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.
Marriage is a man-made legal contract. The definition is what the law/society defines it to be. We, the people of the United State of America, have the power to redefine marriage to include ALL people.
First of all, all people can marry. None are excluded. The only restrictions, which are few and normative, apply equally to all, and serve to the betterment of society (for whom the institution exists for the benefit of, in the firt place).
Arfew you advocating the removal of all of these normative chalifications, such as restricitons against parent-child, sibling or cousins-marriages, Or two-person marriages, as well?
Marriage exists to give legal structure to the familiy, the foundational building block of society. Weakening that building block in any way, isn't in society's best interest.
As I have explained, that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman is a self evident and absolute truth. You deal in man made definitions and relativism.
WRONG, , marriage is not just between a man and a woman. Marriage is what ever society and the individuals who are marrying want to make it, not you, not your bible or any one elses. Marriage exists and existed between couples of both sexes and same sexes and has for a long time.
First of all, all people can marry. None are excluded. The only restrictions, which are few and normative, apply equally to all, and serve to the betterment of society (for whom the institution exists for the benefit of, in the firt place).
Arfew you advocating the removal of all of these normative chalifications, such as restricitons against parent-child, sibling or cousins-marriages, Or two-person marriages, as well?
Marriage exists to give legal structure to the familiy, the foundational building block of society. Weakening that building block in any way, isn't in society's best interest.
Gay people make families too, why should they be denied the right to marry the one they love. Giving equal access to marriage for homosexuals eill not weaken society or heterosexuals marriage one iota. Sure gays can marry now, but only to a straight person, that is not fair, equal or right. If your straight marriage cannot suffer through the strain of knowing Joa and John down the street got married, then your marriage is on weak grounds to begin with.
WRONG, , marriage is not just between a man and a woman. Marriage is what ever society and the individuals who are marrying want to make it, not you, not your bible or any one elses. Marriage exists and existed between couples of both sexes and same sexes and has for a long time.
Well, we view it differently, friend, and that's just an irreconcilable difference between someone who sees truth as absolute and someone who sees it as relative, so there's really not much for you and I to discuss. I'm not sure why you introduced religion into this though. I haven't.
Well, we view it differently, friend, and that's just an irreconcilable difference between someone who sees truth as absolute and someone who sees it as relative, so there's really not much for you and I to discuss. I'm not sure why you introduced religion into this though. I haven't.
How can a man made institution be an absolute truth when all societies throughout history have viewed it differently? That makes no logical sense. Romans didn't view it as only a man and woman. The Netherlands doesn't only view it as man and woman. There is no such thing as a man and woman only marriage institution in that society. Thus your absolute doesn't exist.
This is a democracy, you can't win just because your the fattest pup. The teat is divided equally, regardless of your personal agenda. You aren't the only puppy in the pen. IMO, of course.
you have that backward. it is precisely a pure democracy that allows the fattest pup to win. it is the fact that we are a constitutional republic that allows the teat to be somewhat equally divided, although lately we seem hellbent on negating the constitution on pretty much every issue, gay rights included.
Boy if that doesn't take the cake. One side is trying to disrupt the historical and societal-beneficial definiton of marriage - another side apposes such a perversion, and the side who opposes the perversion of a bedrock institution is the one inflicting itself on the other?? You aren't serious. Either you are joiking, or you aren't a serious poster
You further the lie by saying homosexuals can't marry, which a compete and utter lie. Homosexual and hetrosexual alike can marry and can't marry under the same exact set of conditions. Absolutlel;y no discrimination whatsoever. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman can marry with absoutlely no issues whatsoever.
I suggest you start incorporating a little honesty in your posts.
There is historical precedent for gay marriage, and I still don't see how permitting it disrupts the marriage institution for straight people. I don't. I'm a straight married woman, have been with my husband for 16 years now, and no amount of gay marriages are going to change that in any way, shape, or form. So if/when gay people and their allies and supporters (myself included) manage to reshape the law to be more fair and accommodating, I don't see how any hardship has been inflicted upon my straight lifestyle because of it.
