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.
If not religion, what is your reason for discriminating against gays?
Marriage was redefined a few decades ago to include marriage between races; before that it was illegal for people of differing races to marry. How is allowing same-sex couples to marry so different?
Marriage was re-defined to exclude people of different races in the South and some states after the abolishment of slavery. Nothing in the original Roman institution specified marriage was between people of the same race. But the very word 'marriage' is derived from matrimonial which means the celebration of "motherhood."
Marriage was intended for the protection of children. It was intended to ensure just about no children were born out of wedlock and were born in stable families. This is why preventing interracial marriages discriminates: it discriminates against the interracial child, it prevents the interracial child from knowing a stable family. Since no children are born through homosexual unions, this is not a civil rights issue.
In actuality, homosexuals can marry. They just won't have their marriage recognized by the government. If they want the government to recognize their marriage (and the benefits that come with it) they can marry the opposite sex. This is not about the government legislating morality but about the government not recognizing every type of relationship people can think of.
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.
No it's not... the definition of marriage has changed numerous times throughout history, and even differs today from culture to culture. Is marriage the same to a devout Hindu in India as it is to a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn, a LDS in Utah, and an Atheist in Japan? I don't think so! Try again.
You sound like you would have been a mad person in 1964 in towns like Montgomery or Birmingham.
They do have a mother and father otherwise they wouldn't be alive. I didn't grow up with a father around, even though that's how nature is set up.
It's offensive? Then walk around with your eyes closed and move to Alaska. It's been around but bigots would kill them back in 1860 if they were ever found.
By the way, your post was reported.
Reported? For what, offering an opinion? Nurse Bishop expressed her opinion on the topic, which is why are straight people so scared of gay marriage. So people can post only opinions about why straight or gay people like gay marriage without getting reported? I have a serious problem with that.
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.
As I said, you and I see truth differently. I don't see how two contradictory statements can both be true but you do. Since your philosophy would seems to allow for each of us to have our own version of truth ("your truth" "my truth") how can you possibly argue with me, since we each get to decide whether something is true. At this point, we should move this over to philosophy.
Reported? For what, offering an opinion? Nurse Bishop expressed her opinion on the topic, which is why are straight people so scared of gay marriage. So people can post only opinions about why straight or gay people like gay marriage without getting reported? I have a serious problem with that.
You were probably reported for using the term "homo," which is considered an offensive slur... I found the rest of your post kinda disturbing too, but not really report-worthy in terms of the TOS.
And btw, lots of single parents raise children without anyone crying about their "rights" to have two parents. There is no such right, and two parents of the same sex are PROVEN to be more effective than a single parent. So why aren't you upset about that, and trying to restrict single-parent rights too? Gay people also have children biologically, so they deserve equality in terms of raising those children LEGALLY with a partner. Don't you care about the effects of not having both parents on legal documents? If one of those parents dies, the other can be stripped of all legal custody rights; if that child gets into an accident, and only the non-legal parent is present, they cannot consent to medical treatment; etc. Funny how you pretend to be concerned for the children, while completely ignoring the negative impact forbidding SSM can have on these children. Guess they don't matter in your world, eh?
Why are people who choose to be gay so intent on redefining marriage in order to legitamize their immoral lifestyle?
What's immoral about it? Your answer will probably tell me that you are acting on your version of what a God saw fit for our society. That doesn't hold much water in the face of reality. Marriage was redefined by religion, before that men did marry men. What's immoral about it to you isn't immoral to others. A majority in fact of Americans will change the definition of marriage again shortly. I find you trying to influence society with morals written about something I find fictional is disturbing as well, but your allowed to do it.
I see this argument on extraordinarily jello like foundation if we maintain your version of what marriage was intended for in the annals of history. If a man or woman is unable to produce children shall they be excluded from being able to marry? No children will naturally be involved by their union from a biological perspective... shall you exclude them by not recognizing their bond? Would they be entitled to the same rights as child bearing married couple's in a seperately defined union that you would proclaim?
I assume you are a straight male.. would you prefer to marry a closeted Lesbian who's not into you but is using you to gain equal rights because people like you would like to deny hers?
As a married Gay male in a country that does recognize gay marriage I am thankful for this right because I love my partner and we are building a life together and support one another through thick and thin. Quite frankly we love one another and that my friend is what should be the true meaning of what a marriage is! I don't need some Zombie to tell me otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire
Marriage was re-defined to exclude people of different races in the South and some states after the abolishment of slavery. Nothing in the original Roman institution specified marriage was between people of the same race. But the very word 'marriage' is derived from matrimonial which means the celebration of "motherhood."
Marriage was intended for the protection of children. It was intended to ensure just about no children were born out of wedlock and were born in stable families. This is why preventing interracial marriages discriminates: it discriminates against the interracial child, it prevents the interracial child from knowing a stable family. Since no children are born through homosexual unions, this is not a civil rights issue.
In actuality, homosexuals can marry. They just won't have their marriage recognized by the government. If they want the government to recognize their marriage (and the benefits that come with it) they can marry the opposite sex. This is not about the government legislating morality but about the government not recognizing every type of relationship people can think of.
No it's not... the definition of marriage has changed numerous times throughout history, and even differs today from culture to culture. Is marriage the same to a devout Hindu in India as it is to a Hasidic Jew in Brooklyn, a LDS in Utah, and an Atheist in Japan? I don't think so! Try again.
They are marry men - women. In fact, if one examines marriage in history the majority of cultures define marriage as one man and woman, unrelated.
There are some exception, but they are actually quite rate.
Why don't you ask the other poster - you know, the one who brought Judaism into the discussion in the first place? THEY (not me) brought it in as a general commentary on religion, and the last time I checked Judaism was a religion. Actually, it's the very religion on which Christianity is based.
Care to comment on the rest of my post, which was about using religion (be it Christianity or whatever) as an excuse to hate?
and Judaism (which you choose not to follow) is more against homosexuality than Christianity.
Judaism says male Homosexual relations are worthy of death.
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.
