|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisements has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
The question was never about "marriage equality". Of course everyone supports marriages being "equal". The point was over the redefinition of marriage from being between a man and a woman.
Under the argument lobbied by same-sex marriage advocates- polygamy should also be legalized.
For the book which changed my mind on this issue: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A69 … amp;btkr=1
"Marriage" has never had one clear definition in history. In fact, historically, (including biblical myth) marriage WAS polygamy - one man, several wives. Changing definitions is okay - "citizen" used to only be white men. We redefined it.
Marriage has pretty much everywhere been recognized to be between a man and a woman. The Bible sets a clear precedent for one man and one woman based on the ideal of Genesis and the words of Christ. This is the erosion of the family.
I'm an atheist, so biblical standards (which included polygamy, by the way, I've read that thing!) don't apply to me. We also don't live in a theocracy, and we separate church and state, so again, particular religious objections are irrelevant.
Cite for me where God specifically endorses polygamy. Description of something or the regulation of a reality on the ground is not specific endorsement. You don't have to be religious to subscribe to traditional marriage. See book above
Why is there so much polygamy in the Bible? And incest, rape, and concubines, even among the most important biblical men (Abraham, etc)? Not Christian, so it doesn't matter to me, but the gov't doesn't and can't define marriage religiously.
Description of and even attempts to regulate and make better what is a hard reality on the ground are not endorsements of. Nothing "religious" about defining marriage as being man and woman. See the secular book that I cited in my answer
There's no secular benefit in restricting gay rights. Without gay marriage, couples and families (that exist anyway) lack legal protections. It also leads to a homophobic culture in which gay couples are lesser. Allow gay marriage for happier society
The discussion is over the nature of marriage at it's most basic level, not rights to. On that point you're dead wrong. The sociology clearly affirms that by legalizing SSM we erode family life which pretty much guarantees broken homes.
No, no sociological study has proven that. There will always be gay couples, many have kids, by protecting them we protect families. Gay parents have proven just as capable as straight. Gay marriage SUPPORTS families. No proof of the opposite at all.
You are in denial.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellH … icians.pdf
You're the one who keeps linking the same thing over and over again while claiming all the many studies, which are considered the MOST reputable and conducted through leading psych agencies, are biased. The APA is the MOST valid source in this case.
Bad methodology: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000580
Show me something that isn't flawed and then we can talk.
If you've ever taken a critical thinking or research methods class you'll know that no study is perfect. The fact that you seem to think the ones you're presenting are without flaws just proves your bias.
You should know that convenience sampling invalidates making generalizations. I'm sorry if you don't.
Now you're just trying to make excuses. It's no good. The science is on my side.
No, I'm not making excuses. If you want to invalidate any study that isn't perfect you're going to be left with nothing, including the stuff you want to believe.
You have the studies that don't suffer from methodological bias. But you don't like the implications of those studies so you're trying to rationalize them away.
I love when people think they're smarter than the organizations that publish this stuff professionally (like the APA). Internet access makes everyone an expert, I guess. Why did I even bother going to school when I have google to tell me what's up?
The papers I referenced were peer reviewed. I think that you're just addicted to this little argument of authority that you've got going on. Apparently whatever the APA says is right- even if it's methodologically flawed.
The APA's stance is based on a huge amount of peer reviewed studies. And yet you're certain that your studies > the studies the APA has chosen.
Except that they are based on convenience samples and don't reflect the population as a whole. You seem to be fine with just ignoring that. That's a huge red flag. You aren't willing to follow the evidence wherever it goes. Read that book. I did.
I feel that the APA's abilities to choose studies to cite, methodological flaws and all (because yes, EVERY STUDY HAS 'EM!), is more reliable than some random dude on the internet citing biased support for studies that fit with his views.
She thinks that Loren Marks is just some "random dude on the Internet" LOL!!
She thinks that every demographic survey has major methodological flaws, LOL!!
LOL all you want, I've been in university for 8 years learning how to conduct, read, and critique studies. I'm quite comfortable with my assessment of this situation. You're entitled to your opinion but please stop insisting that it's fact.
You need to demand a refund then. I'm sorry but you're wrong. Methodological flaws are flaws. Prove to me that you're as open minded as you flaunt yourself: read. Dare to entertain a contrary point of view for just a second. Read the book.
Erm, of course methodological flaws are flaws. I don't recall saying otherwise? I'm saying NO STUDY IS PERFECT!
I'll spend money on the book as soon as I get my refund.
Personally, I don't really care. It doesn't effect me.
Having said that. A nation's policy should be set in the public interest, so whether the law should recognize same-sex marriage, should be determined by what is to the best interest of the people. The same apply for everything else, including polygamy. For the record, I will support polygamy, if for example, we see a situation where there are 1 man to every 5 women, or vise verse. So, we won't have 80% of women, having no children to take care of them, at old age. Because that is to the best of public interest, under the circumstances. (Women are more likely to be willing to share husband with other women, then vise verse. But if we see 5 men to 1 women, I will legalized polygamy, too, if the public requested, due to the same reason, even if it won't be as effective, then a sitation with more women then men)
If I am in government, I will determine whether to support gay marriage, base on the same premisis, whether it is to the best interest of the public. So far, the gay community argue a very good case, while their opponent isn't argue a good case. So I am more in favor of them. Plus, I hope legalized gay marriage, mean more foster children can be adopted.
But I am not in government and as a private citizen, I don't really like homosexuality very much and it is not relevent to me. But if I am in government, I will do whatever necessary to serve public interest, despite my personal feeling towards homosexuality.
It's a non-issue for me. As a wise man once said, "you can hump buffalo for all I care as long as you don't make me watch."
This is a case where the buffalo is humping you.
Marriage has been evolving since forever, often by the religious extremists. Eve w Cain/Abel. Abraham w Sarah & Hagar. David w Bathsheba (sans Uriah). Solomon & his thousand wives/concubines. Dowries, arranged marriages. Change is the only co
I have always thought that it's none of my business who my neighbor chooses to love and marry. Having one set of laws for those who choose a partner of a different gender, and another for those who choose one of the same gender, has always struck me as contrary to the way we do things in this country. In the same way I'm for equality between the genders, I'm for marriage equality. One set of laws, and one standard, for all people, equally.
But it isn't about marriage "equality". It's about the definition of marriage. "Marriage equality" is just a sound bite that muddies the waters. If the institution is being eroded then it is people's business.
We're discussing marriage as a legal contract, licensed by the state. Previously, there were two contracts: one for couples of opposite genders, and one for those of the same gender. Now, we have marriage equality: one contract, for all couples.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellH … rriage.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellH … icians.pdf
We need to pause and examine.
No, we don't. Marriage equality is the law of the land. Get over it.
