful

legal responsibilities and legal rights can be viewed as just that and not ordained by law, god or anyone else

i have yet to find biblical statements leading to -go to court house and get piece of paper-
Reviewed by Eric Bernholc (Reader) 11/20/2008
I am not a gay speaking on behalf of gays and i do have 2 gay uncles. this is complete bs. no where does it say in the bible gays cant get married. Gays have a right to be happy. look at the 14th amendment as citizens of the us we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Gays want to be married it is there right to pursue it. God says to love but not whom. Next religion does not matter. We are not all christians
Reviewed by Gerard Gauthier 11/7/2008
And when the moral majority starts tolling that bell for you...where will you stand?
Reviewed by D. Kenneth Ross 8/21/2008
Mr. Thompson, congratulations on a well thought out article. You are correct that there is an agenda here that even homosexuals themselves aren't aware of, at least for the most part. Opening doors to the benefits of matrimony to gays and Lesbians will eventually put a burden on those rights intended for the conventional marriage, as if so much 'progressive' latitude hasn't already created an ever increasing burden on the tax-payers of this country. This is supposedly 'A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Not for any special interest group feeling the need for another Washington DC hand-out. Progressive thinking has led to the weakening of the under-pinnings of a free society, that being the Constitution. We need more people willing to speek out for freedom and not reaching out for a hand-out.
Reviewed by maria alee 12/7/2007
i think gay marriage should be legalized because people cant help who they love! love doesnt always come from the opposite sex! people shouldnt be ridiculed for who they love! who cares if lesbians or gay people get married... people should let them get married because it doesnt have anything to do with there lifes... they might get offended about gay marriage but its not the end of the world... not all gay or lesbian people are going to go to hell. gay people arent ruining the world... more things are important then caring about other peoples Sexuality... people are polluting the earth, causing global warming... and thats what we should be Worrying not about lesbian and gay marriage... loving someone ISN't something we choose but something that should be charished.
Reviewed by Gayle Martin 12/5/2007
I think government should stay out of marraige entirely. As you say, marraige is a RELIGOUS sacrament and ritual. I thought that church and state are supposed to be separate.

As this author states, the fact is that all the major religions teach us that homosexuality is a sin. I didn't write the rule on that, God did. I personally don't care what conscenting adults, Gay or straight, do behind closed doors. But I do care when something that my religion tells me is sinful is being shoved down my throat by radical liberals forcing on me against my will.

I honestly think the radical Gay agenda is to ultimatley have the Bible declared a 'hate book.' Their goal is to have it legally banned and to make having a Bible in your possession a crime punishable by jail time. I also believe that that radical Gay community wants Christianity to be declared a 'hate' religion and have it outlawed as well. That may sound unthinkable, but in the 1930's European Jews would have found the Holocaust unthinkable too.
Reviewed by Joseph Manzo 10/21/2007
Great essay Eddie; you made many good points in your argument against allowing marriage of the sexually disoriented. If there is one thing that the Bible, both Old and New Testament makes clear it is that homosexuality is a sin. No one can ignore that every time they promote their agenda they go one step further and eventually they will demand (like the pro-abortion forces) that we all participate in their sin.
Reviewed by Edmund Jonah 10/9/2007
Hi Eddie,
You are a believing Christian; I am a Jew. The Jewish faith too has proscribed homosexuality, so, yes, I agree that homosexual unions should not be endorsed by religions. However, we live in a secular world, where politics and not religion dominate society (apart - of course - from the world of Islam. So if two same-sex people decide they want to make a home together, why should they not be entitled to the secular benefits of the country in which they live? Please remember that, as the prohibition against homosexuality was recorded more than 6000 years ago, it means this behaviour is not new but has existed for all time. Many animals engage in it. So it is a 'natural' aberration!
Polygamy is practiced in many parts of India and the East. In the Arctic, Eskimo men consider it good manners to offer their wives to guests. You would be surprised at some of the religious practices of certain people across the globe. As Sakini so wisely put it in the play "Teahouse of the August Moon" - "Pornography is a question of geography." Religion is a question of belief and the best religions teach you to be tolerant of others.
Like Keith, your reviewer, I am in a monogamous relationship with my wife for over 40 years, have three children and am grandfather to three beatiful girls. "Some of my best friends are homosexuals."

