too bad your God isn't universally accepted as real. even further, within christianity and judaism, there are large debates on how to interpret the words of your God anyway. also, the marriage that gay people want are state sanctioned, so your God sanctioned union is pretty meaningless to them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fence in the queers
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
too bad your God isn't universally accepted as real. even further, within christianity and judaism, there are large debates on how to interpret the words of your God anyway. also, the marriage that gay people want are state sanctioned, so your God sanctioned union is pretty meaningless to them.
Quote from nutmeg:
I read somewhere that we should just outlaw "marriage".
I tend to agree to outlaw marriage would solve the gay marriage problem.
Now everyone can just get a civil union. Hetero's and homo's. everyone's civil union is recognized as lawful and equal. Game over.
I honestly think the system we have should be left alone and or marriage be explicitly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.
If you are a guy and you want to marry a man have a sex change, same for females.
With that being said I do think civil unions will eventually be available in every state of the union.
I think that is only going to open up a can of worms and unintended consequences. How to define what it is that constitutes a civil union IOW just like above (for marriage) it must be defined by the courts beforehand not made up willy nilly by the partners.
Why be limited to just 2 persons, why can't a whole group of people get married and pay the married filing as separate rate etc etc.
The other thing I object to is thinking that when it comes to adoption a heterosexual couple and homosexual couple must be treated as equals. All else being equal heterosexual couples should have preference. Heterosexuality is the normal state of sexual preference and the normal state of the family. Homosexuality, single parent homes no matter how popular it makes us feel to accept them as normal , are not the norm.
Quite frankly it's all about the benefits from the govt and imposed on others by the govt.Quote from FixedGrin:
too bad your God isn't universally accepted as real. even further, within christianity and judaism, there are large debates on how to interpret the words of your God anyway. also, the marriage that gay people want are state sanctioned, so your God sanctioned union is pretty meaningless to them.
and that's why I oppose homosexual marriage.
To many people suckling the gubbermint teats as it is.
Not really. But government does need to get out of religion.Quote from FixedGrin:
too bad your God isn't universally accepted as real. even further, within christianity and judaism, there are large debates on how to interpret the words of your God anyway. also, the marriage that gay people want are state sanctioned, so your God sanctioned union is pretty meaningless to them.
Quote from pspr:
Not really.
Not really what? You're usually not inane enough to make vague posts.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Quite frankly it's all about the benefits from the govt and imposed on others by the govt.
and that's why I oppose homosexual marriage.
To many people suckling the gubbermint teats as it is.
can you explain further? i don't see coherency in your post.
Quote from FixedGrin:
can you explain further? i don't see coherency in your post.
Obviously your lack of perceived coherency in my opinion on the subject is directly linked to your personal attachment to the outcome of the issue.
It's a govt subsidy of behavior and new found rights
I'm against the growth of the liberal welfare/nanny state (in any form) and the associated forced obligations of the private sector by gubbermint dictate REGARDLESS of the reason.
What is the norm changes, thank goodness. Religion just isn't a good enough reason for owning any particular word, or for dictating what must represent normal.Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
I honestly think the system we have should be left alone and or marriage be explicitly defined as between 1 man and 1 woman.
If you are a guy and you want to marry a man have a sex change, same for females.
With that being said I do think civil unions will eventually be available in every state of the union.
I think that is only going to open up a can of worms and unintended consequences. How to define what it is that constitutes a civil union IOW just like above (for marriage) it must be defined by the courts beforehand not made up willy nilly by the partners.
Why be limited to just 2 persons, why can't a whole group of people get married and pay the married filing as separate rate etc etc.
The other thing I object to is thinking that when it comes to adoption a heterosexual couple and homosexual couple must be treated as equals. All else being equal heterosexual couples should have preference. Heterosexuality is the normal state of sexual preference and the normal state of the family. Homosexuality, single parent homes no matter how popular it makes us feel to accept them as normal , are not the norm.
Marriage can be quite straightforwardly and explicitly defined in law as the status in contract by which two people can and are willing to freely and mutually promise to live together in relationship for life, or until the legal termination of the same.