Slavery was also the law of the land. Should we have just gotten over that?
SSM is eroding away family life and family stability. Kids are being victimized by being placed in SSM households. The sociology is clear.
Then teach your kids not to bully children who have different families. THAT is the solution, not taking away rights because some people can't handle progress.
The kids are being victimized because they are placed in households which have been STATISTICALLY SHOWN to decrease their chances of success, not because anyone is bullying anyone. There weren't any rights to "give" in the first place.
Statistically shown where and what was "success" defined as?
There are not any such statistics. Recent sociological studies have shows children of gay parents are JUST AS successful, healthy and well-adjusted as other kids.
Read the studies cited on the wiki.
That whole "kids are better off with two straight parents" argument is bogus. There is NO widely accepted study supporting that. A loving home is a loving home. And kids are NOT the topic of this discussion!
See the two links I provided from the Supreme Court case briefs. The "studies" that show parity are methodologically flawed. The studies that are not show psychological damage and a statistically significant reduction in success metrics.
It took about 5 minutes of research to see that the Regnerus study was remarkably flawed, so if that's a leading point for that article I'm going to go ahead and say it's just as misleading as you're claiming the positive studies have been.
Travis, you're incorrect. All the studies (that weren't funded by religious groups) found that LGBT parents are just as capable. In fact, the American Psychological Association found some studies suggesting gay parenting is "superior". Check it out.
Wait, you mean the über conservative people who dished a bunch of money to conduct the study are defending it?! Nah...couldn't be...
The criticisms are just as fair as any criticisms of the studies that say the opposite that you're happy to accept
The studies funded by the LGBT lobby or sociologists who have that ax to grind are sympathetic to LGBT issues, how surprising...
See the methodological errors in them (convenience sampling) which make them useless to generalize from.
Travis, your single (flawed) study is fine, but any study (the many, many of them) suggesting the contrary just has a gay agenda? Seems like your methodology here is the one that's flawed. The statistics are on the side of gay parents, like it or not
The APA study that claims that SS parents are superior in parenting was retracted because it was generalizing based off of a selective sample which wasn't representative of the whole population. I have yet to hear any actual critiques of mine. Waitng
Here's a whole website for you:
Just curious, do you think a child is better in an orphanage/foster home than with a gay couple?
None of the results have been disproven, by the many other studies done by other reputable groups. Nor does small sample size mean the findings are incorrect. Gay parents are perfectly successful.
Your methodological critique there is what exactly? I'm pretty sure that the second link I gave to you is adequately addresses your "website". I should mention as well that if you look at the Amicus briefs there are 8 other studies mentioned
The second link you gave is also ridiculously biased. I wish I had the time to meticulously comb through the study myself and critique but not today. Wanna answer my q about kids waiting to be adopted?
Then let the record show that you failed to point out any alleged methodological problems. I wish I could just dismiss things out of hand like you do.
The studies are clear. Those who say otherwise are in denial.
The critiques are all listed on that website, why is mine bunk but yours (made by the people who funded the study) totally reliable?
I WOULD prefer to critique it myself but in the interim the issues on the site I posted seem logical.
There's not enough words allowed in these replies to debate, but fringe studies funded by religious groups and other non-reputable sources do not disprove the findings of every leading psych agency. You refuse reputable studies with anti-gay bias.
Except I pointed out the error in the 50 some studies cited by the APA. You can't make generalizations based off of a convenience sample. See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000580
You are hardly being objective here.
There will always be studies contradicting each other, it all depends on who is doing the study and what their agenda is. Personally, I don't think it is any of my business if two people of the same gender want to get married. Let them be happy
Except the data is in and it is conclusive. I used to support same sex marriage. Then I read: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage- … 1594036225
It's about redefining marriage itself. Family life/stability will weaken.
It is NOT conclusive. You're waving around your tiny handful of studies and pretending that they're superior to every other study done on the issue. You're choosing to put faith in the ones that justify you acting like a bigot. That's all.
Except it is because of the flawed methodology in all but 8 of those studies. If you want to be open minded read the book I linked and get back to me. If you want to not act like a bigot then actually try to understand the SECULAR arguments against.
Have you personally objectively read every single study done on this topic and come to the conclusion that those ones are in fact the only ones without flaws, or are you just choosing to believe one source because it satisfies your beliefs?
If it is the peoples business- as you claim- then the people have spoken- it is equal as per your definition though I think you picked this topic for the controversy and resulting response- so God bless you!!
There weren't two sets of laws, that's a straw man argument. There was one set of laws applied equally to everyone.
Marriage equality is primarily about the financial aspects, like health benefits, inheritance, and rights to property in a divorce, that have been available to married hetero couples but not gay couples. Why shouldn't gay couples be treated equally.
If marriage is just a friendship and not intrinsically ordered towards family life then what basis does the gov. Have to regulate or provide and benefits to married vs. unmarried couples?
Just 2 pick 1 point in time-400 BCE-marriage was father selecting husband 4 13 yr old daughter & giving her 2 him in a ceremony. That is 1 definition of traditional marriage Travis wants. http://www.historyforkids.net/ancient-g … dings.html
When you advocated for 'traditional marriage' is when you advocated it - if you want traditional marriage, which version of this apparently 'unchanged' thing do you want? The original version is the 'most traditional' bt treats women badly....
Premise1: I think marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.
Conclusion: Therefore I advocate misogyny and "treating women badly".
Go ahead and fill in that missing premise. I'll wait.
Jump to yr own conclusions. That's not what I said. U speak of traditional marriage elsewhere here + that the def has bn changed. It's changed a lot since 1st versn where women r property. which version do u want? Unchanged? Or admit its changed b4.
You made the accusation above for anyone to see. I've explained my position. Now supply that second premise...
And by the way Marriage as we know it, wasn't it originally a business deal between two families that often had little to do with love. And also if I can get real many violate a major rule of old.
Gay marriage doesn't resolve the reasons that were stated by the lgbt.
Partners wanted to be able to be a part of the same control and benefits given to married people.
There are still life long relationships both homo and heter that don't believe in getting married. And these people care about their partners, but legally can't have the control and benefits unless they get married.
A solution, as gay marriage is not a solution, it is a decision. There is a big difference between the two.
That solution would be the creation of a personal partnership, based on the same lines as a partnership status under your 1040.
The partnership exceeds even the bounds of marriage. Marriage vows are ambiguous, and meaningless, and when it comes time for a dissolution, the law makes general presumptions about how the marriage will be dissolved.
A partnership agreement gives specific instructions on the bounds of the partnership, and specific instructions for dissolution of the partnership.
This partnership is a win win agreement that doesn't require marriage to get benefits and control over the parties.
Abortion was decided by the supreme court but it isn't even resolved today. The same will be true for the supreme court decision of gay marriages.