When you write without over-the-top emotion, you write well. One small point, which could have been a slip of the finger, it should be " the traditional sense" not 'tradition sense.' (2nd paragraph, excluding the first bracketed one)
When you go over the top emotionally, you do not make your points with clarity.
Reviewed by Keith Rowley 10/2/2007

Marriage is a recognition of binding, mutual love; at least when undertaken by spiritually inclined people. As such, it comprises a declaration to the community at large that two (or sometimes more) persons have committed themselves physically and spiritually, each to the other.

The need for such open and binding commitment is NOT restricted to those of heterosexual persuasion, but arises in all persons who deeply love another(s). To deny these very human needs seems cold and inhuman to me.

Within a secular society, the rites (and rights) of marriage may assume a non-religious form under the aegis of the state, so the religious argument is irrelevant, and the rights (and rites) of the churches remain unaffected. (I do think that those who disagree with the stance of the church on gay marriage should not seek to change that insitution, but rather utilise the services of the state, which should be readily forthcoming.)

With respect to the restrictions on polygamy that you endorse, I again cordially disagree. The community has no right whatsoever to infringe on the rights of consenting individuals in their aspirations to whatever form of marriage they might wish - it's simply no other person's business. As for the prohibition of incest, it's a rather obvious necessity given the genetic problems that arise with inbreeding - even most primitive societies have worked this out.

I do not mock your faith, but I do consider myself above it, and I feel strongly compelled to stand up for the human dignity of those who differ from the collective mindsets that drive today's rather brutal societies.

Incidentally, and for your reference, I am a very happily married monogamous male. But that does NOT give me the right to proscribe (or prescribe) the rights and aspirations of others.

It is inhumanity of this type that keeps me away from conventional religion and generates fear and revulsion in caring human beings.


Reviewed by Julie Donner Andersen 9/20/2007
Good article, Eddie. I believe in the gist of what you are saying, but I, too, would have liked for you to elablorate on the "slippery slope" theory. It's not so much a "gay agenda" as it is a satanic agenda...and the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier.

"The double standard against Christianity in the public square will be ignored by most, but we should not succumb to those who mock our faith. If homosexuals win this issue politically, the victory will be hollow for them and harmful to our society. The truth of the matter is marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and nothing man does can ever really change that."

Amen to that!
Reviewed by Sandy Knauer 5/23/2007
The writing isn't bad, but your argument is narrow-minded, inconclusive, and dishonest unless you have been living a very sheltered life. The questions have been answered many times; you just didn't like the answers.
Reviewed by Cynth'ya 5/1/2007
Pass the collection plate! Amen to the dignity of how radio personalities ought to talk about subjects like this as well as you have Bro. Eddie.
Reviewed by Pete Grasso 4/18/2007
Good Read... Actually, the big issue is the concept of "Sin" and moral clarity not the precept of Love and equal rights. An adulterer can be in love with the one he/she is having an affair with and also be a great parent to his/her kids. Yet, many would agree that the act of adultery is wrong. You don’t however create rainbow flags and have an Adultery Pride Day event each year to celebrate the deviant behavior. In the same way, the Gay (which incidentally hold the record for the high suicide rate in the country within any group) agenda should not be endorsed by the government, corporations, and the church. Doing so is the great injustice to those of faith and the homosexual as well.

