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.
Yes, because it's mostly a freedom of religion/separation of church and state issue.
By not allowing them to get married, you are denying them freedom of religion.
If my religious beliefs are such that theft is OK, can the state prohibit me from stealing?
When the state marries a heterosexual couple, are they acting on behalf of organized religion or is it a secular undertaking?
You seem very selective about when marriage is a religious matter and when it is a secular one.
If free citizens of the same sex desire to become a legal married partnership with all the responsibilities and benefits thereof, who am I to say they may not?
How many straight people are out there fighting to get government out of marriage? How many straight married couples are there that are willing to give up those 1049 plus or minus federal rights, protections and benefits? Are you one of those? It is always when it comes to same sex marriage, that straights say they want government out of marriage.
That can already happen. Anyone can be wed by a person, but the government is what confers the rights.
Which, the government will never let go of. So again, useless argument. The only way forward is equal recognition. For every combination of consenting adults.
@the topic:
Yes, I would support homosexual marriage even if it was proven a choice. Choice, born, irrelevant. Anyone should be able to be married to be anyone they want, the only qualifiers being "consenting" and "adult".
Government?
Not according to our founding documents.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Correct. I should be able to marry as many people as I choose.
I agree.
Since sexes of the marriage partners is no longer an issue, there is no reason for the number of marriage partners to be limited to two.
Two is left over from the time when one man married one woman because it was the arrangement provided by nature.
Same-sex marriage advocates claim that more than two is undoable but that's bull ****!
What they really mean is they don't want same-sex marriage to lose it's exclusive status as the only other state approved marriage arrangement equivalent to traditional marriage because then it would no longer make homosexuality officially equal to heterosexuality.
Adding polygamy to the mix removes the nefarious prize for which the "equal marriage" ruse exists.
Note the panic on the part of all the usual same-sex marriage suspects at the mere mention of polygamy.
They know their lie ends when same-sex marriage is no longer tied exclusively to traditional marriage.
Putting aside the religious hysteria, when two opposite sex people are married at city hall they commit to a partnership with each other which allows them certain rights like hospital visitation, the right to make decisions for the other partner, inheritance, tax benefits, etc. so yes, I'd support the right of similar partnerships to be entered into by consenting adults of the same sex. Hell, there are 'staright' marriages where I don't understand how such different people came to be together, isn't my or the government's business.
Then you have a civil union, not a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. But gays want to be "married" because in their eyes, equality means forcing society to accept their union as being just as natural and normal as the marriage of a man and a woman.
Historically "marriage" was a financial contract between a male and a female arranged by the parents of the victims for the benefit of the parents and the family by creating grand children. Both the couple and the children were considered property by the parents to be used as needed including sold into slavery to pay the father's debts.
The latter continues in some cultures today. Where do you think all the young girls working in the brothels or Asia and other places come from. They were collateral on unpaid loans. I think this is despicable.
Yes, because it's mostly a freedom of religion/separation of church and state issue.
By not allowing them to get married, you are denying them freedom of religion.
Please tell us which religion supports this.
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.
