Does "marriage" other than the traditional one between a man and woman for the purpose of family have to be homosexual? How does one prove they are in a sexual relationship? If gays can have a marriage or civil union or whatever, then why can't I have the same if I set up housekeeping with a friend, brother, sister or mother for all the reasons, other than sex, that gays want official unions?
For or Against Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Speedy Boarder
- Start date
Not quite. The gov't can't create a state religion. It doesn't say that the laws can't have a religious basis. Blue Laws, which exist to the day have a religious basis and are still Constitutional.
I was following you until that last part.
The State makes laws regarding marriage because the electorate either wanted them to or allowed them to. This is, after all, a government of "the people", by "the people" and for "the people". If the majority of "the people" want certain types of laws, they get them. Right now, the majority of "the people" don't want marriage redefined.
There is no monolithic Christian Religion as far as I know. There are a collection of Christian ReligionS, such as Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Quakers, etc., etc., and the government doesn't make any law determining which particular flavor is acceptable or not, therefore, no State Religion.
Religion is one of the bases of morality and morality is one of the bases of law. It is impossible to divorce the two, IMO, without losing the common link, morality.
It is up to society to decide what is and what isn't socially acceptable standarRAB of behavior. Just as local communities can decide if nudity is acceptable for its citizens, on a more macro scale, it is acceptable for society as a whole to determine what the qualifications for granting a marriage license are. After all, other licenses granted by the state have restrictions that have been found to be constitutional, such as driving age restrictions, liquor licenses, etc.,
I was following you until that last part.
The State makes laws regarding marriage because the electorate either wanted them to or allowed them to. This is, after all, a government of "the people", by "the people" and for "the people". If the majority of "the people" want certain types of laws, they get them. Right now, the majority of "the people" don't want marriage redefined.
There is no monolithic Christian Religion as far as I know. There are a collection of Christian ReligionS, such as Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Quakers, etc., etc., and the government doesn't make any law determining which particular flavor is acceptable or not, therefore, no State Religion.
Religion is one of the bases of morality and morality is one of the bases of law. It is impossible to divorce the two, IMO, without losing the common link, morality.
It is up to society to decide what is and what isn't socially acceptable standarRAB of behavior. Just as local communities can decide if nudity is acceptable for its citizens, on a more macro scale, it is acceptable for society as a whole to determine what the qualifications for granting a marriage license are. After all, other licenses granted by the state have restrictions that have been found to be constitutional, such as driving age restrictions, liquor licenses, etc.,
Telemachus R
New member
Gay marriage has a lot of costs associated with it. It's an increased cost to businesses that employ gays because they will be forced to insure more people. It is a cost to the SS fund because there will now be survivor benefits paid out to a newly created class of beneficiary. There is also a loss of inhetitance tax. The list is longer, but you get the gist, I'm sure.
I don't care if gays adopt kiRAB. I'd rather see kiRAB adopted by people who want them than warehoused any day. I was just giving you one of society's justification for rewarding marriage.
I don't care if gays adopt kiRAB. I'd rather see kiRAB adopted by people who want them than warehoused any day. I was just giving you one of society's justification for rewarding marriage.
dannypopso
New member
You are bringing up a whole different issue. I was speaking of being gay as a disorder. It is not. I doubt there are many authorities who say homosexual orientation is a conscious choice, compared to those who say it is not, today. However, this really doesn't matter, even if being gay were a conscious choice, and even if some went from being gay to being straight, that wouldn't make being gay a disorder. It has never been proven that someone has gone from being gay to being straight. If someone has and he or she is happy that way, than best wishes. The same would be true if someone had gone from straight to gay. If someone is happy being gay, or being straight his or her whole life, than good for those people too.
mackiegirl12
New member
That would be in the Old Testament. However the Lord condemned homosexuality in the book of Romans thru Paul's God inspired worRAB. Homosexuals are forbidden entry into Heaven. Thats about as codemned as it gets.
gymnast ♥ƒor life♥
New member
Hydra said:
lacostelover
New member
Bring it on I welcome the flames, and damnation. I have my swim fins on for the dip into the lake of fire.
Get your little fairytale book out and cast your spells. You and your religion have as much power as the Greek pantheon of GoRAB. Some how I don't see Zeus walking around casting lighting bolts.
Get your little fairytale book out and cast your spells. You and your religion have as much power as the Greek pantheon of GoRAB. Some how I don't see Zeus walking around casting lighting bolts.
MiiSS B3CK3Y C33
New member
tonybrown74 said:Tony,
The boy really does have a problem with something that is none of his business.
S.B.N.N. ( Guess)
Haptic.Hazard.
New member
You'd better. You won't see me singing Slick's praise very often.
DOMA is the law of the land until it is ruled otherwise. IMO, Roe v Wade is unconstitutional, so is Griswold, Lovings and a host of other rulings based on figments of the SCOTUS' imagination. I'm still looking for the penumbra of rights in the Constitution that says that there's an implied right to privacy but not an implied right to life.
And the brain wasting disease carries on in you. You're limiting the discussion and fabricating. Marriage is a pagan idea that did not limit by gender, after all I do recall saying something about paganism which you completely ignored. The Church adopted marriage and then changed it to man and woman (more like property). Only during the later part of the 1500s did women get any real rights in marriage. It went from virtually anyone, to man and property, then to man and right inferior woman.
Seriously you need to stop making things up.
