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.
I had no problem with Civil Unions, and registered Domestic Partnerships. I voted for both in California. But, that wasn't good enough for the rainbow people, it had to be called marriage, in order to give gay relationships legitimacy "under the law" as it applies to heterosexual couples.
Federally it's not going to be recognized unless the Supreme Court decides to rule on gay marriage.
It should be left up to individual states to decide if they will recognize the legitimacy of "gay marriage".
If there are legal issues with regard to insurance, medical issues, estates, etc. Initiate a binding legal contract. Insurance company giving you a problem? Change your insurance company, there are other insurance companies who have provisions for same sex couples.
Tax related issues should be taken up to the federal level. There shouldn't be any requirement of a state to recognize a gay marriage because of "tax shelter" purposes.
Who can prove that a gay marriage is equal to that of a heterosexual marriage? It's going to be unequal because it's a same sex couple, and not an opposite sex couple. They are unequal based on that fact. Men are not equal to women, with regard to status within a family, a society or biology. There are gender differences between men and women.
This has been explained to you over and over again - people who describe themselves as gay already have full equal protection of the laws - they are not denied any rights. They are asking for special rights to apply to them.
And you have to have it explained to you over and over again how all out wrong you are. Please stop making your visits on here look so foolish.
I am a parent and I have no reason to believe that you would be a good parent. I have no reason to doubt that you would love your child dearly.
I do see many disadvantages to a child raised by a same-sex couple. You may disagree with me and that is ok.
I do not support same-sex marriages. You may disagree with me and that is ok as well.
In case you failed to notice, the post you are replying to was not directed at you, and in fact, had nothing to do with you.
Also, I do not need your permission in order to disagree with you.
Genesis 4:17 contradicts you - it says that Cain slept with his wife - a man's wife cannot be his mother - and the Mosaic law forbids incest.
Use some logic - Adam and Eve were the first people created - they were not the only ones. Genesis focuses on them because their lineage leads straight to King David and from there to Jesus Christ.
So Adam and Eve were not the only ones? The Bible does not state that others were created. Doesn't it go back to interpretation? Then why give the Bible credence for things like science and public policy if it is either too vague or too contradictory? There are two possibilities
1) The Bible has contradictions because it is created by man.
2) The Bible is vague translated too many times for people to accurately interpret it.
Both of which lead to the same argument of how it is not good for public policy.
1. I'm against laws that require people to believe things that are false. That's the very definition of tyranny. There's no such thing as "gay marriage": requiring people, by force of law, to act as though "gay marriage" exists or is even possible is tyrannical.
2. Homosexual acts are gravely immoral. Government should not encourage or facilitate things that are gravely immoral.
3. Homosexual "culture" is pornographic, unhealthy, and destructive. Government should take pains to prevent homosexual "communities" from developing in which this lifestyle is considered normative.
Umm saying that a culture is pornographic is ridiculous. I am quite sure that more hetero sexual people watch porn and contribute much more to the porn industry than gays. There are plenty of promiscuous hetero sexual people. Does this mean that men and women shouldn't marry each other? There is so much focus on the definition of "marriage", like any other word it can be redefined and can have more than one meaning. To some it is a vow, a life long committment and for some a way to gain citizenship or get benefits and a piece of paper. Not everyone thinks the same and not everyone believes what the bible says.
Who are you to judge and who are you to decide who should or should not marry each other? The moral police? Do you go around shouting at people and telling them that premarital sex is wrong? Do you tell every glutton that they have more than enough? Do you condemn every person that is thinking about getting a divorce or cheats on their spouse? It really isn't any of your business and in case you haven't noticed, there are homosexual communities all over the United States. Married or not, they are there. By the way, you're a little off on your definition of tyranny.
It seems that you wouldn't mind a tyrant as long as the tyrant believes exactly what you do. Obviously you have no issue with the government telling two consenting adults what they can and cannot do (even if it is hurting no one). This is not a theocracy. What makes your ideas so different than that of the Taliban? Should we stone people in the streets and humiliate them for sinning?
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.