Marriage was the domain of states, and the supreme court made it a national issue. The federal government was ultimately responsible for this miscarriage of the law. The federal government while having no say in state marriages used that status for discrimination on their federal income tax.
Also using the marriage status they gave some 1141 benefits to married couples.
Both of these issues could have been easily resolved with my suggested use of personal partnerships.
It would also allow marriage to stay as a religious only ceremony under the requirements of whatever religious organization defines for themselves. But it wouldn't carry any legal weight.
This would be a definite separation of church and state.
What gay marriage and the supreme court has shown us is how the political power, can strong arm the system for the those groups that have power.
The alleged acts of King Solomon demonstrate a real solution to an issue, and the SC is no King Solomon.
Your solution makes some sense but it wouldn't please the anti-equality people because plenty of churches have been marrying same sex couples without legal approval for decades. The anti-equality crowd wants gays to be unable to marry in any fashion.
Marriage s be a religious ceremony & they can marry whomever they chose, it just won't be sanctioned by the govt. For the govt we need a new vehicle without connection to marriage. That vehicle needs to protect the parties. True sep of church &am
It's the 21st century, we shouldn't even be talking about this anymore. Marriage should be between two consenting adults who love each other and want to commit to each other. Thank goodness this ridiculous battle of bigotry is finished in America, hopefully the rest of the world will follow.
Why same-sex marriage needs to be legal:
1. Marriage is a legal (not religious) institution under the government. Marriage exists outside of Christianity, which is why people of any religion (or no religion at all) can get married. In fact, the gov't really doesn't care, because at its core, marriage has always been a legal institution, long before religion had anything to do with it. So any religious argument is pointless, because government is secular.
2. Gay marriage obviously doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. No one is forced to have gay marriages now that it's legal.
3. Studies find that gay couples are not only just as capable of raising healthy children as straight couples, in some cases, they were even better! After all, a gay couple is less likely to have any "surprises", which means when they want kids, they have to spend a long time planning and figuring it out.
4. Marriage = between two consenting adults. No, this won't lead adult-child relationships, because a child can't legally consent to sex (they aren't an adult). No, you won't be able to marry your dog, again, a dog can't legally consent to sex or even sign a marriage certificate. Polygamy relationships may involve consenting adults but arranging for them all to legally wed would involve a lot of logistics in legal terms (but for the record, it's perfectly legal to have a polygamous relationship, you just can't simultaneously marry five people). Marriage between two consenting adults isn't changing with gay marriage.
There's really no logical reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't boil down to religious objection (which again, is useless because marriage is secular and a legal institution) or homophobia, which isn't worth addressing even.
Why shouldn't marriage be between three or more consenting adults? I'm sure that some sort of legal framework could be hammered out. It has been before.
I hardly have any moral issue with that, but if you want to be the one to hammer out the complex legal framework, I'm sure you could send them a draft!
Tell me, does hubpages still restrict hubs which take on the question of traditional marriage and SSM and try to defend the former? If not I'll write you a hub.
Actually I'm not sure it is finished in America! At the moment there are 'battles' going on as some want to get married in churches despite the fact they don't go and are forcing their ideas on those who do go and don't agree with! is that fair?
@Travis Why not check out the existing hubs against marriage equality and see how they are managing? Then you can write something that provides information they don't. Avoid hate speech and your hub will pass QAP.
Gay marriage has been legal here for over 10 years and the country has yet to implode.
I think the same people yammering on about marriage staying between a man and a woman are the same people resistant to any sort of social change (unless, of course, it benefits them in some way). Thankfully most people these days seem to be a bit more open-minded and accepting.
If a gay couple having the right to get married makes someone think that their heterosexual marriage becomes less valuable or important then they shouldn't be married in the first place.
Heterosexuals get married on a whim or for the wrong reasons all the time, why should they have the right to marry someone they've known for 5 minutes while a gay couple who has loved each other for several years and wants nothing more than to marry each other doesn't get that opportunity? It's discrimination at its finest and I'm so glad that more and more people are starting to see that it's not okay and taking action.
APA study refuted: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9X12000580
Great source: http://www.familystructurestudies.com/articles/
You're linking to an abstract. Did you actually read the entire study?
The country didn't implode when same-sex marriage was not legal.
The reason I said that was because some people seem to think legalizing same sex marriage is the beginning of some chaotic moral descent. Simply trying to point out it's been a law for over a decade and that's not the case.
SSM is a domino within the cultural shift away from valuation of the family. If you haven't seen the spikes in divorce, single parenthood, and broken homes then you simply have your eyes closed. SSM is simply a symptom of the sexual revolution.
And there you have it! SSM makes marriage a loving commitment between two people rather than an ownership contract for female reproductive organs. That's the redefinition anti-equality people fear, women no longer being lesser creatures to own.
Who said marriage wasn't a loving commitment? Marriage is a union ordered towards family life though, fact. You need to try a little less shrill caricature I think.
Words on a screen can't be shrill. SSM is a union ordered towards family life. You just can't see men and women as equal participants or understand that people of the same sex can love each other romantically and build a family together.
SSM is not oriented towards family life because a SS couple cannot procreate. Marriage is reduced to being a deep friendship, and the gov. has no bus. regulating friendships.
+ your definition of marriage is arbitrary right? Just your opinion.
Travis - just because people are gay doesn't mean their reproductive organs cease to work. Their child's DNA may not be shared by both parents but neither r adopted children's. I am gay, married and have a child = family. Pls try again
@TW You prove my point. You are incapable of seeing that two people of the same sex can love each other and become a family. You don't see a woman as anything but a baby factory if marriage is meaningless to you without biological children.
So do you consider it a "friendship" when a heterosexual couple gets married but chooses not to have kids?
And don't you think kids are better off being adopted by a loving same sex couple than growing up without a family at all?
I didn't say that they don't work. MM or FF are not ordered towards the production of children because they cannot produce children within that pair. Their organs do not sexually compliment each other. Can't do comprehensive bodily union. Sorry.
Travis - the world is over populated - don't you think maybe God intended homosexual unions as a form of population control?
No I don't.
A MF marriage sans children would be a difference in degree but not in type. SSM is a difference in type and a complete departure from the model.
Yet, I'm in a SSM and we have a child with plans for more. We are much like an adoptive family except our child shares one of our DNA. So are you saying that unless the child shares both parents DNA it's not a family?
You can't participate in comprehensive bodily union. You can't produce offspring without an opposite sex pairing. You and your partner are not intrinsically ordered towards family life. I'm sorry but that's the truth.
So what r u trying 2 say? Becus my child has another's DNA that isn't my wife's we aren't a family? That becus gay couple can't accid have kids they cant marry? Do you feel the same 4 those who marry KNOWING they r infertile? Or just gays?
