100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: are u infavor in same sex marriage ? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for people to answer the question in this thread's title without telling others what they should believe,without criticizing others for what they believe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for people to answer the question in this thread's title without telling others what they should believe,without criticizing others for what they believe? I'll take that as you bowing out then, I'll continue discussing this topic with people who would rather seriously discuss their ideas and beliefs and defend them in a similar manner...Rather than throw a fit when someone challenges them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for people to answer the question in this thread's title without telling others what they should believe,without criticizing others for what they believe? my authority is more logical than your authority,, nah nah nah nah nah niener niener,,, 
,,that should cover all sides from here on out,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if something is legal, that means it's "socially advocated"?
So... it's advocated for some sexy young thang whose only "assets" are the ones contained in her 34DDD brassiere to marry some 95-year-old multimillionaire geezer with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel so she can get a big payday when he keels over? After all, that's legal. Or how about the heterosexual couple who meet in Las Vegas, complete strangers who stumble off drunkenly to a hotel room, get it on, wake up the next day and decide to get married before they've even crossed over the line from "still drunk" to "oh jeez my head" by some fat guy in an Elvis costume, and then once the hangover subsides a couple of days later, opt to divorce? That's legal too. So obviously either of these is perfectly okay and acceptable, whereas two men or two women who spend a lifetime faithfully together... say fifty or sixty years... no, they shouldn't be allowed get married because it's icky or would send the wrong message or something...? Uh, maybe it's time to re-think this whole business of what really constitutes "socially acceptable". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that these types of discussions always dissolve to one singular property; religion? When God dictates what people do we live no better off than if the government dictates what people do...If progress is forward, what are we doing? authority is a fact of life, without it there is chaos we just will always have disagreements about where and how authority should manifest itself many people place authority in Gods word, or Gods design, or Natures design, or the constitution,, or whatever these discussions, from my perspective usually will have opinions from people with various ideas of where 'authority' lies,,, These discussions from my perspective are almost always ridiculous. As though you, or anyone else here should dictate what your neighbor across the street does. again, its not dictating what people should 'do' its supporting/not supporting what the GOVERNBMENT should do have whatever adult relationships we want,, and I have nothing to say state the government has to equalize that choice, advocate for that choice, push that choice on societys acceptance is another issue,,, But that is exactly what this is, it is dictating what people should do by supporting/not supporting what the government does; you can call it off-white all you want but it is still grey. My point is that no one, government, you, them, otherwise should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal life as long as it does not directly threaten other people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the government is giving out benefits as they are to married couples than they have to be fair under the constitutional rights of others and allow gay couples to marry and gain those same benefits.
However if the government were not involved in marriage at all then it would be up to the churches or whoever controls them to make their own decisions and wouldn't have to be fair. I don't care if gays get married. It's not the end of the world and doesn't directly affect you individually. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if something is legal, that means it's "socially advocated"? So... it's advocated for some sexy young thang whose only "assets" are the ones contained in her 34DDD brassiere to marry some 95-year-old multimillionaire geezer with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel so she can get a big payday when he keels over? After all, that's legal. Or how about the heterosexual couple who meet in Las Vegas, complete strangers who stumble off drunkenly to a hotel room, get it on, wake up the next day and decide to get married before they've even crossed over the line from "still drunk" to "oh jeez my head" by some fat guy in an Elvis costume, and then once the hangover subsides a couple of days later, opt to divorce? That's legal too. So obviously either of these is perfectly okay and acceptable, whereas two men or two women who spend a lifetime faithfully together... say fifty or sixty years... no, they shouldn't be allowed get married because it's icky or would send the wrong message or something...? Uh, maybe it's time to re-think this whole business of what really constitutes "socially acceptable". the difference in the scenarios is that one is very detailed and the other is not there is no accounting for PERSONAL character of two individuals who marry, or there reasons it isn't that such behavior is legal its that its not ILLEGAL,, there is a difference there is no law whatsoever pertaining to the legality of marrying for money,,,,it is neither LEGAL nor ILLEGAL we can however, pretty easily tell, a male from a female and what impact such