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.
The argument is that two people of the same gender shouldn't be barred from marriage if the sets of people above aren't barred from it?
There's no argument. I asked you a series of questions in an attempt to obtain answers to those questions.
Quote:
I don't disagree necessarily...what I'm saying is that heterosexual marriages of a certain type are fundamentally different from the marriages above and that institutions that recognize this difference shouldn't be forced to assent to the non-separation and equality of all marriages.
Now, you want me to assent to the assertion that those institutions should be forced to recognize the non-difference of the marriages in question. How can I when 1) I don't think any institution should be forced to assent to something they don't agree with 2) I recognize the difference between the two types of marriages 3) The marriages above are an offspring of the traditional marriage model so it is understandable why they'd be celebrated 4) I recognize why it would be felt important to emphasize one of the other 5)It doesn't fall in line with what I want personally from the future...?
Honestly, tell me?
I didn't ask you to assent to anything. I asked for your opinion on the types of marriages I listed above.
Quote:
That said, people will do what they want regardless...and they should be able to.
However, if certain institutions don't find it agreeable...then they should be able not to.
If in the process that institution is labeled racist, spiteful, homophobic...we've been called far worse. If we are so wrong...then why are we still around? Further, why are we thriving? I'll give you a hint...it's because it's built into nature's fabric.
There seem to be plenty of homosexuals. Are they not also thriving?
SSM has always been a ploy to undermine the traditional family structure and values. Why is no one advocating civil unions for all by default and leave marriage to church blessed occasions first of all, and two, why not accept civil unions that has everything the same as in marriage but name only? Easy, it was never about marriage in the first place or the monetary benefits, that's something for the duped to grasp at
Because marriage has never been a religious institution in this country. Why do Christian Conservatives own the right to an English word? Jews can get married, and most Jews support same-sex marriage. Atheists can get married, and atheists certainly hold no religious value to a marriage. One can have a drunken drive thru wedding at the Little Elvish Chapel in Vegas. That sure isn't sacred, God ordained.
Those aspects of marriage all prove the entire institution is a joke, and the whole "traditional religious" element you homophobes keep preaching is nothing but a smoke screen to justify your own depravity and bigotry.
The question is how is marriage defined? If it's defined as between a man and a woman, then it's true that we're re-defining what it essentially is.
Marriage is defined however the law chooses to define it based on a changing society. There is no universal concrete definition. It means different things to different people.
You seem like a person of such substance and depth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11
I stood against it for the defense of marriage between man and woman. I really didnt understand why they couldnt of just called it something else. It will never be the same as the natural, nature/god intended man/woman.
At this point, I am about fed up hearing about it. Im sick of hearing about gay this and gay that. So I am at the point where, screw it, just give it to them and hopefully we hear less from and about them.
I think gay marriage and gays in general are odd and as some put it, kind of just humorous in a strange/sick kinda way. I find the whole thing really a joke as you say. I hear of it, I see it, I just shake my head, sometimes laugh, depending on who the subjects are and how gay they look or act. I dont know how you can even take it seriously sometimes. Its just so damn odd and off putting but funny in a way. How a man can practically act like a girl or woman like a man. I almost feel sorry for them.
I read that homosexuality is nature's way of culling unwanted genetic material. It could be some inane gene's that are no longer required for the species to continue. Naturally some heterosexuals will take an elitist view on this for their own self guided and ignorant views but it is what it is.
Additionally, given the intense population growth and strain on worldwide resources, the need for homosexuality is greater than ever. There is no question that homosexuality exists in natural species and in particular mammalia.
Nature doesn't have a problem with homosexuality - only certain people who for whatever reason feel it is 'icky' or believe in fairy tales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dub dub II
And there's the rub. They want legitimization in the context of religion and it's felt as if they are forcing their way, under the guise of "equality and rights".
It hardly matters though because it's built into nature's fabric that homosexuality is a dead end. Unless, and I've asked this before, is homosexuality nature's way of getting rid of undesirable genes?
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.
