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.
Ok. Since I seem to be an "easy" target. I will full on give my opinion on the concept of marriage PERIOD. Personally, I'd say we abolish the religious-based concept known as marriage from every institution of the government.
Marriage, by its very nature, is supposed to be a symbol of permanency between two people. What's the divorce rate, again?
So, instead of the strung out and over-strained concept of marriage that comes with a package of benefits, CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!!!
So, like I said. I'm against gay marriage because of the implications of later changing the laws. But, a continuation is that I'm against marriage... period. And yet... I'm on the marriage track simply for the TAX BREAKS and "social acceptance" of my love for another person.
Ok. Since I seem to be an "easy" target. I will full on give my opinion on the concept of marriage PERIOD. Personally, I'd say we abolish the religious-based concept known as marriage from every institution of the government.
Marriage, by its very nature, is supposed to be a symbol of permanency between two people. What's the divorce rate, again?
So, instead of the strung out and over-strained concept of marriage that comes with a package of benefits, CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!!!
So, like I said. I'm against gay marriage because of the implications of later changing the laws. But, a continuation is that I'm against marriage... period. And yet... I'm on the marriage track simply for the TAX BREAKS and "social acceptance" of my love for another person.
Wow. I need a drink after that explanation, Kuharai.
The jury is certainly "out" on this issue, and no one yet has made the round trip--but I'm still compelled to advise you that investing in a little "fire insurance" couldn't hurt----and, if you're wrong, would very likely help..just my own unsolicited advice....
The jury is certainly "out" on this issue, and no one yet has made the round trip--but I'm still compelled to advise you that investing in a little "fire insurance" couldn't hurt----any, if you're wrong, would very likely help..just my own unsolicited advice....
Now wait just one minute! Xena died several times and came back...
I have nothing against gay marriage, but rather see it as a stepping stone for other groups who are backing gay marriage but have their own agenda. People can argue that in Europe, gay marriage is allowed but not here. I see that the age of consent varies per country with Spain's being 13.
So why do anything that may benefit people when you know there is always a “group” who wants to use it as a stepping stone. Let’s not articulate that it should be between consenting adults, although that is misleading as even kids as young as 15 can currently get married with parental consent in Missouri and many other states allow under 18 marriages.
If you have nothing against gay marriage, why don’t you save your strength up and fight against those “groups” who want to marry goats and children (without parental consent) instead of gay couples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
I'm not focused on the physical part. My argument is that there are groups that are trying to CHANGE things to allow "contracts" to be signed by children or with multiple partners.
Nobody seems to want to address that part.
They have addressed it and indicated it is for consenting adults but you continue to bring up the slippery slope argument with goats and children (although children can be allowed with parental consent but not goats, even if you had farmer consent).
By your rationale we should have never allowed blacks to vote via the the 15th amendment as it would have allowed illegals or goats or IBM computers the right also because they would eventually have some type of support group. So cut off the rights then and eliminate the 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments because if we let blacks vote, then it creates the slippery slope of wanting women to vote, 18 year olds to vote, poor people the right to vote, and eventually the goat group will want votes too. Do you see the line where it become irrational?
So why do anything that may benefit people when you know there is always a “group” who wants to use it as a stepping stone. Let’s not articulate that it should be between consenting adults, although that is misleading as even kids as young as 15 can currently get married with parental consent in Missouri and many other states allow under 18 marriages.
If you have nothing against gay marriage, why don’t you save your strength up and fight against those “groups” who want to marry goats and children (without parental consent) instead of gay couples?
They have addressed it and indicated it is for consenting adults but you continue to bring up the slippery slope argument with goats and children (although children can be allowed with parental consent but not goats, even if you had farmer consent).
By your rationale we should have never allowed blacks to vote via the the 15th amendment as it would have allowed illegals or goats or IBM computers the right also because they would eventually have some type of support group. So cut off the rights then and eliminate the 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments because if we let blacks vote, then it creates the slippery slope of wanting women to vote, 18 year olds to vote, poor people the right to vote, and eventually the goat group will want votes too. Do you see the line where it become irrational?
So why do anything that may benefit people when you know there is always a “group” who wants to use it as a stepping stone. Let’s not articulate that it should be between consenting adults, although that is misleading as even kids as young as 15 can currently get married with parental consent in Missouri and many other states allow under 18 marriages.
If you have nothing against gay marriage, why don’t you save your strength up and fight against those “groups” who want to marry goats and children (without parental consent) instead of gay couples?
They have addressed it and indicated it is for consenting adults but you continue to bring up the slippery slope argument with goats and children (although children can be allowed with parental consent but not goats, even if you had farmer consent).
By your rationale we should have never allowed blacks to vote via the the 15th amendment as it would have allowed illegals or goats or IBM computers the right also because they would eventually have some type of support group. So cut off the rights then and eliminate the 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments because if we let blacks vote, then it creates the slippery slope of wanting women to vote, 18 year olds to vote, poor people the right to vote, and eventually the goat group will want votes too. Do you see the line where it become irrational?
Um.. in case anybody else missed it, illegals are fighting for the right to vote...
Back to topic: Why even have marriage if there's no permanency in it anyways?
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.
