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've noticed a lot of people posting in the SSM threads about "Abolish marriages as a whole" because it's just a federal blah blah blah government controlling our blah blah bleck.
My question is, does anyone remember people taking this type of stance against heterosexual marriage before SSM became such a hot button topic?
Or is this just a lame attempt at the people opposed to it to argue since all of the other arguments have proven to be without merit?
I've noticed a lot of people posting in the SSM threads about "Abolish marriages as a whole" because it's just a federal blah blah blah government controlling our blah blah bleck.
My question is, does anyone remember people taking this type of stance against heterosexual marriage before SSM became such a hot button topic?
Or is this just a lame attempt at the people opposed to it to argue since all of the other arguments have proven to be without merit?
Well, look at see if those people every jump into a thread about marriage in general -- not same-sex marriage, just marriage generally -- and start railing that the government should get out of marriage.
They never do.
Ask them when the last time they petitioned their state representative to abolish civil marriage, or their Senators and Congressman to eliminate the 1000+ federal marriage benefits.
They won't answer.
I think that answers your question.
And as often as not, those people themselves are married. Rather telling, no?
With the divorce rate in the USA rising above 50%, if I'm recalling the statistics correctly ... marriage as traditionally thought of has been a dismal failure. Heterosexuals seem to marry for tax benefits. That's it.
With the divorce rate in the USA rising above 50%, if I'm recalling the statistics correctly ... marriage as traditionally thought of has been a dismal failure. Heterosexuals seem to marry for tax benefits. That's it.
Gee............. I have been married for 25 years to a wonderful woman. I am pretty sure I did not marry her for "tax benefits".
I find it interesting that liberals have created a social/political environment which has destroyed the nuclear family, then complains about divorce rates!
I wonder what the divorce rate would be if the libs had not-
1. encouraged and fostered the drug culture?
2. developed the welfare state?
3. promoted single parent families through aid to dependent children?
4. attacked religious view which frown upon divorce?
5. initiated the women's movement to "liberate" women from raising children?
6. promoted a decline in morality and ethics through the entertainment industry?
Did you ever wonder why libs have a higher divorce rate and a higher incidence of infidelity, not to mention mental illness? Thier culture is one that creates and fosters despair that rots the soul.
Gee............. I have been married for 25 years to a wonderful woman. I am pretty sure I did not marry her for "tax benefits".
I find it interesting that liberals have created a social/political environment which has destroyed the nuclear family, then complains about divorce rates!
I wonder what the divorce rate would be if the libs had not-
1. encouraged and fostered the drug culture?
2. developed the welfare state?
3. promoted single parent families through aid to dependent children?
4. attacked religious view which frown upon divorce?
5. initiated the women's movement to "liberate" women from raising children?
6. promoted a decline in morality and ethics through the entertainment industry?
Did you ever wonder why libs have a higher divorce rate and a higher incidence of infidelity, not to mention mental illness? Thier culture is one that creates and fosters despair that rots the soul.
What does any of that have to do with marriage equality?
This is the problem. Nobody has a legitimate opposing argument other than "its icky" so they have to dance around the issue using right wing buzz words like" morality" and "attacking religion."
All due respect, but your stupid ass mythology has no say in legislative matters.
I've noticed a lot of people posting in the SSM threads about "Abolish marriages as a whole" because it's just a federal blah blah blah government controlling our blah blah bleck.
My question is, does anyone remember people taking this type of stance against heterosexual marriage before SSM became such a hot button topic?
Or is this just a lame attempt at the people opposed to it to argue since all of the other arguments have proven to be without merit?
A lot of people didn't like the idea of government getting involved in marrage when they did.
Libertarians have been saying government should get out of marriage for decades.
Why do gays have to go after marriage? Why don't they try and get equality in Civil Unions? It would make more sense, they would get a ton more support from the people currently in Civil Unions and won't **** of the religious, unless that is REALLY the goal here, which I think it is.
What does any of that have to do with marriage equality?
This is the problem. Nobody has a legitimate opposing argument other than "its icky" so they have to dance around the issue using right wing buzz words like" morality" and "attacking religion."
All due respect, but your stupid ass mythology has no say in legislative matters.
My opposition to gay marriage?
It changes thousands of years of CULTURE and forces a cultural change upon those who do not support "gay marriage". That is certainly distinct from granting the same LEGAL rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples. Such determinations are legal ones and do not dictate religious or cultural beliefs to others.
I have no problem with gays having the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. However, thier partnerships should not be called "marriage", as it would be the same as defining a "family" as any particular collection of people. That would not be a "family", that would be a group of associates.
Why do gays have to go after marriage? Why don't they try and get equality in Civil Unions? It would make more sense, they would get a ton more support from the people currently in Civil Unions and won't **** of the religious, unless that is REALLY the goal here, which I think it is.
Then you're silly.
First of all gays aren't going after marriage. They are going after equality. If the only way some religious people, and some other people will support them is if they are "going after" something different than everyone else, then this is not equal.
Don't worry. When the rest of the country follows suit and SSM is legal in all 50 it won't affect your marriage, family, religion or life one little bit.
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.
