equating 'love' to behavior is a fallacy

the government does not now nor has it ever been in the business of dictating who we 'love' or 'hate' or anything else

it does govern our behaviors though and certain behaviors it encourages and promotes and others it stays out of entirely and others it discourages

there is no requirement in marriage that 'love' be present

the issue isn't about who people 'love'

its about what behaviors the government advocates for and supports,,,

Hey, I am all in favor of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution (for people residing in the USA). However, the question asked in this thread's title says nothing about the legality or the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

In my original reply in this thread, I simply said that I did not condone something. I can refuse to condone a civil law while acknowledging the law's existence.

For example, plenty of people refuse to condone laws against the production, sale and use of marijuana, but those people still acknowledge the existence of the laws.

Likewise, I can acknowledge of legality of same-sex marriage without condoning it.

it affects all that because it creeps into other social/political matters, like housing, education, child rearing,, etc,,


there are fatherless and motherless homes and we don't need to do ANYTHING to advocate for situations which cause them,,,

and many people are fine after a lot of things, nothing affects every person the same way

but that doesn't mean we don't view trends and GENERAL affects of behaviors

for instance, many people grow up fine in cultures where children are married to grown ups, but we don't allow it here in the states

,, not because it is ALWAYS going to hurt the child but because WE CHOOSE not to endorse it based upon the information of how often it DOES Harm the child


preventing same sex marriage would prevent children from a young age being taught about how to raise their kids without a mother or father, or being taught how to have sodomy, or confusing their minds into disregarding the very real BIOLOGICAL difference that makes the relationships very REALISTICALLY DIfferent and NOT THE SAME

great example, by the way

I think the illegality of weed is ridiculous

I think it would be better that it was DECRIMINALIZED and left as a personal choice with no legal culpability one way or another


but I do recognize it is the law,,,,and Im sure those who agree with it have plenty of 'logical' reasons for their conclusions on its harmfulness or harmful impact upon the culture/society,,

no comment...!!! :))

Please make sure your responses are within a Debate style form. Attacking others for their opinions is not allowed.

If this can not be done this topic will be locked.

A few post will be deleted...

Stick to the Topic everyone has a opinion it is their opinion for a reason... No amount of arguing will change that!

Site Mod
Kristi.

Love is not legitimized by marriage, but the legal rights to your spouse are. Legitimate is by definition all about legal rights.

You're absolutely correct that civil unions give most of those rights, with the exception of calling a wife "wife" or husband "husband" without being a liar. A "husband" or "wife" have legal rights to their spouse. They have a legal right to be at each others side when one is in a hospital bed. They have a legal right to the assets of the other when they are gone so they don't have to deal with bankruptcy in the same week they burry their love.

I suppose if civil union is good enough for same sex couples, it should be good enough for heterosexual couples too? Then we could redefine the words husband and wife altogether and none of this nonsense would even matter.

civil union would take sex out of the equation altogether as strictly a personal choice,, yes

and any people wanting to join their lives and share certain benefits,, for WHATEVEVER reason would be permitted to have a civil union

and churches could decide who to 'marry', while courts could certify 'civil unions'

and people could have whatever ceremonies and getherings they could pay for in recognition

.. I have no issue with that at all,,,,

but I do think this is about accepting homosexual behavior, and not giving homosexuals rights,,,

Thus far, nothing you've posted there has any bearing on how the legal recognition of same-sex marriage changes any of those issues. It's just more of the same rant.


How so? Please be specific in how this would be somehow "prevented" given that single-parent homes already exist? If denying legal recognition to same-sex married couples somehow prevented the existence of single-parent households, then given that we've only extended that recognition within the past few days, there should be very few single-parent households in existence. Are you asking us to believe that over 13 million single-parent households suddenly sprang into being in the past five days since the SCOTUS ruled on DOMA?


Who's teaching THAT???


I'm pretty sure the teaching of biology isn't going to be affected by the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. And outside of the mechanics of sexual activity as practiced by heterosexual, gay or lesbian couples, the relationships themselves pretty much ARE the same. Unless you're seriously suggesting that a relationship is ALL about, and ONLY about the way in which a couple has sex?

