Gay marriage

[Aaron the Tall]

Suit yourself and gripe away then for what good it will do you. Same sex marriage is here to stay whether you like it or not and future generations will look back and wonder, what was people thinking back then, not allowing minorities the same rights as everyone else, in the same way we wonder how right thinking people could engage in slavery or employ young children as chimney sweeps etc.

In Britain the law is looking into honour crimes against the person, arranged marriage and female genital mutilation. And believe me, there are people who don't like it one bit.

It's all relative to changing times and peoples perception.

Your points equate to this:

1.) Don't bother arguing against something that is legal.

2.) There are some things that are legal that shouldn't be.

Take your pick, but you can't believe both.

 

[Hedshaker]

Your points equate to this:

1.) Don't bother arguing against something that is legal.

2.) There are some things that are legal that shouldn't be.

Take your pick, but you can't believe both.

I'm saying legalising same sex marriage is a good thing and I would argue that it's about time.

If you don't like it then tough. It's here to stay.

 

[quip]

You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

Homosexual unions can claim equal (not special) consideration concerning their civil rights. By contrast, you've given no argument as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special/exclusive government consideration via the exclusion of homosexual marriage...beyond the "natural" assertion.

Why should your opinionated view defining the nature of marriage disqualify homosexual marriage and/or justify a voilation of the latter's civil rights?

 

[TracerBullet]

You missed my point.

It is good that the government gives special recognition to certain relationships. I was asking if the person ever considered why they would. I wasn't saying the government shouldn't give special recognition.

It is not a basic fundamental right that the government give special recognition to every type of relationship in the US.

Where are the people upset that there isn't special recognition given to good heterosexual friends? Or to neighbors? Or to niece and aunt?

Government recognition is NOT a right of all relationships.

not all relationships are marriages

 

[Dan Emanuel]

not all relationships are marriages

And everybody has the right to have government help them enforce contract's they enter into, regardless of sex, gender or . . . "sexual orientation." If somebody want's to enter into a contract with another person, that guarantees certain power's and transfer of legal ownership in the event of death or incapacitation, then the government has to honor that, just like any other contract, between any two people.

This is America, after all.


Daniel

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Minors cannot make legally binding contracts, so that bars them from marrying as it does from making other contracts.

Close relatives are another issue. Here, adoptive siblings are forbidden to marry, so it is not a genetic relatedness issue, but a social 'yuk' factor AFAIK. I don't know the formal reason for banning these.

All we need to do is have some tv shows where aunt / nephew unions, or cousin / cousin unions are portrayed as regular loving relationships and the 'yuk' factor will go away.

Throw in a few high profile celebrities who 'come out' as being involved in a cousin / cousin union, and soon enough, even those who think these relationships are 'yuk' will simply say "it's none of my business, let them marry who they want."

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Equality isn't special.

That is your opinion but it is not supported by the facts.

What part isn't supported by facts? That heterosexual couples are the only relationship inherently capable of producing the next generation?

Or that these unions provide the ideal environment to raise kids?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Is the state not interested in the millions of children of same sex couples?

The state is interested in all children - which is why the government should be interested in making every effort to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be raised in the best environment possible - which is by two biological parents.

The state is interested in the children of single parent homes, or divorced families - but we wouldn't promote single parent homes as just as ideal as two parent homes.

When you say that homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage - you are saying that having a dad doesn't matter - or having a mom doesn't matter - that a mom or dad does not play a unique role in the development of a child.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Homosexual unions can claim equal (not special) consideration concerning their civil rights. By contrast, you've given no argument as to why heterosexual marriage deserves special/exclusive government consideration via the exclusion of homosexual marriage...beyond the "natural" assertion.

Why should your opinionated view defining the nature of marriage disqualify homosexual marriage and/or justify a voilation of the latter's civil rights?

What civil right are you talking about? Governmental benefits that extend beyond the basic benefits each person has as a US citizen are not civil rights.

People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied. But why should the government give any recognition to this or any particular relationship? They are not obligated to recognize or promote any relationship as special.

