Never said they were the same The reality is. . .if we are going to Expand the definition of marriage why not expand it further. If we have no problem with what CONSENTING ADULTS DO . . . ..then why should the number of Adults consenting be an issue? This is not an issue of morality It is an issue of governance and economics Rocket River Government should not be in the marriage business at all The Government should not define Marriage The Government should not do anything to encourage/protect/destroy/etc marriage Marriage should be in the Church/person/etc Being Marriage should not affect anything outside your home . . cause it is YOU
Fair enough, well I'm gonna bow out of this thread now and watch the game. I've masturbated Donny's brain and he's masturbated mine. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Come on Moes, it's like you are just grasping for any reason to disagree with gayness in general. First of all, gay people have been passing on their genes forever. You think there's never been a gay person who entered into a heterosexual relationship either because they tried to suppress being gay or were too ashamed to live openly? You could be the descendant of a gay person and not even know it. 2nd, what do you think happens when gay couples have children? They aren't using science to combine their DNA. If its 2 guys, they find a doner egg and then put both their sperm in the test tube, only one of them is actually fertilizing that egg.
Carrying on the species may be the wrong approach. Letting it die off from attrition could solve a lot of problems. The single male child policy of the last 30 years in China will be a bold experiment. Hi ho.
Why expand it further? Same sex marriage is about two people. Just like hetero marriage is about two people. Polygamy isn't. I can accept the argument that govt. shouldn't be in the marriage business. But since they are it isn't fair that they are only in it for hetero marriage. If they are in it they should do it fairly. Until you get them out of it, then same homosexuals should be given the same opportunities.
Those who oppose gay marriage because of their religion don't have to enter into a gay marriage. Many who opposed civil rights claimed to do so based on religion. Look at the Klan who claim to be very Christian. Not allowing two loving consenting adults to marry based on sexual preference is indeed unjust, and bigoted. I'm not trying to make anyone who doesn't want to enter into a gay marriage enter into one. But if someone feels it's against their religion, they aren't entitled to make everyone else conform to their religious belief and prevent them from marrying... At least not in any just society.
The same book in the Bible that talks about "homosexual acts" tells me that if my son is disrespectful, the best solution is to have him stoned to death in public. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Is everything in the Bible to be taken 100% at face value?
For a long time, people considered African Americans marrying white people "extremely immoral." Sometimes, bigotry knows no limits.
I think we should rock it old school and bring back medieval laws on homosexuality - it is disgusting (and punishable)to receive from another man but feel free to give to another man as much as you want. Huh? Right.
Don't be so lazy as to not read through the rest of the thread before posting. Your "point" has already been addressed. TIA
Though my point was made in a couple of ways by a couple of people, it was not effectively refuted by anyone, including you. Don't ever tell me what to do until you have the balls to man up and take my challenge. TIA
So the tax code shouldn't have married and single payer rates? Health benefits shouldn't have family plans? No visiting rights or health decisions made by spouses? The state should not be involved with divorce proceedings? "Married" people should be required to keep separate assets?
You can spread your wealth and give it to people. I'll worry about my family. Other people can worry about theirs. If you can’t make it, and you don't have a mental or physical condition, get out then. JMO In the 1700's America didn't have welfare; you either worked, and ate, or you died. Our founding fathers would laugh if they could see how babied people are today, by the govt.
