For or Against Gay Marriage

There is no legitimate social purpose, or government purpose, in promoting marriage between anyone.

As long as the government does recognize marriage, however, gays have a 14th Amendment right to that recognition.
 
Which communities?




Please cite some statistics?



This is comical. How do ANY of those worRAB change meaning? A husband is a husband, regardless of gender. A widow is a widow, regardless of gender. An aunt is still an aunt, etc..

You seem to be stuck up on gender "roles" more than anything.



My marriage will not affect yours in anyway. Yours is an elistist mentality. You need to get over that.
 
Ditto in Canada. In fact the legislation going through at the moment specifically addresses certain religious concerns that queers will force unwilling churches to officiate at any weddings, same-sex or otherwise.
 
How would it further weaken the family unit, I assume you mean the heterosexual family unit, and what was weakening it before?




How's that working for you, repressing your own homosexuality? It must be a really big effort to try to re-channel those desires.



Lack of education will put them at risk.



We will look at things besides the sex of the parents to determine what is the best household.



No, and that's been refuted enough times in this forum.



No one is saying you can't believe it is wrong. Are your beliefs against it, only shaped by society's disapproval?



How will marriage for gay and lesbian people accomplish that? We're talking about the right to civil marriage, religious institutions can refuse to marry anyone or agree to marry anyone they wish.
 
Don't support it on two reasons:

1. Marraige is a church institution. As such, they should be the ones who decides what is and is not appropriate. I firmly believe that all marraiges should be handed back to the church, and the government should have nothing to do with it.

2. Saying the federal government has rights over the state government on most matters is not something that should happen. The only thing the federal government should do is deal with foreign nations, and keep states from fighting. That is it. If you want gay marraiges, go to CA or Mass. ost of the people around here don;t want it, why should someone in Washingto tell us how to deal with social issues?
 
Luckily, there is no God because if there was a god like the one depicted in your bible he'd be at BEST and dead beat dad and at worst an murdering, narcissistic, pederast. Be good because you know the difference and ACT more like Jesus instead of invoking his name each time you don't like something!
 
Cre8ivE said:
I would like to re-voice my statement (with a nod in agreement to joebrummer's comments that such will most likely not be going away...) that we should not be extending the law to include additional 'minorities' or 'protected groups'...otherwise we will soon HAVE to include Christians, whites, and males directly in the law(s) as the percentages of those three groups in the US are dropping steadily and reliably, in fact whites ARE the minoriy in some states already...so, do we then HAVE to write the law to include them specifically (as minorities) as well?


We already include all of those groups in most, if not all protection laws. It usually reaRAB: Race (black or white) , Religion (pick one), Age, Gender, in some cases but certianly not all it may include sexual orientation (not preference). So what exacltly are you talking about? You seem to imply that we will actually need the laws we already have.


They do this now!

Cre8ivE said:
And will the homosexual groups be 'bigger' than the 'right-wing', and support adding christians, whites, and males, when it's their "turn" to join the list of statisical minorities? We already protect all of those groups.







This is a great attempt at finding a common ground, but this whole posts goes under the idea that christians, whites, males are not protected groups and they are......gays are not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It may be 90%, but I recall that 22% of US is non-religous, and a large percent is other religion, and to your believing in God, Muslims are part of your Duo there, and many religions have a God so they believe in God, maybe they just think he or she or neither, is different from what you think.

Also W. Europe was founded by your Christain values, but now they are getting secular, though I would never say abolish religions, but not have a theocratic state, all religions should be tolerated, and anything produced by government should not have religios symbols or sayings on them, and even if this nation was founded christain, we should move to the better secular state.

And if this country were founded on christain values
CROSS OFF CAPITALISM
 
Well, if I were a gay American, I meant. Why would being accepted for who I am be a problem? It was you who brought up the issue of acceptance. You seem to be concerned that gay marriage would lead to more acceptance of gay people in the USA. Why is that a concern for you? Do you not want gay people to be accepted in American society?
 
I would never toss them away and I would support them in every way I could short of supporting them to get married.............That would be in direct conflict with what my church teaches..........
 
Back
Top