For or Against Gay Marriage

You seem to hold an awefully lot of trust for a strong central government which controls every aspect of the law.

Not everybody is as trusting as you are. Including me.

That's how dictatorships happen, you know. Now, mind you... I'm not one of those people who compares Bush to a dictator. I'm voting for him this election, after all.

Though, I also look to the future. I'll have no single central figure, at the head of a single central government, in charge of my life. That just seems dangerous and stupid to me.

And your other point: no, the mormons never supported same-sex marriage. But you missed my point by a mile: they DID support a definition of marriage which was entirely different from the one used today. Which goes to show that the one we use today is just one of MANY possible definitions of marriage... and you might do well to remember this, when you argue against same sex marriage simply because it violates the "definition of marriage".
 
US Constitution
Article VI, Clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

US Bill of Rights (containing amendments to said Constitution)
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now it seems that by defining marriage religiously, and by making laws about marriage that coincides with people's religious definitions of marriage, the US gov't is unconstitutionally establishing a state religion.



http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
 
I've demonstrated that I can look at this with logic, by holding you accountable for using an old, overused, logical fallacy. The issue may affect me because I identify as gay, even though I have equal rights in Ontario in Canada, but I have not demonstrated that my logic is flawed by my arguments, and you have shown that your logic is flawed.
 
jitobear said:
That is because you hate straight males and are bitter because of what happened to you in your marriage..........You can't judge all men by one bad one........

As far as your gay boyfriend goes that is an improvement but a straight father is still the most ideal situation fro raising a child...........Of course there are exceptions as I said.........
Click to expand...
 
Voice Of Reason said:
I learned how to camp from being in the boys scouts. Didn't like american football, but I played soccer (learned that in school). Learned cricket in school, how to swim form the boys scouts, learned about the "facts of life" from my mother, my uncles, my grandparents, and other family members. Unlike most families here (it seems) mine wasn't shy about teaching me what I needed to know in relation to sex, including what to do when someone who should be an authority figure touches you in inappropriate ways.

How is any of this exclusive to parents, much less to supposed gender roles that specific parents play?
Click to expand...
 
This 2000 years old Book never gets old.God never changes and age to age He stays the same.He punishes evil nations who dare to rebel against His Law no matter what century is,whether it is 15th or 21st.God rules for ever and ever,Amen!
 
It does state that MSM are statistically considered a high risk category in the U.S. So yes, a high percentage of cases would come high-risk parnters such as bi-sexual men, "OR HIV-INFECTED MEN", "OR HIV-INFECTED MEN WITH UNSPECIFIED RISKS". It's being transmitted by heterosexual sex, as I said before. If I get a disease from my partner, why should I put the blame on the person who gave it to my partner?:rolleyes:
 
Show me where I said this. I didn't. That is your interpretation. I was saying it COULD involve that.



No. I didn't say that. I said there were different types of marriages, and that the different types are different topics. You were arguing in favour of no sex, no romantic attachment type of marriages, for the benefits. These already can occur with different sex couples, who are not related, and could also conceivably occur with same-sex couples who are not related. Romantic and sexual marriages are a different topic in any case.
 
Back
Top