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, they were mocking him because he's a self-serving attention wh*re.
If you think otherwise, then please explain the hundreds of Christian pro athletes who do all the things I noted in my post without being mocked. Please, explain it to me, I can't wait.
Well one could also say that Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on national tv could be doing it purposely to garner attention, which would then by your logic also make him an attention *****.
But your sister/mother and their husbands are still men and a women. And heterosexual couples can procreate and have the body parts to procreate, maybe some choose not to or there is a problem, but they are still a man and a woman. And men/women or heterosexual couples, in general, can create life. Gay couples can never do this, in general or otherwise. Heterosexual couples are different.
My mom is post menopausal, and my sister has no uterus or ovaries. There is no way they are ever going to reproduce. Their relationships are no different than mine in that they can not reproduce with their spouse biologically. I on the other hand CAN have children, something that neither of them can physically do.
Because marriage is religious as well as civil. So it makes sense to separate marriage and civil unions. That way if a church doesn't want to marry people because those people don't fit their criteria then those people can enter into a civil union instead. Their rights and privileges under the law in secular society are thus exactly what a heterosexual couple's are, while at the same time the religious freedom of people who do not wish to recognize homosexual marriage is maintained.
Of course gay activists don't like that idea. They say that separating civil unions and marriage make it so they are still not fully equal to heterosexuals socially. But Social mores and stigmas aren't really province of the courts. As long as they have a contract which has the exact same terms as a marriage license, equality under the law is maintained.
Churches can, and do, refuse to have wedding ceremonies for couples every day. Those couples can still go to the court house and get married.
So if someone decides to murder someone you love (God forbid that happens), then do you feel as though they would be justified based on their beliefs?
No.
Quote:
Someone can be unmarried but receive rights as a common law marriage. The two can be the same, but it varies state to state.
If a couple is married under the common law, then they are not unmarried. The are, in legal fact, married.
And you didn't answer my question:
Which is it - should gays be able to have access to the same rights straights can get under civil marriage laws via a separate-but-equal civil union law, of should gays "receive the same rights as unmarried couples" - in other words, nothing?
Well one could also say that Michael Sam kissing his boyfriend on national tv could be doing it purposely to garner attention, which would then by your logic also make him an attention *****.
Who put the camera there?
Actually, I think it could be argued that all pro athletes are attention wh***s.
If you truly believe that, then why do you have such an issue with me having a different opinion than you?
There is a difference between what you are stating and asking my opinion. Also your logic is flawed because being harm is all about perspective. If you are rich and someone stole your car, it would not relatively harm you, but if someone stole from someone who is poor, then it could hurt them. The same would apply here. I could argue way in which something you do can harm me, but you may not see that way. Just like you can do the inverse. Who's right, who's wrong. Your ideology is based on personal opinion and will always be subjective.
That's not necessarily true. I think gay relationships should not be considered marriage under law because I do not believe they are equal. They would receive the same rights as unmarried couples.
The 14th amendment has something to say on the topic.
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Does your story change the fact that heterosexual couples, in general, have the ability to procreate? Does your story mean that a man and a woman can never create a child? So what have you proven? You have given anecdotal evidence to prove what?
To prove that it doesn't matter that not every combination of couples can procreate. Most gay people, like straight people have the ability to procreate with the opposite sex, but they choose not to. Not having children, does not diminish the love two people have for each other, nor does it make their relationship less important than two people who have children.
If you don't like gay people, you should be blaming the straight people producing them. Do you think you can't have a gay child?
Last edited by ElizaTeal; 05-12-2014 at 11:30 AM..
The only moral code that exists in this country are our laws. The Bible is not a legitimate moral code, and never will be.
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.