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.
Then, of course, homosexuality was practiced in past cultures and societies (see: Greek and Roman). And even today, there are cultures, societies, and countries that "allow" the practice of homosexuality and "allow" marriages between people of the same gender (like the Netherlands and Spain).
There is no universal, world-wide recognition, acknowledgement or acceptance of homosexual “marriage” because society doesn’t want it otherwise we’d have it everywhere by now. Man and woman marriage is desired, valued and recognized by worldwide society. Attacking, ridiculing and demonizing folks who want marriage to remain unchanged does nothing to elicit one iota of tolerance or acceptance either and in fact works quite effectively the other way.
The state has no business in marriage at all. The Amish marry and don't require state licenseing that I know of here.
Marriage is a contract between two people and the state has no business in that affair until the contract may be called into question. Then the courts can decide.
There is also the financial angle. Legal marriage means spousal benefits for insurance, SS spousal benefits, survivor benefits and so on. Two guys or gals who aren't even gay could do that just to game the system for benefits. Big can of worms.
I'm not sure if two guys or gals who aren't gay would wait until gay marriage is passed to marry for benefits when they can do so right now in a heterosexual "relationship".
The only thing that logically would happen is that many gays would be able to receive the benefits that they should have access to - the benefits that my my husband and I started receiving the day that we took our relationship of 6 years and received the government's "Seal of Approval".
I almost wonder how many people would get a government-sponsored marriage if absolutely no benefits would come from it, except for making a break-up harder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
There is no universal, world-wide recognition, acknowledgement or acceptance of homosexual “marriage” because society doesn’t want it otherwise we’d have it everywhere by now.
Appeal to Common Practice and Circular Reasoning
There is no universal or world-wide recognition that women are equal to men, either. Does that mean that women should not be treated equally? In fact, there are very few things that are the same universally and recognized world-wide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
Man and woman marriage is desired, valued and recognized by worldwide society.
False.
The only thing that is truly desired, valued, and recognized worldwide is that each and every person act as a productive member of society - whether in a union or marriage, raising children, or any of the other needs of society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
Attacking, ridiculing and demonizing folks who want marriage to remain unchanged does nothing to elicit one iota of tolerance or acceptance either and in fact works quite effectively the other way.
The only attacks I've seen in the discussion came from those who feel that homosexuals are "abominations" and should be "villified" and "demonized. The only ridiculing I've seen in the discussion came from those attempting to claim that those who are fine with "abnormal" relationship types must indeed partake in them. The only demonizing I've seen in the discussion came from those who outwardly stated that discrimination is fine and that homosexuals should be villified and demonized.
Aside from that, the pointing out fallacies (errors in application of logic) is done so that hopefully people will attempt to make more logical arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
How do you know he didn't? There was a lot that was never written down.
Having said that, he did affirm the Mosaic Law, which explicitly condemns it. Nevermind the fact that He is God, and did explicitly condemn it, as it's recorded in the OT. The apostle Paul was also inspired to write condemning statements regarding it in his letter to the Romans.
Really...that weak argument is just not a sound argument.
And using religion as an arguing point in discussing legal/illegal in a non-theocratic country is just not a sound argument.
In America, we have a multitude of religions - whether mainstream or not - and not all of them feel the same about x, y, or z.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51
The state has no business in marriage at all. The Amish marry and don't require state licenseing that I know of here.
Marriage is a contract between two people and the state has no business in that affair until the contract may be called into question. Then the courts can decide.
Actually, even the Amish have to get marriage licenses. Many also have social security numbers and even vote in certain elections.
Marriage is indeed a contract between people. However, the government provides benefits and protections towards married couples that would have to be completely eliminated if we wanted to remove government from marriages. While many of these benefits and protections can be taken care of with legal documents and a good lawyer, somethings like FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) can not be simply drafted into a legal document that a workplace has to abide by.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 02-10-2011 at 11:19 AM..
It isn’t a “claim” as you call it, it is reality. Marriage is, has been, and always will be recognized as one man and one woman just as it has been before recorded human history in every culture and society worldwide.
There is so much wrong with this statement I think I'll simply ask for your explanation of states such as Massachusetts, Iowa and few others and countries such as Great Britain, Sweden and others. If marriage is and "always will be" defined solely as one man/one woman, what's up with those states and countries? Me thinks it is you who are not living in 'reality'.
That would depend on what God, god or goddess one believes in. Or did you not know that, especially in this country, we are all free to believe however we wish? As a non-denominational Christian who follows the teachings of Christ Jesus, I choose to believe that God is never against love, in whatever form it happens.
In the end, what does religion have to do with it? Christianity does not own marriage. It does not rule this land. It has no bearing on equal rights, priveleges, and protections for the people no matter their sexual orientation. I cannot believe religion is even brought up in such an issue. Let me check my calendar..no, not the dark ages. For a second there I had my doubts.
The only thing that is truly desired, valued, and recognized worldwide is
Homosexuals have always been with us so why, after all this time, is there still no universally recognized homosexual “marriage”? If worldwide society wanted, desired or valued homosexual “marriage” then we’d have it everywhere by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rita Mordio
The only attacks I've seen in the discussion came from those
As evidenced by your replies it is clear that you see only what you choose to see. People on this forum have been personally attacked, ridiculed and belittled because they do not adhere to the homosexual agenda and do not want marriage changed.
It amazes me how Christians seem to want government out of their business and get a tea baggie about it. But they seem to be just fine telling others how to live according to their book of fairy tails. LOL rubes.
Marriage is indeed a contract between people. However, the government provides benefits and protections towards married couples that would have to be completely eliminated if we wanted to remove government from marriages. While many of these benefits and protections can be taken care of with legal documents and a good lawyer, somethings like FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) can not be simply drafted into a legal document that a workplace has to abide by.
Not quite. I enter into contracts everyday with people. The government has no say in that contract whatsoever unless there is a dispute bewtween myself and the other(s) in the contract. No dispute, no need for the government.
Same with marriage. Two people get married, have a legal contract, and can provide it for evidence, then what is the need for the government, except to interpert it for a legal reason? The government has no business telling people who can or can not enter into a contract.
As for the family leave act, the government has no right to dictate to business what it can and should do with its employees if it doesn't violate the Constitution, but that is a different matter.
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.
