- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 9,349
- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Location
- Montana
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh and now we're headed down the 'purpose-of-marriage' road...well, have fun new people, I hope you learn a thing or two regardless of which side of the issue you're on :2wave:
And Welcome to DP for those I haven't met yet
The idea of marriage "devaluing" gays is absurd
But do hetrosexual woman have the same right as heterosexual men to marry a woman?
Oh wait never mind it is a gender based issue and we. All know the sexes are not equal.
You mean until they get it THIER way? It's hardly a "right" or "wrong" issue but more one of interpretation.
The idea of marriage has never really been an issue until GAY activists decided they wanted to re-define it and force their views on the majority.
Feel free to leave the discussion, but keep in mind that I'm not the one who brought up the "trying to re-define marriage" talking point crap.
Who is trying to force their views on who?
No one on the pro-gay marriage side is saying YOU have to have a gay marriage or that you don't have a right to your own personal views.
The same cannot be said for the anti-gay marriage crowd.
Yea because all gay people are left leaning. :roll:
Stupid question but wouldn't this whole issue be alot simpler if Gays got the right to marry under 'civil unions' with laws introduced to give them equal rights as those married e.g. tax breaks, inheritance etc.
I would accept that.
Stupid question but wouldn't this whole issue be alot simpler if Gays got the right to marry under 'civil unions' with laws introduced to give them equal rights as those married e.g. tax breaks, inheritance etc.
Its basically marriage but shuts up the traditionalists.
I would accept that.
I would accept that.
and its only a matter of time before churches start spreading their lies and deceit in order to scare the brainless that gay marriage will lead to the complete collapse of heterosexual life.
I would accept that.
I wouldn't. Separate but equal is never either.
I would be fine with government getting out of the marriage field altogether and civil unions for everyone.
I agree with all that however I think the unconstitutionality comes in when one group is treated with a different standard than another. That goes against equal protection and equal rights.
Basically the government is handing goodies to one group of people while simultaneously devaluing another.
I am hardly surprise to see you purposely misquote the argument; it is about the further breakdown of families. But alas, why should you give a crap about family or family values and the importance for them to have a MOM and a DAD right? :roll:
I am hardly surprise to see you purposely misquote the argument; it is about the further breakdown of families. But alas, why should you give a crap about family or family values and the importance for them to have a MOM and a DAD right? :roll:
Well, I for one don't think that the government should be able to dictate religious matters just as religions shouldn't be able to dictate government matters. If a church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage because it goes against their dogma they shouldn't be forced to.
How many times do the need to vote on it?
I wonder what actuaries at insurance companies would do with the term?
It would end a lot of the fight and to be honest I'd be quite happy with that. However, there would be people who would continue to argue that it still doesn't make it "equal".
Until the proponents for gay marriage win..........That is the way it is on any issue........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?