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.
Those regulations apply to everyone, so are not discriminatory.
If you exclude a couple A from having the same rights and privileges as couple B for nothing more than their couple makeup, it's discriminatory.
Case closed.
The argument that "Oh, well, nobody can get gay marriages so it' snot discriminatory olololololol" is an intellectually dishonest argument built upon a laughably thin paper towel.
It's about as tired and idiotic as the idea that the 1950s was the best era to live in.
Just like I went to the Quran to answer to someone in another gay thread I went to the Christian book to read more about this and it does talk about marriage 2 verses after Genesis 2:22 and how a man and a woman leave their family to share their life with a woman (wife) and become one flesh (have sex). I guess I have to read more to find a place where it mentions how a man should get with another man and a woman with another woman. The only times I see that in the Christian book is when the topic of sin comes out. Same with other religious literature or their book. These are other things gays/lesbians want to redefine and change.
This has been asked, and ignored, so I'll try again.
How does the modification of *secular laws* attempt to redifine religion?
As an atheist, I think trying to argue scripture with the faithful, in so far as law is concerned, is giving them too much credit.
The Constitution sums it up nicely. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Simply put, the theological disposition of the founders becomes irrelevant. Religion becomes irrelevant. In order for the first amendment to be upheld, it is required that we have a secular government based on the rule of law, and all men are created equal. So what's to argue? Although personally, I think the entire argument has been engineered to distract the American People from far more pressing matters.
Those regulations apply to everyone, so are not discriminatory.
Actually, it's pretty discriminatory.
Why can't I, as a woman, marry another woman? Why can only men marry women? If men can marry women, then technically women should be able to marry women.
If people today are as much homophobe as is obvious, why am I not surprised that they were more so about 2000 years ago when these stories were written?
Most references to sin (except for cheating) were mostly about cultic temple prostitution, and not consensual adult acts. It has been authoritarians over the centuries mistranslating the word for their power and control.
Why can't I, as a woman, marry another woman? Why can only men marry women? If men can marry women, then technically women should be able to marry women.
For the same reason that I can't marry another man. That's just the way it is. Why can't I marry my car?
Just like I went to the Quran to answer to someone in another gay thread I went to the Christian book to read more about this and it does talk about marriage 2 verses after Genesis 2:22 and how a man and a woman leave their family to share their life with a woman (wife) and become one flesh (have sex). I guess I have to read more to find a place where it mentions how a man should get with another man and a woman with another woman. The only times I see that in the Christian book is when the topic of sin comes out. Same with other religious literature or their book. These are other things gays/lesbians want to redefine and change.
that is technically inference or association fallacy as it hinges on interpretation rather than what is said
Also grouping spiritual union with legal marriage... is technically hasty generalization fallacy. Religious belief is not a matter of contention in regards to a legal right or contract unless said right or contract regards the right to religious beliefs of the individual. Nothing in the proposition of gay marriage amends the rights of religious freedom or the right to express it... however attempting to ban it amends the rights of those who do not share the same religious view.
It is tantamount to saying it is okay for group A to impose their beliefs to the detriments of the rights of group B.... but that group B has no right to their own beliefs.
Asked and answered a million times. Apparently over your head each and every time.
To you: "Do you agree to take this car as you lawfully wedded car?"
Your Response: "I do"
To the car: "Do you agree to take this person as your lawfully wedded person?"
...
Read the warranty.
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.
