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 was in Canada for a few months for work early this year. It really struck me how much more tolerant and cohesive (Even though they speak 2 languages) Canada was. You Conservatives are out of touch with the rest of the modern world. And increasingly with the majority of this Country. Over 1/2 of America is for Gay Marriage. I bet ten years ago it was only 1 in ten.
Times are a changing! You better get used to it or you are in for a lot of dissapointment in life.
I'll start believing those polls when voters directly or through their legislatures start approving SSM.
Why do people call it 'gay' marriage instead of 'same sex or gender' marriage ? There's no gayness test on marriage licenses.
Gay marriage isn't a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue. Just like we don't allow brothers and sisters to marry, we shouldn't allow the same sex to marry.
Gay, lesbian and transgender marriage is about civil rights, as well as all the things heterosexual people get married for. It's not a "Yes" or "No" matter (just like a lot of important issues).
Gay marriage isn't a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue. Just like we don't allow brothers and sisters to marry, we shouldn't allow the same sex to marry.
Since when does a male marrying a female become a right? or, a priviledge?
A moral issue? oh paaaaleeeese.
Is it morally right to go to another country and bomb the hell out of them? c'mon.
Me thinks the original poster may have "Moral" confused with his own religious beliefs. If that's the case, no wonder he's a tad off the mark. And if that's the case, I wouldn't agrue his so called religious values any more than I'd attempt to argue the existence of Santa Claus with a three year old. It would be mean and the kid would have to enter a brave new world.
Your inclination to resort to ad hominem is noted. But yes, you did say that:
Even if I did agree that the purpose of marriage was to have children (which there is no evidence to support that claim, plenty to shoot it down), even this wouldn't justify not letting gays marry. After all, they still can conceive children. Modern technology has made this non-argument of yours obsolete.
How many children have been created using technology that would allow two men two have a child together?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrzDefector
You don't get to be the one who defines "real marriage"; it's quite subjective. I happen to think the marriages that last the longest are more "real" than those that fail.
No I don't. Its already defined and involves a man and a women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrzDefector
You can have children without marriage, too. Plus you can get government assistance to help you take care of them, so there goes your whole argument once more.
Yes you can have them but to properly raise them you need a family. That's why you see families in every culture and every nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JrzDefector
Yes, I do think marriage is about love! No longer a business arrangement or typically decided for practical purposes of any kind. That's the change, you see. That's how marriage has transformed from it's original self. And neither you nor any other SSM opponents have created much of a stir to get it changed back. Hence, we conclude you are not standing for "leaving marriage alone" as you claim; you are simply anti-gay marriage. What I don't understand is why you don't just come clean about it. Stop with all the claims to higher principles. I for one can see right through them.
I am against same-sex marriage, I never made it a secret. That's why I tell you to leave marriage alone, don't change it definition.
And no, nobody gets married every time they think they fall in love. Marrying somebody is as much an emotional as practical decision. Everything else is gay propaganda.
That's gay logic. We need children in America. We are not overpopulated here.
More children on welfare for republicans to complain about? Plus you make the assumption that if gay marriage is not passed that people will stop being gay.
How many children have been created using technology that would allow two men two have a child together?
They're actually researching three-parent IVF as we speak. But what does any of this matter? You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that the purpose of marriage is to assist with those having children naturally. And if that is your argument, you have also opposed adoption by heterosexual parents who cannot reproduce, even by use of technology. Nice goin!
Tell us how it is relevant to anyone's well-being, that only those who can reproduce naturally are allowed to marry. Otherwise, you have no case and you know it.
More children on welfare for republicans to complain about? Plus you make the assumption that if gay marriage is not passed that people will stop being gay.
You have a crystal ball or something? You now know what I think?
I am a Roman Catholic who supported decriminalization fo sodomy.
I believ you can do in your bedroom what you want to do. It turned out I was stupid because you of course did not stop there.
Now you want the right for two guys boinking each other to be called a marriage, like it has anything to do with marriage and family.
They're actually researching three-parent IVF as we speak. But what does any of this matter?
It doesn't. It is a research not reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that the purpose of marriage is to assist with those having children naturally. And if that is your argument, you have al
I don't have to there is a few thousand years of history to prove it and billions of families all around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Tell us how it is relevant to anyone's well-being, that only those who can reproduce naturally are allowed to marry. Otherwise, you have no case and you know it.
Not everything is about you. Marriage is no..It's about the family, about the children. You can be with your boyfriend all they long. It does not make it a family.
SSM might be forced on the country nationwide by the Supreme Court, so it will have to be 'accepted.' Without the SC, the inevitability of nationwide SSM is an optomistic figment of your imagination.
So would have been interracial marriage. What's your point? Just proves we have a lot of hateful, ignorant idiots in America who feel its their right to force religious morality on people who don't accept it.
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.
