Why should some have more. Get rid of government recognition of marriage and see how many gays want to get married. Why should married people have more benefits, not rights, than me ? - - - Updated - - - No its not. They always had the right to get married. - - - Updated - - - I cant think of any reason to back it. Its stupid on the face of it. Dumb as marrying your dog - - - Updated - - - What rights are being taken away ?
Love is a modern concept for marriage. It was rare back in the old days. You dont need marriage to love someone
Why instead of changing the name of marriage for gays doesn't the religious opposition just change the name of marriage for themselves?
Yes they are . They keep us from going extinct. Stop conflating love and marriage. - - - Updated - - - It devalues real marriage just like no fault divorce - - - Updated - - - With most gays I know and I know plenty its that way before and after marriage and not only with the one they marry. I dont know one of them who has been faithful.
I has everything to do with what your neighbors are doing. You do understand the Bible is not legally binding, right? You do also understand that not everyone in this country ascribes to the same belief system as yo, right? At least I hope you do. So don't marry a person of the same gender. Why do you think you get to make that choice for somebody else? Why do you think the government should get to make that choice for your neighbors? A poor analogy. There is no causal connection, nor even correlation.
You think heterosexuals need government marriage to have sexual intercourse and propogate the species? Do you believe it is the proper role of government to maintain the value of certain social institutions in a nation of free men? So you conducted a scientific study on the matter? Or are these just your own empirical observations? And furthermore, what does the monogamy rate have to do with the appropriateness of government marriage?
So you believe in the abolition of government marriage? The arbitrary stipulation to gender in the many and various marriage statutes constitutes a prima facia violation of the 14th Amendment. Given that legal consent is required to execute the contract of marriage, this argument is as dumb as suggesting it's dumb to marry your dog. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; and the 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating a citizen's constitutional rights.
Gay marriage should not be allowed simply because no one can say exactly what homosexuality is. Until society can come to grips with that it should not be allowed. No one knows the implications of accepting homosexuality and it's effect on society. Those who want to push this concept on everyone else should stop being intellectually lazy and look beyond their own narrow thinking. - - - Updated - - - Simple concepts for simple minds do not contribute to society. - - - Updated - - - Why should the established in society change to accommodate the Johnny Come Lately?
This thread died quick. Just mention a challenging concept and the detractors run away. Truth is society has away right to define what is acceptable and what isn't. Everything that affects people as a group should be examined. If the people do not want to accept homosexuality then this is the way it is. If you cannot make the case for it then too bad.
Our country was founded on the belief that government and religion should be separate, unless you have forgotten about the First Amendment. Also, if you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't have one, but who are you to tell others what they should do?
I am a member of a society that will be affected by things like accepting homosexuality. Therefore it is MY business. Make it illegal until some honest discussion can be had about it.
From BC Roman law. "Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain") "pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain") "pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points") It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[74] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient Matrimony, late Middle English: via Old French from Latin matrimonium, based on mater, matr- ‘mother.’ Its biology. Has nothing to do with religion.
In the end, God's laws will be outlawed and frowned upon. Christians persecuted and then executed. This will seem to most as something that should be done, and that it's all ok. Jesus tells us, "they have their reward"! I'm not against gays in a prejudice manner either, same way I am not against anybody that sins (I do as well), for we all fall short of the glory of God. What I am against is, instead of calling out evil (sins) when we see it, we promote it through the notion of prejudice or homophobic or whatever the sin may be. If it's being gay, when discussing the matter politically, as to legislation, we must never forget the actions involved. For it is these actions, that deem such an act, un-natural, immoral, and an abomination to God. And when one truly thinks about it, it is indeed very disgusting the actions which are involved. For when a baby girl needs cleaned from their own feces or urine, one must clean them in a top to bottom way, as to prevent infection from feces getting into the urinary. So when it comes to society as a whole, we must never forget the actions involved while discussing this matter, as to pass legislation on everybody (for and against). It is one thing to acknowledge the sin, and ask forgiveness for the sin. Then to promote the sin, and act as if though it is not a sin. This will certainly lead to a generation of sin, for even though they will know it is a sin, (age of reason), they will feel accepted and care not of the sin. We all agree that killing (murder) is a sin. The reason why is because we all have loved ones, and we do not want to see such a tragedy or loss of a loved one. It is love that allows us to acknowledge evil. And if it's a matter that is questionable by man, pertaining to God's laws, we simply do as we like. Yet most of God's laws we understand, acknowledge, and uphold (weather one believes in God or not). We also don't want to come home to our wife in bed with someone else or vice-versa, again God's law. Why is it, we cannot see that God's law's is for the benefit of man? Why is it we replace discipline with whatever it is we want? "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." -Jesus- As a society, the upmost importance would be that of principalities. We the people uniting on the ways in which our children should be raised, an agreement on principalities. Thus in certain circumstances such as babysitting, it would already be in agreement and without question as to how one might babysit your child. So with division, and completely different or opposite views on principalities, we will always have anger and hatred towards one another. A house divided cannot stand, neither can a nation. "One can only serve one master, for he will either love the one and spite the other." This trading back and forth on presidents (perfect example), is also trading back and forth on principalities, causing confusion, division, anger, and hatred. We must agree on principalities and have the discipline required to uphold those principalities.
Still don't care. Dude wants to marry a dude? Whatever. I'm still going to go to work in the morning as usual.
Because the establishment lost and instead of imposing its wants on other people, their desire to have their marriage be called something different than gay people's marriages is to change the name of their own marriages because changing the name of other people's marriages isn't going to happen.
Tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage aren't a right. If they were, the discrimination between the married and unmarried would be unconstitutional.
Who "wins" in a political showdown does not decide anything. If the people want to make homosexuality illegal then they have a right to do so. Even if they want to add an amendment to the Constitution they should. Since it does not mention gays at all perhaps this should happen. - - - Updated - - - Of course, living in a bubble has not worked out so well has it? We still have the same problems that are only getting worse. Congrats for contributing to the demise of our society.
What bubble am I living in? I think my job has taken me everywhere possible. Done many things most haven't. Gay people never changed anything either way.
IMO if someone cares so much about who someone else marries, they aren't minding enough of their businesses
