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.
So good luck changing the constitution to be inclusive of homosexuality as a protected minority who deserve to marry.
Our constitution is based on NATURAL LAW. And because it's based on natural law, you will have to bring to debate whether homosexuality is a natural act.
I think it'll happen in time.
Constitutional amendments were necessary so that people of our gender could vote....some people would argue (and certainly did at the time) that that's against your "natural law".
So good luck changing the constitution to be inclusive of homosexuality as a protected minority who deserve to marry.
Our constitution is based on NATURAL LAW. And because it's based on natural law, you will have to bring to debate whether homosexuality is a natural act.
Ask any Zoologist if they think homosexual behaviour is a 'natural' act
Nearly every type of same-sex activity found among humans has its counterpart in the animal kingdom. homosexual behaviour is as "natural" as heterosexual behaviour.
After posting on endless threads about homosexuality, I have never had a single response to my question. Taking religion out of the equation, because it has no bearing on state issues, why should same sex couples not be given a legal marriage license. It is nothing but a legal agreement between the state and the couple. It has absolutely nothing to do with your religious beliefs. It is a state contract, a government document, nothing more. I don't care what you believe, it is not supposed to have any bearing on government business. A fact which seems to have been lost.
Far too many people use their religious beliefs to justify their decisions where government is concerned. The "Muslim" uproar when it came to Obama is a prime example. It shouldn't have mattered what his religion might be. It has nothing to do with government business. Americans want to live the dream of America without allowing all Americans to live that very same dream because of conflicting views that don't fit into some American's idea of what this country is. We are supposed to stand for absolute freedom. So why do the religious feel they should hold others back based on views that have no bearing when dealing with government activities.
So, would anyone care to answer my question? Stick to the OP please, no more religious ranting. If you have a concrete reason you feel these unions should not be legalized other than religious hangups, I would really like to hear them. Otherwise, go post on the other threads.
I personally think religion comes into this way too much and others use religion to hide behind.I am straight,and married with kids so a gay couples rights would not effect me,so why would I deprive them in a country that is supposed to offer freedoms to all? If a couple man/woman, woman/woman, pr man/man wants to get married,we should let them. Why can hate groups march and spread their hate just by registering in a state office but a peaceful couple not sign a marriage license? The one thing I personally know about all old books and documents is that in time they get outdated and some can no longer pertain to a modern day society.The christian belief condemning this is I consider outdated. Lets finally evolve like apes and neanderthal man did!
Ask any Zoologist if they think homosexual behaviour is a 'natural' act
Nearly every type of same-sex activity found among humans has its counterpart in the animal kingdom. homosexual behaviour is as "natural" as heterosexual behaviour.
Some animal behaviors include the mother eating their young, it's an animal behavior so let's say it's normal. When a human does it they're insane. Normal behavior for an animal is not normal for a human.
I guess that depends on your point of view. What is slang to us now will quite possibly be just accepted language in 20 or 30 years. And many words we view as normal now were slang years ago. To call it "speaking like an idiot" is a bit idiotic in itself, since language is a constantly evolving part of society. And besides, no one was talking about using "slang" in any kind of formal documentation. I just really don't get exactly where this argument was supposed to lead us.
Also, what does defining slang have to do with the definition of the word "marriage" other than trying to go off topic and find some off the wall reason to not take it seriously. I had already taken into account the possibility that the definition had been changed to accomodate a new era in history. No one was trying to make you believe anything, I just gave an example of the fact that the definition, according to one of the most popular dictionaries in the world, includes same sex couples. No slang involved, just a straight forward definition.
You are talking about idiomatic use and social acceptance. Legal realms do not function on "slang" as it is confusing and misleading. Because people are stupid and hash the language does not mean we should do the same with intelligent forms of such in our legal and formal systems.
Look at our education levels. The kids are getting dumber, they are not being held to any standard because we keep telling them everyone can be right, that "what it means to me" is a valid form of understanding concerning objective and quantifiable means.
Now for less formal realms, people can call it as they like, but in formal realms we must hold on to sanity otherwise society will eventually be reduced to a bunch of drooling morons who can't communicate because words will have absolutely no meaning and will be unable to clarify any real meaning.
On the legal front, marriage means specifically a set of conditions. A civil union explains the purpose to which marriage does not. Outside of that, people can call it anything they like, but forcing definition changes just to meet an emotional demand is ridiculous.
Some animal behaviors include the mother eating their young, it's an animal behavior so let's say it's normal. When a human does it they're insane. Normal behavior for an animal is not normal for a human.
Well heterosexual behaviour is noted in the animal kingdom and human kingdom (which is apart of the animal kingdom)... so should a label be made that heterosexual behaviour is not normal?
Not all animals are alike.. our closest relative is the Chimpanzee - when a 3 year old baby chimp died, the mother was observed carrying it in the wild for 3 weeks because she couldn't accept the fact the baby was dead. This type of behaviour isn't the same as those of the animals you cite. Chimpanzee's also freely engage in homo, hetero and bi sexual behaviour - the case for natural is made!
Well heterosexual behaviour is noted in the animal kingdom and human kingdom (which is apart of the animal kingdom)... so should a label be made that heterosexual behaviour is not normal?
What?
Heterosexual behavior e.g. "sex acts" are natural and not abnormal because they occur between two people of opposite sexes. Homosexual sex acts are abnormal.
The only reason the animal kingdom and humans are alive today is from heterosexual sex acts. And you are the product of heterosexuals even if you don't identify as being one yourself.
Heterosexual sex acts are natural and not abnormal.
you were the one who said humans shouldn't mimic animal behaviours - i'm just saying heterosexual behavioiur is noted in the wild - animals engage in this behaviour so by your logic humans should not.
Heterosexual behavior e.g. "sex acts" are natural and not abnormal because they occur between two people of opposite sexes. Homosexual sex acts are abnormal.
The only reason the animal kingdom and humans are alive today is from heterosexual sex acts. And you are the product of heterosexuals even if you don't identify as being one yourself.
Yes i'm not advocating eradicating heterosexual behaviour - why are you advocating eradicating homosexual behaviour - the case for both behaviours is made in the wild - this you can't deny -
It is lunacy to equate eating a child in a lower order animal the same as in chimps or humans..we evolved to appreciate our young, but chimps did not evolve to not engage in bisexual or homosexual behaviour because there is a reason for it... Just because you don't understand the reason and claim it is abnormal and unnatural doesn't make it so -- are you god?
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.
