Gay Marriage going next to New Hampshire

AssHatZombie said:
I think marriage is defined explicitly as a man and a woman, because it is from religion which is explicitly "homophobic".
Click to expand...

So let each religion decide. If it is a man and a woman because of religions then let the religions have the "no gays" rules within their organizations. But the gov't should not be using religion when determining what the definition of marriage is.
 
WinterBorn said:
So let each religion decide. If it is a man and a woman because of religions then let the religions have the "no gays" rules within their organizations. But the gov't should not be using religion when determining what the definition of marriage is.
Click to expand...





It is already determined. All religious traditions are anti-gay.

The government should not be redefining words to create a more politically corrected reality.
 
Southern Man said:
Gays could use simple power-of-attorney or even civil unions, yet they insist on defaming a term used for millennia by the world's religions.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.
Click to expand...


the definition of marriage has consistantly changed through the ages. and there are like 48 rights that are given through marriage that are not given in civil unions.

i don't think its fair that there are some gays who pay taxes but don't get the same rights.
 
Robdawg said:
the definition of marriage has consistantly changed through the ages. and there are like 48 rights that are given through marriage that are not given in civil unions.

i don't think its fair that there are some gays who pay taxes but don't get the same rights.
Click to expand...

Then those rights should be extended to civil unions. Monkeying with language is not the way to achieve truthful political change.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't think the name of the ceremony is an issue. And I don't think having someone else marry effects me. I am happily married. If two men or two women marry it does not change that. Neither does a man or a woman cheating on their spouse or abusing their spouse. My marriage is what it is because of us not someone else.

I do not see the reason for all the arguing.
Click to expand...

I think it is entirely the issue. If you passed a national law that said gay couples could have all the same benefits of marriage via cival unions this issue would be resolved in the eyes of 90% of the population. The remainder being extremists from the two sides who want to force others to believe as they do.

That said, I agree with your final comment. This should be a non-issue.
 
Robdawg said:
the definition of marriage has consistantly changed through the ages. and there are like 48 rights that are given through marriage that are not given in civil unions.

i don't think its fair that there are some gays who pay taxes but don't get the same rights.
Click to expand...

The union of one man and one woman has always been considered marriage yet the union of two women or two men has never been considered marriage, except for recently in some gay states.

If gays want equal rights then fight for those instead of trying to change the definitions of terms and saying "fuck you" to the world's religious beliefs.
 
Southern Man said:
The union of one man and one woman has always been considered marriage yet the union of two women or two men has never been considered marriage, except for recently in some gay states.

If gays want equal rights then fight for those instead of trying to change the definitions of terms and saying "fuck you" to the world's religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

You want the US Gov't to declare that "marriage" is defined as one man and one woman. And you want them to do this based on religion.

And yet you want liberals to respect the constitution?
 
WinterBorn said:
You want the US Gov't to declare that "marriage" is defined as one man and one woman. And you want them to do this based on religion.

And yet you want liberals to respect the constitution?
Click to expand...

The government doesn't decide what words mean. Historical usage does.

And liberals will never respect the constitution. It protects the individual too much.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The government doesn't decide what words mean. Historical usage does.

And liberals will never respect the constitution. It protects the individual too much.
Click to expand...

Historical useage is great if you are in an english class. But what determines the laws and functions of the gov't is the constitution.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So where is the constitutional right to redefine words?
Click to expand...

There is a constitutional amendment that removes religion from the gov't. So using religious doctrine to determine who gets what rights or benefits is unconstitutional.

The definition of words changes all the time. For most of the history of the english language the word "cool" has been associated with temperature. But it isn't that way now. Language is dynamic.
 
WinterBorn said:
There is a constitutional amendment that removes religion from the gov't. So using religious doctrine to determine who gets what rights or benefits is unconstitutional.

The definition of words changes all the time. For most of the history of the english language the word "cool" has been associated with temperature. But it isn't that way now. Language is dynamic.
Click to expand...

The history of a word's origin and usage is not "religion in government".

Language is dynamic, that doesn't mean it should be used as a political tool

Didn't you get kicked off before, Solitary, you classless nutlicking guttersnipe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top