Marriage is a union intrinsically ordered towards the production of children, that's why the gov regulates it. If marriage is just an emotional union then the gov has no point regulating it any more than it should any other friendship.
You still didn't answer the question.
Marriage is more than procreation, more than an emotional Union. Funnily enough, I wonder when more str8 couples would realise that - given the divorce rate is huge, it's not us gays throwing it away.
But your def. of marriage restricts it to merely being an emotional Union.
Infertility is a difference in degree but not of type.
Merely? Yet yr theory is its solely abt procreation. Emotion is part of it, but not all, procreation can be part of it, should never b all of it. Except, any1 can procreate u don't need 2 b married. at least gays don't have 'accidental children'
We're going to just disagree. See majority opinion in the Ober. ruling. It's merely an emotional Union under consent based definition. Conjugal definition it is intrinsically ordered towards, but not solely abt.
Why shld M be a permanent Union?
I'm personally for marriage equality.
Having had Marriage Equality in my home country for several years now, I can tell you that the world has not ended, no one has been forced to marry a person of the same sex if they did not wish to, and no one has applied to marry their dog, child or toaster oven. All of which those who opposed it stated WOULD happen.
My marriage is not affected by my neighbours marriage, nor does my marriage affect my neighours marriage - thats the thing, Marriage is personal - between you and your spouse..
Marriage equality means that no relationship between two consenting adults is seen as a lesser relationship. Children and spouses can be covered by insurances, benefits etc.
People go on about "children deserve a mother and a father" - yet it is these VERY people who disown their gay children - depriving them of BOTH. That children get victimised for having two mums, or two dads - quite frankly, stop worrying about my children being bullied, and start raising childrne who don't bully others.
Many studies show that those raised in LGBT households develop just as their heterosexual household raised peers. Some studies show that those raised in gay households often show more empathy to others than those who weren't (often, not always). I've got a hub reviewing these studies - and the Regenrus study.
You know, all the arguments against SSM have been used before? Against inter-racial marriage.
Marriage definition - the fact that you can't sell your daughter to her suitor for a cow and three goats (and against her wishes) means marriage has already been redefined. Marriage is a contract between two people in the eyes of the law.
For those who want a "seperate" title for gay marriages, such as "partnerships" or "civil unions" - seperate but equal is NOT equal. How about we do away with the word "marriage" all together - how would that make those in a heterosexual marriage feel? As though they were lesser? Then why make another's marriage lesser?
One set of laws, for everyone. Equality under the law. I'm for it.
And it is solving the issues - slowly. The discrimination issues for inter-racial marriage didn't go away over night did they? 50yrs later, there are still issues. But by recognising homosexual couples in marriage as equal, we are stepping in the right direction - ensure everyone is seen as equals. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
Interracial marriage is denial of recog. of a pair that can have children.
SSM is forced recog. of a pair that cannot have children.
They are not analogous arguments at all. My arg. work against prohibitions on interracial marriage.
Yet, My SS wife + I have a child. Born from my body. After we were married in a SSM. So is ye problem that the parents don't all share DNA with the child? What abt adopted children? Just becus 1 is gay doesn't make 1 infertile. Wht r u trying 2 say?
Redef. For SSM is not intrinsically ordered towards family life. If Mar. Is just a type of friendship then the gov. shouldn't regulate it.
You want to understand my perspective. Read the secular book I linked in my answer and get back to me.
Your links aren't secular. I've had a look. Repost secular one if you think I've missed it. Marriage is more than friendship, and more than procreation.
Secular book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A69 … amp;btkr=1
If marriage isn't intrinsically ordered towards procreation and is just an emotional union- then it is just a deep sort of friendship.
It's more than an emotional Union. Funny though, I don't see u protesting those who choose 2 remain childless - if it was really about the fact that marriage is abt procreation, it wouldn't be just b SSM u have a problem with
Difference in degree but not type. Under the consent based definition marriage doesn't have to be anything more than an emotional Union. Your M is by nature not ordered intrinsic. Towards family life and is an emotional Union. Read that book.
You can use the word marriage in the generic sense like the marriage of jazz and rock or cherry and vanilla, but in the definition of the union pictured, I object to it on Mariam Webster grounds. Randomly changing word meanings is cute in poetry and songs... bad means good and it's sad that gay sure don't mean happy and light-hearted anymore. HaHAH, oh what fun. But if we all start changing the meanings of words, then the changes could easily escape our ability to post or update, rendering confusion, misunderstanding and eventually, the inability to communicate. It's a bit presumptuous to use a word for a real thing for a made up one. A marriage is a union established by God-- that's just what the word means-- and whether he is real or not, it's rather delusional to imagine a gay marriage is anything that can exist. Just make up a new word for it. I have no suggestions.
Reeeeally? You made a jump from changing the legal definition of marriage to a complete language collapse? I mean, A+ for creativity I guess. Haven't heard that one before! Always finding new ways to justify discrimination. *sarcastic thumbs up*
Except it is about the redefinition of the institution, not the inclusion of a previously excluded group. Your tone indicates you probably can't have a rational discussion about this.
When Hitler defined the Final Solution as legal, was it?
Sure, let's drag Hitler into a discussion about gay marriage.
Laws change and progress all the time.
Well you deflected the question, but that's understandable. I must disregard labels (so I'm going to tell). The public condoning of homosexuality is a specific judgment poured out on a culture that fails to acknowledge the Creator as creator.
Let's take the comment about marriage as a contract under God. Who's God? yours? Mine? Manjula's? There r 1000s of worshipped Gods, many who have no issue with homosexuality - so who's God? Is it 'conveniently' the one u happen to believe in?
What u or I or thousands believe does not affect who the creator of spacetime is.
I didn't answer your question because once again you've taken something that really doesn't change your life at all and compared it to something extreme.
There was marriage equality. Every American was subject to the same laws.
The thing in contention are the two alternate definitions of marriage. They cannot co-exist. SSM is not simply an inclusion of- but the wholesale redefinition of.
The definition you believe isn't the one shared by most in the first place. Most see marriage as two people making a loving commitment and becoming family. Very few see it as the transfer of rights to a woman from a father to a husband anymore.
I think you should get out more, it's not. Regardless you would say that your definition is ultimately arbitrary no? and thus you undermine any basis for yourself. Under your view marriage is merely a form of deep friendship. Why regulate it then?
And there we see how your definition of marriage is so very different from the majority's. The belief that marriage is about the ownership of a woman's sexuality is no longer the norm and it hasn't been for half a century.
Except that nowhere have I said or implied that marriage is the "ownership of a woman's sexuality". So nice straw man but no banana.
It's a common traditional conservative Evangelical Christian belief your comments about the sexual revolution imply you share. You don't believe the man is dominant in marriage and the woman must submit and obey him then?
