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.
There is no Constitutional right to same sex marriage. Marriage is not addressed at all in the Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, marriage rules and regulations are left to the individual states.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are mentioned repeatedly in the constitution.
To you maybe. To me marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman sanctified by our creator God.
I was married in a church for love. I went down to the county clerks office to get my marriage certificate to receive the contractual rights that the state confers. There is a difference between the two. We are discussing the latter.
I was married in a church for love. I went down to the county clerks office to get my marriage certificate to receive the contractual rights that the state confers. There is a difference between the two. We are discussing the latter.
I didn't get married in a church. And my husband and I are still recognized as married by the state.
Because we are heterosexual.
Refusing to allow homosexuals to marry is hateful business.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I am in the modern world thank you very much, and I didn't bring up animals, you did. Putting words in my mouth are we?
My point is that if the definition of marriage changes, then the polygamists will say "we want our marriages recognized too". The precedent will be set.
I was kidding about the turtle. I've seen that comment made so many times by the "we can't redefine marriage!" crowd, that I figured I might as well throw it out there.
The definition of marriage in NC has changed several times (which has already been mentioned in this thread).
Are you saying it was wrong to ever change it? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I was kidding about the turtle. I've seen that comment made so many times by the "we can't redefine marriage!" crowd, that I figured I might as well throw it out there.
The definition of marriage in NC has changed several times (which has already been mentioned in this thread).
Are you saying it was wrong to ever change it? Because that is what it sounds like you are saying.
It's all about politics. People are more devoted to political parties than God. The political party scares people into thinking they are not good Christians and that God will punish them. They use it as a weapon (as with others subjects) to crank out the vote because the topic gets people out to vote.
In the following years, those who disagree will be such a minority. If that scares you, turn off the politics and focus more on your religion.
To you maybe. To me marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman sanctified by our creator God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin
I respect what you are saying here, but I can't see how your definition of marriage can be allowed to override other people's definitions of marriage.
There are 100+ civil rights (taxes, inheritance, benefits, survivorship, etc) specifically tied to being legally married. Nobody is questioning your relationship with your god, they are requesting equal treatment under law for these civil rights.
The big irony here is the strong evidence that King James, who authorized the version of the bible that many use to condemn homosexuality, himself had several homosexual relationships.
The nationwide movement to legalize marriage for gays is hardly a whim. I don't accept your attempt to trivialize it.
The stated goal of the gay marriage movement is to "undo" marriage and render it meaningless. This has been stated by leaders in the LGBT movement. That tells me it is about power, not rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Precedent? The state already set precedent long ago.
Your main argument that Gay marriage should be prohibited because the definition of marriage should not be changed. So consider this. In 1875, good Christians of NC amended the NC Constitution to redefine marriage as follows:
Article 14 Section 8, Constitution of 1868, amended 1875:
Sec. --- All marriages between a white person and a Negro or between a white person and a person of Negro descent to the third generation inclusive are, hereby, forever prohibited. Read 3 times and ratified in open Convention this 11th day of October A. D. 1875
This article was abandoned by NC in 1971. Your logic suggests that it should have remained in the document. Is this what you are arguing? i.e. You believe that interracial marriage should still be prohibited? Or are you really saying that changes to marriage definitions are OK as long as they meet your personal requirements?
If so then your point fails, completely. You can't have it both ways.
(The definition of marriage was changed in NC in 1875, 1971 and 2013. Where are the polygamists?)
That prohibited marriage between races, it did not redefine marriage which was still considered between a man and a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbyunc
The big irony here is the strong evidence that King James, who authorized the version of the bible that many use to condemn homosexuality, himself had several homosexual relationships.
This isn't a religious argument, it is a secular one.
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.
