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.
Obviously the rule would be one penis and one vagina per marriage.
Why "obviously"?
You apparently want to appeal to the Bible for your authority on "marriage", and there are more stories of men with multiple wives, concubines and slavewomen than there are one man/one woman stories in the Bible.
The gays need to have their own ceremonies. Why this is so hard to accept, I'll never know. Grant the gays the rights that would be afforded under a marriage (hospital visitation, insurance, etc.), but do not call it marriage. There is no reason for the gays to get married. I don't know why we need to cave in to the desires of people with a chemical imbalance. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.
"The gays" as you call us, don't have a "chemical imbalance". Where did you pull that one from?
Gay couples and lesbian couples get married for the same reason most straight people get married. Love and commitment and sometimes raising children.
This first marriage, as accounted in Genisis, also predates the Bible by thousands of years.
I'm sorry to tell you, but Adam an Eve were not actually real people. It's just one creation myth story of many. It's scientifically impossible for the human race to have descended from only one pair of humans.
Most of the benefits were put in place to protect children. Since homosexual unions cannot produce offspring they should not be eligible for the same benefits as the biological mother and father of a child
I gotta call BS on this one. Many heterosexual unions do not produce offspring. Including mine. Many homosexuals adopt children. Biology has never been a pre-requisite for "benefits" i.e. adoption.
In another thread a possible win-win solution to the same-sex debate was proposed.
Many who are against the idea of same-sex marriage feel that way because of the use of the term "marriage". Some feel that same-sex marriage would corrupt the term "marriage" thereby corrupting their own marriages.
Others feel that the homosexual community is rejecting a compromise of calling same-sex unions "civil unions" because it is their 'agenda' to make homosexuality normal and accepted.
The solution put forth in the other thread was to give same-sex unions the same 1400 benefits as heterosexual marriages and allow same-sex unions to use the term "marriage". The proposal would also allow heterosexual unions the 1400 benefits and use of the term "marriage". it would also allow heterosexuals to 'opt-out' of the term "marriage" and, instead, use the term "civil union".
Do you agree that this is a fair compromise and a win-win solution?
What of the 1400 benefits can they not get via a lawyer drawing up a contract?
I suuport the legal rights, but forceing churchs, temples, mosques ect. to do a same-sex marriage ceremony unwillingly is unfair.
And in this country (USA) there can be no such "forcing" because of the 1st amendment. I really don't understand why some people can't seem to understand that. The US government can no more 'force' any church, mosque, temple or synagogue to do anything, than those churches, mosques, temple or synagogues can 'force' the government to do anything.
I am the one who originally proposed the compromise in another thread. It is gratifying to see that some homosexuals actually do support it and in the small sampling that CD can provide those gays supporting the proposal outnumber those opposed by a significant percentage. (Actual numbers 5 in favor, 2 opposed.) To be expected are a large number of heterosexuals who do not, and probably never will, support legalizing gay unions no matter what.
Overall, 12 in favor and 17 opposed with 3 abstentions.
Enough in favor of it to support considering it as a sensible compromise to what is proving to be a very divisive issue.
Actually I'm a liberal. I just don't agree with gay marriage. I have gay neighbors who I sometimes say hi to. I tolerate them living near me. I just don't agree with the idea that they should be able to get married to one another.
Well, see, as a liberal, heterosexual, Christian (probably old enough to be your grandmother) I simply don't understand that. What, exactly, is your objection to John & Joe or Mary & Sally being legally married? How would their marriage affect you in any way, positively or negatively?
Wrong. There is a LOT more to it than that. Only one coupling combination is capable of producing another human being and perpetuating the human race. Other coupling combinations do not have this capability. That is fundamentally why throughout time the man woman marriage is desired, wanted and valued and other coupling combinations are not.
So those who either don't want to or are incapable of procreating should also be denied marriage? Does that mean that I, as a post menopausal widow, should not be allowed to marry again (assuming I find another man I want to live with)? Does that mean my sister-in-law, who was forced by medical problems to have a hysterectomy when she was in her 30s, should not have been allowed to marry my brother? Does that mean that my young friend who never wants children shouldn't have been allowed to marry her boyfriend (who also does not want children) last year?
Sorry, but marriage is not now and hasn't been for a couple centuries, strictly about procreation. There are as many reasons for getting married as there are couples who get married. My reasons for marrying my late husband are likely as different from your reasons for marrying (if/when you are) as the differences between different species of flowering plants. I know my reasons for marrying him are very different than the reasons my gay friend wants to marry the man he's been with for the past 10 years.
What of the 1400 benefits can they not get via a lawyer drawing up a contract?
Sponsoring their international spouse/partner for a visa is just one. There are many more. And why should they have to go through the expense of drawing up all of those different contracts (presumably with the help of a lawyer) when you or I can automatically get every one of those benefits for the cost of a marriage license?
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.
Where did you pull that one from?
