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.
Before ssm, the very definition of marriage meant that a spouse of a married woman was a man. You could ask a married woman what her husband's name was or if He was coming to the office party or how old He is, etc.. You could do that because every law defined marriage as woman/man.
Though I support ssm, I won't pretend it's not a redefinition of marriage.
So you need it to say on paper man and woman to satisfy you, to validate your marriage? A marriage between a man and woman is still that with marriage equality, how does allowing same sex couples to marry change that? It does not.
That is a silly question, as it obviously re-defines marriage. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman...at least in this country. I have nothing against civil relationships nor live-in relationships between same same-sex couples. But that is the extent of it.
Redefining marriage to be same sex opens the door to the proverbial slippery slope to multiple partners, etc.
There is no "slippery slope" to same sex couples being able to marry each other. Multiple partners would require there to be a change in how a marriage license functions and who is in charge. As it is now, multiple partners is legal, it is just that they have to pick which ones get the legal benefits of a civil marriage.
Having same sex couples being able to marry does not change your definition of marriage, for you it can always be between a man and a woman.
I'm not Gay and I'm not a Christian, but I support both groups' right to the pursuit of happiness. When the movement began, I was 100% against the resistance of the Christian right. I thought and still think, that Gays should have equal rights under the law. Same tax breaks, same rights to see their loved one in the hospital if there's been an accident, etc. That's when I thought the issue was equal rights under the law, as it was originally packaged. When the Christian right began asking to not refer to it as "marriage" because that was a sacred rite from the Bible, like confirmation, baptism, etc. I thought "That seems like a reasonable compromise. Christians can stop resisting Gay rights and agree to Civil Unions, everyone wins. Christians get to keep their word, Gays get the equal rights under the law they set out to acquire. Then it became clear that the Gay activist leaders liked the power they had acquired and had no intention of stopping now. When Christians were concerned they'd be forced to participate in Gay unions, that their churches would be forced to wed them, etc. People mocked them as kooks. It didn't take long for the Gay activists to start targeting Christian owned small businesses, like bakery's, precisely as predicted. Then they began searching out and targeting CEO's and large corporations who didn't approve of their lifestyle. Then they began talking about legal ways at attack churches by revoking their tax exempt status. What's become clear is the Gay activist leadership isn't looking for equality at all, but rather some form of vengeance. It feels like since they felt persecuted by Christians they now see an opportunity to persecute them back and are gleefully engaging in the practice. In the end, the Gays have sunk to the level of the religious kooks that wanted to stop them from having equal rights in the first place. They now come off as petty, hateful and extremist, with no interest in diversity or coexisting.
You neglect one major factor, Mason, civil unions, domestic partnerships and any form of recognition was also denied us along with marriage, by those very same Christians, voted into law by them. And by the way, we are not the "Gays", we are part of this nation, part of the voting party and tax payers. As long as those religious kooks keep passing laws that bind our rights to second class citizens, denied the very same rights they get, then the fight for our rights will continue. If Christians do not like being singled out for their anti gay stance, then they need to stop judging, stop condemning gays, stop passing laws to discriminate against gays. Their freedom of religion is an intrusion when it is used to discriminate, they want the special right to discriminate.
=urbanlife78;38851291]There is no "slippery slope" to same sex couples being able to marry each other. Multiple partners would require there to be a change in how a marriage license functions and who is in charge. As it is now, multiple partners is legal, it is just that they have to pick which ones get the legal benefits of a civil marriage.
Having same sex couples being able to marry does not change your definition of marriage, for you it can always be between a man and a woman.
You are wrong. If marriage can be re-defined as same sex, it can be re-defined any other way.
You are wrong. If marriage can be re-defined as same sex, it can be re-defined any other way.
Sure, marriage can be defined any way people like, marriage can be between a man and a child if people wanted that too. But the real question is, does same sex marriage somehow redefine your own marriage? No, it does not.
Great post! Here is another along the same lines, by a gay man:
Who explains to the young daughters when they reach an age how to deal with their growing breasts, their periods, boyz sniffing around them demanding b**w jobs, how you stay chaste, how to deal with the meanness of other little girls, what PMS feels like and how to deal with it, the expectations of motherhood, what to expect with a baby in your belly, how you feel with various kinds of birth control, how other women feel and what is going on almost every day of your uniquely female life? Huh? How is it two men think they have what it takes to raise a female child, or two women think they have a clue about the pressures of being a boy and dealing with the pressures of testosterone, male bonding, etc.
Oh yes, it’s so very politically incorrect to dare suggest that a child is entitled to parents
of both sexes, but in point of fact, THAT IS HOW NATURE INTENDED human
children are raised. Sorry, I know it is a hanging offense to suggest in
this oversensitive age that child raising and homosexuality might have even
the slightest hint of a problem, but then of course who gives a **** about
children when we’re talking about OUR RIGHTS?
=jjrose;38851186]My kids are just fine, thanks for your concern.
They have a father in their life, don't they?
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.
