Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"All of human civilization has sanctified this heterosexual act with thousands of years of traditions and this is what has always defined the term marriage"
this is just not true. If it were, then we would still be having back yard unions without any clergy or documentation. Almost everything we have come to associate with marriage and weddings - the white dress, the holy vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed - dates back a mere 50 or 100 years at the most. In many cases less.
The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the bride's body as she left the ceremony in order to "loosen her up" for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize.
marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at it's most civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at it's worst. That's why you'll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible, or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly recently, there was nothing religious about it.
OTOH, marriage in the old days of the bible, involved bigamy. Everyone did it. Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon - because that's what marriage was in those days.
we hear a lot about the 'sanctity of marriage'...google the phrase. You will find it's a new term invented in 2004 by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Marriage has always been a secular tradition, rather than a religious one. Up until the Renaissance, married couples were married on the doorstep of the church, because the ceremony was considered too vulgar to be held inside the building. After all, there was implied sex in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on the premises.
Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because, seriously, the chicken dance is not in the Bible.) lol
in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it pedophilia.
marriage has such a long history of changing with the ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.
For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the last century or so, we've finally seen the triumph of this new-fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship between two consenting adults.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact, never existed at any point in history.
quite simply, what it amounts to Comet, is that you consider sex to be sacred and I don't, I consider it a biological function. s'ok, we can disagree.
Quote:
Further, they should never be allowed to file a joint tax return, as the tax code need only award those who have the potential or had the potential of creating more tax payors!
what does potential for more tax payers have to do with filing a joint return? So because we have no kids and no intention to ever have any then (or supposing one of us had surgery to prevent it, or simply was infertile - might be, we've never been checked).. therefor we shouldn't be allowed to file a joint tax return. now come on!
Quote:
Trying to redefine what is sacred for many heterosexuals just to justify ones deviant behavior is decadent and would result in a very fragile society. Sorry, Wanna, I truly belive your opinion on this is very destructive for a healthy society.
you're welcome to your belief. we just differ. we differ on a few other beliefs as well - ain't life grand that we can! I just don't believe that 'different' is the same as 'deviant'. s'ok, we can disagree.
If homosexuals want a legal affidavit with the state indicating a domestic homosexual partnership, that is the states business and they can call it anything but marriage. Further, they should never be allowed to file a joint tax return, as the tax code need only award those who have the potential or had the potential of creating more tax payors! Homosexuals need to stay out of the heterosexual relm and quit trying to be like us.
.
So... you are saying you would completely ignore homosexuals who either get a civil union or marriage and ADOPT children. They should be allowed to file a joint tax return if they have children. What a ridiculous socially conservative argument! How does that negatively impact everyone else when so many heterosexual marriages fail? Also, we don't need an exponential increase in the total number of taxpayers. That just increases demand for all kinds of town and city services which increases the property tax burden FOR the taxpayers. A stable or slow growth situation is the best solution for a tax base of any city or town as they are less prone to boom and bust cycles yet steadily evolve and generate new employment.
So... you are saying you would completely ignore homosexuals who either get a civil union or marriage and ADOPT children. They should be allowed to file a joint tax return if they have children. What a ridiculous socially conservative argument! How does that negatively impact everyone else when so many heterosexual marriages fail? Also, we don't need an exponential increase in the total number of taxpayers. That just increases demand for all kinds of town and city services which increases the property tax burden FOR the taxpayers. A stable or slow growth situation is the best solution for a tax base of any city or town as they are less prone to boom and bust cycles yet steadily evolve and generate new employment.
It would not benefit a healthy society for their to be any homosexual adoption with regards to children and any tax benefits that would enable the life style. They would do better to adopt pets. Why you would subject young children to that life style is contemptuous and disregards a child's well being. My wife is a teacher and I once taught as well. The results of children being raised in a homosexual environment is Disastrous!
In California 75% of Black people voted against the homosexual agenda. For you to try to attach a label such as socially conservative is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a healthy humanity.
quite simply, what it amounts to Comet, is that you consider sex to be sacred and I don't, I consider it a biological function. s'ok, we can disagree.
what does potential for more tax payers have to do with filing a joint return? So because we have no kids and no intention to ever have any then (or supposing one of us had surgery to prevent it, or simply was infertile - might be, we've never been checked).. therefor we shouldn't be allowed to file a joint tax return. now come on!
you're welcome to your belief. we just differ. we differ on a few other beliefs as well - ain't life grand that we can! I just don't believe that 'different' is the same as 'deviant'. s'ok, we can disagree.
