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 ONE is asking to be allowed to marry a 5 year old or an animal! Why is it you have to jump from a simple subject like same sex marriage to pedophilia and/or bestiality? Or is that just your way of insinuating that same sex relationships are the same as pedophilia or bestiality? Here's a clue for you - they are no where near the same! Wills can be challenged - in fact are challenged all the time. And child custody is also challenged all the time - even when both names are on the adoption papers. And should the child be the biological child of one of the partners, in many states the other partner is not allowed to adopt that child like a step parent in a heterosexual marriage can.
As for your last paragraph, leave the religious aspects out of it please, because marriage in this country is defined by the state, not by the church.
Most marriages are performed in churches (I forgot- most libs are atheist- never mind) and involve a marriage liscence from the state to be recognized as legal. While the former is not necessary for a legal marriage, the latter is. Additiontally, foriegn marriage liscence for marriages performed in that country are recognized in the US. I should know- we were married in Scotland and do not have a US marriage liscence, yet it is legally recognized in the US.
When you involve a state liscencing entity, you are involving the will and laws of the people, which are subject to change if the will of the people dictate it. That is how you involve the public in your personal matters. I do not agree with gay marriage and do not want it endorsed by the state. much in the same way you do not want me to own a tank, despite my interest in owning one. It is the law. You would say that the inability to get married infringes upon your rights, just as I say not being able to have a tank is an infringment upon my rights. That is what the law says for now- maybe in the future you can get married and I can get a tank. The involvement of the church, of course, is optional. Again, most libs are atheists anyway, so they probably do not care about that issue.
Gay marriage and marriage to animals or children? Sure! Where does it end? Again, I think that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM psychiatric classification was a tremendous medical error, driven by politics, rather than science. I do not think that gay marriage is normal by any means, nor is marriage to an animal, child, or inantimate object. None should be endorsed by the state or the church. There are certain reasons for these laws. What about nudity in public? Marriage of one sibling to another? Why not ban all obscenity laws and have the "F" word on headlines in the paper? Bestiality? No problem.
The decline in the moral fabric of a nation will herald its political and economic decline, as it has through history. Whatever nation eventually takes us over will not welcome the prospect of gay marriage and you may find even "coming out of the closet" may be a little risky under thier tuteledge.
Most marriages are performed in churches (I forgot- most libs are atheist- never mind) and involve a marriage liscence from the state to be recognized as legal. While the former is not necessary for a legal marriage, the latter is. Additiontally, foriegn marriage liscence for marriages performed in that country are recognized in the US. I should know- we were married in Scotland and do not have a US marriage liscence, yet it is legally recognized in the US.
When you involve a state liscencing entity, you are involving the will and laws of the people, which are subject to change if the will of the people dictate it. That is how you involve the public in your personal matters. I do not agree with gay marriage and do not want it endorsed by the state. much in the same way you do not want me to own a tank, despite my interest in owning one. It is the law. You would say that the inability to get married infringes upon your rights, just as I say not being able to have a tank is an infringment upon my rights. That is what the law says for now- maybe in the future you can get married and I can get a tank. The involvement of the church, of course, is optional. Again, most libs are atheists anyway, so they probably do not care about that issue.
Gay marriage and marriage to animals or children? Sure! Where does it end? Again, I think that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM psychiatric classification was a tremendous medical error, driven by politics, rather than science. I do not think that gay marriage is normal by any means, nor is marriage to an animal, child, or inantimate object. None should be endorsed by the state or the church. There are certain reasons for these laws. What about nudity in public? Marriage of one sibling to another? Why not ban all obscenity laws and have the "F" word on headlines in the paper? Bestiality? No problem.
The decline in the moral fabric of a nation will herald its political and economic decline, as it has through history. Whatever nation eventually takes us over will not welcome the prospect of gay marriage and you may find even "coming out of the closet" may be a little risky under thier tuteledge.
Like I needed more proof you were WAY out of touch.
Do you attend the same church as the AZ preacher who advocated death for gays, Obama, and liberals?
When you have the Pope telling Africans that it does not good to wear condoms, I'd have to say that Catholicism is a bigger threat to humanity than homosexuality.
You make a marked distinction. There is a difference between "legal" equality and "social" equality.
"Social equality" is simply the common decency we afford all members of society, regardless of who they are.
"Legal equality" is a little different. Let me ask you- should an adult pedophile, wanting to marry a five year old child, be afforded the same legal rights as an adult married couple? What about a man and an animal? How about a brother and sister? Regarding inheritance- just write a will. It is pretty simple. Regarding children, when you adopt you have legal authority to the children you have adopted. What is the issue there?
I think that gays should have, and in many states do have, recognition as a partners and as a result, the insurance and legal benefits that occur in that instance. However, to call it "marriage" brings into play formal recognition by the state AND THE CHURCH. That brings sexuality from being a private issue to being a public issue and involves that particular congregation as well as citizens of the state. You are forcing your personal views on others, which is not appropriate. I am not saying "stay in the closet". What I am saying is to be polite and respect the privacy of others as well, who are not interested in your sexual orientation and do not want it rammed down our throats. I do not agree at all with gay marriage, as it changes it from a personal issue to one that involves the views of the rest of the population. If we don't want it- it will be voted down. That is way law works for now. Stick with you partnership deals that afford insurance, visitation at hospitals, wills, ect........ but don't force me to accept something that I do not agree with. That is tyranny and never goes over well.