Are not all members of household called to submit to one another? I think that you have a poorly drawn caricature. See pt. 4 especially: http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html
Christianity is pro-woman. But this train of thought is irrelevant.
Christianity is pro-woman? Riiiighht. Hmmm biblical marriage = woman is property. Where a rape victim is to marry her rapist? Where a non-virginal woman is to be stoned to death? Where is Christianity pro women? Certainly not its Holy Book.
Women were property in the pagan and ANE cultures. Christianity changed that by giving them parity with men. Read the link. Here's another: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004EP … amp;btkr=1
I never really understood the legal concept of marriage. Choosing a partner to live with and sharing tax responsibilities as well as receiving certain subsidies should apply to most households that are bound together for a more permanent length.
For example, if I were to live with my college friends forever in a larger home, why shouldn't I be able to share items with them or gift them certain objects without paying VAT?
For a solution, I think the legal side of marriage should be completely scrapped and instead replaced with the legal concept of a household. For the religious side, each and every church should be able to decide whether they accept certain pairings for marriage or not. I see no reason why someone would visit a church that denies a marriage for them.
Don't you mean ha ha stick it where the sun doesn't shine you stupid Christians? Isn't that what you truly want? Is not your goal to deprive us of our beliefs and make us look archaic, stupid and appear as though we are your oppressor? The answer to my questions is a very simple and definate yes. I hope you enjoy your answers as much as I did giving everyone the truth. Oh and please don't try to deny these allegations. We are tired of the liberal lies.
The Real American People
When your beliefs infringe on other people's rights to equality then yes, I hope people deprive you of those beliefs being translated to laws.
YOUR religion should not dictate how OTHER people live their lives.
excellent review- when people try to impose their prejudice and personal insecurities as law - then God help that society. The God I worship and support, supports everyone who proposes love.
Michael, Nobody is depriving you of your beliefs, you can still get married in a church, under God, it's you who are depriving others of their beliefs and their human rights, therefore, you are the oppressor.
Yes. Stick it to hate-filled religious extremists who use their chosen beliefs to persuade gov't policy against core American values on equality.
What we are looking at is the forceful redefinition of marriage to be something that marriage is not. Then we have institutions being threatened if they don't comply and bend the knee to the new liberal orthodoxy. That isn't right.
The God and Christ of the Bible, I worship, is based on love. Period. The Bible, when it quotes disciples of thousands of years ago, quotes man as he was back then- not now. Any two human beings who join in the sanctity of love should have and receive all the benefits of that union- legally and spiritually. If, as you attempt to muddy the waters with the addition of polygamy, then so be it. If these two or forty people are joined together in love and commitment to Jesus Christ or whatever Higher Power based on tolerance and love, then so be it. God created man and therefore our need and ability to evolve- based on Himself. I know of many heterosexual couples who have "open" relationships but the church, Synagogue or whatever place of worship overlooks this. Any relationship based on commitment and love should be celebrated and not denigrated by redneck, prejudiced persons. Period.
The problem is that the types of relationships you are endorsing are not the types of relationships that human beings are built for. Christ Himself affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman. That's the hard truth.
And Christ himself shouldn't define things for people who don't believe in him. What Christ says means squat to me because I'm not a Christian, so that "truth" is most definitely not a truth to me (and many others).
If Christ is Lord then it carries weight regardless of your opinion. If Christ is not Lord then all definitions of marriage are fundamentally arbitrary- and so you lose either way. But the whole discussion here is tangential to the secular arguments
People who don't believe in your God invented marriage and used it as a legal institution long before Christ's birth. Your church can marry whoever it likes and this isn't a theocracy like you want.
Where did I say I want a theocracy? I oppose SSM on both SECULAR and religious grounds. If God is- then your opinion doesn't matter. If God isn't- then your definition is arbitrary and your opinion can be discarded.
Everyone should have the right to exercise choice as long as it does not infringe upon others' right to do the same. Choice is God-given. Still, wrong and right, normal and abnormal, natural and unnatural exist. Consequences of choice belong solely to the chooser.
I believe that choosers should find their own way to carry out their choices if they infringe on the rights of anyone who does not want to help with things that are contrary to nature or moral laws. If we continue to make allowances for moral laws, we will find ourselves reverting back to a lawless world that is no longer civilized. Do not change moral laws! Do not redefine marriage! God is the author of both and creator of all people. He knows best.
This is a simple question. Marriage equality is a must.
When there is no equality in a marriage you will get a divorce or an unhealthy relationship.
Strange that people use the term "marriage equality" for married guy couples. Be clear and don't beat around the bush when talking about homosexuality use a different phrase please...
Guy's and Lesbians have the same rights as black people. And black people have the same rights as Christian white people. Is this a discussion or what!!!
A marriage is done for loads of reasons. In lots of countries the parents choose a partner for there children and they are forced to marry them. I think this could be a more interesting point of discussion then if two lesbians love each other and want to marry each other and get the full legal rights and social respect that they deserve.
Of course guy people have the right to marry, just as black people have the right to sit in the front of the bus and women have the right to vote.
It is 2015. - this is a not rocket science.
I have no problem with marriage equality, and believe that those who are gay and lesbians should have the same rights as those who are hetereosexual....
And, actually, some of the concepts of marriage even are somewhat outdated...Wasn't marriage originally seen by many cultures as a business deal, and less about love...It was about what kind of dowry you were going to get, and in some cultures, this still goes on.. And even now, how often have we heard of people going to college to get their Mrs. Degree..yes, even in the 21st century, there are some who are doing that.....
My personal feeling is that I want everyone to be happy (call it a utopian view) and I want them to be treated fairly...I saw a great shirt yesterday that talked about No to Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Fatphobiasm, Orientationism, and so many other isms...That's what I think we should strive for...
I am completely for allowing people to do what they want with their lives. No one has a right to control it other wise.
I will also say, it's about time the United States allowed same sex marriage, legally. It's 2015, time we start living in modern times.
There will always be bigots and people who hate this kind of stuff, but it's all a matter of shutting those people down.
Adam are you ok with 100 people getting married? How about 100 people, a 1986 Chrysler Lebaron, and a sparrow?
Nicomp - really? You do understand consent don't you? And the fact that animals + inanimate objects + children cannot consent? If you don't..... The100 people marrying - there are religions who are fine with it. Christianity likes concubines...
Hey! If inanimate objects and animals won't to get married? Let them! It's their lives despite being manufactured and/or apart of nature and completely don't follow our ideals as homosapiens.
Nicomp, looks you are desperately looking for a reason why same sex marriage is not ok. You've got to do better then the last ludicrous comment. lost case big time.
