This is reality. we are all subject to what the MAJORITY think in a democracy. That is not religion, that is politics. We say siblings cant marry because the MAJORITY think its not right. We say people of one age cannot engage in sex with people of another age because a MAJORITY think it is not right. Noone is forcing us to do or not do anything, a majority is just deciding how they will LEGALLY Define a certain situation for privileges that a MAJORITIES taxes will take part in.

Who pushes for government involvement on this issue are those who want government to DEFINE a certain relationship as MARRIAGE. Just like those who wish the government to LEGALIZE marijuana. Some of us just want them to stay out of it, making it neither LEGAL or ILLEGAL(like lying, except under oath). Others want it to remain a CRIME.
THese things are decided by GOVERNMENT Based upon MAJORITY opinions, which constantly change.

I dont understand how not defining something as MARRIAGE is forcing anyone to do anything , honestly.

And I dont understand why people always want to put the blame on religion or the religious as if thats the only people who could possibly be in opposition to anything.

It was me. According to religious beliefs, marriage is for procreation. Sex is for procreation. Some religions believe that sex should only be for procreation and making children.

Therefore if you don't want children it would practically blasphemous to get married and NOT have children.

In society when a couple get married, they are constantly asked and expected to raise children. ESPECIALLY the royal family. That is what all the excitement is about recently with this royal wedding. The Windsor Royal family were desperate to retain the throne and have children. That is why Prince Charles married Diana instead of the woman he loved. After she had two boys, she was no longer needed. He resumed his affair or did not hide it from her any longer and she left him.

Now that one of her sons is married he is expected to have children. To chose not to have children would be unexceptionable. He has no real choice in the matter.

That is what marriage is truly about.

But there are plenty of unwanted children that need to be adopted and raised because of anti-abortion fanatics and religious ideas about birth control. Gay couples wanting to adopt should be embraced gladly and that would save the state lots of money putting these children in the system.

BUT religious dogma prevents logical solutions.

and there is the whole conundrum of the debate....

How does anyone prove where peoples beliefs come from, why do people ASSUME that a belief is EXCLUSIVELY due to religion as opposed to 'basic common sense' (By the way, lying is not a crime, unless you have signed a contract or are under oath, which makes it a CIVIL issue which the GOVERNMENT dictates)

who is anyone to say that the belief in the wrongness of murder just being 'common sense' , when there are so many legal situations which can be defined as 'murder' and when jurors all over the country daily disagree on who has committed 'murder' and who hasnt?

who is anyone to assume that the wrongness of lying is 'common sense' when there are books and courses all across america teaching prospective employees how to 'lie by omission' to make themself look better


right and wrong, stem from MANY sources, and it puzzles me why people insist , whenever something deemed 'wrong' isnt in line with letting people do what they want, religion is the scapegoat.

the ASSUMPTION that it is only because of religion that people believe in certain things being 'wrong' is quite ridiculous to me,,,,excuse the pun

msharmony,

It would not take much effort to redefine marriage or create some other form of legal attachment that connects two people as a couple and as relatives that retain those kinds of benefits.

People could just allow and accept legal unions. But it is the religious right that goes out of their way to prevent them. It is the corporations that refuse to grant a same sex spouse the same benefits as an opposite sex spouse.

Personally, my own personal opinion is that I am anti-marriage unless a couple is planning to raise a family. That's because I think it is more of a contract with THE STATE than anything.

But if gays want to get married I say they have a right to be just as miserable as the rest of the population. In some cases were their are children involved with a gay couple ... they should both be able to be a legal parent through marriage.

Not true in some cases.

It is a crime to lie to a federal agent of the FBI.

A false report to the police is a crime.

In court, you don't have to sign a contract to be under oath.

I think its pretty naive to think this is not a Christian vs Gay battle going on right now. The sad fact is that the tide is swinging and many Christians see the writing on the wall and realize its only a matter of time before the majority consider the position of restricting gay marriage as unjust. In fact some poles already show a small majority, specifically among the younger generation, are already there.

Marriage currently in the US offers services that no other union offers, its also an issue of control. Real liberty is when the government just has no say in what we do in our lives that does not negatively impact others, I seek nothing less on all fronts. Marriage should be a topic the government offers no advantage, no advice and no control over.

Ron Paul 2012!

Bravo.

You just admitted that religion is not necessary in determining what is right or wrong. People already know right from wrong.

There is a case where a woman married a man and later the man had a sex change operation. They have two children together. Are they still married? Is he still considered a man legally even though he is now a woman? I wonder what a divorce in that relationship would do to the court system.

I agree it would not take much, but it doesnt require redefining marriage. I Am not opposed to labeling something a 'civil union' which is a bit more representative of the idea that marriage is 'just a contract' that is often the argument why all consentual relationships should be legally recognized 'marriages'.

