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, some people like weddings, some hate them. Kind of like shopping.
Myself: my wedding was so long ago, there actually was magic. We hired a wizard for the reception who did some really impressive fireworks and turned smoke-rings into ships and stuff.
I do not look down on gay people or their relationships. Where I live, gays are a significant minority and about 20% of the couples on our block are committed couples. They make fine neighbors and good parents. I do not object to their having legal protections for their relationships and their families, but the issue of whether or not they can truly be married once it is permitted in Minnesota (and yes, I see that as almost inevitable) is not yours or mine to decide. They may be married in the eyes of the law, and in the views of many of the citizens, but they will never truly be married because not matter what we call the formalization of their relationship, marriage can only be between one man and one woman. They will consider themselves to be married as will many of you, and that's fine as far as it goes. But just because you call something by a name, that doesn't mean you change the intrinsic nature of that thing.
I know this is a very hard concept for many of you, likely because you do not want to accept it. But if I call my cat a dog, does she become a dog? What if everyone decides that cats are now dogs? We could all agree on that, but would my cat BE a dog? Some of you may say, yes, cat and dog are man made terms, and the differences between the species are man made constructs which we devised for our own convenience, but I think she would remain different from a dog no matter what we called her.So it is with "gay" marriage. It is similar but essentially different from marriage in a fundamental way: the sex and number of participants.
This really has nothing to do with "phobia" or fear or religion. It is a question of whether or not we can make things that are unlike like by grouping them together under one naming convention. In my opinion, we cannot, and so no matter what the laws or society decide, there simply cannot be marriage between two people of the same sex.
And a 'voter' used to be a white male land owner. Blacks and women couldn't be 'voters'. Words change, society changes. If you want to live in the dark ages yourself, go ahead. Personally, I think you're just using semantics as an excuse for prejudice. You are just attaching your own personal meaning to a word, other people attach different meanings. The world does not revolve around what meanings you attach to words.
It's the anti-gay marriage folks who are caught up in the TITLE. They so want the title of "Marriage" unto themselves, they don't want to share it with gay people.
Personally, I don't care one way or another what the law is called. The Constitution promises equal treatment under the law (not a set of parallel laws that each discriminate against a "competing" segment of society, but in the end somehow balance out). If the law is called marriage, then I want gay marriage. If the law is called civil union, then I want gay civil union. If the law is called eaglkjdi, then I want gay eaglkjdi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
So, it isn't EQUALITY you are interested in, it is the access to the TITLE!
Thank you for making that very clear.
Thank you for making it very clear that you don't bother to even read other peoples posts before responding to them
Even a cat knows the natural order of things. Cats mate w/ the opposite sex. Some people claim to be high functioning and intelligent, but cat's actually appear to have the upper hand in this particular area.
I have a very high opinion of cats. They quite possibly are the highest form of life on earth, and we(people) can learn a lot from them,
Why should I - and everybody else - be governed by your particular religious and traditional conceptions of familiar constructs? We don't live in a theocracy (although I imagine you wish we did).
Oh, so you just think we should do away with civil marriage legal framework and let couples construct any contract they want to? That seems very strange to me. First, can't any unmarried (and not wanting to get married) couple already do that when it comes to things like property distribution?
And how would you deal with the many, many legal rights of marriage that could not be dealt with by personal contracts between 2 people? I'm think things like spousal immigration visas, military wives being able to live in base housing and shop at the commissary, etc. Your "compromise" seems woefully inadequate, unless of course you want to just do away with these rights and start deporting foreign born spouses and throwing military wives out of base housing.
Remember, you are talking to someone who posts that they want to marry their cat. You can't really expect rational intelligent opinions from someone like that.
Not all conservatives fit the stereotype as someone who believes all gays are promiscuous. Some of them realize that while statistically yes, most people who engage in this perverse lifestyle are prone to promiscuity, drug use and diseases associated with these activities this by no means defines everyone in this demographic.
As for divorce rates, I would like to see a 'valid' study examining the rise of the gay lifestyle in American society alongside the rise in divorce and social issues plaguing teens and young adults.
I think someone brave enough to buck group-think from the ivory tower might find some interesting parallels.
Wow. Yes, you DO fit the stereotype. You just proved it with this post based on pure ignorance and prejudice. ^
Marriage is between and man and women..period. a marriage of any other combination is not right and actually pretty disgusting. Homosexuals are clearly mentioned in the bible and is pretty damn clear how God feels about them. How can anyone challenge what God feels? It does not matter what we think about it, if God says its wrong...its wrong, nothing we can do about it.
Also important to keep in mind, sodomy is illegal, just last week I heard of someone being charged with this around here, not sure of the details, but sodomy is something between and man and another man.Just something to think about.
If homosexuals were meant to be, they would have the ability to produce children, but ONLY a man and woman can do that..nothing we can do will ever change that fact!
Sorry to burst your holy fantasies, but there are far more heterosexuals commiting 'sodomy' right this minute.
No, it is not safe to say that. It is safe to say marriage was always a proxy for the purposes a family unit with off spring.
Except when it wasn't.
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.
