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.
Well again, why haven't they advocated for civil unions w/ the benefits of marriage?
Are you really that ignorant on exactly what they have been fighting for? News, they've been trying to do this for nearly 40 years! Unfortunately, federal govt benefits can't be legislated at the State Level, and the actions by the Same Sex Marriage have only succeeded in getting states to change their laws.
They are still denied what they would get at the Federal govt level.
Quote:
I really believe there wouldn't be such controversy, if they pushed for this instead of trying to redefine marriage.
Again, marriage has changed definitions for as long as humans were able to speak a language. the definition changed as recently as 1967 to allow interracial marriages. Its about time it got a make over.
By this logic it's also amoral for menopausal women, sterile women and men and people who just plain don't want children to engage in sexual activity.
I knew someone would bring this up. The problem with your comment is, women in their natural healthy state can reproduce, with men in their natural healthy state.
However, men in their natural healthy state, can never reproduce with other men in their natural healthy state, just as women in their natural healthy state, can never reproduce with other women in their natural healthy state.
So, if there's ever a preponderance of homosexual activity, the human race will cease to exist, because homosexuals can never naturally produce children. Does this seem normal to you?
Well again, why haven't they advocated for civil unions w/ the benefits of marriage? I really believe there wouldn't be such controversy, if they pushed for this instead of trying to redefine marriage.
Why shouldn't we, if it addresses unfairness and injustice?
How is it unfair or unjust? Marriage was never intended to give people benefits because they wanted to live together and have sex. If a gay man wants to marry he can marry a woman. If a gay woman wants to marry she can marry a man. Just like straight men and women. Where is the injustice?
How is it unfair or unjust? Marriage was never intended to give people benefits because they wanted to live together and have sex. If a gay man wants to marry he can marry a woman. If a gay woman wants to marry she can marry a man. Just like straight men and women. Where is the injustice?
Because a man should be able to marry a man.
Marriage, as it was in biblical times was polygamous in nature, yet your definition doesn't allow for that now. So if its about "what it used to be", we need to change things already.
And you know what? They did a lot of things in the middle ages, and biblical times that we don't do now, because we realize its wrong. Slavery, being one, another thing that the Bible says is ok, but we realize is morally wrong.
Marriage was defined as no one could marry outside their own race. Asian could only marry Asians, white could only marry whites.
The definition of marriage changed as recently as 1967 when Loving vs. Virginia was decied on by the US Supreme Court.
Marriage has been redefined throughout the years, to accommodate the modern concept of unity and of course legal issues. Its been nearly 50 years since Loving vs Virginia; its about time marriage is redefined to fit the modern world.
The problem with this argument is, Asian men and white women can reproduce healthy viable off spring, just as white men and black women can produce healthy and viable children..
Research shows that race is a social construction. Yes, we have different colors, but in truth, if a healthy man of any race, reproduces with a healthy woman of any race, a healthy child will likely occur from this union.
Two men who have sex with each other or Two women who sleep with each other can never produce a child, under NO circumstances. Again, how is this natural?
Well again, why haven't they advocated for civil unions w/ the benefits of marriage? I really believe there wouldn't be such controversy, if they pushed for this instead of trying to redefine marriage.
Separate isn't equal. There are prejudiced people with power in this world, and they'd jump on any chance to make the point that "Well, they're not married, so clearly they weren't menat to have the same rights." And people would be denied access to their loved one's sickbed or denied their rights to inherit a same-sex spouse or denied equal treatment when taking out insurance or any other of the hundreds of little or big humiliations that comes as part of the package when you're an unpopular minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary20852
I don't either, but I understand the larger ramifications of normalizing homosexuality. Examine ancient Greece and Rome.
What about them? Both were exceptionally successful civilizations. If the US gets a run to compare to either one, you'll have done well. And I might add that neither fell due to normalization of homosexuality.
How is it unfair or unjust? Marriage was never intended to give people benefits because they wanted to live together and have sex. If a gay man wants to marry he can marry a woman. If a gay woman wants to marry she can marry a man. Just like straight men and women. Where is the injustice?
You can't see the injustice of someone marrying someone they don't actually love, a sham marriage just for the sake of "appearances?" And why would the unloved spouse want to enter in such a union? You don't see the injustice of not being able to marry whom you want legally, and be recognized as a legal union?
Marriage, as it was in biblical times was polygamous in nature, yet your definition doesn't allow for that now. So if its about "what it used to be", we need to change things already.
And you know what? They did a lot of things in the middle ages, and biblical times that we don't do now, because we realize its wrong. Slavery, being one, another thing that the Bible says is ok, but we realize is morally wrong.
I'm talking about the Roman institution. Marriage has in it the root word=matr meaning mother.
To me it makes sense, a man and a woman who want to join in union to produce children deserve some extra stability afforded by law to make the family work. two men or two women can have all the sex they want but why should society extend them benefits to help their union? What good does their union do for our society?
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.