Im all for it, make a STIRCTLY CONTRACT type of classification for those who believe such and label it CIVIL UNION. I wouldnt oppose. I dont think the majority would either.

IN fact, I think the 'civil union' push is gaining more momentum and support than 'redefining marriage' is.

'Civil Union' would permit ALL consenting adults to decide who to share their life, legal responsibilities, assets and debts with, with no implied GOVERNMENT support of anything physical between the two. That would mean , ALL CONSENTING ADULTS With the heart to truly share their life could, rather it be best friends, siblings, cousins, whomever through a civil union which states as such and pays absolutely NO REGARD to the 'physical dynamic' of the relationship or the 'consummation' of the relationship,, only the contract stating two have agreed to share everything under LEGAL jurisdiction.

yes, its illegal to lie IF under oath OR signing a contract

I missed lying to authorities, which can also be prosecuted

so you dont think the government should in any way ENCOURAGE couples who create CHILDREN together to STAY together as a family ?

interesting

it would be JUST for no relationship to be supported or CONDEMNED

but I do understand the logic behind SUPPORTING the idea of people who are going to create children together being committed to each other and their family for the longterm

You CAN lie to police if they are questioning you, but you can't call and make a false report. They can't jail you for lying to them while they are questioning you.

You CAN'T lie to the FBI when they are questioning you, so if you are in that situation the best thing to do is say nothing. You do have a right to remain silent.

I have never stated otherwise, regarding 'right' and 'wrong'.

The case you mention is a mess. We will see how the laws define it. I would say they are still married(once married, always married until divorced)

Im pretty sure there is a legal process by which, AFTER a 'sex change' one can change their legally recognizeed gender.

I dont think divorce takes gender into account, I think all thats required is a marriage took place which the 'couple' wants to in some way annul.

Wow I agree with this.

Other than forcing a legal responsibility for supporting the children, government should stay the hell out of it.

but, the police can take you in for lying if the questioning is in the course of an investigation, they call it 'obstruction of justice'

you have the same right not to speak to police as you do not to speak with FBI

Why should they? What would be their motive for doing so?

Yes that goes along with false reporting. But they can't arrest you for remaining silent.

possibly all the data showing the INCREASED risks of 'fatherless' homes and 'single parent' homes

possibly the idealistic notion of the SECURITY and VALIDATION it provides us to know we came out of more than a mere moment of lust or convenience or arrangement, but from a foundation of a 'loving commmitment'

I know that even though my parents divorced later in life, it was a certain validation I felt as a child to know that when I was created by two people those two people were actually in love and committed to each other.

,,these are just things I can think of, noone need agree

but I see clear reasons(the latter are personal, the former are logical) why to PROMOTE the idea of people REMAINING committed to each other who will be creating children together as opposed to just doing their own thing,,,,

You don't understand at all msharmony. When you say that certain people and only certain people have the right to something legally, while others don't, that is flat out wrong. I don't give a damn if the majority says it or not. You force these other people to adhere to your standards basically, and strip them of their rights to do the same thing you are doing, even if it's not illegal.

This in essence is why democracy does not work. It creates a system where one size fits all basically. Problem is, one size doesn't.

How would YOU like it if someday there was a majority that said that only gay marriage could be legal, and heterosexual couples didn't have that right anymore? How would you like it if the roles were reversed?

A democracy is good........if you are in the majority.

Really I don't think the state belongs in marriage anyway, I think you can marry outside of it as much as you can in it. It's more between the people and the divine seems to me.

MARRIAGE IS NOT A RIGHT, it is not in the constitution even MENTIONED ONCE

it is a PRIVILEGE That has been so taken for granted as to repeatedly be debated as if its a 'right'

sigh, I would not 'like ' it if only gay marriage were legal, but so be it. I guess my relationship would just have no GOVERNMENT involvement in it and I could live with that quite well actually.

I don't LIKE That the laws say I cant allow my 10 year old to be home alone. WE were at home by ourself on occasions (short periods) when I Was young but now the law has gotten involved to make it 'illegal'. So be it, thats what the majority thinks. No matter how much I dont think it should be a one size fits all rule, it has been determined that way so I must abide.

but , what are the options if the MAJORITY doesnt decide,
do you truly think it feasible in a population of 300 million people to just allow everyone to do their own thing under some notion that values of 'right and wrong' are merely 'common sense' ?

that would be chaos, my friend, something I dont think you understand because of idealistic views of a world where everyone is just permitted to be 'happy' doing whatever it is that makes them 'happy;

that only works in a society of one, when we must comingle and exist amongst a multitude, guidelines of how that will happen are a NECESSITY...