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.
That is the whole point. At 5 you aren't sexual...you are a little kid who can be influenced. So if marriage is woman/man,man/man,woman woman....why wouldn't a little 5 year or boy get confused?
Not another person who thinks romantic relationships are all about sex. Are you all hypersexual or something and you want everyone else to be as well?
Why are conservatives placing so much value on a word? Is it because they have so few in their vocabulary?
You'd be surprised at how many conservatives I've encounterd who are in favor of gay marriage. The especially intelligent ones are far more concerned about other political issues, anyway.
That is the whole point. At 5 you aren't sexual...you are a little kid who can be influenced. So if marriage is woman/man,man/man,woman woman....why wouldn't a little 5 year or boy get confused?
El
I have 1,3 and 5 year old boys. I don't think they have noticed gay couples yet since you don't see too many in my neck of the woods. We will just have to explain to them when the time is right that some guys like guys and etc. Whether the couples are married or not will come later. But whether it is legal or not, we will have to go through the explanation process and explain that the gay community wants gay marriage. How would it be any more confusing?
I was right there with you for the longest time. Change the definition of marriage? That's silly. I don't like redefining things. I opens the door to redefining everything.
Then I kept reading Gay Marriage, Gay Marriage. It is not a change in the definition of marriage, it is a new form of marriage. "Gay" Marriage. I'm cool with that.
Whenever marriage includes anything other than one man and one woman, it is changing the definition.
Not liking something doesn't make it a bad idea. You give no specific reasons, but based on your other posts, I know where you stand.
The definition isn't changing. That militant heterosexuals would claim the definition is changing is outlandish. They are uncomfortable with what they perceive to be LESSER individuals making a claim on something they value. Although, if they valued it so much, why do they terminate over half of them? (that's another debate altogether).
IF the premise of marriage is an expression of the love between two mentally sound adult humans, then gender doesn't matter.
IF the premise of marriage is the propagation of the species (wait, that can't be true because you can have children without being married!) then marriage would only be restricted to heterosexual couplings.
So any argument that marriage is meant to propagate the species is invalid as they are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the other premise of marriage (LOVE) should override all other considerations. And love isn't exclusively heterosexual.
I gave my answer to the question asked in the first post. Obviously, some won't agree with it.
You'd be surprised at how many conservatives I've encounterd who are in favor of gay marriage. The especially intelligent ones are far more concerned about other political issues, anyway.
Well, I hope that they are intelligent enough to vote the conservative politicians who are highly obsessed with homosexuality out of office.
If a Bi-sexual wants to marry their main spouse "marriage", then have a "domestic partnership" with another spouse, they're not of the same sex right? Marriage is between a Man & Woman, Man & Man, or Woman & Woman. But a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union? If there's a loophole they'll find one.
You'll then have those who want their rights recognized, Man & Man & Woman, Woman & Woman & Man.
You can only have one wife at a time with marriage, but what's stopping them if you're a man/woman can you have more than one spouse? Wife & Husband?
Sure why not. After homosexual marriage, the next progression will be allowing plural marriages. Warren Jeffs only has to bide his time.
If a Bi-sexual wants to marry their main spouse "marriage", then have a "domestic partnership" with another spouse, they're not of the same sex right? Marriage is between a Man & Woman, Man & Man, or Woman & Woman. But a Domestic Partnership or Civil Union? If there's a loophole they'll find one.
You'll then have those who want their rights recognized, Man & Man & Woman, Woman & Woman & Man.
You can only have one wife at a time with marriage, but what's stopping them if you're a man/woman can you have more than one spouse? Wife & Husband?
Sure why not. After homosexual marriage, the next progression will be allowing plural marriages. Warren Jeffs only has to bide his time.
And the government's interest in regulating this, through either prohibition or recognition, is what?
If two men and a dog want to have a marriage, that's fine with me. Keep the state out of it, just like they should stay out of any relationship between one man and one woman.
Because if we didn't defend the definitions of words you liberals would change them at will...
Like the original meaning of the word "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.
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.
The Bi-sexuals will be next!
