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.
They are marry men - women. In fact, if one examines marriage in history the majority of cultures define marriage as one man and woman, unrelated.
There are some exception, but they are actually quite rate.
Try again!
Don't need to try again, because you are mostly wrong... the definition HAS changed numerous times, the "exceptions" are not rare, and in many cultures (both past & present) has included multiple men and/or women. Marriage has also been allowed between closely-related individuals, in fact a first cousin was considered the ideal match in some cultures (like my own). We also allowed men to legally rape their wives, and married women were considered the property of their husbands. So no, YOU need to try again!
I see this argument on extraordinarily jello like foundation if we maintain your version of what marriage was intended for in the annals of history. If a man or woman is unable to produce children shall they be excluded from being able to marry? No children will naturally be involved by their union from a biological perspective... shall you exclude them by not recognizing their bond? Would they be entitled to the same rights as child bearing married couple's in a seperately defined union that you would proclaim?
There is no practical way to exclude men and women from a marriage on the basis they won't have kids short of mandating a sterility test of each person. But besides the exceptions of these being very small (who can't biologically have children) and it being 100% for homosexual males and 100% for homosexual females (short of science) it misses the crucial point:
Marriage was intended to prevent children being born out of wedlock not so much to push every couple to have children (but it does this in a way, hence traditions like the 'honeymoon'). Think of it like a seatbelt: we require people to wear one (btw I'm against anyone being required to wear a seatbelt) not because we expect everyone who gets in a car to get into an accident but in order to save the people who do get into an accident.
So in the end, recognizing homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue. It's a mere redefinition of the word which we can do btw, but it should be done by popular vote. Allow the states to vote it in one by one and when 2/3 (or 3/4, forgot the Constitutional rule) we can require the remaining states to recognize it.
This is what the OP is missing: Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems. It was considered a type of mental illness but was removed after the homosexuals threw a few fits at the conferences. The thing is, it was not so much the "sexual" but the other ills from which they suffer. They want "marriage" instead of civil unions because they want to be accepted as "normal" and to believe that what they are doing is not immoral. They insist that God made them that way so some do rely on their religious beliefs to justify their behaviors but homosexuals acts, acts of sodomy, are a choice, an immoral choice that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are involved in. No one is "scared" of gay marriage or "scared" of gays,well, unless they are trying to recruit our kids which is what teaching kids in school that 2 mommies or 2 daddies is "normal" amounts to. I am sure a few of you are familiar with "sex before 8 or it is too late"? Yeah, "normal"! Erase the stigma and it won't matter because it amounts to a set of symptoms that got it considered a mental health issue. Seriously, keep your sins out of my face if you don't want my opinion on what you are doing. Don't try to recruit? Trust me, that is a lie, major!
Your post shows you have an aversion to facts. If your religious beliefs require you to lie, make up nonsense, and ignore facts, then what does that say about your religious beliefs?
That is all true, not to mention the majority of American Jews support same-sex marriage. Heck, my old synagogue even had a lesbian Rabbi! So when people use the religion excuse, I always have to ask "according to which god?" Certainly not mine.
I've also never understood that old saying "hate the sin, love the sinner," and have come to learn it's just another attempt to excuse their hate. They don't just hate the sin, they project that onto the "sinner" as well. There are many sins/behaviors I don't like either, but unless they're ones that directly harm other people (i.e. murder, theft), I would never support passing laws based on them.
What's bizarre is that the saying "Love the sinner hate the sin" is not found in the Bible.
It's a quote from Gandhi.
Gandhi also said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"
Why are people who choose to be gay so intent on redefining marriage in order to legitimize their immoral lifestyle?
For the 6 millionth the time, people do NOT "choose" to be Gay.
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.