By the way, I am reading your entire posts, just singling out portions to exaggerate my point. This analogy only further proves my previous statement. See college rules for football, basketball, etc., compared to the professional level. Slightly altered to allow certain things, but still the same sport at it's heart. Martial arts is also a great example of taking a core idea and allowing it to be fluid and constantly adaptable and evolving, like the concept of marriage should be.
Why in the world should you have any say whatsoever over someone else. Give me a good reason to that and I'll think about Gay marriage as wrong. Until then, I really don't think there should even be an argument. If two people are in love, no matter what gender they both are or sexual orientation, they should be allowed to marry to show that they love only each other. Just because it upsets you to see two people in love doesn't mean you, or a religion, or anyone else should have any say in telling them not to love each other. And homosexuality is NOT a choice. You are born that way. The same way a heterosexual person can look at someone of the same sex and know for sure they in no way have feelings toward that person, is the same way a homosexual person can look at someone of the opposite sex and tell they have absolutely no feelings towards that gender.
Hey now. Jerk? Really man? This is a debate. I have no idea what you're talking about. "Separate but equal" isn't a BAD thing. In fact, this is how we classify lot's of things. Such as the title co-manager. Two different people, same power. All I said was that gay's should be allowed their own marriages, and to satisfy all those that say marriage is the word for a bond between a man and a woman, you could just call it something else. Like i don't know, Bondage? Mergage? So then the religious freaks won't get all pissed about it. It'd be the same thing, just a different word. And if you tell me NO IT HAS TO BE CALLED MARRIAGE, then obviously you are not considering the feelings of all those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
I'm not against homosexual marriage, I'm against homosexual marriage when it goes against the creator of that specific marriage ceremony's beliefs. And that quote Pigglez, was me turning his statement around. If I actually meant it, then saying it would be condoning his statement, I was being sarcastic. Also, most of you are confusing my statements with statements against homosexual marriage. I'm saying, if the majority of a specific religion's beliefs of their version of marriage (if they have one) are against homosexual marriage, then they should have the RIGHT to not allow it. Did I say that it's moral or immoral not to? No I did not, also, that isn't a "Homosexual Marriage should be illegal" statement. Too many people don't realise, marriage is based on religious beliefs. If it was based on society, you wouldn't marry in a church/mosque/whatever, would you?
I never specified that you are saying this, I'm just saying that religion, or anyone else, should NOT have the right to tell two lovers if they can marry. It should just be a right you have from birth, to be allowed to marry whomever you wish.
Oh well you know what dreaddraco does have a point pigglez. Marriage is a religious bond. It's kind of like being atheist and asking to be baptized. Most people who are really religious and know a person is gay will consider that person just as bad as an atheist. So you have to understand that it wouldn't make since to ask to be married by a religious church that you did not follow.
That is a very off analogy. This is segregation by discrimination (the way you were born). What you said is segregation by job status. And civil unions don't have the same effects as marriage. Just read the OP. Ok, here's a twist on those words, "And if you tell me NO IT HAS TO BE CALLED EQUALITY, then obviously you are not considering the feelings of all those who believe blacks shouldn't have rights." If you call it something else to separate those born with this attribute, then it is segregation. It is a different story with convicts, jobs (as you stated), and choices people make overall, but gays have no choice in their sexual preference. If you separate drinking fountains (marriages), then it is fair, right? Except like I said above, the second drinking fountain barely gives any water and the water is crummy and foul tasting. The fact is you want to separate people based on things they can't control (things they are born with). Is this fair? I'm not discussing the religious aspect of this debate yet, the above was only the legal side of it.
No dude, look, I seriously think they should be allowed to have marriage. I do. But what I'm saying is, that is not going to happen because of religious reasons. So to make the religious reasons go away, you could just call it something else and have the same effect as if it were marriage. It's simple. Then the religious people can't ride your ass.
Sin doesn't cause homosexuality. Homosexuality causes sin. Many people are born shy, greedy, selfish, etc.. and they have to live with this fact their entire life. TBH, homosexuality is another life symptom that I feel can be changed. I'm not saying it's an easy maneuver... but neither is it for others with these "life symptoms". I'm not saying that these people should be outcasts in society, but instead should be welcomed and helped by everyone.
