For those against, why are you against it? It's love and nobody can place a value on someone else's love, it doesn't cause disturbance to you as a person if you steer clear.
Mhm.
If you honestly believe two men tying the knot will lead to bestiality, do me a favor...The day you encounter an animal that is capable of forming consent, capable of intelligently expressing that consent, and can sign a marriage license, tell the caterpillar I said hi. And please don't try to come back.
You can train a parrot to say, "I do"
Quote: from Stormblazer at 9:16 pm on July 10, 2009 We've been over this Aristocrat. Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. I am tired and sick of these gays keep pushing their agenda on us to accept them and the people in these boards with their pseudo logical argument to sugar coate this issue. We are being tainted by these immoral appologist group to accept such behavior. Minds well we just accept everything even the pedophiles too. I can say the same about the gay supporters argument as the pseudo fallacy as well in order to win the hearts and mind of the people with their words of "tolerance" crap.
We've been over this Aristocrat. Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy.
I am tired and sick of these gays keep pushing their agenda on us to accept them and the people in these boards with their pseudo logical argument to sugar coate this issue. We are being tainted by these immoral appologist group to accept such behavior. Minds well we just accept everything even the pedophiles too. I can say the same about the gay supporters argument as the pseudo fallacy as well in order to win the hearts and mind of the people with their words of "tolerance" crap.
Gay people have been persecuted for centuries, it's time that they get some rights.
I see it as one more logical step on the ladder to social equality.
Yes, tolerance for people and ideas is crap, but Muslims are guilty of using the tolerance charade to get their views across as well.
No, no, no, tolerance of ideas and tolerance of the evil doer and immoral life style is two different things. We never claim that we tolerate anything that is abnormal to begin with, and we never hide or beat around the bushes when it come to such issue.
Monogamy is technically unnatural. Do you believe that monogamy is immoral?
Monogamy meaning one wife and one husband? If yes then it is morally right normal and natural without a doubt.
PS: You need some religious education to be enlighten a little bit.
For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality. For those against, why are you against it? It's love and nobody can place a value on someone else's love, it doesn't cause disturbance to you as a person if you steer clear. Mhm.
I am strongly against it. It is trying to redefine the natural and normal original civilazation laws to those of the morally tainted (like those of the hollywood scandalous). If they are interested doing abnormal things they should behind close doors nothing evil as that should be brought into the public hemishpere. The U.S is becoming more gay as the days going, by promoting and tolerating such corrupt laws and accepting such behavior.
From a more general perspective, I support freedom of religion, including the rights of individual religions to place their individual requirements upon what does/ doesn't constitute marriage. If the RCC only wants one man and one woman, both in good standing with the church and neither with a previous marriage, to get married, fine. If a UU congregation accepts any two consenting adults, fine. If someone wants to throw in multiple spouses I won't bat an eye. When it doesn't affect me and everyone involved gives informed consent, I don't see what place I have to interfere.
Quote: from HarrySunderland at 10:09 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians. Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery. You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right? I plead Poe's Law.
Quote: from Moridin at 3:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians. Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery. You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right?
Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians. Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery.
Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time.
Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted.
Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress.
We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted.
But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time.
Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians.
Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery.
You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right?
I plead Poe's Law.
You got me there, I've seen people say much worse things believing it 100%.
For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality.
I support it because there's no reasonable justification for prohibiting it. Legal marriage bestows certain privileges and legal bonds upon a couple. Since there are those that form same-sex pair-bonds, there seems to be no reason why the scope of legal marriage shouldn't be expanded.
The idea that allowing any two consenting adults to wed would lead to bestiality is absurd. That anyone should even conceive of that connection is absurd.
"Man and woman, sure. Man and Man or Woman and Woman!? Obviously you'll want to marry your cows next!11!"
773 users online 
225608 members 1493 active today Advertise Here
773 users online 225608 members 1493 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