a coupling potentially has in SOCIETY,,,, we don't advocate people to be greedy because we advocate for men and women to commit to each other we advocate, simply, for men and women to commit to each other, and the longterm social benefit of that advocation becomes apparent in the obstacles that children (who must always come from such a combination) face when that commitment is not there ,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that these types of discussions always dissolve to one singular property; religion? When God dictates what people do we live no better off than if the government dictates what people do...If progress is forward, what are we doing? authority is a fact of life, without it there is chaos we just will always have disagreements about where and how authority should manifest itself many people place authority in Gods word, or Gods design, or Natures design, or the constitution,, or whatever these discussions, from my perspective usually will have opinions from people with various ideas of where 'authority' lies,,, These discussions from my perspective are almost always ridiculous. As though you, or anyone else here should dictate what your neighbor across the street does. again, its not dictating what people should 'do' its supporting/not supporting what the GOVERNBMENT should do have whatever adult relationships we want,, and I have nothing to say state the government has to equalize that choice, advocate for that choice, push that choice on societys acceptance is another issue,,, But that is exactly what this is, it is dictating what people should do by supporting/not supporting what the government does; you can call it off-white all you want but it is still grey. My point is that no one, government, you, them, otherwise should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal life as long as it does not directly threaten other people. no one does tell people what they do with their personal life..lol don't you see all the people out there living a homosexual life,, that is called PERSONAL when we DEMAND the government take an action in favor or against those 'personal' choices it stops being about 'personal' and becomes social and political,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 07/01/13 12:58 PM
|
|
If the government is giving out benefits as they are to married couples than they have to be fair under the constitutional rights of others and allow gay couples to marry and gain those same benefits. However if the government were not involved in marriage at all then it would be up to the churches or whoever controls them to make their own decisions and wouldn't have to be fair. I don't care if gays get married. It's not the end of the world and doesn't directly affect you individually.
unfortunately, I care more about just things that 'directly' affect me,,,, and I Tend to look at bigger picture and social consequence in terms of how things affect the SOCIETY and the culture,,, but Ive learned that like a certain book predicted,, the culture is going to lean more and more towards subjective values based in what ever the flesh wants,,, short of murder and thievery,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the government is giving out benefits as they are to married couples than they have to be fair under the constitutional rights of others and allow gay couples to marry and gain those same benefits. However if the government were not involved in marriage at all then it would be up to the churches or whoever controls them to make their own decisions and wouldn't have to be fair. I don't care if gays get married. It's not the end of the world and doesn't directly affect you individually.
unfortunately, I care more about just things that 'directly' affect me,,,, and I Tend to look at bigger picture and social consequence in terms of how things affect the SOCIETY and the culture,,, Oh yes because society is going to be sooo devastated by this! Lol! Get real! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for people to answer the question in this thread's title without telling others what they should believe,without criticizing others for what they believe? I'll take that as you bowing out then, I'll continue discussing this topic with people who would rather seriously discuss their ideas and beliefs and defend them in a similar manner...Rather than throw a fit when someone challenges them. Freedom of speech implies freedom not to speak. All that I wanted to do was to answer the question in this thread's title, which I did. Yet, I did not challenge the stated belief of anyone else, nor did I insist that others believe what I believe. If a person does not share the faith that I have, then it would be futile for me to debate that person about something pertaining to faith. Besides, there is already a thread in the "General Religion" forum for a religious debate about the topic of this thread. There is also a Christian-to-Christian debate thread in the "Christian singles" forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, would it be possible for people to answer the question in this thread's title without telling others what they should believe,without criticizing others for what they believe? my authority is more logical than your authority,, nah nah nah nah nah niener niener,,,
,,that should cover all sides from here on out,,, So true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the government is giving out benefits as they are to married couples than they have to be fair under the constitutional rights of others and allow gay couples to marry and gain those same benefits. However if the government were not involved in marriage at all then it would be up to the churches or whoever controls them to make their own decisions and wouldn't have to be fair. I don't care if gays get married. It's not the end of the world and doesn't directly affect you individually.
