We should like totally get rid of the federal government defining religious institutions. Marriage should be privatized. No personal relationship should require licensing from the state with the government dictating the terms of the most intimate of personal unions. That's about as conservative as it gets.
I was more commenting on his general get rid of government mantra. It might be the answer to just stop supporting it, but I think government can support traditional marriage and not be discriminatory. That should be the goal at least.
Translation: I am a theocratic fascist, and my definitions of tradition and culture should be institutionalized and enforced by government.
That would involve obvious and documented health risks. Monogamous two person relationships of either men, women or one of each don't pose the same health risks.
Not exactly, but it's pretty damn close. Not to mention that the people doing one are generally doing the other as well. Yes, it is. According to your position, my wife and I should not be allowed to be married. We have no intention of having children - that's a choice we've made. If you choose to exclude by one criteria, you must by all - otherwise you are exposing your intolerance for just one group. How can you assume that gay marriage will increase the divorce rate? My wife and I are happily married for 11 years and both feel very strongly that giving up on each other is not an option. Not contributing to the divorce rate, but we still don't fit your definition of marriage. Again, just comes off as intolerance. Not trying to pick on you twhy. I just feel very strongly that in a free society, unnecessary restrictions on that freedom should not be acceptable. This type of restriction is not necessary. It doesn't accomplish anything. Anyway, on topic (sort of)... Chick-Fil-A can do whatever they want. They run the risk of hurting their business by taking a polarizing position, but clearly they don't care about that. Food is not that good anyway, IMO.
As long as Chick-Fil-A doesn't turn into the fourth reich and start murdering homosexuals. I'm fine with them believing what they want to believe...
If you allow gay marriage, there's obviously going to be more divorces than before. But I think it's a stretch to argue that gay marriage will somehow make the divorce rate (which I would define as the number of marriages that ultimately result in divorce). You would have to demonstrate that 2 gay persons of the same sex who marry are more disposed to divorce than 2 people of the opposite sex who marry. It seems to me the ultimate question is "what is the reason(s) for government to grant special privileges to marriage in today's society." The answer to that question should determine not just whether to allow gay marriages, but whether the government should offer all the benefits (tax breaks, automatic legal rights, etc) to married people. If our politicians were disposed to actually debate this question, it could be very interesting (as much for what we'd learn about all marriage - not just gay marriage).
Why is the divorce rate so important to you? If you want a divorce, you want a divorce. These are consenting adults, they can make their own decisions. The last thing you want is for two people to WANT to divorce but have social pressure keeping them together. I know this because that is exactly what happens in the UAE, and the greater Middle East, and divorce rates are just as high here as they are there. There is one thing that is causing the divorce rate to be high. Have a look at the countries with the highest divorce rates and you will know what it is. Hint: have a look at how many of the countries in the top 10-15 have a strict outright 'ban' on homosexuals.
^ I meant to make this same point too. I'm sure everyone would like the divorce rate to be lower - for people to take marriage more seriously. But, ultimately, whether someone gets divorced or not should not be a concern for society as a whole. Getting married and getting divorced are very personal decisions. twhy, I know I said I was not trying to pick on you, but I want to ask you straight up since you seem to feel very strongly about this. Given that there is a large portion of our society that would like to expand the definition of marriage, why shouldn't we? Things change, so what is the point of preserving the "traditional" definition of marriage? What difference does it make to society?
If you subscribe to an Abrahamic faith, it's a pretty safe bet you will eventually be aligned with/in support of an anti-gay group somehow, either knowingly or unknowingly. But damn that's some good chicken.
