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.
didn't say all..my opinion most people against are from my generation and older..mid 50's on up..
Glad you said it was your opinion, because I can tell you I know quite a few of my sons' generation and younger who are against. My nieces and nephews and I have had many discussions on these issues. But I know that many of them get that attitude from their churches. I'm not going to tell them that they should change religions (or churches) but I do tell them the same things I say here - that religious beliefs have nothing to do with the laws in this country. Religious beliefs are meant to control the believer's life, not everyone else's.
. . .
Where does your definition of marriage come from? It's not the Constitution, and even in this country the definition has changed.
I haven't the foggiest clue why you think your personal opinion on the meaning of marriage, has any bearing on a secular society made up with people who strongly disagree with you.
My definition of marriage lol.
"My personal opinion" on the meaning of marriage as you call it is the widely accepted definition.
Rome, Greece and the American Indian people before the US government stepped in. Also the Easter Islanders. Same sex marriage and relationships go all the way back in our history and probably into our prehistory.
If you have links to articles that makes claims of homosexual marriages please post them I would be interested to read them.
I know that relationships have existed but I have not read anything about homosexual marriages existing.
I would like to know what happened in those societies.
Sexual discrimination is treating men and women unequally under the law. Men cannot marry men. Women cannot marry women. There is no unequal treatment here. Men can marry women. Women can marry men. Neither is discriminated against in marriage laws.
The "discrimination", as perceived by same-sex marriage proponents, is purely the belief that any consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have a "right" that does not now exist for anyone i.e. the right to marry someone of the same gender.
Make no mistake, polygamous marriage will be next. Marriage of a man to 4 women is already a part of Sharia law.
How selfish of you to declare you and your straight marriage better than ours and deserve marriage rights based on that. Agnostics and athiests are allowed to marry. GAys are not. Please tell us how my gay marriage affects your straight marriage. If you do, you will be the first. It does not affect you and you fail to come up with how it does, you just say it does and that is not how debates work.
How selfish of you to declare that your gay marriage is better than one involving a polygamous unit. Any ad hoc combination of people and animals that they want to call a committed relationship might be strenuously defended by the participants but their union is not likely to be allowed to be called marriage. The day will likely come when marriage is widened to include gays and polyamorous individuals. It will cease to become the exclusive province of one man and one woman. It won't be called marriage. Because it isn't. However, by sanctioning the simultaneous legal coupling of men and men and women and women in any order and number the former practice which would for sometime continue to be the dominant form of wedding would lose esteem. It will, because thats how humans operate. If the practitioners of "marriage" do not defend it, they will lose it. Period. Gays have been offered analogues to "marriage" and that is enough for most. Some want the brass ring because it is there. Once the states cave and give them "marriage" they will confront the religious institutions and demand that they recognize State or Federal Law. Yeppers, that is what will happen the nanosecond straight people start to buy the argument that there really isn't any harm to 'us' in allowing marriage to be defined in any way that the people being married want it to be.
Argumentum ad popularum. Just because many accept it, doesn't make it right.
You are trying to debate a definition; marriage.
Didn't know that the definition of a word had a morality attached to it.
You might say just because people do XX doesn't make it right.
But you assert that a "widely accepted definition of word" doesn't make it right?
So using your thinking one can conclude that just because the widely accepted definition of a divorce is the dissolution of marriage doesn't make it right????
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.
