So... still waiting for that explanation of the actual specific negatives to society or children caused by allowing legal secular ssm.
Upvote
0
This idea of "doing no harm." Have you really thought this through as it pertains to SSM? It will have absolutely ZERO impact on society, or the raising of kids?
The rest of your answer I agree with completely, and thank you for your response.
Whether that's a fact or not, I'll admit I do not know.
I will say that I know not one black person who is against homosexuality. At least not any who would ever vote or make an official standing on it.
Does it? Or is that a change? Here in Oz it was only defined as one man and one woman under Prime Minister John Howard which means somewhere between 1996 & 2007. Was it clearly defined originally as one man and one woman or is it assumed that was the case? Also what other things were allowed back then that are no longer allowed? Don't say none because that would be dishonest. Point is that things including laws change.
So let's accept your position, for the sake of argument. It's all about homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage. OK. So, why shouldn't we? What reason is there not to change the definition of secular marriage to allow homosexuals to take part?It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.
They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.
You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.
It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.
Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.
So let's accept your position, for the sake of argument. It's all about homosexuals wanting to change the definition of marriage. OK. So, why shouldn't we? What reason is there not to change the definition of secular marriage to allow homosexuals to take part?
Because, because, gender roles! If we have two men or two women, how in heaven's name are we going to know who is who is supposed say "jump!" and who is supposed to say "how high?" It'll all be confusion and pigs with wings, I tell you!
I understand your frustration, but I'd like to see if Sky can actually come up with a genuine response, so let's give him a moment to respond before we start to snark.
What, moi? Snark?
It's just not a marriage unless the woman is barefoot, pregnant, and quiet in the church kitchen. It's traditional.
(and I'll let other people speak for themselves, and I'll speak for me)
So... still waiting for that explanation of the actual specific negatives to society or children caused by allowing legal secular ssm.
The problem with that is nobody tells straight people that they have to choose someone of the opposite sex. They're naturally attracted to the opposite sex.Gay people already have equality. If gay maraige is legalised everywhere in the world they will still have marriage equality. Equality is actually same rights. So at the moment every person in the US & Australia has the right to marry whoever they want provided consent can be given, the person is opposite gender and is not already married. When gay marriage is legalised everywhere then everyone will have the right to marry provided consent is given and they are not already married. So the equal rights are already there by definition. Changing a definition does not change equal rights.
Did I imply it's wrong? Can you answer the questions in my hypothetical, please?Why do you imply that having sex with your sister is morally wrong?
Perhaps committed was not the right word... But what you quoted wasn't directed at you and really, had nothing to do with commitment in relationships.Nobody is denying anyone a right to be in a committed relationship. Marriage does not equal committed relationship. it is attitude and choice that determines commitment. People can be married and suddenly say Hey I'm not cut out for marriage so I'm leaving. marriage but no commitment to work through problems.
Justify my position?no this is not correct. those wanting change are under just as much if not more obligation to justify that change.
All fifty states must recognize same-sex marriages that happen in states where it is allowed. It's only a matter of time until every state follows suit.Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.
They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.
You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.
It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.
Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.
I'm calling this for the dishonesty that it is. The moment christian groups campaign to have SSM remain illegal then it is being forced.
Why should your preference change others society?
When you consider that laws are always changing and evolving then your insistence on them remaining the same can be considered change as well.
No law validates anything to me. There are laws we have here in Oz that I think are morally wrong and should not be allowed like negative gearing (related to purchasing accomodation). If SSM were to be legalised here i still would not change my view that it goes against my faith and it would not change my faith one bit.
Well, it's been legal in Denmark for a quarter of a century, and it doesn't seem to have destroyed their country like some pundits predict.
It's been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years, and they're doing fine.
It's been legal in my own state for 9 years, and I haven't noticed any mass anarchy, rioting in the street, pogroms of Christians, or any real difference at all for that matter.
However, it will have an impact on society. Which is their whole point.
This is a very silly and flimsy argument. This is not even 1 generation, let alone several. The magnitude of the experiment you're willing to start warrants more caution.
It didn't need a legal definition because it was a cultural, self-evident fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That is why homosexuals weren't getting married before these definitions were put into writing.
They were put into writing to ensure that this acknowledged doctrine of marriage would remain and not be overrun by homosexuals.
You all act as if we attack homosexuals on marriage when really they are the one's intruding. They are the one's trying to force a change in what marriage has been proclaimed as being since classical Rome.
It's not an infringement on rights; we aren't persecuting them- you all are serving a radical campaign and expecting us to just give in.
Funny how the media doesn't tell it like that though.
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?