... and? In a free society, people can define words as they please (at the very least). Marriage was obviously a religious institution, so just have it go back to that. The state should have no part in it. And as others have said, whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant. Since when are small gov't people about having the gov't limit your choices?
Unnecessary. The state can be ambivalent. If two gay folks get married in one church, while across the street another church fumes in bigoted indignation, the state should just simply not care and grant the gay couple whatever perks every other married couple gets.
So? Who cares? Let 'em live their life. Side note: I've never understood why polygamy is against the law. If three consenting adults want to live as husband-wife-wife, why not? I can understanding wanting to limit the tax implications so that people cannot take advantage of the law, but who are they harming by living their lives together?
That is pretty well established. There are genetic predispositions to homosexuality though. I would post it if I could (can't because I'm at work) but there is a really good 60 Minutes about the causes of homosexuality.
Some contention on the effect of the power dynamic between wife #1 and the rest, and that interactions effect on wife 2+ and children. Also, in cultures that subscribe to polygamy there is the fear of coercion.
Why do people seem to think that gays would want to get married in a bigoted church that was trying to refuse to marry gay people? It's absurd... And what is so important about the word 'marriage?' To get hung up on a word is as asinine an argument that you can make against gay marriage. By bigtexxx's definition of marriage, apparently I shouldn't be allowed to marry because I am an atheist. I have always considered marriage a legal term in this country, though. And to people who think being gay is a choice: you obviously have some gay thoughts, because my sexuality wasn't a choice at all. You call it a choice because you are not acting on your own gay feelings. I feel sorry for you.
(shrug) this isn't my field, but here goes. From what I read, about 8% of humans are gay. As for your other question, who knows. if you have a very small population, threatened with extinction, you cannot afford to have *any* gay members. Everyone needs to procreate to keep the species alive. If you have incredible over-population (ahem, looking at humanity) you could easily have, I dunno, 8% and do just fine. :grin:
In all honesty, if someone is a Christian (as I am) then what's wrong with basing your feelings against a topic on the Bible? As a Christian the Bible is where we get the majority of our "moral values" from anyway? And yes divorce, adultery, and pre-marital sex are all wrong. And I don't think they should be outlawed but I wouldn't be mad if they were either.
And disobedient children should be stoned to death. Now we're getting somewhere. (rubs hands together.)
You wouldn't have a problem with the USA outlawing pre-marital sex? Are you serious?! I am speechless (and terrified).
Not sure what you meant there. All I'm saying is that Christians are taught that what the new testament says is wrong...is wrong. And what the new testament says is right....is right. And if we have no feelings one way or another on a topic, but the bible says it's wrong, then we should by all means follow the bible.
If parts of the New Testament are deemed invalid by current teachings, then the whole collection is fallible.
You can base your feelings on that all you want but what we are talking about should be law in a pluralistic society. Think about it this way. Many religious people argue that gay marriage should be banned on religious grounds because it forces them to accept a definition of marriage that doesn't agree with their religious viewpoint. If we take that argument then shouldn't we also ban the eating of pork since allowing eating it creates a definition of food that doesn't agree with religious viewpoints of people who keep Kosher and Halal.
Where does the New Testament talk about government banning sins by law? And specifically banning only certain randomly chosen sins? The Bible talks about how an individual person should live - not how a country should be governed.
Okay, granted. Those are all issues that could occur within a polygamous marriage...but then again, the could not. Doesn't seem a good enough reason to me to tell other consenting adults what to do. Anyway, sorry for the thread derail, I'll save that for another thread. Back to the metaphorical gay-bashing... There's absolutely nothing wrong with basing YOUR feelings against a topic on the Bible. But not everyone believes in the Bible, nor should they be forced to follow it's precepts. That is not what our country stands for.
I personally don't have a problem with the term gay marriage. I don't wholeheartedly support it since it doesn't affect me personally, but I don't want to stand in the way of other human beings being happy either. Live and let live right? I mean, why shouldn't gay folk be just as miserable as the rest of us? On the other hand, my parents came from a different generation. My father has passed, but my 85 year old mother still is adamantly against gay marriage. Not that this really matters to anyone, but her church (which she attended for like 50 years) has had reconciliation recently with the GLBT community. This in turn pushed her away from her church and she no longer attends. Yes, its her choice but its sad that old folks who just want to attend church end up leaving them over this. I think sometimes the GLBT community doesn't seem to give a crap about the feelings of others...its all about the cause no matter the cost. Its a shame really.
Should the GLBT community give a crap about people who don't like them, think they are a perversion against God and nature and that they shouldn't be allowed the same right to marry who they want?
You should go back and read the posts before you butt in and disagree with something I never said. My post was in regards to what I should be allowed to think is right or wrong:
