wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Marriage is a religious institution. Why is government involved at all. I think we should get rid of all laws concerning marriage and leave it to the religious institutions to deal with it.
Why have marriage at all?
- Thread starter wanderingbear
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Because the government recognizes that marriage is the fundamental building block of a stable society, thus honors its participants with special privileges.
Its a similar reason why they give tax incentives for farming, owning a home or buying an energy efficient appliance.
Its a similar reason why they give tax incentives for farming, owning a home or buying an energy efficient appliance.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Its about gov't interference in private institutions.
The "building block of society" argument you use would also fit gay marriages. Which is why your arguments always seem so fake.
One some topics you pretend to be all about smaller gov't and less gov't interference. And then on other topics you take the opposite stance.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
And why shouldn't Gays have those rights to? And dont go saying its about Morality and quotes some musty bible verse that only applies to Christians.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Because a woman imparts a stabilizing influence on a man, countering his natural instincts to obtain his needs and desires through force instead of through cooperation. And because marriage between one woman and one man is the basic building block of the family, where the next generation is nurtured with the best possible examples of how to nurture the next.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you can do the same thing with civil unions....
let marriage go back to the church, where it belongs
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Appeal to Ridicule: your logical fallacy, and therefore your debate failure.That a good one.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
There's civil marriage and there's religious marriage. Civil marriage is not an imposition on religious marriage.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
And a gay couple can do exactly the same things for society, except concieve children naturally.
Your description is all well and good. But there are far too many marriages that have little or no resemblance to what you described. And yet they are still allowed to marry and receive all the benefits.
In fact, a convicted criminal can marry and get those benefits. A man who beats his wife can stay married and receive those benefits. Neither of those is exactly a basic building block of anything except more crimes.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I don't have a problem with civil unions as long as their participants don't pretend that they are married.
And for the record, I don't have a problem with queers either. Just don't call yourselves normal moral natural and healthy and all that.
I hate being lied to or played the fool.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Appeal to Ridicule: your logical fallacy, and therefore your debate failure.
SM, you have ignored facts, cherry-picked posts, and stated nonsense. And you have the gall to call someone else's comments a failure in a debate?
Thats funny.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
if you mean by "civil marriage" the state contract then you need to know the state does not recognize a religious marriage or a civil marriage, it recognizes but one marriage regardless if in a church or not, there is no place in the law the recognizes a civil or religious marraige as you're coining it..... you're still missing the point, marriage stems from religion. democrats and republicans who are opposed to gay marriage do so based 99.99% because of religion.
if we break marriage down to its legal definition, it is merely a contract. it violates the equal protection clause to not allow same sex partners to marry as homosexuality is not a crime. that is why the government needs to get out of marriage.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
as long as all unions are civil unions, fine....but no second class citizens
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
But why have civil marrage at all? It's not needed. Did you know that civil marrage it taxable while a simple religious ceremony isnt?Civil marrage is about nothing more then taxes.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Don't pretend they are married? WTF? What makes you so important that what other people pretend is your business?
No one cares what you call it. Give them the same +/- 1,400 benefits that straights get when they marry.
And hold straights to the same standards you wish to hold gays to. Those who engage in sodomy cannot marry. Those who do unnatural acts cannot marry.
Its also funny that you hate to be lied to, but don't mind lying when you post.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Queers can't give children the benefits of both a mother and a father, and without both kids are at a disadvantage. The government should not be in the business of promoting that.
The institution of marriage is attacked from many directions: poor partners as you point out, but mainly societal influences such as glorified sex, infidelity and violence. That's no reason to attack it further.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I call bullshit on this. Go fuck yourself with the hard-on you have for me.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You keep making the claim that its bad for children, and yet numerous studies have shown the opposite, that there is no difference.
It is the character of the two parents that are the deciding factor. in gay couples you have partners that are feminine and masculine. Children can have both a father-figure and a mother-figure with same sex parents. The children are not at a disadvantage.
Gay marriage is not attacking the institution. These couples have been fighting to marry. They are exactly what you want in our society. They are dedicated to their partner and their relationship.
wanderingbear
Radical liberal
Then you have a problem with Gays. If you want to be "religious" and "Moral" about it I have no problem with that. Just dont force it on others through legislation. Religon and Morality can not and should not be legislated.