Without conviction, there is no repentance
Without repentance, there is no reconciliation
Without reconciliation, there is no redemption
Without redemption, there is no salvation

True love identifies the problem in an effort to turn the sinner back to God. Unfortunately, our Country has turned its back on God, thus resulting in God turning his back on this nation and its people. The consequences of this turning away can be found in the book of Romans.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Reviewed by Randall Barfield 1/11/2007
what is the "deeper agenda"? you need to go into that because you leave the reader hanging...if you just made it up, perhaps you shouldn't mention it in the is left perplexed...i tend to agree with Nordette's review below. still, thanks for sharing
Reviewed by Lem Yedowicz 1/9/2007
I am basically a secular person but you might be surprised if I agree with most of your argument. I think many people have forgotten the many substantive reasons for a formal agreement ( marriage ) between a man and a woman. If the woman gives birth she must be supported by someone before and after. Many of our inheritance laws must be traced through marriage. It has been said many times lately that same sex 'couples' should have the same right to marry as any heterosexual. This 'kills' me. Not every heterosexual couple is allowed to marry. They might be half brother and sister. This is also the reason that heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is frowned on so as to prevent the above situation unwittingly. Finally even a pagan society would have to consider some form of heterosexual marriage arrangement for the above reasons along with your arguments.
Reviewed by Blue Sleighty 11/29/2006
Very sad.
Reviewed by Nordette Adams 11/16/2006
Thank you for sharing your opinion and for allowing me to share mine. I've been going through some of my work on AD, including response commentary, and archiving the work to my personal website or blogs. This is one such response that has been archived.
Reviewed by Monette Bebow-Reinhard (Reader) 11/12/2006
I'm sorry to say I couldn't finish reading this because you lost me in the first paragraph. It's sad that people have to equate love with sex. It's not that men or women want to have sex with someone of their own sex. It's that they feel attracted to a person of the same sex for reasons that transcend the physical sensations - call it a karmic fate, if you will, but for whatever reason, they have the right to love, and to live with, whomever they choose. This is the right that is taken away - person to person. Not opposite sex-wise, but person wise. We need to get beyond the physical into the true soul. There is no sex to the soul.

Sorry I couldn't finish reading. I'm sure you truly believe this. You might say, if what I say is true, why aren't they bisexual? Ready to love either sex depending on the person's soul? I think there's a 'knowing' that comes from within, this 'knowing' is something that goes beyond convention, and deserves equal rights.
Reviewed by John Martin 11/2/2006
Well said. T’s a sad thing indeed, when a talented writer like yourself has to expend his efforts to defend the self evident from the ridicules absurdities put forth those who are seeking to exploit the system. What is there to explain or rebut. It is self evident that Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Should we allow marriage between a parent and adult child that live together, just
so they can grab marriage benefits? How about a person and their pet? Alas, where does it end. I am afraid it ends with women loosing the d financial support they need to raise their children, via the dilution of funds and benefits set aside for that purpose.
Reviewed by Anna Nguyen (Reader) 10/11/2006
Okay I find your article very convincing, ALTHOUGH, I LOATHE the part where you mentioned polygomy and Mormons. Personally as a Mormon, I would like to inform you that you are incorrect. If you did a TAD research about it, then you would think otherwise as well. Please get your information straight without offending others while you're trying to make your point.
Reviewed by N RK 4/13/2006
Its a well written article, I personally am in favour of gay marriages because I see it as a union between two loving partners who require the legitimacy that heterosexual couples enjoy. Without getting into a moral debate, I was very intruiged by the point you made about the potential for abuse and I wish you had gone into greater depth about how you feel the system would be abused.

Reviewed by MILLER GREEN (Reader) 2/25/2006
Marriage is a promise between freely consenting adults who are devoted to maintaining a loving, supportive relationship. It is meant to foster lifelong commitment, emotional bonding, and sexual purity, among other things. Defining marriage this way takes sexual orientation out of the equation and puts the emphasis on what is truly important in building healthy marriages which can contribute to a successful society.

This definition would help relieve the pressure that many gay people feel to fit into the heterosexual mold and enter into an untrue marriage. Yes, gay people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that would be a marriage based on a lie which I'm sure that most people agree, is not to the benefit of our society.

Religious organizations will still have the right to permit marriages based on their own definitions.

