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.
Gay couples wishing to be recognized as "married" make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Civil unions are available in most states - and they can and should be enforced. The push for "marriage equality" has only one motive - forced acceptance of homosexuality.
Oh come on. "Separate but equal" institutions were struck down a long time ago. You're really going to have to try harder.
I understand that - denying the marriage simply because one party can't sign the contract makes any contract to that effect invalid. It also limits what living beings can marry each other - and really is no different then any other common sense limitation such as age restrictions, number of spouses, and the parties being of opposite genders.
Marriage is defined and there are laws governing what it is. Gay couples can get a civil union(not in N.C. - but hopefully that will be remedied). Marriage is reserved for those who meet certain criteria.
I guess your answer is:
"Yes! I most certainly do want to continue to belabor this gem of idiocy that I've put forth!"
The issue isn't a matter of signing but of consent. No one who cannot legally consent can marry. People in comas cannot consent to marry. Brain-dead people cannot consent to marry. Mentally incompetent people cannot consent to marry.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, discrimination against non-persons is not a Constitutional issue. But, hey, as I said, feel free to give us a reason you think 'person' legally means 'cat'.
Gay couples wishing to be recognized as "married" make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Civil unions are available in most states - and they can and should be enforced. The push for "marriage equality" has only one motive - forced acceptance of homosexuality.
13 states offer them so you have no clue on what you are talking about .
Nowhere in The Bible is anything said against interracial unions. Homosexual unions, quite the opposite.
I personally don't like to see interracial unions, or at least it's not something I would do.
And you have every right not to take part in an interracial relationship. Just like you have every right not to take part in in a homosexual relationship. What you (the general "you") don't have the right to do is try to force those views on others. Not everybody believes in the Bible. This country is not supposed to only uphold and protect the rights of citizens who also happen to be Christians. The rest of us have rights as well. I personally don't give a healthy rat's behind about what the Bible says because I don't believe in it. But I am very much a citizen of the United States, and I don't want laws being made based on some random people's interpretation of something that I (and plenty of other citizens) don't even believe. The Bible has no place in legislation. Neither does any other religious text. I don't know why this concept seems so hard to grasp for some people.
Gay couples wishing to be recognized as "married" make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Civil unions are available in most states - and they can and should be enforced. The push for "marriage equality" has only one motive - forced acceptance of homosexuality.
False.
Civil unions (or their equivalents) are available in precisely 12 states. Neither 12 nor 18 (states where civil unions and/or same-sex marriages are legal) constitutes 'most' of 50 states.
No, you said: Personally, I don't have a problem with giving gay couples foster children, but it should be a last resort.
You know what I meant, stop playing games.
Quote:
And since you're only willing to let them be foster parents, not adopt -- what happens when along comes an opposite sex couple who only wants to adopt one or two of those six siblings? Adoption trumps foster care, right?
Or do you agree this gay couple should be allowed -- as they have done -- to adopt thise six siblings?
You're now throwing in the wrinkle of keeping six siblings together. It's the same as the other people arguing that gays raising children is better than dysfunction.
Let's stipulate that you have a little child for which you were entrusted to find adoptive parents, there is a same sex couple and an opposite sex couple from which you have to choose. Let's also stipulate that both couples are equal in every way (same income, no evidence of dysfunction, etc.) Who would you give this child to?
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.
.
.