For or Against Gay Marriage

give me a argument aganist gay marriage.

I can boil it down into fallacies, which essentially are lies, outright lies, and majority oppression. There isn't a single decent anti-gay argument that doesn't revolve around majority oppression and lies.
 
The person issuing the marriage license better damn sure care. It's his ass that's on the line for illegally granting a marriage license.

The issuer cares. I can't speak for the population.

Again, the issuer would care. I can't speak for others besides myself and I would care for the reasons that I've stated before.
 
Jaaaman, it's time to get over what happened over 30 years ago. Both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence. Obviously, the case that homosexuality is a disorder wasn't strong. Can you produce some new, previously unconsidered piece of evidence that being gay is a disorder?
 
OK then...

Anyways, I believe that any sexual decision that you make, whether homozygous or heterozygous, it is a choice. Not something that you can be born with.

(I know I've already said that, but let's build from that one more time)
 
Well that has only been answered 10 times.........take the time to read the thread.........Hell your posting here all night you at least have the time to do that.........
 
This would only favor DOMA if a lower court ruled in favor of it.



Unlikely. If you have two married couples (A and B) from State 1, and they move to State 2, I don't see how the court can rule that Couple A's marriage license doesn't have to be recognized if Couple B's marriage license is.



Who knows what this court will rule. :frazzled:




I don't know why this would make you happy. I know you're against abortion, but to rule that there is no right to privacy would give justice to big brother entering your home and monitoring you at the government's whim. Is that what you really want?

But maybe I am overreacting. I am not a legal scholar, after all.
 
we've gone from a simple question to, .. can you drive at 16 in NY to,.. they cause disease... i'm dizzy. i'm just ging to adress the first question. why not let people live the way they want if it dosen't harm any one else. and regardless of sex if they care enough to try to acomplish this they must place some value on it!.. which i can't say for all those married hetro couples that end in divorce in just a few years
 
By what authority would others deny two brothers (or two sisters) the right to marry, then?

Anyone?



Ehhh?



I think we are debating several things here at the same time, Ryuuichi. You make some reasonable points for "inclusions" most of them are common sense and have been presented before.

I am not arguing against "inclusion." Nor am I arguing from a standpoint of exclusion.

Let me see if I can lead you to my point of view with a question;

If a government is challenged with designing only the most basic template for establishing (defining) marriage as only what is necessary for the building of families and by extension society,.... what would the definition be?

The minimum definition, I think most people will agree is "one man one woman."

I believe that is where the government's involvment should end. It's not supposed to be about trying to acknowledge and validate everything individuals or groups of citizens can come up with. It (the government) has no choice but to define marriage for the sake of making laws for immigration, property rights, and other areas for the "general welfare" neeRAB of the nation.

"Gay Marriage" is not any where close to being on par with "heterosexual marriage" where the "general welfare" concerns of the nation have to be addressed.

You seem to approach it from the standpoint as something you want (broad definitions all inclusive) or would like to see,... I approach it from the standpoint of what the minimum basic neeRAB are for the society.

Indifference is not an assault on your rights.
 
This has been told to you before VoR. Close relations cannot marry for a valid biological reason. Is there a simialr reason for Gays not being allowed to marry?

Now you can answer this, - you can!
 
And only because I own a 2nd home in The Maritimes, I keep my 1st home in the Mid-Atlantic. I love P.E.I., and the wonderful people of P.E.I.
 
Dzeron is correct.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli, officially titled: "Treaty of Peace and FrienRABhip between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary" was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Article 11 states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Note the language: "America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion."

I read that as saying "whatever America was based on, it had nothing to do with Christianity." Our broad values are not Christian, their AMERICAN. "Freedom" "Democracy" and "Liberty" are not Christian values... their AMERICAN values and common sense values. They are not found in the bible. Biblical values are such things as piety, honesty, and kindness.
 
No, you did.



No you weren't. You were just up to your usual disingenuous tricks in a conversation. Meaning, never honest debate.

While slobbering on your lap.
 
Mary actually worked very hard for the campaign..........Cheney on Larry King the other night said she was a valuable asset.............Its a shame that you on the left attackd her like sharks that smelled blood in thje water but it does not surprise me........
 
Back
Top