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.
Yeah, I know you think gays don't deserve equally rights simply because they're not straight. You've made that abundantly clear - as disgusting and un-American as that is.
Quote:
Because mariage has always been an union of a man and a women so I don't see a reason to change its definition and tradition and even think it would harm it?
Tradition? Civil marriage is a contract within our civil, secular law that confers legal rights to couples. Civil marriage is not a tradition - it's a legal construct.
Because they are not straight? Because mariage has always been an union of a man and a women so I don't see a reason to change its definition and tradition and even think it would harm it?
This can't change the meaning argument is patently stupid. We've changed it a thousand times throughout human history, you just don't like this one particular change!
Quote:
Like Germany, Japan, UK or France and most other countries in the world? Why not.
Germany, the UK, and France have far far higher equality for LGBT than America does. Most of Western Europe is light years ahead of the United States in every area that actually matters.
So if people opposed interracial marriage and interracial marriage is now both legal and socially acceptable, then same-sex marriage which many people oppose must be another case of the people being wrong, correct?
That solves your problem, but what about people who want to marry close relatives and multiple partners?
The State has a legal compelling interest for those. The legalities are much more complicated. But if you'd like to marry a sibling, by all means create a movement trying to change the law.
Ok, I have said this before but here it goes, A marriage is a religious ceremony and not a legal one. Would the religious right be satisfied if gay people would be abole to have a civil union which would afford them the same rights as a legally marriaged couple? If you still say "no" well now you are going against their civil rights.
Besides why not let them be a miserable as the rest of the married people
My church does and it reflects my views as well. That's all I care about.
So your church rejects Ephesians 2:8. Interesting. You see, your church chooses to believe that the original text is reflected perfectly in the modern-day "Christian" Bible. However, there are stronger arguments to the contrary than I've ever seen provided in support of this view. Here are some more links for your ignoring pleasure that help specify exactly what it is the disagreement is over:
Why don't you leave the Bible to theologians and the Church?
Do you really care what I believe?
Why don't you leave gay marriage to homosexuals? As per the evidence I provided earlier (suggesting their marriages last longer on average), it seems you have no leg to stand on, telling them what a marriage is and what it isn't. Yoko Ono trying to teach Whitney Houston how to sing. That's all it is, all it ever was.
I'm challenging your views. Sorry if that bothers you. But at least I'm not trying to make it illegal for you to marry or adopt children because I disagree with you on something; because that would be really messed up, huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Marriage is an union of a man and a women. It has been this way for quite a few thousands of years. Leave marriage alone!
Nah. It's undergone countless changes over the years. I see no reason (just bias) to not allow this particular change after all the changes we've already allowed. Can you? Because you haven't given any, and you certainly haven't backed them up with anything factual.
A marriage is a religious ceremony and not a legal one.
Factually incorrect. A marriage performed in a church has absolutely no legal standing. Marriage did not come under the purview of the Church until the 16th Century, and most of the world's Protestants opposed it during the reformation. Marriage has always been a legal construct in the United States since the Puritans brought it here in the 17th Century.
Factually incorrect. A marriage performed in a church has absolutely no legal standing. Marriage did not come under the purview of the Church until the 16th Century, and most of the world's Protestants opposed it during the reformation. Marriage has always been a legal construct in the United States since the Puritans brought it here in the 17th Century.
That is what I meant, sorry for the confusion This was my proposal to the religous right, provide the homosexual community with legal unions
That is what I meant, sorry for the confusion This was my proposal to the religous right, provide the homosexual community with legal unions
Well, I don't advocate giving into the wants of the religious right. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Why would two gay men bother getting married when there are no benefits to be had anyway?
No children = no gig!
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.
This was my proposal to the religous right, provide the homosexual community with legal unions
