- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,285
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Deegan said:Again, should we not focus on civil unions, or are we going to go in to how f**ked up marriage is again, and if that's true, wouldn't you like your own definition?
And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's that simple. Preacher Bob and his congregation can believe whatever they want about marriage and what it means, but the law and the government have no business defining it for everyone.ProudAmerican said:Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else under the law....
They do not deserve however to be able to change the traditional definition of a word.
Navy Pride said:Most religions teach love the sinner and hate the sin be it Adultery, gay sex, etc....
Navy Pride said:That is not my reason for being against gay marriage though............I have posted my reasons many times in this forum and they have very little to do with religion.......
Deegan said:Again, should we not focus on civil unions, or are we going to go in to how f**ked up marriage is again, and if that's true, wouldn't you like your own definition?
And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.
danarhea said:The bottom line is that, whatever laws are passed in regard to marriage, you can ignore them if you choose to do so. If you marry without getting a license, you are still married, and many states still recognize "common law" marriages, which is what they are. Whether you are married or not is in the eyes of God, not man (through government).
Nevertheless, all states - including those that have abolished common-law marriage - continue to recognise common-law marriages lawfully contracted in Scotland and those U.S. jurisdictions that still permit this irregular contract of a marriage. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution - which has never been used to validate a sister-state marriage, and is completely irrelevant to common-law marriages to start with (because there is no sister-state public act, public record or judicial proceeding to recognise pursuant to the clause). Rather, states recognise each other's marriages, and those from foreign countries, under their own conflict and choice of law rules. In general, a marriage that is validly contracted in the foreign state will be recognised as valid in the forum state, unless the marriage is odious to the public policy of the forum state.
Alex said:You're right. I believe the government should stay out of marriage all together and call them all "civil unions", whether gay, straight, or multiple. I am still trying to get out of the habit using the word "marriage" in regard to this subject.
Binary_Digit said:And the government should not be using the law to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's that simple. Preacher Bob and his congregation can believe whatever they want about marriage and what it means, but the law and the government have no business defining it for everyone.
Stace said:That'll never happen. People aren't just going to start saying "Oh yes, I'm in a civil union with so-and-so"....
Alex said:They will not have to say "civil union" because their churches will still marry them, therefore, it is still a marriage if they wish it to be.
"let the churches keep their definitions and rituals and establish civil unions for the legal purposes of extending legal rights."
"Preacher Bob and his congregation would still be free to think whatever they like. Churches already have the freedom to not perform a ceremony for couples for any reason."
"We can't just pick and choose who receives the benefits of marriage - it's all or none."
doughgirl said:Shouldn't they have that right?
Then anyone one who wants to be married whether it be two males, two females, man and woman, groups of more than two, three, four etc..........should legally have the rights and privledges and benefits of the government recognizing their marriage?
Stace said:And for those of us that aren't religious? Why should there be a difference? My marriage isn't of any lessor value just because it wasn't performed in a religious ceremony.
Yeah those damn homosexuals! All they want to do is attack the tradition of marriage, that's their objective for sure.ProudAmerican said:its unfortunate that they have to.
too bad homosexuals feel the need to attack tradition.
Alex said:You're right. I believe the government should stay out of marriage all together and call them all "civil unions", whether gay, straight, or multiple. I am still trying to get out of the habit using the word "marriage" in regard to this subject.
Deegan said:Marriage has earned the right to be here, allow civil unions the same chance, but I can't allow marriage to be tossed to the curb to make others feel better about themselves. It's not about religion, not for many of us, it's about what marriage has meant to millions of people, a special bond between man and wife. We now know same sex couples would like their own special bond, let us allow them that, it can't hurt, well, unless we change the meaning for millions of other men and women.
Kandahar said:You know, you guys cite "love the sinner, hate the sin" so much that if one didn't know better, one might think that Jesus actually said it. The central tenet of Jesus' teaching was something more along the lines of "love the sinner, forgive the sin."
No, they have to do with the actions of judges that you don't agree with. Which, incidentally, makes no sense whatsoever even if one accepts your premise that the judge is incorrect. If a judge incorrectly rules that driving a car is a constitutional right, you don't fix the problem by making it illegal to drive.
Navy Pride said:I am for equal rights for every Ameircan and when it comes to gays I think that can be accomplished via civil unions.........As jallman has said and I agree that is what most gay people want........Its just a small group of militant gays and "Feel good" Liberals who stir the pot and cause the problems.......
Kandahar said:That is fine, as long as you are willing to settle for a civil union too. If not, why should they have to settle for something less? Whatever you and Jallman believe that "most gay people want" is irrelevant. Most people don't want to go para-sailing, or eat Spaghetti-O's, or read Slaughterhouse Five, or attend a NRA meeting, or watch Lola Rennt, or take a class to learn to speak Japanese, etc. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal for those who do want to do those things.
Kandahar said:That is fine, as long as you are willing to settle for a civil union too. If not, why should they have to settle for something less?
drobforever said:As long as civil union is re-defined to have the same civil rights as marriage I don't think anyone can say it's 'something less'.
Navy Pride said:I have been married for 40 years and was married in the Catholic Church and at the American Embassy in Seoul South Korea......
Navy Pride said:The American people want Marriage to remain a union between a man and a woman and know matter how good it makes you nd other liberals to think you can change that it won't happen in our lifetime.......
“That's taking it a little far. All marriages that fall within the parameters set forth by the government have to be recognized. Otherwise, people would get crazy with discriminating against certain couples for the most asinine reasons.”
“Yeah those damn homosexuals! All they want to do is attack the tradition of marriage, that's their objective for sure.”
“How can anyone suggest that the heterosexual ritual of marriage is worthy of defending when more than 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce? Add in X% more who don't divorce but live in a loveless marriage and then we can talk about the true meaning of the "tradition of marriage."
“It cracks me up when people defend marriage as if it is sacred! How can something be sacred when more than half the time to people who committed to their sacred vows get divorced?”
“I think that people who are "traditionally" anti-gay overall use the marriage issue as a smokescreen or shield that allows them to express their true displeasure for Gay people.”
NavyPride said, “2. Judges are suppose to interpret law not make it...........”
doughgirl said:
Well for some gay marriage is taking it to far. Who would have ever thought 25 years ago………20 years ago that gay marriage would be an issue today. But it is.
Why really am I taking it to far by simply asking the question about group marriage? Its not to far way........
Who sets the parameters?
By denying the polygamist you do exactly what you say those against gay unions are doing. Why shouldn’t the government acknowledge group marriages?
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?