My point about those three (you couldn't detect the sarcasm?) are once you open the floodgates, forcing the govt to accept gay marriage you must accept that the govt. can no longer regulate what constitutes "normal" sexual relations and therefore tacitly endorses a whole laundry list of deviant behavior including pedophilia, incest, polygamy and so forth. They will use the exact same logic that you and other advocates of gay marriage have applied to get the govt to recognize their lifestyle as normal and accepted in the eyes of the law. I will defend your right to do as you please in your own bedroom. But when you want the govt. to legitimize what I consider to be an abberrant lifestlye (which is what gay marriage will be), that's where I draw the line.
Proove that anything besides yourself exists, I dare you. How can you be so sure every thought you ever had wasn't placed into your head five minutes ago by an evil genius in Siberia. Good luck doing that, some things have to be taken on faith. You obviously are missing the point of the argument anyway. Everyone is. Marriage, in its definition as a word, means a union between a male and female. This is a very important point. For instance, if I were to say, The turtle is driving the car, this sentence would then have a certain meaning. A turtle, which has been defined as an animal with a shell, usually green, etc etc. is driving (Verb) an automobile. You can picture what these words mean. This is what happened with marriage when they defined the word legally, it means that a man marries a woman. You can't just change that definition. Sorry but thats the way things go, because if we could change it then I could say that the turtle is driving the car, and could actually mean something like all the worlds a stage. Thus, a civil union, provides for a union between gays and keeps the meaning of the word marriage in tact. It doesn't demean anyone.
Outlaw, do you have problems with the civil union, to me it makes sense, just because I don't like it when people change the meanings of words?!? I don't think it demeans anybody but I'd like your opinion.
Bama, I couldn't agree more with this quote. I think it is the foundation of what is wrong with liberalism. (major Stereotyping I know its not like this for every liberal or every conservative but for the whole) They preach love, but they don't have any good source for it. To them it is only an emotion. They preach truth, justice, virtue, etc. but they don't know where these ideas come from. They say, oh that's an ancient outdated notion blah blah blah.... We are built on the ancients, and we have to ask the question, progress or return... if the typical liberal says progress I say what are you progressing too, and they say oh a society of peace and love, and to that I say, oh you mean like the garden of Eden? Or like all ancient societies struggled for?!, because thats what those things were concerned with, and they say well if those things were concerned with peace and love and I want to progress to peace and love well then yes, and then I say oh so you mean return? and the answer is yes. Human nature is human nature people. Ideas like love, peace, goodness, they are things that the human mind cannot really know to move towards without God's grace. What in the human psyche tells you to love someone rather than hurt them? I'd like to see someone give a good source for love (besides God) because I think that you will have a hard time finding it. PEace be with you all.
Obviously you are not married because would know about the thing they call a "marriage penalty". I pay over 2K a year to be married to my wife.
This I agree with. Now, the problem is- will the Supreme Court short circuit the debate America is having and impose gay marriage as a right? That is the fear driving the "bar gay marriage" idea, that the courts will ignore what the people want to define as "marriage." But if a majority of people want to see it done through legislation, then I am more comfortable with it.
Dear Batman, Obviously you didn't read to the end of the gay thread last time because we all made peace. My question to them now is why is the civil union status not enough? To that I haven't heard a response, and I would like to open up an intelligent non idiotic name calling discussion on that... And you can't even practice your own idea of tolerance if you call my beliefs stone age nonsense... maybe thats because tolerance is a dumb philosophic idea and what we should strive for is respect. Tolerance tells me I should except your ideas as true and not fight about it. REspect says that I can still say your ideas are wrong but that I respect your ability to have your own opinion the matter.... and I don't try to bring you down for it. It also leaves the door open for intelligent discourse...
What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet? marriage used to be defined as a man and woman of the same race and religion. meanings evolve over time. civil unions would be fine if they in fact gave 100% equal rights as marriages but they don't. I think the term is kinda dull though. How about Marriage-Lite or I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage?
Well, the only thing is, since marriages are a religious sacrament as well, I don't think that that is a definition that can change, simply because some religions (mine) don't allow homosexual marriage. For me changing the word marriage completely changes one of the seven sacraments that are the foundation of my church, the church founded by Christ as he gave the keys to St. Peter. I only know what I heard O'Reilley talk about, and it seemed if the civil union idea was pretty equal in terms of benefits. I don't care what you guys think about Fox NEws but I think O'Reilley is one of the most fair and reasonable guys around. Good old Independent Irish CAtholic boy for you *sigh*.
We're not advocating forcing the Catholic or any church to perform gay weddings. This is strictly a battle with our secular government. I appreciate the reverence you and the Church have for the sacrament but nobody owns the trademark to that word. Anyway, a friend of mine just announced her engagement. I'm pretty sure she feels the same way you do about gay marriage as she is a pretty devout catholic as well. However I really don't think in good conscience I can attend her wedding if she would not be willing to come to mine. So I'm not really sure what to do about that yet.
Name one? How about every single one before the birth of Christianity. How about Native Americans. How about the Aztecs, the Mayans, and every indigenous people of every continent on Earth. Your Judeo-Christian beliefs are founded on faith in a diety. Every society can have a moral foundation without your god.
Originally posted by twhy77 Proove that anything besides yourself exists, I dare you. How can you be so sure every thought you ever had wasn't placed into your head five minutes ago by an evil genius in Siberia. Good luck doing that, some things have to be taken on faith. The same way I know dogs don't drive cars down streets, because it's idiotic. You obviously are missing the point of the argument anyway. Everyone is. Marriage, in its definition as a word, means a union between a male and female. This is a very important point. It's a completely insignificant point. The definitions of words aren't fixed, they change and gather new meaning over time.
You have to go outlaw. Look past the doubt and show only love. It will change her. It will change you. It will make you both better. If she is a true friend, she will come around. there is so much hate and fear in this world. Why?
Not so my friend......all of those civilizations are defunct. All of them failed the test of time. You are saying the Aztecs had a moral foundation? These people sacrificed human beings to their false gods. And it isn't my GOD, HE is yours as well.
You must go, Outlaw. If she is a friend, you owe that to her on her most special of days. And if she is your true friend, she will reciprocate. I was best man at my best female friend's "joining" ceremony with her partner. I thoroughly enjoyed it and although I took a lot of flack from my devoutly Catholic mother, I owed it to my friend since she honored me by asking me to be part of her special day.
He's not pre-empting the states, he's preempting the activist courts from making into law what the American people clearly do not want to do.
He's not pre-empting the states, he's preempting the activist courts from making into law what the American people clearly do not want to do. Umm, if a state wants to make gay marriage legal, it can now and wouldn't be able to under what Bush wants. How, again, is taking that control away from the state and giving it to the federal government not pre-empting states' rights? Activist courts haven't made gay marriages legal anywhere, as far as I know.
Why do non-Judeo/Christians always take faith as a personal affront? We never said we have a monopoly on God or morality.