Want to get married* As well. I don't quite understand the point Nicomp is attempting to make here. But once more, I'll state. Let people do what they want with their lives.
If you want a reason to be opposed to same sex marriage, this book lays out the secular case against: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Overruled-M … 1621574512
And especially: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defe
LOl, nicomp is truly off the wall.
I think he wants to marry a 1986 Chrysler Lebaron, That's fine with me, people do fall in love with their cars. LMAO
Thank you for the reference, I'm surprised you didn't come up with a quote from the bible. I love my car too, a Renault Clio. But I'm afraid it's dying. Ah what the heck, why not marry her, I will get the heritage.. Lucky me.
I'm for it. I don't really mind either way if people of the same sex get married, it's none of my business. It's something done between two adults and that's fine.
Honestly, the union between two consenting adults should be none of our concern.
I have no real answer or solutions for this issue. I know homosexuality has always been a issue. But in some countries and religions people would be beheaded for being anything not man and woman. Not saying that will solve anything and that is a very harsh punishment. I wouldn't death on anyone. I was always taught that a man and woman belong together and that the normal way to live and grow and reproduce. I don't like man with man. i dont like woman with woman. But its here. Nothing I can do about it. I respect love but not how some see love. There more than one definition to love and how you can love. Marriage is sacred and yes it between two people that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I just really feel that at least 75% of marriages are fake. That is a huge percentage. I just throw number out there like that based on who I know and what I know and things I have heard. The devoice rate is up. Regardless of who marrying who. Its too much lying and not enough loyalty out here in this world when it comes to any relationship. That is true. Why marry someone if you are going to cheat? Then there is a lot dishonesty with people and their sexuality as well. So, its a lot of things that need to be sat at the table for and better understood.
I don't see why gay people shouldn't be able to get married. They're not asking for special consideration. All they're asking is for the same rights as their straight counterparts. I don't think that's asking too much.
In a sense, straight people have made a mockery of marriage to begin with. With constant divorce and filing for divorce simply because of boredom, it would be extremely hypocritical to ban gay marriage. My own dad has been married four times. How can you justify a heterosexual person getting married four times while a homosexual person can't get married once? The straight person very clearly has proven they're not very good at marriage if they've tied the knot four times.
It's about displacement. We need something to tell ourselves that we're an enlightened, tolerant and progressive society - to distract ourselves from all the ways we're actually unenlightened, intolerant and regressive. Pat purselves on the back for gay marriage and we can avoid thinking about the death of free inquiry on campuses, the rising racial tensions and the dreary economic trends.
If we were actually tolerant we wouldn't need to make such a big hoopla about this. And we've implictly ceded an important point: that marriage is a legitimate concern of government policy. What if we were to get government out of marriage altogether? No, that's unthinkable.
Wouldn't it be GREAT if there didn't have to be a big hoopla? But unfortunately for every person that is tolerant there's another who isn't and doesn't even pretend to be that will keep clawing at these issues in attempts to drag them down.
You're mistaking tolerance for "people can do whatever the heck they want"
I'm for marriage equality because it means marriage is no longer legally being used as a tool of oppression and discrimination against a part of humanity. It's also changing how marriage is viewed, in a very good way.
The systematic use of marriage as a tool to make society treat some people as "less than" devalued marriage in my eyes. To me the struggle against marriage equality just looked like a bunch of conservative religious people terrified that women and men would have to be treated equally if it were recognized that people can marry the same gender.
Traditional religious marriage is about the production of legal heirs to carry on the male name and women were used as servants and vessels for reproduction. It was more like male ownership of women than about partnership or love. Allowing women to marry each other and allowing men to marry men dashes those "values" out the window and makes marriage about love and commitment rather than about defining who owns a particular woman.
Have you ever noticed how homophobes seem inclined to think there's always a "male" woman in a lesbian couple and a "female" man in a gay couple? It's like they have the idea that there MUST be a dominant person, a man, in every marriage and that there must be someone subordinate and dominated, a woman. They seem like they can't wrap their heads around the idea that people can be in love and equal partners, heterosexual or gay.
Marriage equality makes sexual equality obvious and I think it terrifies homophobes and people who believe in male superiority and male rule of the household. How are they going to keep their daughters from feeling like people who deserve the same education, rights, and respect as their sons? How will they keep them ignorant and control who they marry if marriage becomes about love, commitment, and personal choice rather than about what man gets to control the reproductive organs and reproductive capacity of a woman? How will they force their gay sons into marriage with women long enough to get grandchildren if the rest of society treats them like people and allows them to marry whoever they love?
Equality is good. Treating all people like people is good. Redefining marriage to be a loving commitment rather than a patriarchal ownership contract is a good thing.
Have you ever noticed how activists trot out the word 'homophobe' to oppress and intimidate whoever disagrees with them?
No, a homophobe is a person who fears and actively tries to oppress gay people. For instance, they want gay people to be treated as lesser beings. If you think I mean you, you must feel that's what you do.
I don't want gay people to be treated as lesser human beings. They have all the same rights that everybody else has. I oppose the redefinition of marriage.
So, because you like the recent definition of marriage, it was quite different 100 years ago, you support denying people the Liberty to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody. This country was founded on Liberty, not definitions.
Given that women are no longer property + actually have 2 consent 2 the marriage + you can't sell your daughter 2 her suitor 4 3goats + a cow - the definition has changed. Yr arguments have been used b4, many many years ago
Do you support the right of voluntary gladiators to fight to the death in Yankee stadium? Do you support bringing back dueling to settle social disputes?
The definition hasn't changed, sorry. Did I say any of those things?
I have more of a problem with marriage overall under a capitalist system. The fact that they legalized gay marriage now shows how backward this country is in so many areas due to racism through police brutality, denying women the right to abortion & birth control pills, and profiting over low-income who have to rely on loans & debt in order to move ahead in life. Of course I am just naming a few of the many problems of this system, and that is only naming the things at home. But I am for allowing people to decide no matter their sexual orientation. The problem is that capitalism relies more on religious dogma rather than scientific evidence and actual morality.
Personally, I do not feel it is any of anyone else's business who loves and chooses to marry whom. Personal happiness and freedoms overrule the opinions of busybodies.
Besides which, here in the USA, at least, we have a constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state. Given that ALL the arguments against same-sex marriages are based in religious tenets and opinions, they have NO business being any part of our laws, or influencing same.
The lame excuses that "gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage" is about the stupidest claim I've ever heard. What someone else does with their personal and private lives has no effect on your life, unless you're one of those sticking their nose where it does not belong.
And as far as that argument goes, the divorce statistics for so-called 'straight' marriages on a proportion-adjusted basis, are appalling; not so much in the LGBT community.