unfortunately, I care more about just things that 'directly' affect me,,,, and I Tend to look at bigger picture and social consequence in terms of how things affect the SOCIETY and the culture,,, Oh yes because society is going to be sooo devastated by this! Lol! Get real!
believe what you want,, I have lived through cultural change enough to see how 'devastated' things can become from seemingly unharmful social trends being advocated ,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ViaMusica
on
Mon 07/01/13 01:02 PM
|
|
So if something is legal, that means it's "socially advocated"? So... it's advocated for some sexy young thang whose only "assets" are the ones contained in her 34DDD brassiere to marry some 95-year-old multimillionaire geezer with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel so she can get a big payday when he keels over? After all, that's legal. Or how about the heterosexual couple who meet in Las Vegas, complete strangers who stumble off drunkenly to a hotel room, get it on, wake up the next day and decide to get married before they've even crossed over the line from "still drunk" to "oh jeez my head" by some fat guy in an Elvis costume, and then once the hangover subsides a couple of days later, opt to divorce? That's legal too. So obviously either of these is perfectly okay and acceptable, whereas two men or two women who spend a lifetime faithfully together... say fifty or sixty years... no, they shouldn't be allowed get married because it's icky or would send the wrong message or something...? Uh, maybe it's time to re-think this whole business of what really constitutes "socially acceptable". the difference in the scenarios is that one is very detailed and the other is not So? there is no accounting for PERSONAL character of two individuals who marry, or there reasons
Right, because that isn't a requirement for marriage under the laws of the United States. it isn't that such behavior is legal its that its not ILLEGAL,, there is a difference
If something is not illegal, it is by definition LEGAL. there is no law whatsoever pertaining to the legality of marrying for money,,,,it is neither LEGAL nor ILLEGAL
It is LEGAL in all 50 states if it is a heterosexual couple (and since the SCOTUS ruling, it is also legal for a same-sex couple in certain states). we can however, pretty easily tell, a male from a female and what impact such a coupling potentially has in SOCIETY,,,,
Which is ZERO. we don't advocate people to be greedy because we advocate for men and women to commit to each other
Logically, if by having something be legal that means it is also socially advocated (your original argument), then marriage-for-material-gain is socially advocated by virtue of the fact that it is legal. we advocate, simply, for men and women to commit to each other, and the longterm social benefit of that advocation becomes apparent in the obstacles that children (who must always come from such a combination) face when that commitment is not there
Children must always come from a marriage? So if a person gets married, they're required to have children? And if someone gets pregnant, they're required to marry? Sorry, but that isn't how our laws work in the US. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that these types of discussions always dissolve to one singular property; religion? When God dictates what people do we live no better off than if the government dictates what people do...If progress is forward, what are we doing? authority is a fact of life, without it there is chaos we just will always have disagreements about where and how authority should manifest itself many people place authority in Gods word, or Gods design, or Natures design, or the constitution,, or whatever these discussions, from my perspective usually will have opinions from people with various ideas of where 'authority' lies,,, These discussions from my perspective are almost always ridiculous. As though you, or anyone else here should dictate what your neighbor across the street does. again, its not dictating what people should 'do' its supporting/not supporting what the GOVERNBMENT should do have whatever adult relationships we want,, and I have nothing to say state the government has to equalize that choice, advocate for that choice, push that choice on societys acceptance is another issue,,, But that is exactly what this is, it is dictating what people should do by supporting/not supporting what the government does; you can call it off-white all you want but it is still grey. My point is that no one, government, you, them, otherwise should tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their personal life as long as it does not directly threaten other people. no one does tell people what they do with their personal life..lol don't you see all the people out there living a homosexual life,, that is called PERSONAL when we DEMAND the government take an action in favor or against those 'personal' choices it stops being about 'personal' and becomes social and political,,, Cool, you missed my point entirely and still haven't really addressed it. Look! Over there! *Points in the air* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in favor of people who live in a free country, being allowed to live their own lives as they see fit. I don't believe government has any business dictating marriage and it certainly has no business dictating religious beliefs. Here's how I see it. There may be a man out there somewhere that one day I will want to call husband. And if HE is willing, why should anyone else get an opinion?  