I mistyped when I said joint tax return. I meant to say they should NOT be allowed to file a joint tax return. I do not agree with homosexuals receiving any tax benefits that would reward that kind of life style.
"If homosexuals want a legal affidavit with the state indicating a domestic homosexual partnership, that is the states business and they can call it anything but marriage. Further, they should never be allowed to file a joint tax return, as the tax code need only award those who have the potential or had the potential of creating more tax payors! Homosexuals need to stay out of the heterosexual relm and quit trying to be like us."
should the tax code punish married couples without children?? This is a ridiculous argument. Try the shoe on the other foot. What if heterosexual marriage was declared illegal? Would you believe someone was stepping on your rights as a citizen? most would....
maybe the only way to stop this foolishness about a word 'marriage', is to make the word obsolete. ALL weddings should be considered 'civil unions' according to the law.
One can not be married by the church alone, it is a civil legal procedure requiring filed documents and signatures. If you attempt to have a ceremony without any legal documentation, it is null and void. Might as well have your granny perform the ceremony.
I said had the potential or have the potential to procreate. Of course some couples never have children and that is why they do not have any child tax credits. But Married filing jointly should only be for heterosexuals.
It would not benefit a healthy society for their to be any homosexual adoption with regards to children and any tax benefits that would enable the life style. They would do better to adopt pets. Why you would subject young children to that life style is contemptuous and disregards a child's well being. My wife is a teacher and I once taught as well. The results of children being raised in a homosexual environment is Disastrous!
In California 75% of Black people voted against the homosexual agenda. For you to try to attach a label such as socially conservative is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a healthy humanity.
"The results of children being raised in a homosexual environment is disastrous." Proof of evidence would be a nice touch!
I think the "live free or die" argument applies very well to this issue. People should have the freedom to do what they want within the realm of the laws and constitution. What homosexuals do has no impact on my quality of life. The argument that homosexual marriage will defile heteorosexual marriage is a fallacy when half of all marriages end in divorce and create unstable situations for those involved.
"The results of children being raised in a homosexual environment is disastrous." Proof of evidence would be a nice touch!
I think the "live free or die" argument applies very well to this issue. People should have the freedom to do what they want within the realm of the laws and constitution. What homosexuals do has no impact on my quality of life. The argument that homosexual marriage will defile heteorosexual marriage is a fallacy when half of all marriages end in divorce and create unstable situations for those involved.
Homosexuals have lots of freedom but freedom does not give them the right to TRASH my Traditions and way of life. I personally do not care if some guy lives with 20 woman or two homosexuals live together or if you want to have relations with your sister or brother but when they try to impose their behavior upon my values then I speak out! They need to mind their own business and quit messing with this marriage fantasy. People will eventually revolt against homosexuals to protect what they hold sacred! And that is what Live Free or Die is all about.
People will eventually accept homosexuals....contrary to your wishes comet.
In fact, acceptance grows daily. Gay images have bombarded us in the first few years of 2000.
Entertainment has welcomed the gay community onto the air-waves and to the stage.
Numerous gay TV shows have popped up.
So why is it more acceptable than it has been in the past?
society has given us the idea that all individuals should enjoy the same inalienable rights we hold so dear.
The majority agree that no one should be persecuted. We encourage different views and religions, we welcome individuality and teach our children discrimination is wrong in any form.
"The results of children being raised in a homosexual environment is disastrous." Proof of evidence would be a nice touch!
well, yeah, but let's be fair: Comet never said that it was 'documentable' or 'fact', so it's obvious that he's stating his opinion. He's entitled to his opinion even if we disagree. Being a teacher doesn't really have that much validation: I know tons of teachers and principals. There are plenty of disastrous, abusive straight households where some or both parent(s) should never have been allowed to have kids, but they did. I see no reason that should give them any special privileges. Children grow best in an environment of love and support; regardless of whether they have one or two parents and what does or does not dangle between someone's legs (sorry for being crude).
BTW, I'd really like to commend everyone posting on this thread! I know it's a super hot button for many, and I'm very happy that all the debate has been relatively calm with no name calling or other useless results. Well done! See? we can have tough threads without being nasty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope
