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.
There is nothing in this definition of "marriage" that excludes polygamy, marriage to/of children, or any of the other odd permutations that have peppered our society from time to time, aside from the same legal restrictions to gay "marriage" which its supporters lament. Do you really want Joseph Smith and his bonnet-clad handmaidens, or Warren Jeffs and his clan, sitting up there in the front of the bus with you?
We can cut out the marriage to children issue because they aren't old enough to consent. In my own mind the core meaning behind the concept of marriage is a loving and committed monogamous relationship between two consenting adults.
Setting aside the religious aspects of marriage, in the US and other Western countries today marriage has become a secularized legal institution. The day the government decided to formally recognize marriages and afford individuals who entered into them a set of special legal rights was the day that religion lost its monopoly on the institution; in this country we are committed (at least in the de jure sense, if not de facto) to the separation of church and state, meaning that religion is not a legitimate basis for policy formulation. As a secular legal institution, marriage benefits should apply to consenting adults who willingly enter into a committed monogamous relationship based on love. There is no reason why such couples, which are going to exist whether or not their marriages are recognized, shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights given to heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples should have hospital visitation rights, they should receive the same tax benefits.
No its not. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution as a "right". It is a government construct, mainly to promote the proliferation of children. As such, it is administered by the states.
Marriage existed before government recognition of it, however in recognizing it and affording to it a set of secular legal rights the government essentially stripped the institution of its religious component (at least in any official sense), after all atheists and agnostics are free to marry.
I'm very curious as to why you believe marriage is designed "mainly to promote the proliferation of children" - do you have legitimate historical evidence of this fact, or did you just (as I presume) make it up? Because it seems rather illogical for a few reasons. Firstly, we allow infertile individuals to marry, we allow the elderly who are past their reproductive prime to marry and we allow heterosexuals who have no intention of procreating to marry so it seems like a really bad institution to promote the 'proliferation of children.' Even more interesting, though, is the fact that marriage actually acts as something of a brake upon reproduction - having people enter into committed monogamous relationships slows, rather than accelerates, procreation because it prohibits men from procreating with multiple women at the same time (which I believe is a good thing, but which at the same time completely destroys your argument). Marriage has little to do with procreation, it has everything to do with providing legal benefits to people in committed monogamous relationships.
To me, anyone who insists on maintaining the idea that humans consciously choose their sexual orientation,
is choosing to keep their eyes tightly shut while sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la".
I belive that being gay is a genetic thing not a choice but I have one problem with this logic if in fact it is a gene, then it is a mutatation and should be cured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
As for one of my closest friends, he is absolutely attracted beyond belief to the scent of his boyfriend for over three years now. One of my closest girl pals has been "wow"d by the scent of her girlfriend for almost a decade now (and they're only in their lower 20's).
I am straigh and am not attracteD to the scent of a women thats bologne im atracteD by apearences like many otheres i have never heard
damm that girl smell so good i wanna get with her
but I have heard
damm that girl is pretty i want to get with her
Get my drift
Back to my point why cant gays just be happy with something that has the same rigths as a marriage with a different name
On the other hand, religion, morals, and other factors come in to play. While God loves EVERYONE, no matter what types of struggles they go through, He clearly says in certain Bible verses that homosexuality is wrong. And it's not GAYS He disapproves of, it's the ACT.
This is one of the most common and misguided views that people who are against homosexuality and gay marriage have. Has it ever occurred to you that there are mistranslations in the bible? The word 'homosexual' wasn't even a word until mid 19th century. By the way, when was the bible written?
No its not. Marriage is not mentioned in the constitution as a "right". It is a government construct, mainly to promote the proliferation of children. As such, it is administered by the states.
It is not a right.
But it is a right to CHOOSE whether you want to marry or not; outlawing gay marriage doesn't even give gays the choice; that is going against the very constitution. Or, were you going to ignore that little tid bit?
I belive that being gay is a genetic thing not a choice but I have one problem with this logic if in fact it is a gene, then it is a mutatation and should be cured.
If bad spelling were genetic and could be "cured", maybe there's still some hope for you. I shall pray for you. Maybe even may sacrifice a goat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDIEISTAZ
I am straigh and am not attracteD to the scent of a women thats bologne im atracteD by apearences like many otheres i have never heard
damm that girl smell so good i wanna get with her
but I have heard
damm that girl is pretty i want to get with her
Get my drift
No. But you might gain a better understanding about how pheromones work if you actually read the articles, not just look at all the pretty pictures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDDIEISTAZ
Back to my point why cant gays just be happy with something that has the same rigths as a marriage with a different name
That's not a point - that's the original question. It has already been answered in many different ways. What point are you trying to make?
I belive that being gay is a genetic thing not a choice but I have one problem with this logic if in fact it is a gene, then it is a mutatation and should be cured.
I am straigh and am not attracteD to the scent of a women thats bologne im atracteD by apearences like many otheres i have never heard
damm that girl smell so good i wanna get with her
but I have heard
damm that girl is pretty i want to get with her
Get my drift
Back to my point why cant gays just be happy with something that has the same rigths as a marriage with a different name
As I have indicated with research I've previously posted, at least one of the genes believed to cause male homosexuality causes increased fertility (and therefore is actually good for survival of the species and a benefit in the 'survival of the fittest') in women. It's not a 'defect' that needs cured; there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay. What is, however, wrong is the inability of people such as yourself to accept and be comfortable with people who are different.