Should I cry that my civil rights are being trampled because I don't receive the same tax benefits that a small business does? Or that I don't receive the same tax benefits as someone over 65? These benefits are not a civil right to all people - they are special case benefits.

The simple fact is that heterosexual marriages by nature provide a different benefit to society than homosexual marriages - the same way that a small business provides a different benefit to society than a consumer.

 

[TracerBullet]

The state is interested in all children - which is why the government should be interested in making every effort to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be raised in the best environment possible - which is by two biological parents.

the claim of "best" isn't supported by research.

The state is interested in the children of single parent homes, or divorced families - but we wouldn't promote single parent homes as just as ideal as two parent homes.

When you say that homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage - you are saying that having a dad doesn't matter - or having a mom doesn't matter - that a mom or dad does not play a unique role in the development of a child.

Having good and loving parents matter. their genders are immaterial

 

[TracerBullet]

What civil right are you talking about? Governmental benefits that extend beyond the basic benefits each person has as a US citizen are not civil rights.

People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied. But why should the government give any recognition to this or any particular relationship? They are not obligated to recognize or promote any relationship as special.

equal isn't special

Should I cry that my civil rights are being trampled because I don't receive the same tax benefits that a small business does? Or that I don't receive the same tax benefits as someone over 65? These benefits are not a civil right to all people - they are special case benefits.

Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics.

 

[quip]

People have the right to unite to any person they want. That right is not being denied.

"Unite", within the context of legally recognized marriage...sure it is.

The simple fact is that heterosexual marriages by nature provide a different benefit to society than homosexual marriages - the same way that a small business provides a different benefit to society than a consumer.

The problem with simple facts are that they tend to give way under significant scrutiny. Traditional marriage is in no way diminished nor is its "benefit" to society being threatened by the inclusion of homosexuality. You've absolutely zero pragmatic objections to such legal unions.

 

[aikido7]

So, the moral of this whole long post is be like Jesus, love everyone and accept them with grace, but don’t call it marriage.

If only; if only.

Quotes from the Bible that showcase the message and the ethics of the authentic voice of Jesus of Nazareth fail to even register with most self-identified Christians.

 

[aikido7]

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

Only rampant biblical illiteracy leads to superficial, literal reading where we in the 21st century project our modern sensibilities back into an ancient and foreign culture.

Biblical hermeneutics pay fundamental attention to what a specific verse or passage meant to its original authors before we deem to pronounce what the Bible can mean for us today.

 

[turbosixx]

Or better yet, you call it what you want but in the real world it remains lawful marriage. And yes, wishing to deny a minority group a basic right that you take for granted, is nothing short of homophobic bigotry.

If you don't like it, well tough! What others do within the law is none of your business :thumb:

Let the spite begin

It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins. It's un-natural and it's not God's design. Hetero couples can have their own children, DNA from each parent by means of natural sexual relations. Homo couples can not have their own children, they have to have a third party involved or adopt. They're genitalia do not fit naturally and they're perverted sexual relations do not produce offspring because it's un-natural.

 

[gcthomas]

It doesn't matter who man joins together, what matters is who God joins.

Then why all the fuss about a law that requires states to offer civil marriage to gays? It is not a religious matter if what you say is correct.

 

[turbosixx]

Then why all the fuss about a law that requires states to offer civil marriage to gays? It is not a religious matter if what you say is correct.

The fuss is, it's just another indicator that this country is going away from God instead of towards. People have the free will to do whatever they want, but will have to give account before God on judgment day.

 

[gcthomas]

The fuss is, it's just another indicator that this country is going away from God instead of towards. People have the free will to do whatever they want, but will have to give account before God on judgment day.

Civil marriage is a civil matter, and nothing to do with third parties. If these people don't believe in the same variety of God as you, will you force your version on them?

 

[turbosixx]

Civil marriage is a civil matter, and nothing to do with third parties. If these people don't believe in the same variety of God as you, will you force your version on them?

I can't force anyone to do anything and wouldn't. All I can do is talk with someone to show them what I believe to be God's truth. God blesses those who follow his commandments and this country will not be a great nation for long if we keep pushing him out. I can live and die a Christian no matter what man does.

 

[gcthomas]

Good to hear it! :up: