If I believe religeon is wrong can we get an amendment banning the religeous from being married?stray bullet said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I believe religeon is wrong can we get an amendment banning the religeous from being married?stray bullet said:If you believe homosexuality is wrong, then you must believe it is harmful on some level. Therefore, it presents a threat to your family.
If that is true then no marriage should be recognised by our government. All men (persons) being equal, all persons deserve to have their marriage recognised by the government with all the rights and responsibities this includes.stray bullet said:And marriage is not an issue of liberty! Civil unions cover the "liberty" aspect. Marriage is something totally different.
How so?Buzz Dixon said:By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.
And how would homosexual marriages not achieve the above stated goals?While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.
Have any support for this statement?Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture.
Any support for this statement?Look where gay marriage has been pushed and accepted abroad. Look at how crappy their overall standards of morality are. They're native populations are plummeting and their cultures are slowly being taken over by those who do not share their values, particularly the value of gay marriage.
Clem is Me said:If I believe religeon is wrong can we get an amendment banning the religeous from being married?
But, as we have seen, your discomfort about future generations does not constitute a threat, at least not according to the origional post, which I believe to be in line with the constitution. So the answer you have demonstrated to the origional post is "no". I appreciate your time.stray bullet said:Can we still have civil unions?
The fact is, civil unions answer the request by gay couples for rights. Marriage is simply an unnecessary addition which only attempts to make homosexuality look normal, acceptable.
I don't really have a problem with civil unions, but I don't see a reason for actual gay marriage. I feel favoring it would only put my future children at further risk of homosexuality really, as well as future generations in general.
Clem is Me said:But, as we have seen, your discomfort about future generations does not constitute a threat, at least not according to the origional post, which I believe to be in line with the constitution. So the answer you have demonstrated to the origional post is "no". I appreciate your time.
Equality. Liberty. Freedom. You have heard of these things, right? If I have a right to claim a marriage, so does any other person who is my equal. If you want the government to cease to recognise marriage and instead recognise civil unions, that's cool with me. I will divorce my wife and get unioned ASAP, although we didn't have a religeous ceremony so perhaps the state will grant me a CU by default.stray bullet said:The Constitution is about rights. Gay marriage is not about rights. Gay marriage is about social acceptance. Therefore, the Constitution and the idea of American liberties are not applicable. The Constituion isn't about granting rights to group to make society think what they do is ok.
All favoring homosexual marriage would do is say, "It is ok", which many people aren't willing to do.
Clem is Me said:Equality. Liberty. Freedom. You have heard of these things, right? If I have a right to claim a marriage, so does any other person who is my equal. If you want the government to cease to recognise marriage and instead recognise civil unions, that's cool with me. I will divorce my wife and get unioned ASAP, although we didn't have a religeous ceremony so perhaps the state will grant me a CU by default.
This thread is not about that, though. Thanks again.
Yes yes, thank you.stray bullet said:Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.
Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.
The government needs to recognize marriages in order to keep track of them. That is why we gave government that religious role in the first place.
Now gays want a part of it under the guise of 'rights'- ok, but we have defined marriage. The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.
makes no sense as to why gay marriages are bad
While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.
Considering that marriage is an institution spanning more than 3,000 yrs, being restricted to men and women the whole time, wouldn't the burden of proof here lie with those who are for gay marriage? Just a question.stray bullet said:Gays have a right to marry, just not members of the same sex.
Marriage isn't a ruleless 'right'- it is a right everyone has but includes specific rules. These include not having any other marriages, being the appropriate ages and not being of the same sex.
The government needs to recognize marriages in order to keep track of them. That is why we gave government that religious role in the first place.
Now gays want a part of it under the guise of 'rights'- ok, but we have defined marriage. The only reason to take that is simply to say their relationships are just a normal.
Not when the default is liberty for all.informedforGod said:Considering that marriage is an institution spanning more than 3,000 yrs, being restricted to men and women the whole time, wouldn't the burden of proof here lie with those who are for gay marriage? Just a question.
Clem is Me said:Not when the default is liberty for all.
Look, SB, dude, I answered that a while ago. Thanks again.stray bullet said:What liberty does gay marriage provide that civil unions do not?
Liberty for all . . . a position of anarchy perhaps, are you suggesting liberty for rapists, child molesters, beastists, incest, murderers and racists. Or do I misunderstand you?Clem is Me said:Not when the default is liberty for all.