Saying that something is traditional does not make it right. Fortunately many traditions in this country have been abolished because they were not right and the world is a better place thanks to the courageous people who stood up for what is right. Fears that our society would crumble when other antiquated traditions ended were unfounded and the same will be said about this issue in the future if we would just realize what is truly important in a marriage and work toward that goal for all people.
Reviewed by Kelley Becker (Reader) 1/25/2006
We lack compassion, while we hide behind our religion. We say that we need to protect the sanctity of marriage, when in all truth marriage is anything but sanct. In biblical times concubines were kept inside of marriage for god sake! all of you that cry foul when a man wants to marry a man, did any of you protest the show Married by America? NO. If anything runs the name of marriage through the mudd it is the flagrant disregard for its value by allowing such a specticle. Some say that if gay marriage is legalized then somehow all of America will become gay and then the human race will end! it is lunacy, the passing of laws does not determine anyones sexual orientation. I could go on for days, but frankly I am sure that you have stopped reading by now at any rate, so please let me add one last side note. Direct from me to Eddie Thompson, I AM NOT MOCKING YOUR FAITH I AM MOCKING YOUR DIM-WITTED IDEA OF WHAT IT IS TO BE A CHRISTIAN IN THE TRUE SENSE.
Reviewed by Jason Stubbs (Reader) 10/9/2005
Very truthful, I couldn't agree more with anything than this:

-What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not "equal rights" but "extra rights."

What they want isn't really about rights, but about social approval their lifestyle. Another point that I read elsewhere is the fact that transferring all "Marriage Laws" to same-sex couples makes no more sense than to change the rules of baseball to football. It just doesn't work with our soceity. I thank you for your help; this will prove vital with the writing of my English Controversial paper! You will be credited and sited as you deserve, thanks

Reviewed by Ryan Shahbazi (Reader) 5/31/2005
Very well written arguments. i agree with you 100%. Thank you for adding to the arsenal of my debate team. (dont worry, you will be given the credit you deserve)

As i was reading the comments i came across one that i have adored for a while now, "separation of church and state." I love refuting this. Frankly, the church and state cannot be separated without destroying the 3 branch system of government that America has today. Public school government classes will not teach this, but believe it or not, the founding fathers came up with idea of the 3 branches came from the Bible.

22 For the LORD is our judge, (judicial branch)
the LORD is our lawgiver, (legislative branch)
the LORD is our king; (executive branch)
it is he who will save us.
(Isaiah 33:22 NIV)

There is more i can elaborate on but i am yet to receive a worthy counterpoint to this.
Reviewed by John Gonzales (Reader) 7/14/2004
USA = PERDITION? GAYS are trying to ruin this country.
They don't have the right to try to force their will on society, and modify a basic institution. If we allow this we are setting the worst example ever to our kids, they might think that having no morals is good, where two shameless freaks can be together is fine...what will be next? marriage between 3, why stop there how about 100 people getting married to each other, what about cousins or brothers getting married, and why can't some one marry a dog, a cat, or a snake, if they love their pet and they also have a right to be happy and enjoy rights. Lets allow all immoralities, since we are on a road of no moral limits. One more thing, what Gays are trying to portrait as HOMOPHOBIA is actually called GOOD MORALS.
Reviewed by Vincent Martin (Reader) 7/7/2004
Eddie, I until very recently shared your view (thought not completely) that Gay men and women should not be allowed to marry; Civil Unions yes, marriage no. But then I came to see the argument devoid of emotional and religious attachment, much like the constitution would and I had to draw another conclusion; see my article on this subject (

The 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides for equal protect before the law and the right to due process, both of which are being denied homosexual men and women when they are not allowed to marry. This boils down to a question of law, for the many states govern the “civil” institution of marriage, not the religious.
Reviewed by Lisa Collett (Reader) 2/25/2004
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Have you ever heard of that notion? It is entirely acceptable for one to personally oppose gay marriage, but it is quite another to try to impose those convictions on others. In terms of Bush's proposal to add an amendment to the Constitution--that is an encroachment on civil liberties. The United States has worked hard to eliminate discrimination in America, and Bush is taking us back in time.
Reviewed by Tom Hyland 2/21/2004
ED - another WELL DONE !!!