1. Marriage is, and always has been in this Nation, a g'ment institution. Athiests and others have always been permitted to marry in a court room or court house, judges and justices (and even ship's captians) have always been able to conduct legally binging marriages. The only manner in which "The Church" is involved is to conduct religious WEDDING CERIMONIES.
2. Pedophiles are fixated on the AGE of their victims, not the gender, victims that not only cannot make legally binding contracts, but victims who are scarred and harmed on so many levels it is absolutely disgusting and shameful that people would use abused children as ammunition in their War on Gay. Also, animals are incapable of provided legal consent to have sex, and also do not enter into any debate concerning Equality of Marriage except as an uneducated strawman and distraction, and that goes for incestual relationships as well.
Gays harm absolutely no one, and a "gay" marriage is between consenting adults who do not share a familial bond. BTW, if one gay person adopts, their significant other cannot authorize medical treatment in an emergency situation, cannot set them up for school, in some school districts cannot even pick them UP from school, etc.
3. Equality is NOT open to the Democratic Principle, as designed into our Nation by our Founders to keep a Tyranny of the Majority at bay and provide Equality for recognized minorities. Gays are tax paying Citizens of the United States of America, and as such should have the same exact rights as anyone else including the 1400 plus g'ment provided rights and privilages inherent in marriage.
Prop 8 is a perfect example of the rapine of the American Principles of Equality, and an overstepping of the Establishment Clause as well.
4. Civil Unions are NOT an example of Equality, they are an example of a substandard institution that only pretends at offering a "seperate but equal" mentality. A gay couple who labor under this abomination who leave their home area, for vacation, work, funereal or other family gathering, etc. INSTANTLY LOOSE those right and privilages the moment they leave their home municipality. Civil unions simply cannot, and do not, approach the 1400 rights and privilages my wife and I recieved the insant the Justice of the Peace who married us uttered "By the Power vested in me by the State of New York...".
And there is NO logical reason why a gay couple would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars gathering to themselves the same rights and privilages, expensive contract rights and privilages that DO NOT have to be recognized everywhere, just because SOME people get offended when they think gays might enjoy the same government institution as they do.
Gays, as sexual orientation is a natural, inherent part of them, HAVE A RIGHT to enjoy the CIVIL RIGHT that is marriage. People simply have NO RIGHT not to be offended.
Like I needed more proof you were WAY out of touch.
Do you attend the same church as the AZ preacher who advocated death for gays, Obama, and liberals?
Out of touch? See, I think you are out of touch. Just being a permissive radical does not mean that one is "in touch" with anything. "In touch" implies in consensus with the majority. Currently the majaority does not support your position, therefore you are "out of touch". Get "in touch".
This is a simple issue
1. I am asking you to obey the law
2. You don't want to obey the law
3. Currently gay marriage is against the law in most states
3. If you don't like the law, get the votes and your state legislature to change it.
4. If it is the law, I will respect it.
Like many radicals, you resort to nasty buisness and insults. That does nothing for your "cause" and only polarizes more people away from you. It proves the stereotype of mean spirited lesbians reinforces opposition. As your responses have indicated, you are far from mainstream,which is why is why you find acceptance by society difficult. Extremists usually do not fit in, which is what defines them as extremists. Chill out, be less angry, and get older. When you are older you will mellow out some.
Out of touch? See, I think you are out of touch. Just being a permissive radical does not mean that one is "in touch" with anything. "In touch" implies in consensus with the majority. Currently the majaority does not support your position, therefore you are "out of touch". Get "in touch".
This is a simple issue
1. I am asking you to obey the law
2. You don't want to obey the law
3. Currently gay marriage is against the law in most states
3. If you don't like the law, get the votes and your state legislature to change it.
4. If it is the law, I will respect it.
Like many radicals, you resort to nasty buisness and insults. That does nothing for your "cause" and only polarizes more people away from you. It proves the stereotype of mean spirited lesbians reinforces opposition. As your responses have indicated, you are far from mainstream,which is why is why you find acceptance by society difficult. Extremists usually do not fit in, which is what defines them as extremists. Chill out, be less angry, and get older. When you are older you will mellow out some.
Equality is not open to the democratic process, sorry.
There is no reason for equality advocate to "chill out". No one is seeking anyone's permission to enjoy Equality.
There is also no reason for Equality Advocates to "get the people to change the law", else we will see fundamentalist organizations and churches pour millions into propeganda campaigns which shift public opinion from supporting Equality to opposing, as witnessed in the recent Prop 8 fiasco and the "Gathering Storm" propeganda campaign.
Most marriages are performed in churches (I forgot- most libs are atheist- never mind) and involve a marriage liscence from the state to be recognized as legal. While the former is not necessary for a legal marriage, the latter is. Additiontally, foriegn marriage liscence for marriages performed in that country are recognized in the US. I should know- we were married in Scotland and do not have a US marriage liscence, yet it is legally recognized in the US.
