Since you quoted me let me be the first to tell you. You sir are mentally challenged on a level medical science has yet to hypothesize. Seriously being gay strait or bi have no bearing on if your infected with a communicable disease.

Personally how will a same sex marriage create a baby infected with HIV? We are not an A sexual species. It takes sperm and an egg to make the baby.

Ah, so it's not just about gay people getting married. You only want religious people to be married. What I don't get is why it's such a big deal that people get married, rather than have a civil union? Why do you feel the need to tell others they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

It's certainly about giving/taking away rights. You don't have to accept their behavior or anyone else's behavior. But, you shouldn't be able to tell people they need to have a civil union instead of a marriage.

Marriage should be between one man and one woman when god created Adam he made Eve, not Steve

So where did people named Steve come from?

did I say only religious could get married?

and cant gay people be religious?

I know modern churches all over are starting to even hire gay priests and pastors,,,,

whats the problem with them marrying gay couples if it fits their doctrine?

what I don't get is why its so important to be 'married' if its about rights

why cant a 'civil union' be used for that purpose?

why should only people who want to have sex be able to get 'married' or join lives? probably because the culture doesn't want to start advocating for incestuous relationships and other alternate CHOICES people make in their sex lives

BUT what if people just want to join life and sex has nothing to do with it, or why does it matter at all what the sexual relationship is?

why shouldn't we have a CIVIL UNION for everyone who feels they are being left out of all the rights 'married' people get?

,,,,,in my opinion, the answer is because it IS ABOUT THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR being pushed and forced onto society,,,,


they want the government to say, whomever you have sex with doesn't matter to us,, as long as you are 'committed' to each other,,,

but why not take it further and say 'whether you have sex' doesn't matter, as long as you are committed to sharing your life?

,,,in my opinion, because that doesn't FORCE THE CULTURE to place homosexual sex on equal footing with heterosexual SEX,,


its more about pushing the sexual choice than it is really about gaining 'rights'

If you're okay with liberal churches marrying gay couples, and you're okay with gay couples having the same rights as straight couples through what you're referring to as a civil union (which would be the same rights AND terminology for gay or straight alike), then why are you even bothering to argue against gay marriage being legally recognized?

Your argument makes no sense, because you are now arguing both for and against the same thing.

because I take issue with calling it 'marriage',, its that simple

if its not about the SEXUAL Relationship and is indeed about the rights, than lets truly have equal rights not based in a sexual relationship

wby not have 'civil unions' that recognize any adults who want to join their lives,,,,

calling it MARRIAGE , indirectly, refers to a SEXUAL element in the relationship

and I don't think the government should validate or invalidate sexual choices,,,,,period,, if it causes this issue for people

I understood validating commitment between the life creating relationships of males with females,,,,,but if its really going to be used as ammunition to try to equate ALL Sexual behaviors as equal behaviors,, than I am definitely opposed,,,




so, to make it 'equal' I suggest governments get out of marriage, based in consummation(sex), and get in the business of civil unions based in 'rights',,,


pretty simple,,,

So if a gay couple get married in a church that allows them to do so, what exactly are they (the couple and the church) supposed to call the marriage? Sorry, but you don't own the term "marriage" and neither does anybody else. You can call it whatever you like, but that doesn't mean others have to abide by your prejudices.


Which is exactly what is accomplished by giving legal recognition to all marriages, regardless of the genders of the couple. Restricting that recognition or even the use of the term 'marriage' on the basis of which type of sexual relationship a couple has WOULD make it all about the sexual relationship. Removing those restrictions removes the connection to sex.


For the same reason we don't have marriages like that.


No, and that statement doesn't even make logical sense.


By saying this, you're actually speaking in FAVOR of marriage recognition for all couples regardless of gender. Restricting marriage to hetero couples only is a prime example of the government validating heterosexuality and invalidating homosexuality. Removing the restriction takes the "validation/invalidation of sexual choices" element out of the equation altogether.


I've asked this before, but never received a response so I'll ask again: What about heterosexual marriages that do not and will not produce children? Should those who will not or cannot reproduce be forbidden to legally marry?

I can't have kids. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to get married?


It isn't. Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are both already legal. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


"Marriage" is the term our government uses for what you're calling a "civil union". So, mission accomplished; please quit complaining already.

This is one..we are going to have to shoot for it to die

HIT !

LOL

Well, if it helps, I'm bailing out of this discussion. I've said all there is for me to say, outlined and explained the logic as well as can be done, and have run out of time and patience to endlessly debate those folks whom logic eludes and whom I shall neither name nor enumerate.

See y'all around.

You are so obsessed with other peoples' sex lives! Why not tone that down a bit and just worry about your own sex life? It's not up to you to decide how other people have sex. And by "homosexual sex" I'm guessing you mean anal sex. Straight people have anal sex, too. No one is going to force you to have anal sex, but you don't get to decide if others can or not.

Get the Scope Kik...


ohhh wait...did I just here anal sex...


I better read some more

NO , marriage can be anulled and ended on grounds of ADULTERY, or lack of CONSUMMATION

there is the SEXUAL element that makes MARRIAGE somehow attached to the sexual relationship

my point is, lets remove the SEXUAL aspect, there is no adultery or consummation because whether people are going to have sex or what kind of sex will not be the issue any longer, it will not be RELEVANT

and then, ANY ADULTS Who want to join lives for ANY REASON< and feel they should be able to 'pursue happiness' in that way with the same rights as anyone else,, can do so


as far as government is concerned adults can either be civil partners or not,,, based upon whatever contract they DREW up in that civil union


,,nothing preset by government, all at the discretion of what makes the adults 'happy',,,,,


then, if other groups still want to perform MARRIAGES that take the sexual consummation/relationship into consideration they may do so and people can call their partners whatever they want ,, but the government will see everyone 'equally' in terms of their decision to 'pursue happiness' by joining lives,,,

yep, and its not governments place to approve of or disapprove of those behaviors,, so why make that behavior an issue at all in unions?

why is it so controversial an idea that EVERY Adult should be able to 'pursue happiness' with whomever they wish , regardless of the presence of a sexual relationship or the nature of it?

are you suggesting a mother and daughter , or father and son, or cousins or roommates shouldnt be able to be 'married' for those privileges that come with sharing a life?

or should we keep it only in line with 'sexual lifestyles' and those who participate in them?


why not take sex out of the equation,, call it a civil union to reflect that its about 'civil rights' ,, and peoples right to 'pursue happiness',.,.,. and call it a day?

Of course same sex marriage should be and be plentiful if there are those who want to be married. It isn't any of my or anybodies damn business if someone wants to get married as long as they are of age and consent. Mind your own please. And they should be able to have twenty if they want too. As long as they are of age age and mental consent.

Religions need to stay out it. They can dictate to their flock how they should live but not everyone outside of it.

When you're talking about family getting married, that's a whole other issue than what we've previously been talking about. I don't see how it compares at all.

{snicker}

?stop these conversation yes we have own opinion but at the end of the day only god cn decide a siner or a sine

Yhulla here im lady as long a dont do bad thngs go go go we just a giver