While I do respect that others have the right to choose their partners, even if 'same sex' I ABHOR the mere thought of their having any RIGHT to the SANCTITY of Marriage! Besides love, and companionship, and nurturing one another, is not GOD's PLAN for a much higher purpose? - The PROCREATION of Mankind, the continuance of the Human Race, by DESIGN - NOT RANDOMNESS !!!

If I may be so bold as to offer a totally RIDICULOUS scenario, WHAT IF:

All of a sudden, ZAP - ALL males were homosexual - and - ALL females were homosexual - and ALL of them were SAME SEX PARTNERS ???

Finito! Done! The END! In a matter of generations, maybe even only years, MANKIND and WOMANKIND would no longer walk the face of the earth! Gee, is it a coincidence that what would remain would be ONLY ANIMALS? Male + Female = OFFSPRING! And THEY do it naturally, by INSTINCT, NOT MAN-MADE LAWS of STUPIDITY! DUH !!!

Sorry, Ed, had to put my "two cents" in !

Reviewed by Angela Holko Todd (Reader) 2/21/2004
I'm wondering what the divorce rate is among same sex couples who live in states that allow same sex marriages. If men and women who wanted to marry had to work this hard to achieve unions the divorce rate might see a decline. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing all the fuss about this. I mean really, there are so many more important things plaguing our country that I can't imagine how all the debate about this is productive.

Great write offering one perspective.
Reviewed by Brenda Porter (Reader) 2/20/2004
The best quote of the day: "What is being suggested by the gay agenda is not 'equal rights' but 'extra rights.'(Thompson, 2004)"

My thought on the subject:

People are starving in the world and all the news address "Should Gays Be Allowed To Get Married": I am going to vote for those who believe in Jesus and God's words.

Let's bring back what God has put together: Adam and Eve. Let's bring back what God put together on Noah's ark: Mating pairs; Let's bring back what God has ORDAINED: Stop thinking about CLONING HUMANS, MEN and WOMEN BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY; Let's bring back what God has put forward: to put no one above Him and his words:

Humans keep disobeying God and not taking His words seriously, there is a price to pay for all the disobediences. Example. Look what has happened since prayer was taken out of the schools.

Brenda Porter of GA
Reviewed by Karen Lynn Vidra, The Texas Tornado 2/20/2004
I have always disagreed with gay marriages; it states that a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman is an abomination of God; that it is a sin. And I see it as such. God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and STEVE, as my twin sister, Karla, says!

Good article; thanks for sharing!

(((HUGS))) and much love, your friend in Tx., Karen Lynn. :(
Reviewed by Safi Abdi 2/19/2004
This is the result of a society that lies on God.
Excellent write.
Popular Essays Articles
  1. Kant's Effore To Resolve Hume's Epistemolo
  2. Rhode Read: RI’s Haven Brothers Mobile Din
  3. Numbers Don’t Lie – People Do
  4. Inequality: The Cold, Hard Truth
  5. Retro 60s Flashback: Paging Dr. Kildare &
  6. Marriage
  7. The Story behind the National Debt
  8. Rhode Read: The Quahog—RI’s Official State
  9. Rhode Read: RI’s Slater Mill, America’s Ol
  10. U.S. Inheritance Laws and Wealth Accumulat

The Obama Chronicles: Stories From the Heartland by Lonnie Hicks

This is a book done "real time" which traces the rise of Obama, written from the perspective of his political values and background. It goes on to predict how he will govern as pre..  
BookAds by Silver, Gold and Platinum Members

The sources of values by Antoine Raphael

Certainly, we live in a new century. Unfortunately, everywhere on our planet, humankind betrays a widespread distressing situation, confusion, perplexity, a lack of contact with th..  
BookAds by Silver, Gold and Platinum Members

Authors alphabetically: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Featured Authors | New to AuthorsDen? | Add AuthorsDen to your Site
Share AD with your friends | Need Help? | About us

Problem with this page?   Report it to AuthorsDen
© AuthorsDen, Inc. All rights reserved.