No, it won't. How would allowing two consenting adults to marry make it so that we would have to let people who want to marry an animal who can't consent?
You can't say gay marriage is wrong because you think something might come up after it.
Woman marries herself
Singles frustrated with trying to find a spouse now have a solution, thanks to the new re-definitions of marriage. A woman in the Netherlands is getting married to herself. 30-year-old Jennifer Hoes has set the date for May 28. She has her wedding dress, her friends and family have their invitations, and the dinner will cost $22,000. The wedding itself will be in the city hall of Harleem. Apparently, in the anything-goes marriage laws of the Netherlands, the wedding will be legal.
She told Dutch and German newspapers that she will vow to "love, respect and honor" herself in good times and in bad. "We live in a 'Me' society," she said. "Hence it is logical that one promises to be faithful to oneself."
All of this leads UPI religion editor Uwe Siemon-Netto, who reported the story, to wonder:
jamesrage said:
jamesrage said:
ILikeDubyah said:"The legal union of a MAN and a WOMAN" - Direct from dictionary.com
By allowing gay "marriage" you would change the definition & meaning of the word "marriage" itself. Gay "Marriage" is impossible....
Words take on new inclusions all the time...like cool to describe a hip person or hot to describe an attractive person...so whats your point about definition.
As for how it could destroy someone's marriage personally....I think "destroy" was just the wrong word choice. If it were allowed, I would feel that my marriage is less special, and feel a bit weird about the whole situation, and yes, it is just because that word would change meaning.
Then you go home and tell your wife tonight..."Honey, I think about what gay men do so much that if I knew they were getting married our relationship wouldnt be as special anymore. When gay men start getting married, I'm going to feel weird about us."
I'm sure that will make her very proud to be with you.
Maybe I can have the meaning of the words Weapons of Mass Destruction to include....Sand...then what do you know...There are pleanty of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.....See, changing definitions just doesn't work...If that did happen, all of the people against the ongoing war would feel abit weird about the whole situation, right?
Smoke screens, red herrings, and revisionism do not make up for pure bigotry and prejudice.
ILikeDubyah said:"The legal union of a MAN and a WOMAN" - Direct from dictionary.com
By allowing gay "marriage" you would change the definition & meaning of the word "marriage" itself. Gay "Marriage" is impossible....
As for how it could destroy someone's marriage personally....I think "destroy" was just the wrong word choice. If it were allowed, I would feel that my marriage is less special, and feel a bit weird about the whole situation, and yes, it is just because that word would change meaning.
Maybe I can have the meaning of the words Weapons of Mass Destruction to include....Sand...then what do you know...There are pleanty of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.....See, changing definitions just doesn't work...If that did happen, all of the people against the ongoing war would feel abit weird about the whole situation, right?
Yep. Because Britney Spears' heterosexual, 55-hour, drunken and on-a-whim Vegas marriage was legitimate and sacred.
To the people who don't agree with gay marrige:
To gay people: You dont have to think that you cant be execpted into God kingdom because of your sexual preference. God loves everyone. And simply remember what Jesus said, If you want to go to heaven, follow the commandments, and all you know, he summed up the commandments into the golden rule: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
If want to be married marry someone of the oppissite sex.IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH GAY MARRIGE, DONT MARRY YOUR OWN SEX, AND MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
Its been prooven that you are born gay. It is uncontrolable. That is like hating someone because of their skin (and as all of you know...that led to alot of unjust loss of life).
jamesrage said:Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer.
jamesrage said:To the morons who want to bastardize marriage.The only gay marriage I support is a gay man marrying a gay woman.For you stupid morons who beleave God loves everyone is a excuse to let people do what ever they want read the bible.No where does it say love the individual and let them continue
on sinning.Do you think he burned down Sodam and Gamora for the **** of it.
If want to be married marry someone of the oppissite sex.
Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer.
jamesrage said:To the morons who want to bastardize marriage.The only gay marriage I support is a gay man marrying a gay woman.For you stupid morons who beleave God loves everyone is a excuse to let people do what ever they want read the bible.No where does it say love the individual and let them continue
on sinning.Do you think he burned down Sodam and Gamora for the **** of it.
If want to be married marry someone of the oppissite sex.
Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer.
jamesrage said:To the morons who want to bastardize marriage.The only gay marriage I support is a gay man marrying a gay woman.For you stupid morons who beleave God loves everyone is a excuse to let people do what ever they want read the bible.No where does it say love the individual and let them continue
on sinning.Do you think he burned down Sodam and Gamora for the **** of it.
If want to be married marry someone of the oppissite sex.
Duke said:IT HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN PROVEN THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN GAY AND THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY GAY, SO THEY AREN'T CURSED BY THE DEVIL AND JESUS CAN'T SAVE THEM!!! So I guess that means that you Catholics out there are wrong once again. Maybe your God was wrong.
Duke said:I've seen no such study. From the essays I've read(and I've read alot, I used to love psychology) there is no conclusive evidence to suggest such things. If memory serves, there is around a 60% chance that in the case of monozygotic twins one will be a homosexual if the other twin is. I believe that was the Minnesota University Twin study. I'd have to go dig around for my psych book, but I don't think that that number is conclusive of a homosexual "gene" or a "born gay" theory.
Gandhi>Bush said:I've seen no such study. From the essays I've read(and I've read alot, I used to love psychology) there is no conclusive evidence to suggest such things. If memory serves, there is around a 60% chance that in the case of monozygotic twins one will be a homosexual if the other twin is. I believe that was the Minnesota University Twin study. I'd have to go dig around for my psych book, but I don't think that that number is conclusive of a homosexual "gene" or a "born gay" theory.
Kelzie said:It was actually 50%. But as far as genetics go, that is hugely significant. Other highly inheritable traits, such as...damn I'm going to slaughter this word...schitzophrenia, also have a 50% concurance rate in identical twins.
Zyphlin said:First off, please show me proof its been "scientifically proven" that it is only something born into? I am curious here
Second off, I think "marrige" as a term should be pulled completely from the government. I believe that the government should simply replace all terms of "marrige" in its laws with "union". By presenting a note from a religious organization stating you are "married" is one way to apply for a "union" under the government. Having a "civil union" under the government...be it straight or gay, but basically between any two consenting people...is another way for a "union" to happen.
Marrige should be a religious institution, and as such, should not be forced to change from how it is. Marrige, in the religious terms, IS between a man and woman. HOWEVER, because the government uses the term as well, it gets sticky. This is why I think the government should replace the word marrige with union in its laws.
This way any two consenting people that wish to live and spend the rest of thier life together can get the tax breaks and benifits under the law that make life easier for them. However it doens't infringe upon the "sanctity" or religious marrige.
If homosexuals still demand...even if that happened...to be allowed to marry, then that is simply trying to change religion and they can do it through the religious people and not the government as its not the governments place to regulate religion.
Personally I think that is the best option. I do not believe homosexuals should be able to enter into a christian marrige, however I DO believe they should gain the benifits of a civil union under the law.
The polygamoy quesiton is a good one though, i'll think on that
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?