Newsflash: Relationships are NOT primarily about sex. Marriage is NOT about sex. Marriage in the legal sense is about financial and legal obligations, kinship rights, and the protection of property and privacy. Marriage in the interpersonal sense is about fidelity, love, and commitment. The ONLY difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one is in the mechanical details of sexual activity.

If more people focused less on sex, especially on sex between OTHER people, this would be a better world.

I agree, sex is overrated choice

I would advocate strongly at this point to have government out of 'marriage' altogether

with adults wishing to 'love' each other and join lives having an option to have a 'civil union' recognized by law ,, for whatever reason

grandparent sharing life with only grandchild
best friends sharing lifes and assets
only children sharing life and assets with roommates

,,,,,yes, get government out of the SEXUAL element, not endorsing or criminalizing ANY sexual behaviors


let churches continue to perform 'marriages' as they see fit,,,where it regards relationships of sexual consummation



,,,ty, I agree,,, I will begin to advocate for 'civil partners' ,,,,instead of 'same sex marriages'

lets allow everyone to pursue 'happiness' regardless of their sexual inclination or lack there of,,,

THAT isn't what we're talking about, and you know it. Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

A civil union or civil marriage is not between roommates or between grandparents and grandchildren, best friends, etc. "Marriage" is between a pair of adults who have opted to join their lives as partners. Anyone who's confused as to what constitutes a marriage is probably in the wrong discussion to begin with.

Marriage in the LEGAL sense (and that is ultimately what we're discussing here) is not some holy thing restricted only to a man and a woman who solemnly swear to be fruitful and multiply (but only to the extent allowed by their current and projected finances and only in approved coital positions), nor is it merely a financial arrangement into which any non-couple may choose to enter just for the heck of it.

Marriage in the legal sense is the set of obligations and protections given to a partnership between two adults who have chosen to commit to one another in what is commonly recognized as a loving partnership that is understood to involve permanent cohabitation and an intertwining of lives. It is choosing a mate and committing to that person.

Sorry, but that isn't the kind of thing a person does with their grandfather.


Agreed, but that isn't what marriage is about. Can we please stick to the subject?


I wasn't aware that this was being outlawed. Did I miss a memo?


Fine, agreed. Legal recognition of marriages between couples of the same gender is the right thing to do.

There was a time when the majority didn't want to give women rights...until there was a time when they did.

There was a time when the majority didn't want to give the black population rights....until there was a time when they did.

There was a time when people didn't want to give Native American Nations rights....until there was a time when they did.

There were/are countries where an individual does not have the right to believe in the God they choose or to worship their God in the way they choose....until there was The United States of America.

I think history has taught me well enough that there will always be people who don't believe others deserve the same rights as the majority because they are different.

no no and d loudest no its against the word of God d bible is against it .end of story

In America we are not required to believe in your God though. If the law does not require us to attend YOUR church, then why should the rules of YOUR church be our law?

That was a concept agreed upon when this nation was founded with the provision to separate church and state, that no one religion would rule the entire country.

I know that you love your God and appreciate your dedication to what you believe. You might keep in mind that if laws are allowed to be formed based on religious belief systems, the religion they could be based on may not necessarily be YOUR OWN. Peace!

double post

Um, perhaps you could have worded that in a way that is more tactful and diplomatic.

By the way, the "General Religion" and "Christian Singles" forums are better places for promoting religious beliefs. Check them out if you haven't already.

Uh, for what it's worth, Mingle2 is an international website. So, the expression "this nation" is meaningless.

The topic of this thread does not pertain to any nation in particular.

But David! I said "In America" to begin...it's the only country I named so isn't it reasonable to assume the reader doesn't think I believe they are mind readers and changed countries without warning? I wouldn't DO THAT TO THEM!

I'll let them make their own mistakes, I could care less.

(Like my opinion mattered anyway)

Parking religion, the only other reason is to get that whopping tax break that married filing jointly get.

Then, they get file for divorce through the court system. OH YIPPEE! they too get to pay government for splitting up.

I can't see that they've made such great gains out of it.
(As much as they'd like to think)

What about the 3000 babies born with HIV every day?

I am absofreakinglutky against it.

It's just pandering to perverts.