It apepars you are just as ignorant.
Then you must hate VOR.
Seriously you need to stop making things up.
It apepars you are just as ignorant.
Then you must hate VOR.
AnnabellActress
New member
lol. Do I need to post your history from WS to prove their asserations?
You are a classic filibuster. Keep repeating the same argument over and over and over again.
You are a classic filibuster. Keep repeating the same argument over and over and over again.
So are gay people.
Wrong. Gay people are a social group or social class, based on sexual identity, not actions. African Americans are a social class based on racial identity.
2.
I don't know if that's true. Are you getting this information from a recent poll? Perhaps you could provide a link. At any rate, the majority isn't always right, and attitudes overall are changing towarRAB more acceptance.
Wrong. Gay people are a social group or social class, based on sexual identity, not actions. African Americans are a social class based on racial identity.
2.
I don't know if that's true. Are you getting this information from a recent poll? Perhaps you could provide a link. At any rate, the majority isn't always right, and attitudes overall are changing towarRAB more acceptance.
Meggasaur!
New member
Hydra said:
Well since I have no intention of getting into a same sex relationship at any time in the near future, it doesn't worry me that much.But here's a couple of thoughts for those of you who care.
The concept of 'marriage' has been weakening for decades.In the good old days, if you wanted to be sexually active, you found someone of the opposite sex,married them, and spent the rest of your life with them. If that's what all the anti's are trying to protect, sorry, but you are too late.The heterosexual community has decided that that is old hat. Thesedays, the sexual activity comes first, and if you are careless enough to start an an unplanned pregnancy, it is considered noble and old fashioned to settle for marriage together for a couple of years before separating acrimoniousy and spending the next decade in and out of court on alimony, child support, and custody issues.
Contemporary marriage is a shadow of the idealistic and romantic version promoted by the church. Take a look into any wedding chapel in Vegas on a Saturday night, you'll see a booking being made in a divorce court before the decade is out.Celebrity divorces have ceased to be scandalous,with no discernable public downside to behaviour that would have been considered outrageous thirty years ago.If Elvis were to be reincarnated and restart with the hip swivellin' leer,he'd barely warrant a second look.
Marriage is a washed-out shell on the great beach of life. As institutions go,it's pretty much continued for the sake of nostalgia.Without wishing to disrespect those who still believe,a church wedding has become more of a gratuitous display of opulence than a lifetime commitment to someone you really care about.Increasingly, weddings are becoming redundant as more and more people opt for civil ceremonies,or no ceremony at all.I say that marriage should be left for those who choose a religious path, and kept as an archaic ritual accessible only to those who have given a lifetime of commitment to their beliefs.
Of course, this would leave same-sex relationships out in the cold for most people.Thankfully, in my country, the government has recently taken a more enlightened approach.For those non-religious people who elect not to go down the path of marriage, there is the option of having your relationship legally recognised as a civil union.In fact, if you have been in a de facto relationship with the same person for more than two years, the law automatically allows you the same property status as a conventionally-married couple. These rules apply to everyone, hetero or homo.
Seems to make sense to me.After all, if you have a family of two adults, or a family of one adult and two children, or a family of two grandprents,two parents, three kiRAB and a goldfish named fluffy,what should it matter to the state which way they get their jollies?At the end of the day, we are all of the same species.
The concept of 'marriage' has been weakening for decades.In the good old days, if you wanted to be sexually active, you found someone of the opposite sex,married them, and spent the rest of your life with them. If that's what all the anti's are trying to protect, sorry, but you are too late.The heterosexual community has decided that that is old hat. Thesedays, the sexual activity comes first, and if you are careless enough to start an an unplanned pregnancy, it is considered noble and old fashioned to settle for marriage together for a couple of years before separating acrimoniousy and spending the next decade in and out of court on alimony, child support, and custody issues.
Contemporary marriage is a shadow of the idealistic and romantic version promoted by the church. Take a look into any wedding chapel in Vegas on a Saturday night, you'll see a booking being made in a divorce court before the decade is out.Celebrity divorces have ceased to be scandalous,with no discernable public downside to behaviour that would have been considered outrageous thirty years ago.If Elvis were to be reincarnated and restart with the hip swivellin' leer,he'd barely warrant a second look.
Marriage is a washed-out shell on the great beach of life. As institutions go,it's pretty much continued for the sake of nostalgia.Without wishing to disrespect those who still believe,a church wedding has become more of a gratuitous display of opulence than a lifetime commitment to someone you really care about.Increasingly, weddings are becoming redundant as more and more people opt for civil ceremonies,or no ceremony at all.I say that marriage should be left for those who choose a religious path, and kept as an archaic ritual accessible only to those who have given a lifetime of commitment to their beliefs.
Of course, this would leave same-sex relationships out in the cold for most people.Thankfully, in my country, the government has recently taken a more enlightened approach.For those non-religious people who elect not to go down the path of marriage, there is the option of having your relationship legally recognised as a civil union.In fact, if you have been in a de facto relationship with the same person for more than two years, the law automatically allows you the same property status as a conventionally-married couple. These rules apply to everyone, hetero or homo.
Seems to make sense to me.After all, if you have a family of two adults, or a family of one adult and two children, or a family of two grandprents,two parents, three kiRAB and a goldfish named fluffy,what should it matter to the state which way they get their jollies?At the end of the day, we are all of the same species.