Since when? Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the marital structure created is known as wedlock. Marriage is applied to the unity between two people anywhere in the globe. I am confident that every thriving culture, anywhere in the world, has a form of marriage. The first legal form of marriage was in the Code of Hammurabi, almost 4,000 years ago. You can apply a religious meaning to it, and you can do it in a church or chapel and under the supervision of a priest, but that doesn't mean that it's a religious custom. It's just a custom which religion embraces.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think YOU could choose to be gay? No. Because that's ridiculous. There are already "Civil Unions", legally identical to marriage, but without just that word "marriage". Would someone explain to me why I should care about the gay couple who feel they are being discriminated against because their union isn't recognised by the church? I mean don't get me wrong, I believe that same sex couples deserve the same monetary and legal advantages as heterosexual couples, and I do think that the church's refusal to grant same sex marriages is discriminatory, but being upset over the title? What an arbitrary thing to argue about. Why should I care about the plight of people who are pretentious enough to care whether "married" people get to call it "married". Don't get me wrong. If it were up to me there would be no marriage, only civil unions. I consider civil unions superior to marriage.
I'm not going to bother catching up with some 200 posts. I'm going to go off on my own two sentence tangent and I'm gonna say that 2/3 of STD's exist exclusively in the gay community. Alright, continue your bickering. Multi out.
Wiki: While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part: Couples seeking domestic partnership must have a common residence; this is not a a requirement for marriage license applicants.[3] Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older; minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.[3] California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.[3] Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan; domestic partners are not.[3][4][5] There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. [3] Marriage isn't about the church. You can have an atheist marriage. Civil union and Marriage are a form of discrimination, regardless of how you phrase them, and are no different than the separate but equal laws. According to those, blacks and whites both deserved water fountains and public restrooms, but were still equal. I wonder why those don't exist anymore today, they were perfectly fair.
I see your point. Point and match. I'm sold, governments should recognise same sex marriages in addition to opposite sex marriages. The water fountain example was a good one: gay-opposing religious folk would have to it that gays are segregated from them, but it's not their decision to make.
Dolphins are gays, too. source Well we have two options here. Option 1 They chose to be homosexual. In this case no action should be taken as they should just get over themselves. If you think that they don't have a choice then why are there ex-homos. Option 2 They don't have a choice. In this case they should be treated as having a disorder that should be treated. Obviously, there is something wrong with them as they don't help the human species further itself because they can't reproduce. This is not helpful to the evolution of our species, if they can't help us why should we help them? Either way nothing should be done because it is just not right to change the law over this. The only reason we are talking about this is because the number of gay people is on the increase. If the number of people who wanted to marry their dogs were on the rise should we allow them to? If not how is it different? What about people who wanted to be polygamists? pedophiles?
The instant dogs and children gain legal standing to enter into a contract, I say go ahead and let people marry them. Of course, they never will, but thats the difference. As for polygamy, that issue is more complicated, and I don't see the relevance to this discussion.
Actually children are already giving their consent in legal matters. They have to give their consent to be adopted age 10+. Anyways for them to be legal you would have to change the law, which is exactly what you are asking do with same sex marriage. If three consenting people who all love each other aren't allowed to marry why should two people of the same sex be? Who says who are the one to draw the line? There is already one there so why change it just for a few people's benefit, yet still excluding others, why not go all the way? It's kind of like why did America fight a war for Independence and freedom then keep their slaves? A tad hypocritical, no? How so all are choices or natural disorders that are considered illegal, in the case of homosexuality only partially illegal. How are they so different? You answered the first question without answering the second which means that your statement can only stand as an opinion and I'm not actually not being rude in anyway(look another opinion). (Also see the "where do you draw the line" paragraph above)
No. Just no. Changing the definition of contractual capacity is in no way similar to allowing two legal adults who happen to be the same gender to enter a marriage contract together. Children over 10 giving consent to be adopted is not the same as a marriage contract. Adoption is a contract between the new parents and the government, not between the parents and the child. The government just wants the child to be ok with it before they'll sign over parental rights.