If a man feels that way about another man or a woman feels that way for another woman, why should my feelings be any more important than theirs? 
why should it take the government for anyone to 'call' someone else whatever they want? I'm saying that if my love for someone can lead me to desire a legal and legitimate union than I understand perfectly well why same sex couples desire the same with each other. Our relationships may be different, but figure our feelings are all the same when it comes to a desire give a spouse the legal rights and respect of a marriage. You're right, I could simply call a man my husband, and it wouldn't take away anything that I feel for him, but there are legal rights within that title I cannot give him just by saying it's so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
repeated for clarity
believe what you want,, I have lived through cultural change enough to see how 'devastated' things can become from seemingly unharmful social trends being advocated ,,,, children have not suffered AT All from broken homes, fatherless homes, motherless homes, mothers and fathers BOTH competing to work outside of the home and no one competing to take care of children AT home,, I am just unreal in my perspective of what I have observed in 44 years of life,,, you are right, no difference, all the same, no harm,,,, carry on,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no one does tell people what they do with their personal life..lol don't you see all the people out there living a homosexual life,, that is called PERSONAL when we DEMAND the government take an action in favor or against those 'personal' choices it stops being about 'personal' and becomes social and political,,, I would like to draw your attention to the portion of the above quote that I have emphasized with bold type and underlining. It contains the exact reasoning behind the decision to strike down DOMA. As long as marriage is deemed a matter for the government to oversee, and as long as whom a person chooses to love remains a personal decision, the government CANNOT restrict its recognition of marriage to only heterosexual marriage without such restriction being interpreted as "taking an action against the personal choices" of those who love someone of the same sex. Ergo, equalizing marriage recognition without regard to the genders of the couple serves to remove the government from the equation of personal choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in favor of people who live in a free country, being allowed to live their own lives as they see fit. I don't believe government has any business dictating marriage and it certainly has no business dictating religious beliefs. Here's how I see it. There may be a man out there somewhere that one day I will want to call husband. And if HE is willing, why should anyone else get an opinion?
If a man feels that way about another man or a woman feels that way for another woman, why should my feelings be any more important than theirs?
why should it take the government for anyone to 'call' someone else whatever they want? I'm saying that if my love for someone can lead me to desire a legal and legitimate union than I understand perfectly well why same sex couples desire the same with each other. Our relationships may be different, but figure our feelings are all the same when it comes to a desire give a spouse the legal rights and respect of a marriage. You're right, I could simply call a man my husband, and it wouldn't take away anything that I feel for him, but there are legal rights within that title I cannot give him just by saying it's so. why doesn't your love for them make it 'legitimate'? that's interesting the governments involvement is not what makes a true relationship 'legitimate' all it does differently is get the government involved in protecting it and forcing others to accept it in their legal dealings, and provide certain marital benefits however, civil unions could have included ALL of those elements,, but the movement is intent on making sure it is 'marriage' that is redefined,,,,, wonder why... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
children have not suffered AT All from broken homes, fatherless homes, motherless homes, mothers and fathers BOTH competing to work outside of the home and no one competing to take care of children AT home,, Please explain how legal recognition of same-sex marriage affects any of that. There are already fatherless and motherless homes among heterosexuals, and plenty of hetero families where both parents work (I'm almost 49 and grew up in one, and I'm just fine), etc. Please explain how preventing the recognition of same-sex marriage would in ANY way resolve the problems you just listed. |
|
|
|
|