I am reminded of the story of a lady who called the police to complain about neighbors sunbathing in the nude. She could see them from her bedroom window, and was offended. The police arrived, looked out the window, and saw nothing. When they said so, the lady told them, "Well, stand up on that chair right there, and you'll see plenty!"
Moral of the story: stay down off the chair and MYOB!
Consenting adults should have the right to marry whomever they choose. End of discussion.
I just don't understand why some people are so against gay marriage or the ceremony of two women? It bothers me to know that there are people out there who think that this sort of thing shouldn't exist. It's a romance between two men or two women and they want to be together just like a man and woman want to spend a life time being with each other, they wanna do the same!
I don't think I have the right to judge people. This does not refer to those people, who lead quite a "different" way of life than I do. However, this question is very controversial, so no wonder there are many debates around it. They say, many men - many minds and this is exactly the case. But if you ask me as to what I think about marriage equity, I should answer that I'm not against of it. Each person has the right to choose a lifetime partner he/she will be happy with. I respect the choice of people and I understand those of them, whose choice differs from that of other people. That's my opinion.
Travis Wakeman said,
"If the institution is being eroded then it is people's business."
Nothing is being eroded, this sounds like a Christian complaint about gay marriage. Christians say that marriage is supposed to be an Holy bonding under God, yet you never rose up when atheists got married, why not?
A Christian or non-Christian judge never refused to marry atheists when the wedding was obviously not recognized by the couple as being under God, so why is it any different now?
What if you were married by a non-Christian or atheist judge?
That should be a problem for Christians because how could your marriage be under the Christian God if the judge worships another god or is atheist?
Marriage of a heterosexual Christian male and female under God is no guaranty that marriage will be a good bonding or mach, nor is it a guaranty the marriage will last.
Heterosexual Christians can still get married just the same as they always have, nothing has eroded, it's up to you to make your marriage last, and, the ceremony is only an ancient ritual, the only purpose of a paper document is strictly for legal purposes, in fact, there is something these days called common law marriage, you don't even need to go through all that technical stuff.
If you are a Christian then Gay marriages will have zero effect on your life, it won't effect your decisions to either be happily married to your spouse, and it won't cause you to break up, only the two of you have control over that. If it wasn't meant to be then it simply wasn't meant to be, don't blame homosexuals getting married for what happens in your life, it's all you.
If it's really important to you then I am sure you can always find somebody in your church who secretly only marries straight Christian couples.
The important thing is that gay couples are able to receive that legal recognition. This won't even be a topic of discussion 30 years from now
thank your information i like it by http;//www.solarmovie.us.com
The only arguments against equality are those of hatred and bigotry. Sad that so many believers twist their chosen religion's texts in order to feel better about their own personal politics.
If they actually read their own book, they would know that Jesus never spoke against gays. That the centurion purposely avoided Roman authority so that a Jewish faith-healer could help his "special" slave boy. That Jesus instead preached inclusion and mercy. That the sins of Sodom was about worship of false idols, selfishness, and finally gang-rape - not consensual relationships. That Leviticus only applies to practicing Hasidic Jews, not Christians. That the word for abomination in Leviticus (to'ebah) was also used to describe both Jewish sacrifice and feasting in the presence of Egyptians (though neither behavior was inherently sinful). And that the punishment for eating shellfish/pork/three-day-old leftovers, and shaving/tattoos, is the same as that for being gay. That Paul wasn't your savior, and the word he used to describe heterosexuals turning gay in comparison with believers turning atheist in Romans, is the same term Paul used to describe (with negative connotation) the natural growth of men's hair in Corinthians (phusis). Speaking of his frustrated rant against the childishness of the early church in Corinth, Paul was talking about young male sex-slaves positioned within Jewish temples (malakoi + arsenokoites). Same misinterpretation in Timothy. Again, having nothing to do with consensual relationships.
There is no valid biblical reason to oppose equal rights, only biased interpretations to justify personal bigotry.
Except Christ did affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. Christ also didn't speak against abortion, does that mean that he therefore was for it?
No, he didn't. You're likely referring the "hardening" of Christians hearts Jesus described in Matt 19 & Mark 10 regarding Moses and divorce - not gays.
Also, Jesus was for abortion if he followed scripture. Numbers 5. Look it up.
On homosexuality: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christ … osexuality
On numbers: http://christianthinktank.com/hept.html
Not interested in your links to someone else's opinion. If you can't articulate your own beliefs, they can't be very well informed & you haven't really thought about it.
Regardless of attempts to explain away what the scriptures say, I can read t
250 characters is hardly enough room to provide a developed and cogent clarification on your misunderstandings. If you were honestly open minded I would think you wouldn't mind a good link out.
Where in Numbers does it say she is pregnant?
Numbers 5: 22 says "Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel." Where does it say that she is pregnant? There is no child as a result of infidelity, and therefore no abortion.
The innocent who aren't cursed w sickness are allowed to conceive going forward. So for the unfaithful it's essentially an infertility potion. Which Hobby Lobby would (incorrectly) call an abortifacient. Fair enough. But still not very pro-life.
So you concede that you were incorrect. Thanks.
If life begins at conception, then yes.
Why is that not "pro-life"?
To Justin Earick: You're picking and choosing what you want to hear from the bible but not actually listening to what it says.
If law enforces someone to marry the one, whom one doesn't love, the consequences will be contrary to the ones law enforces to..i.e., law and order. As an unhappy couple would always try to find solace which would make them look beyond the legal territory, the order in society will be broken by such couples every now and then depending upon the number who are dissatisfied.
So by imposing restrictions on one's marriage options, the law is going self-contradictory.
Well, I personally think that it is fair enough and equal enough to let people to get married no matter sex they are. So, I would say "For."
Let's forget about our sex first and see that we all are humans altogether we live on this planet. We have heart that full of love and it is our choice as well to share it to whoever they are as long as that person is willing to accept and respond back. We, humans, have freedom in ourselves. What we basically need is love from others, so no doubt that we also have freedom in sharing it.
Being born in LGBT group is the choice that they make. They are born with it. So, they have to accept, so do the society. What would you say if I say you were born with broken legs or disability, you still have to live with it right? If you want to get married with your love, who is able? Should we allow that? Yes, right? So do same sex marriage. It has to be equal. Thus, empathy that you might have to share with other is vital now.
Since marriage equality is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, as long as you would carry the hammer destroying people's property or kill them, I see no impact on the society.
Sorry, but to me, this isn't a debate about 'equality.' It's about progressives redefining the language in order to own the discussion. That being then case, the question is moot.
Men and women have an equal right to marry anyone of the opposite sex they wish to. If you do not get that, the discussion is quite pointless. Society has set values based on tens of thousands of years' experience. To attempt to dismiss that experience to satisfy the demands of less than 2% of the population is downright folly.
