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.
Why? The word in itself "marriage" is not religious. A "civil marriage" is not a religious marriage.
Besides, who is gonna call their parents to tell them "we are getting unioned!" Saying "we are getting married!" has a better ring to it.
Yes it is. Marriage is by and large a religious based concept with the purpose of bonding Man and Woman to one another and raising a family. It is defined by God and recognized by Nature. It comes from a religious value and is a core aspect of our society, even if you can be Married at the Court House without a Minister or Rabbi, it's still based upon Religious Values. This is the truth whether you like it or not.
With the Seperation of Church and State stance, this issue would be over. You are free to call your relationship whatever you want, just like you are free to call your cat a dog, it's still never going to be a dog. The Government would not be trying to change the definition of Marriage.
However it is not the Homosexual's fault for Marriage being in the bad condition it's in today. It's us, the straight people, who have broken it due to our divorces, adultery, lack of loyalty, people Marrying out of lust and not love, and not keeping God first. We need to fix our own house first before we can fix our neighbors.
Did you not hear what the poster just told you? How would you resolve issues like child custody, inheritance, and end-of-life decisions if there is no legal contract?
Those things are not an issue as it would all be given in the Civil Union/Contract process. Semantics Argument.
Yes it is. Marriage is by and large a religious based concept with the purpose of bonding Man and Woman to one another and raising a family. It is defined by God and recognized by Nature. It comes from a religious value and is a core aspect of our society, even if you can be Married at the Court House without a Minister or Rabbi, it's still based upon Religious Values. This is the truth whether you like it or not.
With the Seperation of Church and State stance, this issue would be over. You are free to call your relationship whatever you want, just like you are free to call your cat a dog, it's still never going to be a dog. The Government would not be trying to change the definition of Marriage.
However it is not the Homosexual's fault for Marriage being in the bad condition it's in today. It's us, the straight people, who have broken it due to our divorces, adultery, lack of loyalty, people Marrying out of lust and not love, and not keeping God first. We need to fix our own house first before we can fix our neighbors.
Oh, spare me! If you get a cardiac problem down the road (I know you're still very young), will you refuse a pacemaker because it's 'not recognized by nature'?
You know what else would kill this whole issue? Just letting them have it.
It's been the law here for a long time and nobody talks about it any more. It isn't an issue at all.
You know what else? Nobody has tried to marry their dog or horse or polar bear. Surprise!!
No it wouldn't. It would just be the beginning, people would also start marrying their siblings and multiple partners, these things would start out as small movements then they would start the propaganda and referring to themselves as oppressed and calling everyone bigots who disagrees, they will then claim they are being denied equal rights and they would grant them Marriages because once they change the definition, they are going to change it again.
It's an issue because you want Big Government to redefine a word, a term, to represent something that it doesn't represent, against the Will of the People. I am simply the voice of the Silent Majority. You want thisiissue to end? So do I. Seperation of Church and State with only Civil Unions for everyone is the only way to solve this.
Those things are not an issue as it would all be given in the Civil Union/Contract process. Semantics Argument.
You said you want to remove the government and law from it, which would mean your 'contract; has no legal power, which make them worthless. You want to use a worthless contract in issues concerning custody of children, inheritance, and end of life decisions. Good luck with that. They would also not be recognized outside the borders of the US. Basically people would be boyfriend/girlfriend. The gays already have this, so why aren't they happy.
Oh, spare me! If you get a cardiac problem down the road (I know you're still very young), will you refuse a pacemaker because it's 'not recognized by nature'?
Fallacious Comparison. You didn't state any counter arguments to my own.
You said you want to remove the government and law from it, which would mean your 'contract; has no legal power, which make them worthless. You want to use a worthless contract in issues conserving custody, and end of life decisions. Good luck with that. They would also not be recognized outside the borders of the US. Basically people would be boyfriend/girlfriend.
No, they would be called' 'Contracted Adults '' or '' Unionized Partners'', and all the Marriage benefits would be carried over. The State would only grant and recognize this. Marriage would just be a private non legal barring thing among Churches, Synagogues, Families etc.... ONLY.
You would still be free to call your relationship whatever the hell you want, just like you are now. Just in the eyes of The State people would only be Unionized and not married, this goes for both gay and straight.
No it wouldn't. It would just be the beginning, people would also start marrying their siblings and multiple partners, these things would start out as small movements then they would start the propaganda and referring to themselves as oppressed and calling everyone bigots who disagrees, they will then claim they are being denied equal rights and they would grant them Marriages because once they change the definition, they are going to change it again.
It's an issue because you want Big Government to redefine a word, a term, to represent something that it doesn't represent, against the Will of the People. I am simply the voice of the Silent Majority. You want thisiissue to end? So do I. Seperation of Church and State with only Civil Unions for everyone is the only way to solve this.
Lots of countries have allowed SSM for many years. I don't see this being a problem anywhere. How many people want to marry their siblings?
None of us should assume to speak for the silent majority.
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.