As for the whole thing about pheremones, I'm not sure how much credibility I give such studies but from my understanding the idea that pheremones are just a particular smell you happen to like is wrong, rather they are chemicals picked up by the nose that have an effect on the subconscious rather than the conscious; you don't actually notice their smell and their effects are nuanced.
This is one of the most common and misguided views that people who are against homosexuality and gay marriage have. Has it ever occurred to you that there are mistranslations in the bible? The word 'homosexual' wasn't even a word until mid 19th century. By the way, when was the bible written?
But it is a right to CHOOSE whether you want to marry or not; outlawing gay marriage doesn't even give gays the choice; that is going against the very constitution. Or, were you going to ignore that little tid bit?
Of course not. Most "Christians" are content to let other people tell them what the bible says. I mean cuzz otherwise...they'd actually have to endeavor to read and understand the book that is suppose to be the core of who they are. And they are far too busy to read the book that , supposedly, guides their life.
There is nothing offensive in my post, nor is it my intention to insult anyone. I was referring to the previous poster's observations on his negative feelings about some elements of the gay rights movement, and asking how, if HE, as a gay person, feels that way, he should be surprised that many straight people feel similarly.
I might ask you the same question, but you seem to be bent on demonizing anyone who disagrees wth you, so by all means let it pass...
Because I would assume that most straight people would be intelligent enough to recognize that the particularly flamboyant aspects of the gay pride movement represent only a small subsection of the gay population generally; that the movement doesn't speak authoritatively for all gays everywhere and that regardless of one's particular problems with the way in which the movement has been organized and decides to operate in no way nullifies the fundamental fact that gay people are just like everyone else and deserve to be treated with respect, just like anyone else, and should be afforded the same rights given to everyone else. This could be analogous to the fact that, say, you might not like particular aspects of the 'rap culture' but you wouldn't use that to legitimize a return to racial segregation or use that to stereotype African-Americans as a group. Or you may not like the goth culture but you wouldn't somehow apply that dislike to all white people, just because goths happen to be white. It's a ridiculous basis on which to legitimize discrimination, a way of grasping at straws to cling to your increasingly outdated viewpoint.
Fortunately for those of us who are gay, younger generations are increasingly approving of homosexuality and gay marriage. The majority of American's under 30 support gay marriage and the vast majority of people under 30 support the gay rights movement more generally. People who are even younger are even more in favor. Thus, as time passes and older generations die off and are replaced by younger ones the political climate in this country will become more and more favorable to gay rights; a lot of states have banned gay marriage, in 20 or so years they'll be moving the opposite direction.
We can cut out the marriage to children issue because they aren't old enough to consent. In my own mind the core meaning behind the concept of marriage is a loving and committed monogamous relationship between two consenting adults.
And in my mind, the core meaning behind the concept of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Quote:
Setting aside the religious aspects of marriage, in the US and other Western countries today marriage has become a secularized legal institution. The day the government decided to formally recognize marriages and afford individuals who entered into them a set of special legal rights was the day that religion lost its monopoly on the institution; in this country we are committed (at least in the de jure sense, if not de facto) to the separation of church and state, meaning that religion is not a legitimate basis for policy formulation. As a secular legal institution, marriage benefits should apply to consenting adults who willingly enter into a committed monogamous relationship based on love. There is no reason why such couples, which are going to exist whether or not their marriages are recognized, shouldn't be afforded the same legal rights given to heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples should have hospital visitation rights, they should receive the same tax benefits.
My viewpoint is not religious but cultural. I do not wish to belabor the point, but none of your arguments regarding the legal nature of secular marriages precludes polygamous or adult/child "marriages" (since the legal age of consent is subject to manipulation; cf. recent changes in the applicable laws of the UK and other European countries). I agree with the points you make concerning the unfairness of denying committed homosexual couple certain legal rights, however.
Calling anything other than the union of one man and one woman a "marriage" is an alteration in the traditional cultural meaning of that term, which deals with union of the two totally different manifestations of the human essence: male and female.
In my opinion, while joining two men or two women in some sort of civil union (assuming that certain legal standards are met) seems a reasonable approach to the situation, expanding the definition of "marriage" to include two men, two women, three men, seven women, or some variety of either, does not.
Would you legalize gay marriage?? If so, why?? If not, why not??
I don't know about you guys, but I certainly would. I don't get why some people would get religion involved with politics. It may say it in the Bible, but this is a country well ALL people receive EQUAL rights. It's not like it's going to affect anyone economically, or socially. Just my opinion.
That's a nice speech about equality and mutual respect, but it's really not true, Is it? You ask why anyone would get religion involved with politics? Because religious people still have the right of free speech that your crowd is so egar to take away. That's why. The voting public has spoken clearly all over the country and even the federal government has a DOMA on the books. The more appropriate question is why does your side continue to sue the voting public hoping to force your way on them through the back door of the supreme courts. You obviously don't respect their will or the democratic process. Furthermore, you obviously don't respect people with religious views that differ from your own. Your agenda is obvious. You want to force people who believe gay sex is disgusting and unnatural to shut up or go to jail. Like they do in Europe and Canada.
"Nevertheless, the “Yes on 8” campaign has brought over from Sweden a pastor named Ake Green, who a few years ago was sentenced to a month in prison under Sweden’s law banning hate speech, because he gave a sermon denouncing homosexuality. His conviction and sentence were later overturned. Mr. Green’s testimony was featured in a 90-minute “Yes on 8” satellite simulcast that was recently downlinked to 170 churches throughout the state.
“He is a symbol of what is ahead,” said the Rev. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Church in the San Diego area, a leading organizer of the “Yes” ranks. "
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.