Evolution of marriage/relations is constant, often by bible thumpers. Eve w Cain/Abel. Abraham w Sarah & Hagar. David w Bathsheba (sans Uriah). Solomon & his thousand wives/concubines. Dowries, arranged marriages. Xtians love relational redef
The pattern for marriage is laid out in the relationship between Adam and Eve before the fall and that pattern is affirmed by Christ specifically. You confuse description of for endorsement of.
Travis - you do realise that Adam and Eve weren't married don't you? Also...given Eve was made 'of' Adam, it was also incestuous. Just saying
Lol, what makes you think that? Because the gov. didn't give them a piece of paper? God ordained them and it's referred to as the model upon which marriages seek to emulate.
so, you have no issue with it being incestuous marriage then? As if you believe in Creation then Eve is made
From Adams rib, therefore incredibly closely related....therefore the union is incestuous. I know which id have more issue with.
Lol, why don't you define for us what "incestuous" relations are and why you think they are wrong...
You concede that they were married?
Married? No. Marriage existed LONG b4 religion - so no, they weren't.
Incest - closely related people in a sexual relationship (consentual or not) - wrong? Shallow gene pool causes genetic mutations, often passed along to grand-children etc. Y Lol?
If Adam and Eve were then there was no marriage prior to them. That holds true regardless of a YEC or OEC take on Genesis.
I think that given the mitigating circumstances and this being prior to the fall should be taken into account.
Anything remotely 'icky' that God condones + shouldn't is always explained away by "mitigating' circumstance - if he was all powerful/all knowing then the incest thing should have been rectified - therefore, it's condoned.
You just don't like the fact that these mitigating circumstances exist.
Prior to the fall we aren't looking at genetic corruption.
Where are eve's female chromosomes coming from? Not Adam's rib. She is genetically unique.
But all off topic.
Come on Trevis, you can't actually believe ano 2015 that Adam and Eve actually existed. Or do you?
I'm an OEC, not YEC.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, for we write fiction to suit ourselves."
No, it's not that they exist, it's that they aren't applied equally. The bits that made God look dodgy get 'mitigating circ' (incest, slavery etc), the bits that out of all context make others look bad - even context isn't accepted. It's annoying.
On slavery: http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts … n-slavery/
Christianity is why slavery ended.
We all are very busy with out own personal life. Everyone needs some space. If someone is happy with the same sex person and it doesn't effect you/your lifestyle by any chance, then let them be. We don't need to poke our nose into everything. That is his/her life. The main thing is if they are happy or not. If you havn't been a part of that person's life, you have no right to say anything in this matter. Everyone should have their own choice when it comes to marriege.
Amalgamation (or marriage) is just a document stating that Person A will share income, live, and potentially have children with Person B. So, to really think about it logically, it is in-fact decent for homosexual peoples to elope. In a mindset ordeal, it's not because all our lives we have been told it's wrong for people of the same gender to share any attraction. Polygamy, however, is non-decent because you are counteracting the reason for marriage to begin with. Polygamy is similar to a company. Revenue from each seller is given to the owner of the company, and each are compensated fairly. Revenue being the income, sellers being the wives/husbands, and the owner being the one who married 2 or more people. In all, as long as it is NOT polygamy, I accept marriage equality. I am for it. Because it simply doesn't matter. It doesn't keep the children in Africa thirsty, it doesn't burn down villages, it doesn't bomb worldly countries, and it will not ruin government or the economy.
I personally don't care. If two people want to be together, then be together. Who should we even care about who other people marry? It's like sticking our nose in business that's not ours.
People tend to like to do that.
Yeah like you see someone about to get murdered you're like: Not my problem! Is that what you're saying
So to you murdering and getting married is the same thing Benedict !
Doesn't that apply to the Federal Gov because marriage is a state license.
Why do we need govt for marriage at all?
Peter, I was about to say the same thing. I wonder if Benedict suffered a terrible marriage.
I believe marriage equality is strictly a legal question. A marriage license issued by the state is simply a form of legal contract between two parties giving each certain rights in respect to each other, placing certain responsibilities on each in regards to the other, and giving the partnership a certain status for the purpose of employer or government provided benefits, in regards to taxation, inheritance, and in case of a dissolution of the partnership (divorce).
From a religious perspective, what constitutes a marriage is defined by the tenets of that particular religion. Most religions in the US consider a marriage to be between a man and a woman and the purpose of marriage to be the formation of a stable unit into which to bear and raise children.
From a spiritual perspective, it is a matter of the heart. Two people who love each other and want to commit to a lifetime together can be spiritually joined to each other and married in their minds and hearts without the blessing of the church or a license from the state.
The whole marriage equality movement has always been primarily about the financial benefits that accrue from legal recognition by the state. I am not opposed to such recognition, nor to committed gay couples living together as legally and spiritually wed. It certainly isn't going to change the status of my marriage or make me any less wed to my wife of 27 years.
The concept of marriage equality is something I support, but I wish they would call it something else. Yes, it's marriage. I'm not like one of the Bible thumpers saying "it's not really marriage."
It's just usually referred to as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" and these are misleading terms.
I am a non-binary person. I identify as librafeminine, which is feeling largely genderless with an attachment to femininity. I have a cisgender hetero male partner. We still consider ourselves a "queer couple," because by definition, he is a person attracted to a gender neutral individual. He could consider himself bisexual or pansexual, but he doesn't.
The idea is erasing, assuming that ONLY a cis man and/or woman can be involved in a relationship. A gay male couple isn't any less a gay male couple if one is trans and one is cis.
I'm not sure it's completely erasing, because a trans man + his cis male partner can marry, as well as many other combinations. The requirement of gender even if it's the same could be the erasing issue if you are gender neutral, thinking abt it.
The equality marriage is beautiful because the marriage is depends only on understanding. moreover all peoples are having the tought of marriage is includes the sexual relation also but they taken that decision under the feel of love and understanding ability.
by James Smith6 years ago
. . . hang around long enough to talk about how much of an idiot Rick Santorum is and then disappear when asked to provide principles they believe in. It's not enough any more! So tell me, my lefty friends, when you...
by herrypaul18 months ago
I just want to know: Do you agree with same-sex marriage or gay marriage?Marriage is sacred, God created Men and Women to be one flesh.If you agree, why? If not, why?
by Akriti Mattu2 years ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by Kylyssa Shay2 years ago
Do you think the wide acceptance of marriage equality could lower the divorce rate?Before you answer, let me give you some background as to why I'd ask this question.For eleven years, I was married to a gay man. I...
by email@example.com years ago
Why aren't polygamy and the marriage of adult siblings legal, like gay marriage?Since the definition has been changed to legalize gay marriage, why stop there? Why aren't marriages between all consenting adults be...
by silverstararrow2 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.