- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,146
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.
So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.
This is not true for all marriages. There are still couples who take their marriage very seriously. Many do not, many abuse marriage laws, but just because society isn't perfect and the sanctity of marriage is undermined by many doesn't mean we should further undermine its sanctity.My point is, marriage is just a word now.
Society has changed, bonds are formed by the need to survive. Woman no longer need a man to survive, therefore, she has the option to leave him and vice versa.
Why, and how does homosexual marriage undermine the sanctity of marriage?
Ok, this is a thread for those to support gay marriage ban based on the constitution and DOMA.
Okay so irregardless of the definition of a stupid word, as I understand it, you do support civil unions don't you?
I mean, should we really actually get all uppity about a stupid word, for it to stand in the way of somebodies personal freedom to choose who they want their partner to be, and have equal rights as a married couple? and that goes for both sides.
Republican governors have vetoed bills that contain provisions for civil unions before. SO sometimes that whole sanctity of marriage thing is bull, cause they didn't even call it that and it still got blocked.
Hawaai.
This is not true for all marriages. There are still couples who take their marriage very seriously. Many do not, many abuse marriage laws, but just because society isn't perfect and the sanctity of marriage is undermined by many doesn't mean we should further undermine its sanctity.
Marriage is a union between a man and woman. The roles in a marriage are that of having a husband and wife. The husband and wife roles are gender specific. A homosexual union being called marriage would warp this definition and undermine what marriage really is.
So we should further undermine the sanctity of marriage because it's already bad? A homosexual union, by definition, is not a marriage.
I do support civil unions. I have no problem with gays being able to serve openly in the military, have legal benefits with their partners, and be allowed to make medical decisions for each other if one is unable to.
People have the personal freedom to lawfully live how they want to. I don't really care if someone is gay even if I believe the life style is sinful. However, I don't support calling it marriage and changing the definition of marriage to fit homosexual unions.
I disagree with those governors who have vetoed civil unions. It doesn't undermine the sanctity of marriage to extent civil unions to homosexuals, as a civil union is not a marriage. I feel they most likely did it either because they were homophobic or wanted to please constituents.
I personally think this is stupid for fights over a word and a huge waste of time and money.
You really buy that bull? This has nothing to do with the word "marriage". That is rhetoric when the real agenda is to do everything to keep homosexuality from becoming an acceptable part of society. Why do you think 19 states have Constituional amendments against both marriage and civil unions?
The problem with this is that you are actually trying to protect the wrong thing. The marriage contract issued by the state is a civil union. It has nothing to do with anyone's religious or personal beliefs about a union (except those wrongly included as part of anti-ssm agendas).
Maybe they should just change the name of all "marriage licenses" to civil union licenses. That way no one can "own" the word marriage because no one will be officially/legally calling themselves married. Everyone will be in a civil union. I personally think this is stupid for fights over a word and a huge waste of time and money.
I think you missed the point of the distinction. Yes, what the government gives you is a essentially a civil union. Homosexual couples should get all these benefits. However, marriage intrinsically religious context. Chang\ing the title for the government documents is what society should do. Leave marriage to the religious and have civil unions for the government. I however do think this fight means something due to the religious connotation. You may or may not be religious. But for those of us who are, marriage means that God is integrated into the marriage. Even secular heterosexual couples shouldn't use the term.
Ok, this is a thread for those to support gay marriage ban based on the constitution and DOMA.
For those who do, do this. Why don't you support a repeal of DOMA and protections included in the constitution to protect people with difference sexual orientations?
I mean surely more freedom is a good thing.
And before you pull out the sanctity of marriage thing, the Divorce rate is over 50% (Could be wrong?) in the states. Not exactly much sanctity left there, is there.
Defense of Marriage Act.And what is DOMA
Except marriage has rarely been about religion. There isn't anyone fighting to do away with Justices of the Peace being able to wed people. There aren't people fighting to include a "what is your religion" or even "are you of a religion" on the marriage license. I could almost accept that people want the word marriage to be just for religions if these were being fought for, but they aren't. It is wrong to assume that religion owns a word. It doesn't.
And, on top of that, the concept of marriage existed well before the concept of "one God". And the English word "marriage" didn't even exist when Jesus talked of "marriage". Words are just words.
I do not deny that marriage, in the past, has had other additional meanings. However, I completely disagree that marriage has rarely been about religion. Religion has been intertwined with marriage for over 4000 years if not longer. Political, social, or marriages of convenience (except for the last couple of decades) have all been established in religion.
No one is fighting for these things because people generally don't care. However, those of us who are religious should be fighting that the Bible not be used by the Justice of the Peace to give marriage vows. Marriage is religious and should remain religious. Words are not just words. Words do have meaning.
Just chiming in here, haven't even read the thread, or the OP, but something occurred to me. How many people do you know that have no kids, remain married past 5, 10, 20 years? Just curious. I ask, because, although clearly married with children is no guarantee of stability, it does seem intuitively to be superior to childless marriages? Too lazy to look it up, but if anyone was so inclined I'd bet money the figure is illuminating?
Seriously, I don't know of ANY childless couples married for any extended period of time?
Tim-
Whose religious standards should we use? There are plenty of religions that condone marriage between members of the same sex, including various denominations within Christianity and the Abrahamic religions in general, and has the same religious importance to these groups as to others that don't condone same sex marriage. Are you arguing that we should only respect the views of a single religious standard? I wonder what the First Amendment has to say about that?
If a word is just a word as roguenuke states then homosexual couples should be fine with civil unions and equal protection.
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?