You misunderstand me, very, very badly. Have you been reading this thread?informedforGod said:Liberty for all . . . a position of anarchy perhaps, are you suggesting liberty for rapists, child molesters, beastists, incest, murderers and racists. Or do I misunderstand you?
One might note that the same was said of interracial marriage a generation ago. Yet strangely enough legal recognition of interracial marriage did not devalue marriage at all.Buzz Dixon said:By accepting homosexual unions as the equal of marriage, society further devalues the meaning of the term.
Clem asked specifically how legal recognition of same sex marriages would damage his marriage or harm his family. You have failed to provide a dingle example of just how Clems marriage/family would be harmed in any way. Please dont try to misdirect the debate away from your failing.It doesn't matter if heterosexuals are already doing damage to the institution; that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed elsewhere.
Sorry our marriage are marriages and your choice to embrace personal prejudice and pretend otherwise does not change this.Without a doubt gays and lesbians may form long lasting stable loving relationships; those relationships are not marriages.
Once again you are claiming that marriage is and can only exist between one man and one woman. You have made this claim multiple times before in multiple forms, each time you have been asked to provide evidence for your claim but as of this time you have yet to do so.Marriage is the bonding of a male and a female into a unique synthesis. You can't have steel without carbon and iron, you can't have marriage without a male and a female.
This is nothing same gendered married couples cannot accomplish.While not all marriages produce offspring -- and while homosexual couples may adopt or employ surrogate parents -- the purpose of marriage in all societies is to provide a continuity of culture from one generation to the next. As cited above, marriages are about blending families together, they are not exclusively about two people getting the warm fuzzies for one another.
evidence?Nothing works as well as a stable heterosexual marriage to provide stablity and continuity to a culture.
Which does not explain why you advocate discrimination against families, if you were truly concerned about this you would be advocating the stability and the legal protections that marriage provides for all people.When marriage is devalued, families split up, children are raised without fathers, and very quickly crime rates, drug/alcohol abuse rates, illegitimacy and divorce rates begin rising, while the children receive poorer educations and are more emotionally vulnerable.
evidence?Adding gay marriage to this culture would only continue to devalue marriage as an institution.
Yet this is exactly what you are advocating. You are making the physical and spiritual bonding of two people bigger and exclusive to individuals you chose to accept while denying it to those you do not. By using marriage as a means of promoting discrimination you are the one diminishing it.It would further reduce the impression that marriage is something bigger than the two people involved and by extension make it less important in the eyes of succeeding generations.
What can be more important than the fight against discrimination? The fight against hate and prejudice? The fight for equality and justice for all people? there is none more important.As I've said before, if there were no other fronts in the cultural war, gay marriage would be a minor issue. But it's not the only leak in the canoe, so to speak. We've got lotsa problems that need attending to, and gay marriage is just a tiny little leak that we can close off quickly right now before it grows larger and not have to worry about again while we tend to other, more serious problems.
Not about unmarried couples. This is about the legal recognition of married couples.Now, you (rhetorical) wanna talk about tax breaks and property rights for couples and households that aren't conventional marriages, nooooooo problem. Well be happy to discuss that and come up with something that will benefit all unmarried couples, not just the gay ones.
it is normalstray bullet said:The fact is, civil unions answer the request by gay couples for rights. Marriage is simply an unnecessary addition which only attempts to make homosexuality look normal, acceptable.
Sexual orientation is not a risk, it is not a choice, choosing to live honestly and openly is a choice however and I think that his what you truly fear that if one of your children were homosexual that he/she would choose to be honest about it.I don't really have a problem with civil unions, but I don't see a reason for actual gay marriage. I feel favoring it would only put my future children at further risk of homosexuality really, as well as future generations in general.
Quite wrong. Legal recognition of our marriages is all about civil rights. Having legal recognition of my marriage means civil rights social acceptance is independent of that. society either accepts us as is or it chooses to hate us for not pretending to be something we are not. Sexual orientation is not about any action or behavior anymore than race is about behaviors.stray bullet said:The Constitution is about rights. Gay marriage is not about rights. Gay marriage is about social acceptance. Therefore, the Constitution and the idea of American liberties are not applicable. The Constituion isn't about granting rights to group to make society think what they do is ok.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?