Conversation is boring. If marriage is a religious institution, any church can marry anybody and the state should be ambivalent. If marriage is a state thing, the state should marry people equitably. End of story. EDIT: Usual disclaimers, no kids, no forced-marriages...yadayada...consenting adults...
Are Hindus allowed to get married? Or Baha'i? Or Buddhists? Or Atheists? Or getting married by a court? Because if Marriage is a religious institution, and religious institutions have and will marry same-sex couples, wouldn't this further legitimize same-sex marriage?
Do you somehow believe that the State ought to institute any new proposal unless it's first given sufficient reason not to? You seem to be viewing the burden of proof from the wrong side. I wonder why.
I'm all for giving equality out. If gays want to marry, its none of my business. I have friends and family that are gay and I support them. However, I just think they are messing up a good thing. I wish society wasn't pushing marriage on me.
This is another fringe issue along with immigration policy that is hurting the GOP. They would be wise to reverse course here and leave it to the states.
do atheists get married in this country? and regarding the ass pal comment, there is an entire subgroup of homosexuals that don't practice that sexual position that you have conjured up and eloquently painted. they are called lesbian women. also abstinent homosexuals. seems to me everyone against gay marriage are all hung up on sexual intercourse between two men. why is that?
There are clear physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that does not lead one to believe that homosexuality is a choice (because, of course, people choose to put shafts in their mouths because it will gain them persecution and increased incidence of suicide and social anxiety). For example--- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm In any case, this is a moot debate. Even if homosexuality was a choice, what makes it so punishable that you would want to deprive homosexuals and society at large of one of the most stable institutions there are?
as for "the laws of nature", I challenge any one of you who subscribe to that that eerie notion to look up natural sequential hermaphroditism. If you want to hear the real tale behind how Finding Nemo should have ended, hit me up. Trust me, you do not want to refer to the "laws of nature". nature scccccuuuury.
homosexuality actually poses no problem for evolution, that's why it's observed with such prevalence in the animal kingdom, with hundreds of species showing homosexual members. Close to 600 species, last time I checked. some even theorize that a small percentage of homosexuals is good for a healthy biological population. I think if you really met and got to know more gay people, you would quickly toss out your "it's a choice" stance. Most of the gay people I've gotten to know are pretty obviously born that way. I know I didn't choose to be straight. It's always been women for me. Just basic wiring. And it's pretty clearly the same for gay people. (shrug.) No matter what our SCOTUS decides in this round, the battle is over. Change is happening. Most people with good common sense are going to mind their own business and let other people pursue their bliss. And thank God for it.
Problem: marriage is both a religious and state supported institution, and while religions can be bigoted against whomever they want, the state cannot. Solution: eliminate marriage as a state supported institution. Civil unions for everyone!* * Yes, even bigtexxx.
I find this whole thing interesting on so many levels Primarily I have an issue with the fight to give the government the right to grant or not grant you permission to marry. I don't think the government should have that right. Whether you marry or not . . is up to you and perhaps your community/congregation etc. The very fact that the government can say . .. NO YOU CANNOT MARRY THIS PERSON . . . IMO is an affront Why does the government need this power? Why does the government need to even know your marrital status? What purpose does it serve? Why should marital status matter at all to the government? Rocket River
Agreed. My thing is . . . if you do that .. . then the Gays/Polygamist/etc could have their own churches/institutions/whatever and they can grant their own 'marriages' Rocket River
Question: What percentage of the population would you theorize is genetically gay? What number would be a 'healthy amount' for a biological population? Rocket River
