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 then you recognize that their job is to legislate and not the judges, right?
Their job is to legislate within the bounds of the Constitution. Right-wing religious theocrats often ignore this, and unconstitutionally try and legislate their religious beliefs upon everybody. Thankfully our system was set up with checks and balances including a judiciary that remedies such injustices.
Interesting how none of the right-wingers in this thread have responded to the OP's interesting point. Instead they've all changed the subject to religion.
How can something prevalent in nature be "unnatural"? Do you know what unnatural means?
Who said I believe it is unnatural? You are making a big assumption here. I agree that homosexuality occurs in nature. However, I don't think that believing it to be unnatural makes a person a homophobe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Believing tradition marriage is between a man and woman doesn't make you a homophobe, it merely makes you completely ignorant of the history of "traditional marriage". Marriage is neither a religious institution, nor did it usually include one woman, let alone an equal partnership. Your concept of "Traditional marriage" is actually quite modern.
However, if your views of marriage deem you to vote or push to deny homosexuals the right to marry in a secular society, then you are discriminating against homosexuals, which is included in the definition of homophobia.
It's a difference of opinions and yours is no better (or more correct) than mine. Marriage, IMO, is between a man and a woman to be differentiated from civil unions which grant legal status and benefits to couples. It just so happens in our country that marriage is also considered a civil union but the reverse is not true. I don't get this aspect of the gay agenda at all. Why must you (general) push for it to be called "marriage" if all other things are equal (same benefits and legal status)? Why do you want something that innately pertains to heterosexuals (an exclusive partnering between a man and woman) if you can get the same exact benefits and rights by calling it a civil union?
I still would like to see the medical definition used that qualifies people as having serious psychological disorder for simply believing marriage to be between a man and woman.
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.
