Attach to what exactly? Each other...sure. To your religious beliefs...probably not. But, the bigger question is why do you care whether or not they get married. You are not marrying either of them...so what difference does it make?
I'm serious, you religious folk need to get a life.
Look at the rest of creation. They function as they should which is built into them. There are some species that do produce in a asexual way and that is because it was built into them ,like certain flowers and other species that i do not have knowledge about but it does exists out there. Man was not built in an asexual way. Man can choose this way freely and get the automatic results from this as an human being.
Why do adulterers attach themselves to it? Why do thieves? Why do those who take the lord's name in vain? Why do those who covet their neighbors attach themselves. Everyone is a sinner and not to be judges so it is said. If it has nothing to do with religion then laws should protect all humans equally - including the right to form a union/marriage. What's the big deal?
The other thing is, if we redefine marriage, don't we have to abolish all Polygamy,adultery,statutory,bestiality and incest laws? You can't redefine something for one purpose only, that's the very heart of their arguement in the first place,isn't it?
"if we redefine marriage, don't we have to abolish all Polygamy,adultery,statutory,bestiality and incest laws?"
That doesn't logically follow. I'll explain why, and I'll type extra slowly.
Polygamy (historically) usually involves either deception (when a man marries two women and neither wife is aware of the other) or coercion (when a young girl is intimidated into marrying into a group marriage). IF a group of several people want to marry, and all of them are informed consenting adults, then no problem. But most polygamy isn't done only with informed consenting adults.
Adultery is, legally speaking, breach of contract, not a criminal act. Nobody goes to jail for committing adultery, but it is grounds for divorce.
Statutory? I assume you mean statutory rape? Again, we're dealing with someone who isn't an informed consenting adult. Not the same thing at all.
Bestiality? There is scientific evidence that sexual contact between humans and other species is a disease vector for drug-resistant cross-species viruses and bacteria, so there's an actual reason to prohibit that. Plus, no animal can give its informed, adult consent.
Incest, that is, sexual intercourse between close relatives, generates a higher rate of birth defects. That's why we don't let brothers and sisters get married.
So, all of the other stuff you say is exactly the same as homosexual marriage actually has a rational reason why it's prohibited.
Can you give me a rational reason (one that is empirically provable, not one steeped in mysticism) why homosexual marriage should be prohibited? I bet you can't.
I actually am more interested in law redefinition than homosexuality,or unions or whatever. It concerns me when the people vote on something democratically, and it gets overturned by one man on the same principle that outlaws incest,polygamy and other marriage laws. I never said marriage was christian or any other denomination. The laws are the focus here.
the over-rule of the american vote is a big deal. Doesn't really matter what the issue is. Rewriting laws to accomodate a select few while at the same time destroying the integrity of the laws is a very significant moment in american history. Despite being considered unconstitutional, the laws were written for certain reasons. These reasons were subject to american vote. The bill is not a breakthrough in civil rights, it is an attack on democracy. Can anyone see that?
Amending laws is a part of the constitution - it is a living document. Laws are subject to change. There is no "lock" - we always get to revisit. It's called freedom. The fact that our laws aren't fixed and can be changed/over-ruled/re-written is a part of what America represents. You wish to suppress one of our greatest freedoms?
Hit the Reply button. No one knows which person's post you're responding to.
The reason we are a constitutional republic, and not a direct democracy, is that there are certain rights enshrined in the Constitution that can not be legislated away. You can NOT pass a law, even if it enjoys majority support in an election, that discriminates and makes a second class of citizenry.
If you can't understand that, then I suggest you try to understand why we have a constitution in the first place.
wrong. it's not a disease,I can't catch it or anything. I am straight,but It truly bothers me to see due process fail to appease some liberals in California. I don't have to hide! this is just a forum,nothing very important. It is shocking that noone can see my point because of their own opinion. Do they realize that popular opinion is what is under attack by removing the vote as you see it?
It seems to me JR likes how Iraq runs their government. I think you'd find they are in total agreement with your stance on homosexual marriage and amendable laws. Maybe you want us to adopt the policies of Iraq? I don't.
should laws be allowed, based on majority votes, on issues clearly detrimental to people?
ie: homophobia is clearly a phobia - fear of or detrimental prejudice against homosexuals... it's an erroneous, irrational fear...
Now - just because people have these irrational fears based on prejudices, misunderstandings and negative prejudices, if a majority feels these same irrational fears, etc., and the majority votes the same way (against same gender marriages) - this is okay?
It wasn't with this bill! That is what I have been saying all along! 1 judge overturned a vote of 7,000,000! That isn't a very good example of how America governs itself? And what is the new law? Just for gays? What about the rights of polygamists, or the incestuous? Are their civil rights less important than the homosexuals? See the issue?
The bill is about homosexuals. I'm not homophobic at all. i could care less if you were gay. I don't like our system used like dictatorship, like how Iraq does it,JBeadle. I have one opinion on american civics, and now I am considered a homophobe,or a dictator. As for re-installing slavery, that goes against the constitution,but why let that bother you,now?
I am pleased. No-one can help their sexual preference and gays have a hard enough time of it. They are people to so lets just give them the same rights and privileges we have. To be honest..in a free society it is an abomination that they have to campaign for equal rights.
Unreal. Everyone likes to avoid the issue in order to accuse me of homophobia. So be it. The vote was still passed in a way that was against American freedoms. It doesn't matter what I believe. What will happen when the same thing happens on a bill you don't like? What if the bill was for banning gay marriage? You would be irate if your vote didn't matter!
It's like the civil rights riots of the 60's, ERA of the 70's. Of course there's going to be wild opposition for a while, but in the end, human rights will prevail, and the issue of gay marriage will be a has-been.
It ISN'T about gay rights. It's about HUMAN RIGHTS.
I get so tired of these special interest groups waving their "poor me" flag. Band together and work for HUMAN RIGHTS. That way nobody gets left out.
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
In the recent years I have seen more men come out of the closet after being married for more than 5 years. This concerns me becuase I think of the spouse that has dedicated her complete life to him!I have seen children...
"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic...
I know we already have a same-sex marriage thread in Politics, but that one has already grown so large that I thought I would start something different here. Generally, my political leanings are Libertarian, which...