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.
I have already presented a reasoned argument. When will you provide one?
Second, the purpose of society is to survive and provide a framework for the members to live, prosper and grow. Allowing a small group of them, check that, a tiny fraction of them, to force a change in the rules of society that will damage said society, is not in the best interest of the people of said society.
I have articulated why marriage is an important building block that should, absent extraordinary evidence showing that change will benefit the institution that benefits society that benefits ALL the people, survive unscathed. In short, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
You are potentially sacrificing, or at least weakening a critical institution in our society.
And how will same sex marriage "damage" society?
"Marriage" may not be "broken," but it can certainly be improved. And marriage equality for all will do that.
How will same sex marriage "sacrifice" or "weaken" marriage? Will it affect your marriage (if you are married) if the gay couple down the street gets to enter into the institution of marriage? Will their marriage cause the price of oil to go up? Will it lower your property value on your house? Raise your taxes?
I would like to see historical evidence of that. Find a link.
I would like to see your scientific evidence that proves that races exist, therefore "interracial marriage" should have been prohibited.
Suffrage.
None of yours are either.
I'm not religious, I use science and logic to support my beliefs on homosexual marriage.
I can't stand the gays and the supporters using interracial marriages as a crux for their arguments. Interracial marriage was never banned on the federal level and a minority of states did so.
The difference between the interracial ban and the illegality of gay marriage is that Blacks and others could not enter into the institution of marriage with the partners of their choice.
Care to put $100,000 on it old friend. The historical record on the 3/5 is clear despite your abject ignorance.
Or, perhaps $200,000
You cheap bastrad! You are on the internet. Play with internet money....at least 1 to 2 million....geez. No one here knows whether you're typing from your parents basement or the local food bank. Messing around with small increments of money makes you look like you don't have any imagination.
The only reason why your parents signed the contracts is so the other party could go after them for damages if the children didnt do their part and your parents didnt take you.
Hence the reason for legal contracts, and why the parents have to sign them... it wasn't an option, it was legally required to be done that way. Aren't we pretty much arguing in circles on that?
Quote:
Where have I gond down the beastiality road? Why do you have to lie about what other posters claim?
Who's lying? Maybe you can try reading more carefully next time, because I specifically said "you GUYS," meaning the anti-gay marriage crowd. And if you don't think bestiality has ever been brought into this argument, I could easily cite a whole slew of examples. You specifically only mentioned incest and polygamy (at least in this thread), which are the other two favorites you GUYS bring up in this argument - all of which are merely deflections, as they do not pertain to unrelated consenting adults marrying.
Quote:
The discussion was one of legal ability to enter into a contract = ability to marry, so obviously a parent cant enter into a contract with their children, so why would you not want it discussed? Ooh I know, because it shows how stupid and ridiculous your argument is that an ability to enter a contract means justification for marriage.
Nice try, but we don't want to discuss incestuous relationships because they DO NOT pertain to the issue at hand... if you want to discuss the legalities of incest, you can start another thread on that.
P.S. An adult can enter into a contract (other than marriage) with their adult offspring, so again you are merely deflecting and changing the subject with this line of reasoning. Try staying on topic, if you really want to discuss gay marriage, mkay?
I have done so countless times in another post, but I'll try to convey why (although I am sure most aren't really interested in why).
The family, the two-parent, reproducing family is one of the most basic building blocks of society. The institution of marriage creates that building blocks under the legal sanction it provides. It does so under certain restrictions that people, wiser people that we have in the forefront today, have,, through direct experience, found to be important.
I don't see the logic in what you are saying.
Isn't it true that two people who are long past the age of conceiving children - say people in their 70s or 80s - are allowed to marry?
What about people who are infertile or physically or medically unable to have children - allowed to marry?
Reproduction has never been a requirement as an eligibility for marriage.
The difference between the interracial ban and the illegality of gay marriage is that Blacks and others could not enter into the institution of marriage with the partners of their choice.
Ummmm, how exactly is that any different from gay marriage not being allowed? They can't enter into marriage with a partner of their choice either - right??
Quote:
Gays seek to redefine marriage big difference.
How so? The word marriage has many definitions, and it isn't even technically defined as "between a man and woman" in most state Constitutions. If anything the anti crowd is trying to re-define it, or rather to define it in the first place - as for the most part, this is very vague and non-gender-specific according to most state laws. Besides, how does adding to the laws make the existing laws any different? Straight people can still marry, so nothing is being changed for the heterosexuals who wish to marry an opposite-sex partner.
Btw, it's not just "the gays" who support this issue, considering over 50% of Americans now support gay marriage... I am a straight supporter, as are many others on this board. And support is only growing every year, so your minority beliefs are becoming even less popular by the day! Sorry.
For the life of me I cannot understand why people like you get so worked up over this.
It doesn't affect you, you don't lose anything tangible but gays gain a lot. So it's a win, no lose situation. Are you that bitter that you don't want other people to pursue life, liberty and happiness?
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.
