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.
The "standards" of marriage went out the window a long time ago with soaring divorce rates
And to the simpleton "100 island" argument. Let's put 100 people who can't have children and see which island survives. Also, the "straight" island would most likely not be 100% straight... As far as I know, only straight people have had homosexual children so far.
But if you want to limit marriage to procreation, go tell that to people who can't have children. I'm assuming you're against people marrying if they can't have children. Should marriages be void after a certain age when people are making babies anymore?
First, the value and sanctity of marriage is no less today because people get divorced.
Second, I never said people who cant reproduce for whatever reason should not be married....but it is obvious that two people of the same gender cannot reproduce.
Considering it is completely unconstitutional and blatantly discriminatory; I'd say you are correct. Bans like these are being struck down all over the country. With NC being one of, if not the most progressive states in the south it is only a matter of time before it is struck down here too.
Bans are not being struck down by a vote of the people. On the contrary, sympathetic courts are striking bans down that were voted on by the people of the particular state.
As I've posted before, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land some time in the future, it will be because "you cant deny two people who claim love for each other the right to marry". After that then there is no standard for marriage, anything goes. You love it (or simply just want to), you can marry.
As I've posted before, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land some time in the future, it will be because "you cant deny two people who claim love for each other the right to marry". After that then there is no standard for marriage, anything goes. You love it (or simply just want to), you can marry.
Wrong. The standard is that race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation are not relevant to marriage laws, and any laws that take those into account are invalid. That is not anything goes, that is, very specific bases on which no government can discrimination that have nothing to do with "anything goes."
Last edited by Tarheelhombre; 06-11-2014 at 06:26 PM..
Bans are not being struck down by a vote of the people. On the contrary, sympathetic courts are striking bans down that were voted on by the people of the particular state.
The rights of a group, particularly a minority group shouldn't be subject to a vote of the people. If we waited for a vote, I'm guessing some schools would still be segregated!
So I guess you can admit there is no denial of rights then? No one is denied the right to vote or anything like that.
However it seems some people equate marriage as the definition as "equal"?
If gay marriage were allowed in the future, most likely not by any vote but by a court (which is the reason bans are being struck down right now), then it must be recognized that you CANNOT DENY MARRIAGE TO ANYONE, ANYTIME.
No one has to 'love' the other, it can come down to simply two adults wanting a tax or inheritance benefits. No standards.
How is that not already the case? How is allowing two adult men or two adult women who love each other get married make it so that anyone can get married for any reason? Are there not already "gold diggers" out there? Do people not already marry for wealth/inheritance? If the gays weren't getting married because they loved each other and were only interested in the tax benefits....couldn't they just marry a person of the opposite sex to accomplish that goal? What is your point?
You are arguing in circles. There is no point to not allowing gays to marry. Every argument against marriage equality falls flat.
How is that not already the case? How is allowing two adult men or two adult women who love each other get married make it so that anyone can get married for any reason? Are there not already "gold diggers" out there? Do people not already marry for wealth/inheritance? If the gays weren't getting married because they loved each other and were only interested in the tax benefits....couldn't they just marry a person of the opposite sex to accomplish that goal? What is your point?
You are arguing in circles. There is no point to not allowing gays to marry. Every argument against marriage equality falls flat.
There are restrictions on marriage already that apply not just to gay people. There are people out there who want to marry multiple spouses, or to marry within a family, etc and this is against the law too.
If it all comes down to 2 consenting adults wanting to get married, and the pro-creation factor is not an issue, then you cannot deny anyone their 'right' to marry.
See when you change the definition of marriage there will be no limitations, there cannot be any restrictions because it would no more discriminating against gay people than it would for anyone else.
Answer this please: Do you think there should be ANYONE denied the right to marry as long as those involved are adults?
If you answer yes then please explain who should be denied their rights and why, if you answer no then I rest my case.
"Lets face it. Anybody that does not believe that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land just hasn't been observing what's going on." --Utah US Senator Orrin Hatch (R)
There are restrictions on marriage already that apply not just to gay people. There are people out there who want to marry multiple spouses, or to marry within a family, etc and this is against the law too.
If it all comes down to 2 consenting adults wanting to get married, and the pro-creation factor is not an issue, then you cannot deny anyone their 'right' to marry.
See when you change the definition of marriage there will be no limitations, there cannot be any restrictions because it would no more discriminating against gay people than it would for anyone else.
Answer this please: Do you think there should be ANYONE denied the right to marry as long as those involved are adults?
If you answer yes then please explain who should be denied their rights and why, if you answer no then I rest my case.
Red herrings.
Gay people are asking to be married as COUPLES. Heterosexuals are already allowed to be married as couples. So are gay people, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender, which makes that a business arrangement of some sort in most cases (or they married for love that was not romantic) and yet, nobody stops gays from marrying opposite-gender people. If gays marrying or procreating or raising kids was such a blazing concern, why would we not be out trying to stop them from ever marrying or reproducing? We are not. People just get squicked out by the idea of two guys having sex and want to draw the line at allowing them to do it in a loving, state-sanctioned marriage. Like this is going to stop them from loving one another in the first place. Sheesh.
Let's wait and save the "marry my son/daughter/12 other people/pet squirrel" problems for down the road (if ever).
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Legalizing, promoting, and supporting gay marriage is the is a nail in the coffin for civilization. What two consenting adults do in there private lives has nothing to do with marriage, and allowing for them to flaunt there lifestyle will only influence the younger generations into thinking it's all good and natural.
Look up the HIV/Aids rate amoung the homosexual community, the higher rates in sexual partners, and all the health risk that Tv doesn't tell you about. After looking that up, take a day to see what your children classrooms are teaching them about homosexuality.
Lets put 100 Homosexual couples on an island, and then lets put another 100 heterosexual couples on another. Then lets see which island will be completely gone in 100 years.
You're one of those simpletons who equate homosexuality with pedaphilla and beasiality, aren't ya?
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.
