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.
Republicans believe their rigid, narrow religious rules should be forced on all Americans and that there should be zero tolerance for any objections. They are the very definition of tyrants.
Homosexual acts are immoral. It doesn't matter how many think they're OK. This law has been consistent for centuries. God didn't suddenly change is mind on this core principle in 2012 like Hillary and 0bummer did.
Which acts would those be? Oral sex? Anal sex?
I hate to point this out, but on any given day, it's likely that far more heterosexual couples perform these acts. Just because there are so many more heterosexual couples.
If the only justification for a law is that "the bible sez", you have lost the argument.
I would be down with eliminating civil marriage. But so long as there is such a thing, it must be available to all.
In the US, only civil marriage confers marital rights and responsibilities. If you want those rights and responsibilities (and not everyone does), a religious or other ceremony is optional, but a marriage license/certificate is not.
Every once in a while you hear about something like this - https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebri...s-rock-7612781 Whatever ceremony she had, and even if she deeply meant it (I suspect there's a tongue in her cheek, but who knows), she is not legally married, because there is no marriage certificate/license.
In the US, only civil marriage confers marital rights and responsibilities. If you want those rights and responsibilities (and not everyone does), a religious or other ceremony is optional, but a marriage license/certificate is not.
Every once in a while you hear about something like this - https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebri...s-rock-7612781 Whatever ceremony she had, and even if she deeply meant it (I suspect there's a tongue in her cheek, but who knows), she is not legally married, because there is no marriage certificate/license.
No one should need a government license to enter into a voluntary contract.
I think its a legitimate question whether or not the government should have been involved in a religious sacrament like marriage in the first place. However, it is what it is and it must be available to all. I don't agree with revoking the rights and benefits that come with marriage for everyone simply to appease religious fundamentalists who aren't directly impacted in any way by who marries who. Absolutely nobody is trying to force churches that oppose same-sex marriage to marry same-sex couples.
Republicans believe their rigid, narrow religious rules should be forced on all Americans and that there should be zero tolerance for any objections. They are the very definition of tyrants.
Yes, and they would love a Christian shariah law here too. Loving Christians. Wow.
I hate to tell you this, but one of the big reasons that government exists is to regulate and enforce contracts.
Someone has to be able to force a contract violator to make things right.
I hate to tell you this, but the government has no right to regulate and enforce contracts.
That's what arbitrators are for.
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.