Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
WinterBorn said:
I want the law changed so it acknowledges their relationships as just as valid in the eyes of the gov't.
Click to expand...
I want it simply acknowledged that the government is woefully unqualified to ever consider picking and choosing which relationships it should or shouldn't consider, especially ones based in a religious institution and its "traditional" definitions.

There is no place for the government in defining or protecting marriage so that Christians can feel good about their own marriages, can feel that the "institution" has been protected somehow, or their "traditions". It just isn't the place of the government to do any of this.

I always find it amusing that the same people who think government is too intrusive into their lives when it tells them to wear a seat belt want them to intrude even further into something even more private in this instance.
 
WinterBorn said:
The only reason for a delay would be if anyone could show justification for it. So far the only justifications that have been shown are that some straights would be bothered by simply knowing that gays were allowed to marry, and a single dutch paper without any tangible evidence.

No, there is no need to delay.

It will have no effect on other people's marriage. To think that straights will have a higher divorce rate because gays are allowed to marry is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Again, this is simply your opinion. May I again suggest that you inflict queer marriage on the State of Alabama and see how it works out for you. After a period of careful study some other states may follow, if they so choose.
 
Damocles said:
I want it simply acknowledged that the government is woefully unqualified to ever consider picking and choosing which relationships it should or shouldn't consider, especially ones based in a religious institution and its "traditional" definitions.

There is no place for the government in defining or protecting marriage so that Christians can feel good about their own marriages. It just isn't the place of the government to do any of this.

I always find it amusing that the same people who think government is too intrusive into their lives want them to intrude even further in this instance.
Click to expand...
Conservatives insist that the Federal government do what its enumerated powers require, nothing more. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is simply a standard that needs to be codified and not change, as the weight of a pound or the length of a foot.
 
Southern Man said:
Queers aren't qualified to get married to each other. *shrug*
Click to expand...

And the reasons for disqualifying them do not exist.

So we will change the qualifications for marriage to include same sex couples, and it will not change what marriage is for the rest of the country.
 
Southern Man said:
Conservatives insist that the Federal government do what its enumerated powers require, nothing more. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is simply a standard that needs to be codified and not change, as the weight of a pound or the length of a foot.
Click to expand...

If a good reason existed to change the legal defination of the weight of a pound or the length of a foot I would be for it!
 
Southern Man said:
Conservatives insist that the Federal government do what its enumerated powers require, nothing more. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is simply a standard that needs to be codified and not change, as the weight of a pound or the length of a foot.
Click to expand...

And your reasons for that would be what? That is has always been that way? Argumentum ad antiquitatem

That the dutch study suggests more studies be done? Cum hoc ergo propter hoc



The definition of many things have changed over the years.
 
Everything changes, even marriage.

Marriage used to be about ownership of the woman, that changed!
 
WinterBorn said:
And the reasons for disqualifying them do not exist.

So we will change the qualifications for marriage to include same sex couples, and it will not change what marriage is for the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

you claim there is no reason to "disqualify" them, yet admit the qualifications would have to be changed to include them.....we aren't "disqualifying" them, they've never qualified.....obviously if you change the qualifications, you change what marriage is.....
 
Southern Man said:
Conservatives insist that the Federal government do what its enumerated powers require, nothing more. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman is simply a standard that needs to be codified and not change, as the weight of a pound or the length of a foot.
Click to expand...
As if marriage was a measure. :rolleyes:

First, can you tell me which Federal law protects the definition of a foot? Of a ton? Which one tells us that an ounce must forever be exactly as we currently define it? Can you also tell me why the government isn't insisting we use cubits? It's in your book just like marriage and clearly such "tradition" deserves to be protected...

Second can you tell me which federal power gives them a right to project your religion's traditions onto the rest of us as a matter of law?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you claim there is no reason to "disqualify" them, yet admit the qualifications would have to be changed to include them.....we aren't "disqualifying" them, they've never qualified.....obviously if you change the qualifications, you change what marriage is.....
Click to expand...

We have changed what marriage is plenty of times.... It used to be permenent, it used to be an ownership situation, it used to be between a man and as many women as he could get....
 
Jarod said:
Why should the government not accomidate as many people as possable?
Click to expand...

not the issue...the government can pass a law that says a gay couple can get tax benefits.....that would accommodate them......why should the government change the definition of "marriage" and force it on everyone to accomplish what it can with a simple tax regulation?.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not the issue...the government can pass a law that says a gay couple can get tax benefits.....that would accommodate them......why should the government change the definition of "marriage" and force it on everyone to accomplish what it can with a simple tax regulation?.........
Click to expand...

Its not only about tax.

Its not forcing anything on anyone to allow people more choices.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you claim there is no reason to "disqualify" them, yet admit the qualifications would have to be changed to include them.....we aren't "disqualifying" them, they've never qualified.....obviously if you change the qualifications, you change what marriage is.....
Click to expand...

It boils down to this; there is a group of people who fulfill all the qualifications of marriage except they are the same gender. They provide all the same benefits to society that straight couples do. (reproduction has already been discussed - either artificial insemination or adoption).

There is no logical reason to continue to deny them. There are good reasons to do so.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not the issue...the government can pass a law that says a gay couple can get tax benefits.....that would accommodate them......why should the government change the definition of "marriage" and force it on everyone to accomplish what it can with a simple tax regulation?.........
Click to expand...

What have they forced on you? When they changed the definition of marriage to include interracial couples it did not effect you. Neither would this change.
 
Damocles said:
As if marriage was a measure. :rolleyes:

First, can you tell me which Federal law protects the definition of a foot? Of a ton? Which one tells us that an ounce must forever be exactly as we currently define it? Can you also tell me why the government isn't insisting we use cubits? It's in your book just like marriage and clearly such "tradition" deserves to be protected...

Second can you tell me which federal power gives them a right to project your religion's traditions onto the rest of us as a matter of law?
Click to expand...

so, let's say I choose to think a pound equals 17 ounces....should I demand that the government redefine "pound" to mean 17 ounces?....changing to 'cubits' doesn't change the meaning of the word "foot"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top