- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,657
- Reaction score
- 75,597
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.
Immediately goes for ad hominem. Typical. Pathetic.
How so? IMO they are being treated like 2nd class citizens here....just like when blacks had to sit separately or use different bathrooms.
Except you are trying to use that "say" to violate the constitution, to suppress someone else's freedom based on nothing more than your personal disapproval of their actions. You don't believe in small government, you believe in using the government as the club to enforce your will onto others. Sorry, friend, this is America. That's not how we do things here. You want to restrict someone's freedom, you need a better basis for that restriction than thinking gay sex is icky.
Unless you are ultra-authoritarian, in which case you believe the government should be empowered to restrict choices arbitrarily.
It takes one hell of a set of blinders to make that kind of comparison.
The consequences of the destruction of the traditional Family unit are more apparent in inner city areas than any other location in America including rural trailer parks.
One is a real and perpetual tragedy that leads to poverty, dependence, drug abuse, crime, violence and a lack of education.
The other us a worn out sterotype, a dumb joke.
Obama and Holder didn't need anything but an EO to stop the DOMA (which Clinton signed) so don't tell me about process. It's skewed.
People were pushing for same sex marriage to be legal long before Obama or Holder. It has been political ever since DOMA and before. It was political from the very first time that some state decided that same sex couples could not enter into marriages the same way that opposite sex couples do.
You are just continuing to assume that marriage in this country has never changed. It has many times. It changed when women got equal rights. It changed when divorce was opened up to not requiring a reason beyond "we want to split up". It changed when interracial couples were allowed to marry in every state. It changed when wives could have their husbands charged with rape.
There is no real reason to waste the time and money to make the change. And you won't likely get the support for such a thing. Those like me aren't going to support it (because it is pointless and makes those pushing for it look like pouting children) and those who are hardcore against same sex marriage aren't going to support it because they don't want to "legitimize" any same sex relationships. Plus, many simply don't want to give up their use of the word "marriage".
I guess because I think it's a long way from being barred from buying a home or getting a good job to the privilege of having a piece of paper that says "You're married". To me, being with someone I love is far more important than the paper that the state of NJ gave to me & my husband. Not even the opponents of gay marriage seem to be saying that gay people shouldn't be with those they love.
LOL !!
So you found another activist judge that supports your opinion ?
Shock !
All the wacko activist Liberal judges in the World cant redefine whats essential a age old social tennant.
A institution thats survived the ages up until a small minority of crazy activist, who use the premise of "equal rights" while they target and malign those who disagree with them decided it needed to be changed .
Oh I think there's support for it out there. No one has to give up their use of the word marriage, you just can no longer define it for another. Since the institution of marriage as we have known it for thousands of years no longer exists, what's the beef? Oh and please spare me the argument of cost after the hundreds of millions or more the left has spent in their quest to redefine marriage.
What does that tell you?
Who or what are Zues?
Again, SSM have happened lots throughout history. Even long before the Vikings came to the America's. Just because religious folks refuse to acknowledge them does not mean that they didn't exist.
Inspired by God
The NT is an affermation of the old.
I've had the same Bible forever.
What you fail to grasp is you have taken an fundamental institution in this country and turned it upside down by redefining the term marriage as it has been recognized for thousands of years. So if you can redefine marriage, why can't civil unions be redefined? In doing so your "marriage" can be defined any way you like it.
Really? other than Gays' who was pushing for it...let's say during the Clinton administration?
And how many have pushed back?
Thanks for proving my point.Zeus was the Father of the Greek Gods. There is a whole pantheon of religions and Gods that have been discarded over the thousands of years that humans have worshiped gods.
I'm asking because I don't know. Where were same sex marriages legal in early centuries?
Can you tell me what effect that 'redefinition' would have? What would happen?
Because right now, there are thousands of gay couples heading up families in this country. THat will not stop, no matter what it's called. It doesnt have to be recognized legally at all; they still will not go away. Gay people want kids and families just as much as straight couples...reproduction is pretty much the strongest of our instincts.
Not calling it marriage now reclassifies ALL THOSE FAMILIES as 2nd class as well. Those kids now grow up in 'different' families, just like kids from broken homes of divorce where scorned in school and treated differently...until society finally caught up to reality. They were treated like they were different.
Tell me, how are the kids, the families, of gays different from other families? When they grow up...straight...do they have to have a civil union or a marriage? If they are gay....still no marriage allowed huh? So some kids have wedding and the others have to have civil ceremonies, right in the same family....THese would be GOVT ENFORCED distinctions FORCED on families. How is that possibly a good thing? Telling some, in the same family, they are all different by 'some religious strangers' opinion. It's unconscionable and will be an embarrassment to coming generations and look back.
Just a couple of examples; The Indians believed in their own form of SSM. There was a Chinese emperor that married another guy. Several others through out history. Even some Christian ones, though I can't remember the names of the Christian ones. :shrug:
That's just it, the government would no longer enforce any definition of marriage everything becomes neutral in the government's eyes. What your union is to you is your business. You just no longer have the right to define what marriage is to another.
I guess because I think it's a long way from being barred from buying a home or getting a good job to the privilege of having a piece of paper that says "You're married". To me, being with someone I love is far more important than the paper that the state of NJ gave to me & my husband. Not even the opponents of gay marriage seem to be saying that gay people shouldn't be with those they love.
Thanks. Please point out anything in this passage that cant be applied to a gay couple as well?
"The term “one flesh” means that just as our bodies are one whole entity and cannot be divided into pieces and still be a whole, so God intended it to be with the marriage relationship. There are no longer two entities (two individuals), but now there is one entity (a married couple). There are a number of aspects to this new union.
As far as emotional attachments are concerned, the new unit takes precedence over all previous and future relationships (Genesis 2:24). Some marriage partners continue to place greater weight upon ties with parents than with the new partner. This is a recipe for disaster in the marriage and is a perversion of God’s original intention of “leaving and cleaving.” A similar problem can develop when a spouse begins to draw closer to a child to meet emotional needs rather than to his or her partner.
Emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, financially, and in every other way, the couple is to become one."
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?