That's lovely, but unless you can explain why the state should enforce one religion's sacraments with the force of law, your opinions matter less than nothing here. The Church doesn't get to have authority over anyone who doesn't freely choose to submit to its diktats.
Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down
- Thread starter Left
- Start date
That's lovely, but unless you can explain why the state should enforce one religion's sacraments with the force of law, your opinions matter less than nothing here. The Church doesn't get to have authority over anyone who doesn't freely choose to submit to its diktats.
How traditional? Should polygamists be first on the list to be allowed to adopt since polygamy seems the starting norm by Biblical standards.
That's a contradiction in terms, as a child in a traditional family has no rights, but is merely property of the parents to use and abuse as they wish.
Seevral pages ago, I know, but...
Marriage is a social institution, so it is what society says it is. Or, in this case, it is what society defined it as however many years ago.
Take note that I'm only referring to civil unions; religious marriages are a whole other thing. I do support gay (religious) marriage in general, but do not beleive that any government should force any religion to perform them. The ideal of separation of Church and State aside, the idea of government dictating terms to religion just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and that's coming from a deist who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is horrendously out of touch.
Also, technically, even if it is just what society says it is, it'll still have a definition.
Re: the whole 'in the future beastiality might be legal' argument, I firmly believe people should be making decisions on laws based on current ideas and morals, without worrying about possible changes in social mores.
The main reason being that you'e making laws for people living under current moral codes, and the secondary reason being that social changes are bloody hard to predict.
Marriage is a social institution, so it is what society says it is. Or, in this case, it is what society defined it as however many years ago.
Take note that I'm only referring to civil unions; religious marriages are a whole other thing. I do support gay (religious) marriage in general, but do not beleive that any government should force any religion to perform them. The ideal of separation of Church and State aside, the idea of government dictating terms to religion just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and that's coming from a deist who believes that the Roman Catholic Church is horrendously out of touch.
Also, technically, even if it is just what society says it is, it'll still have a definition.
Re: the whole 'in the future beastiality might be legal' argument, I firmly believe people should be making decisions on laws based on current ideas and morals, without worrying about possible changes in social mores.
The main reason being that you'e making laws for people living under current moral codes, and the secondary reason being that social changes are bloody hard to predict.
Those are non-traditional.
Ah, gotcha.
kulade
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 4,545
Yes, you are correct. Marriage is miserable.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
It can be if you are determined to make it that way. Or it can be great. It is what you make of it.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
A lesbian friend of mine joked "Why are we fighting for this? All my straight friends wound up hating their marriages?"
She also joked "Why do people think this is a lifestyle choice? Who would choose this?" and then went in to the miseries of living as a lesbian. It was funnier than it sounds.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Nevermind
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
But a marriage that is not gay is, by definition and common sense, miserable.
Yep, the gay marriage bans explain the high divorce rates.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
I don't see why gay marriage demeans the concept of marriage. Do straight people honestly believe that their marriage means less because two dudes are calling themselves married?
EDIT: No joke, when I proposed this to my Christian friends, some of them called me "unloving." My point is that banning gay marriage is beyond all reason to this sort of ilk.
EDIT: No joke, when I proposed this to my Christian friends, some of them called me "unloving." My point is that banning gay marriage is beyond all reason to this sort of ilk.
If you let two guys marry, you are depriving the husband in the straight marriage of two potentially promiscuous partners and the wife in the straight marriage of her husband having an optimally sized outlet.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Depends on which definition of the word gay you are using.
Yeah, sometimes words have more than one meaning. Imagine that!
Like marriage?Depends on which definition of the word gay you are using.
Yeah, sometimes words have more than one meaning. Imagine that!
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
Depends on which definition of the word gay you are using.
Yeah, sometimes words have more than one meaning. Imagine that!
So which definition of gay did you think I was using?
Which definition of gay did you thought kulade used?
Similar threads
