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.
Anyone that is intellectually honest will admit that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now whether or not you agree with it is totally different. But to ignorant this is disingenuous.
This is my question to you. When has this NOT been the definition of marriage? I can go back hundreds of years and provide vast amounts of evidence about hetero marriage. Can you do the same as it relates to gay marriage? If so, please provide proof, artifacts, etc. Perhaps I’m missing where this was a highly practiced ceremony that you are now being denied.
If the Supreme Court has decided as you claim, where is the uproar that they haven't stuck to their decision? Why isn’t gay marriage federally mandated?
My logic isn't dreadful. It just differs from your own. Sorry you can't handle that.
This doesn't make sense though. So simply because the 'definition' has always been wrong, it should remain so? Tradition for tradition's sake accomplishes nothing, and in this case in an injustice that can easily be righted.
Bottom line is this: Gov't needs to get out of the marriage business all together.
i believe that marriage is a religious institution, therefore should not concern legalities at all. Since Homosexuality is considered a sin in Christianity, it should not be allowed.
1. Only SOME Christians consider it a sin; for instance I happen to be a Christian who doesn't.
2. By making marriage a strictly religious institution you are saying that those who follow no religion shouldn't "be allowed" to marry. (Or are you saying only those of YOUR religious persuasion, which would leave out an awfully large segment of the population of this country.)
3. This conversation is about legal marriage, not religious marriage.
If same sex “marriage” is so wanted and desired by worldwide society we would have it by now. Where is it? Where is the OWS equivalent of people protesting in the streets rioting for homosexual marriage? It isn’t there is it? Nope. Not there.
Guess you aren't on Facebook. One of the LGBT groups I've been following there are very much involved in the OWS movement. And could you prove your allegation that the protestors are 'rioting'? I didn't think so.
Yes, but why does the different term have to equal something negative? N*gger was a term made up and was done for purely derogatory reasons….colored was also a negative descriptor. Civil union is now hate speech? I must have missed the memo.
OK..so now you’re just being outright rude. I’m reporting you and won’t entertain the rest of your post.
I explained this earlier. Marriage signifies the union between a man and a woman. The IR thing imposed restrictions on that…that’s where the injustice came in. Same-sex marriage is asking us to redefine what marriage is. It’s not the same at all and quite frankly, the IR argument is getting really old.
Its not refining marriage. Your marriage, the very definition of your marriage doesn't change because same sex couples are now granted the same rights you and I get.
Changing marriage from the woman being property, legally beaten and legally raped to an equal partnership now THAT changed the definition of marriage.
You choose to ignore the basic foundations of marriage. It’s one thing to disagree with whether or not that definition should evolve, but to say this hasn’t been the traditional definition is disingenuous.
Not at all. First, I have no problem with a man and a woman marrying. Second, I just recognize that this type of marriage hasn't always been the only one, so to say that only the heterosexual union is traditional ignores history and speaks to a personal bias.
Who knows? Listen, I won’t slit my wrists if gay marriage suddenly became legal in the US. But I still won’t agree with it? I am allowed to have a dissenting opinion, aren’t I?
Sure, you're allowed dissention, but typically a person who disagrees has an actual reason. If you can't answer a basic question as to what will happen if they are both called marriages (since you obviously believe there will be a negative to it), then what is the point in holding that dissent in the first place?
What are you even talking about? Asking for evidence is changing the goalposts? That’s a new one.
Evidence has already been provided. You just don't like what that evidence is, so you attempt to change the question.
You say making a comparison is dishonest and ridiculous, yet you go on to do that very thing. No where do I say one condition is worse than another’s (but if you wanted my real opinion on the matter, then yes I do believe that US blacks have had it worse than US gays…and we are talking about the US, right? Not some other country.)
No where do I state that gays shouldn’t be afforded equal protections and rights. Please don’t suggest otherwise.
No, I said denying that there are similarities is dishonest and ridiculous, which it is, no matter how many times you insist it. I'm not even sure why you are trying to argue that who had it worse has anything to do with the argument of equality. It doesn't. Further, you ARE suggesting that gays not be treated equal because you yourself clearly don't believe that they are equal in the first place.
Completely ignorant about what? I’ve already agreed that civil unions don’t afford the same rights and I’ve argued that this should be changed. So, instead of bickering on an internet chat forum, perhaps the best course of action would be to find ways for the federal government to recognize civil unions and ensure that they afford gay couples the same rights as married couples. Quite honestly, that looks like the best way to get gays the rights they seek.
And again, marriage equality can only happen in one of two ways: call them all marriages or eliminate the federal and state governments from being involved at all. That means no more federally-protected rights or benefits provided by marriage. BTW, how can it be logically reasoned that if the government gave gays all the same benefits as straight couples, the ceremonies, the documents, etc... but claim they are two separate things?
You keep harping on this superiority thing. It’s really quite bizarre. Are you one of those people who insist a person is sick, when they keep telling you “no really, I’m ok!”?
I just think you're someone who has never actually examined their own positions, because otherwise you would see how completely ridiculous they actually are. This is not about a subjective opinion saying you are wrong. This is about examining history, law, and rights and saying, yeah, none of that support your position on this. It's time to grow up.
And no my whole argument is predicated on religion. But it suits you to think this way, so I won't continue to beat a dead horse.
You said earlier in the thread that your opposition was mostly religious based you then chose to use bible quotes. You want your personal religious beliefs to dictate the laws in this country. That IS a Theocracy,
Really? I've said multiples times in this thread, that I am in full support of gay people having full rights by way of civil unions. If civil unions today don't currently allow this, then there should be a push to redefine civil unions so that same-sex couples aren't denied any benefits that married couples receive. Quite frankly, that seems like the best approach if full rights are what is most important.
What exactly am I denying? Again, is it more important to have the rights or being able to say my husband/wife (which you can say anyway)?
By pushing 'civil unions' you ARE saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry! I'm sorry, the document my son & his wife got from the state of Nevada was a MARRIAGE license, not a 'civil union' license and they were married without benefit of any church! What they have is civil marriage and that's what my LGBT friends are asking for - CIVIL MARRIAGE. They are not demanding that your church, my church or any other religious institution be involved unless they have a church that will do so without 'pressure'.
"You know, I don't know why folks want to buy import cars. It's illegal to do so. But if you must have one, why not get a "trade car"? You'd get the car, enjoy the same benefits and don't have to worry about dealing with all of the ruckus of getting an imported car".
Now that makes sense to me.
Except in neither case is it your right to tell someone else how to live. And in both cases, you would be self-righteous enough to do so.
I know, I was really reaching trying to explain my side of it.
My bottom line: I'm not opposed to gay people having the full rights of married couples. I'm just opposed to them getting "married".
"I'm not opposed to free speech. I'm just opposed to someone saying something I disagree with."
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.
No where do I say one condition is worse than another’s (but if you wanted my real opinion on the matter, then yes I do believe that US blacks have had it worse than US gays…and we are talking about the US, right? Not some other country.) 