On the other hand, if I were in the camp of saying "Only marriages like mine are 'real' and no one should recognize those who aren't just like me, those deviants, how dare they be different from what is 'normal' and they shouldn't be allowed to share in what I've got" then I am denying something to others. If the gay camp wins, I'm denied NOTHING. If they lose, they are denied SEVERAL SOMETHINGS. Why is this such a hard thing to grasp?
The only loss involved to the anti-gays if they lose this fight, is that their "universal truth" is not accepted by all, and they have to live with the fact that enough voting citizens saw it otherwise to change policy. If that makes you feel that you live in a degenerate society with no concept of right or wrong, then by all means go find somewhere that suits you better. No one is stopping you. But I'd find it a little ridiculous that you'd feel so extreme over something that (in my opinion) will probably never really affect you in your day to day life.
I'm a totally serious poster. I'm expressing my opinions, albeit in a somewhat snarky fashion, because that's who I am.
Are YOU a serious poster? I would think that anyone understanding the concept of homosexuality wouldn't imply that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman could or should get married to one another. That doesn't even make any sense.
At the core of my support for gay couples' rights is that I believe that love is more important than sex. Sex, in my reality, is an expression of love. It is secondary. True and abiding love to the degree of lifelong commitment to another person should be recognized under the law equally. I feel that those who get all bent about gay being "gross" are overly obsessed with sex. What any other consenting adults do sexually is, I repeat, none of my business, yours, or the government's.
Well, we view it differently, friend, and that's just an irreconcilable difference between someone who sees truth as absolute and someone who sees it as relative, so there's really not much for you and I to discuss. I'm not sure why you introduced religion into this though. I haven't.
What other reason than religion do you base your apparent self evident proof that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Procreation does need both male and female, but it does not need marriage to happen, so procreation is not a good arguement to deny gays and lesbians the same rights to marry the one they love. Your truth, to yourself may be absolute, but it is not the truth for everyone. My truth is my having gone through 34 years with the same man, since I was 19. It was against the odds from day one, but mainly due to society, not our trust, love and dedication to each other, that is the same as any heterosexual could hope to acheive. There is not much for us to discuss when you refuse to see why gays and lesbians want and deserve the same rights, not a watered down second class set.
There is historical precedent for gay marriage, and I still don't see how permitting it disrupts the marriage institution for straight people. I don't. I'm a straight married woman, have been with my husband for 16 years now, and no amount of gay marriages are going to change that in any way, shape, or form. So if/when gay people and their allies and supporters (myself included) manage to reshape the law to be more fair and accommodating, I don't see how any hardship has been inflicted upon my straight lifestyle because of it.
On the other hand, if I were in the camp of saying "Only marriages like mine are 'real' and no one should recognize those who aren't just like me, those deviants, how dare they be different from what is 'normal' and they shouldn't be allowed to share in what I've got" then I am denying something to others. If the gay camp wins, I'm denied NOTHING. If they lose, they are denied SEVERAL SOMETHINGS. Why is this such a hard thing to grasp?
The only loss involved to the anti-gays if they lose this fight, is that their "universal truth" is not accepted by all, and they have to live with the fact that enough voting citizens saw it otherwise to change policy. If that makes you feel that you live in a degenerate society with no concept of right or wrong, then by all means go find somewhere that suits you better. No one is stopping you. But I'd find it a little ridiculous that you'd feel so extreme over something that (in my opinion) will probably never really affect you in your day to day life.
I'm a totally serious poster. I'm expressing my opinions, albeit in a somewhat snarky fashion, because that's who I am.
Are YOU a serious poster? I would think that anyone understanding the concept of homosexuality wouldn't imply that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman could or should get married to one another. That doesn't even make any sense.
At the core of my support for gay couples' rights is that I believe that love is more important than sex. Sex, in my reality, is an expression of love. It is secondary. True and abiding love to the degree of lifelong commitment to another person should be recognized under the law equally. I feel that those who get all bent about gay being "gross" are overly obsessed with sex. What any other consenting adults do sexually is, I repeat, none of my business, yours, or the government's.
He is right in that a homosexual man has the same right as a heterosexual man - to marry a woman. The discrimination is that a homosexual man can't marry who he loves and that is where it becomes unequal. A heterosexual man loves his girlfriend and can marry her, but a homosexual man who loves his boyfriend can not.
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.