Well I'll be sure to let my very conservative son know that he's not supposed to be an atheist and my very liberal, very religious niece know that she's either got to drop the religion or become a conservative. And did you not notice that the remainder of your paragraph simply reaffirms my original statement that marriage in this country is defined by the state and not by the church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
When you involve a state liscencing entity, you are involving the will and laws of the people, which are subject to change if the will of the people dictate it. That is how you involve the public in your personal matters. I do not agree with gay marriage and do not want it endorsed by the state. much in the same way you do not want me to own a tank, despite my interest in owning one. It is the law. You would say that the inability to get married infringes upon your rights, just as I say not being able to have a tank is an infringment upon my rights. That is what the law says for now- maybe in the future you can get married and I can get a tank. The involvement of the church, of course, is optional. Again, most libs are atheists anyway, so they probably do not care about that issue.
First, just for the record, it's not MY rights we're discussing, but the rights of my gay and lesbian friends. And it is the very fact that so many states in this country disallow same sex couples from marrying that is the reason these discussions are necessary - if they were allowed to marry in all states, you'd very likely never read or hear another word on the subject!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Gay marriage and marriage to animals or children? Sure! Where does it end? Again, I think that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM psychiatric classification was a tremendous medical error, driven by politics, rather than science. I do not think that gay marriage is normal by any means, nor is marriage to an animal, child, or inantimate object. None should be endorsed by the state or the church. There are certain reasons for these laws. What about nudity in public? Marriage of one sibling to another? Why not ban all obscenity laws and have the "F" word on headlines in the paper? Bestiality? No problem.
Yes, there are REASONS for disallowing incestuous marriages, plural marriages, marriage to under-age children and such. But I still have never read or heard any reason other that 'it's against my religious beliefs' or 'just the thought of it is icky' or slippery slope crap like 'what's next?' for the banning of same sex marriage. Do you think you could possibly give as a reason that makes sense? Because, so far, all you've got is 'tradition', which isn't a valid reason to prevent anything.
Last edited by MsMcQ LV; 08-29-2009 at 05:39 PM..
Reason: formatting error
Well I'll be sure to let my very conservative son know that he's not supposed to be an atheist and my very liberal, very religious niece know that she's either got to drop the religion or become a conservative. And did you not notice that the remainder of your paragraph simply reaffirms my original statement that marriage in this country is defined by the state and not by the church?
First, just for the record, it's not MY rights we're discussing, but the rights of my gay and lesbian friends. And it is the very fact that so many states in this country disallow same sex couples from marrying that is the reason these discussions are necessary - if they were allowed to marry in all states, you'd very likely never read or hear another word on the subject!
Yes, there are REASONS for disallowing incestuous marriages, plural marriages, marriage to under-age children and such. But I still have never read or heard any reason other that 'it's against my religious beliefs' or 'just the thought of it is icky' or slippery slope crap like 'what's next?' for the banning of same sex marriage. Do you think you could possibly give as a reason that makes sense? Because, so far, all you've got is 'tradition', which isn't a valid reason to prevent anything.
Just show me where, in the law, all states recognize the legality of gay marriage? It is breaking the law and is not recognized. If you want to change the law, that is your perrogative. Give it a try.
Why not have gay marriage?
1. HIV and STDs increase in areas where gay marriage is allowed- it is a public health issue
2. Domestic violence is greater in gay "domestic partherships" than heterosexals- it is therefore not a suitable place for children
3. Gay divorce rates in Massachusetts are higher than heterosexual divorce rates- they are not stable. There are enough broken families
4. Homosexuality only 35 years ago was a part of the DSM 1 diagnositc manual for psychiatry. It was removed for political reasons. Why have children raised in an environment with high affective disorder rates?
5. Gay marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument of "equality" does not wash, as there was never that right.
6. The slippery slope- why not polygamy and bestiality. By the homosexual argument, this would lead to a defacto expansion of the definition of marriage.
Just show me where, in the law, all states recognize the legality of gay marriage? It is breaking the law and is not recognized. If you want to change the law, that is your perrogative. Give it a try.
Why not have gay marriage?
1. HIV and STDs increase in areas where gay marriage is allowed- it is a public health issue
2. Domestic violence is greater in gay "domestic partherships" than heterosexals- it is therefore not a suitable place for children
3. Gay divorce rates in Massachusetts are higher than heterosexual divorce rates- they are not stable. There are enough broken families
4. Homosexuality only 35 years ago was a part of the DSM 1 diagnositc manual for psychiatry. It was removed for political reasons. Why have children raised in an environment with high affective disorder rates?
5. Gay marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument of "equality" does not wash, as there was never that right.
6. The slippery slope- why not polygamy and bestiality. By the homosexual argument, this would lead to a defacto expansion of the definition of marriage.
Prove number 2 or 3. Where have you read this? I have never heard of this at all.
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.
And did you not notice that the remainder of your paragraph simply reaffirms my original statement that marriage in this country is defined by the state and not by the church?
