Hello. What are your thoughts on same sex "marriage"? I am against it personally, however it's not out of homophobia or any prejudice against gays. I hold the view that marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. And with same-sex couples, there isn't a man and a woman. They have either two men or two women. I think gays should be able to have civil unions though, which pretty much confer upon them all the legal and financial benefits of marriage. Your thoughts?
My thoughts is that it's none of your business. Keep your own house in order, and let your neighbors do the same.
You just reacted in a very emotional manner. Perhaps the topic of same-sex marriage is a very dear one for you.
Please provide your source for "marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman".
No sources, I am afraid. I thought it was just common knowledge. Or maybe someone who is familiar with world history can help us out here. I don't think in the past people/cultures had been marrying same-sex people.
I think we should get back to traditional marriage where I can marry a 12 year old for political/financial reasons regardless of what she desires.
Just because there had been parts of marriage that weren't perfect it doesn't mean we should just scrap the marriage institution completely. We should try to remove the bad parts and salvage the good ones.
So the definition of marriage can be changed? Then what is the issue? A bad part of marriage was removed and the good ones salvaged.
I think that the part about only a man and a woman being able to be married is the good part and should be kept. That same-sex couples being able to wed would be bad and should be kept out.
If your context is historical then the definition you are using is based upon the religious concept of "holy matrimony". In our modern context marriage is a government sanctioned contract. Contracts require that the parties be able of an age to give legal consent to that contract. Religious holy matrimony used to be happen before the age of legal consent. There are other differences such as religions that use "holy matrimony" for "blessing" polygamy which would be one man and many women. So that "common knowledge" is not necessarily the only version out there. The modern government sanctioned marriage contract between two consenting adults cannot discriminate which is why people of different races are allowed to marry. It wasn't all that long ago that was not allowed either because the "common knowledge" definition was that only people of the same race were allowed to marry. If we are going to have this discussion then the basis needs to be established and it obvious that "common knowledge" is not a sound one to use IMO.
Please explain how two consenting adults who love each other being allowed to marry is a "bad part that should be kept out".
I am actually for those anti-miscegenation laws. The darker races should have never been allowed to inter-breed with the White race.
IOW you approve of the union, but you just want it called something other than "marriage". I said the same thing to a gay friend and he accepted it. But since then I came to find out that such an arrangement was just a preliminary milepost in the anti-gay effort to stop such unions. They say they accept it now, but when it is time to implement it by creating law, they plan to hack away at it until there is little of any benefits left, making it distinct from marriage. So now I say marriage is ok.
Two people being consenting adults and their loving each other are not enough for the purpose of marriage. They need to be both of those things plus being of a man and a woman. Of course, this is just my opinion and you might disagree. They already can have civil unions, which are pretty much the same as marriage so I don't understand why they push so hard.
Why would allowing same sex couples from marrying be bad? Same sex marriage has been around over a year now and I don't know any ill effects on any straight couples marriage. You claim that the only reason that you are against same sex marriage is that marriage has always been between men and women. That is what is known as the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Just because it is something that has always been done, it doesn't make it right.
My thought is to all the Christians, the New Testament teaching on sexuality all assumes upon the authority of the Law of Moses. The New Testament word for fornication does not mean pre-marital sex. It means immorality in general.
Please explain how my response was 'emotional.' And then tell me why you think the personal lives of your neighbors is any of your business.
One tiny correction: just because it's something that has always been done, it MIGHT NOT make it right. Just because something is a tradition, it doesn't mean it's ALWAYS bad. It's like I said earlier, we should keep the good parts and throw out the bad parts. You think allowing gays to marry is a good thing but I think it's bad.
Oh good, at least I know now what I'm dealing with. - - - Updated - - - But why do you think it is bad?
That is your subjective opinion. What logic did you employ to arrive at this position? And how does our American ideation of individual liberty square with your opinion?
I think I am allowed to give my thoughts and opinions upon something that is being discussed in the public domain despite the fact it does not have any direct impact on me personally. I am sure most people on this board have commented, at one time or another, on things that do not have any immediate, direct impact on themselves.
I would even remove "who love each other." Government should not be concerned with "love" in a nation of free men. - - - Updated - - - OK, nice try, troll. /thread.
So your entire position is based on your emotional response to the idea of same-sex marriage. Your personal feelings on the topic are obscuring any potential for logic you could apply to this topic. - - - Updated - - - Congratulations. What is your point and how is your ethnicity in any way relevant to the topic?