100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Labeling Pro-Marriage Groups as 'Hateful' Must End | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You keep bringing this back to marriage. What I was commenting on was you saying they didn't use the same labels, when they do. You haven't shown me where they use different labels for anything. the thread is about marriage marriage is a contract, the contract between a man and woman is called marriage a different contract, could be called a civil union women fought for equal rights to men without wishing to also be called men blacks fought for equal rights to whites without wishing to be called white the ANATOMY is different so the label is different but doesnt require unequal rights the details of a CONTRACT are different so the contractual label is different but doesnt impose on anyones rights ,,I cant make it any simpler,, Im out of analogies,,, Yes, it is about marriage, but you brought up women and black people fighting for equal rights, but not using the same labels. All I am saying is they are using the same labels. You have not shown otherwise. Gay people are not wishing to be called straight people, so you saying that women are still women and black people are still black people also go along with gay people are still gay people. Again, you are not showing me that anyone is using different labels. yes, and a contract between a man and woman is still a contract between a man and a woman (marriage) a contract between man and man and woman and woman need not also be called a marriage it should be called something else,,,,that emphasizes the desire to have equal LEGAL privileges,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. explain to me the difference between marrying and uniting civilly the difference I see is SEX And CHILDREN being involved in MARRIAGE and CHILDREN not being involved in same sex activity, nor same sex SEX being governmentally sanctioned and encouraged,,, why is it so important to some , though, that the term MARRIAGE Be used, if they rights they are concerned about are addressed through CIVIL UNION? is it forcing people to validate their SEXUAL BEHAVIOR,, ? That should never be required of the government or the citizens... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You keep bringing this back to marriage. What I was commenting on was you saying they didn't use the same labels, when they do. You haven't shown me where they use different labels for anything. the thread is about marriage marriage is a contract, the contract between a man and woman is called marriage a different contract, could be called a civil union women fought for equal rights to men without wishing to also be called men blacks fought for equal rights to whites without wishing to be called white the ANATOMY is different so the label is different but doesnt require unequal rights the details of a CONTRACT are different so the contractual label is different but doesnt impose on anyones rights ,,I cant make it any simpler,, Im out of analogies,,, Yes, it is about marriage, but you brought up women and black people fighting for equal rights, but not using the same labels. All I am saying is they are using the same labels. You have not shown otherwise. Gay people are not wishing to be called straight people, so you saying that women are still women and black people are still black people also go along with gay people are still gay people. Again, you are not showing me that anyone is using different labels. yes, and a contract between a man and woman is still a contract between a man and a woman (marriage) a contract between man and man and woman and woman need not also be called a marriage it should be called something else,,,,that emphasizes the desire to have equal LEGAL privileges,,,, What I've been trying to do is get you to explain what you've been talking about. You say other people are not using the same labels, yet you've not been able to explain. This discussion is going nowhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, there is no 'straight' marriage, j just marriage which has historically and legally been between a man and a womwn in the UNITED STATES and every time 'gays' rally to change that definition they are rallying AGAINST marriage being 'straight'..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... last I checked, marriage was not invalidated upon failure to reproduce. Therefore it is not the issue. it is an issue, since ability to reproduce is DEPENDENT upon the gender and that ability(creation of more citizens) becomes an issue with great SOCIAL IMPACT and that DEPENDENCY on upholding some commitment in t hose reiationships,, even though they do not ALWAYS produce children, therefore has a great SOCIAL IMPACT as well,,,, it is also an issue since marriage IS invalidated by a failure to have a sexually monogomous relationship,, which has far more socially reaching consequences amongst heterosexuals who are CREATING LIFE or at RISK of creating life,, than it is for homosexuals who can never create it (With each other) the sexual element and expectation of MARRIAGE is the issue that keeps it from being something that is the same for 'same sex' as it is for 'opposite sex' because 'same sex' carry NO RISK of creating life and their behavior in their bedroom has no RISK of any impact beyond their bedroom,,,, in other words, there is NO reason to encourage, support, or EQUATE it with heterosexual activity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 08/26/12 10:13 AM
|
|
there is no 'straight' marriage, j just marriage which has historically and legally been between a man and a womwn in the UNITED STATES and every time 'gays' rally to change that definition they are rallying AGAINST marriage being 'straight'..... No. They rally to be included and afforded the same privelege. and that privilege would be afforded through CIVIL UNION, with no legal expectation or support of the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR and would have the added benefit of affording that privilege to ALL consenting adults regardless of sexual preference or familial relation....how about that for 'including',,,? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no 'straight' marriage, j just marriage which has historically and legally been between a man and a womwn in the UNITED STATES and every time 'gays' rally to change that definition they are rallying AGAINST marriage being 'straight'..... No. They rally to be included and afforded the same privelege. and that privilege would be afforded through CIVIL UNION, with no legal expectation or support of the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR Perhaps I wasnt clear. They rally to be included in the privelege to marry. but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no 'straight' marriage, j just marriage which has historically and legally been between a man and a womwn in the UNITED STATES and every time 'gays' rally to change that definition they are rallying AGAINST marriage being 'straight'..... No. They rally to be included and afforded the same privelege. and that privilege would be afforded through CIVIL UNION, with no legal expectation or support of the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR Perhaps I wasnt clear. They rally to be included in the privelege to marry. but marriage includes SEX, and they have that privilege already they want the 'privilege' of having the government sanction and support their sexual choice and the government has no reason or obligation to do so,,, none of which involves marital contracts those are inalienable rights that start with us INDIVIDUALLY and by definition cease to exist if they are government defined or involving more than ONE Citizen,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, Chick-Fil-A ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, I don't see gay people as being selfish. I just see them as wanting equality. Just like everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, Chick-Fil-A ? They're not standing up against straight marriage. I don't know anyone who is rallying against straight marriage. I see the opposite quite often here, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, I don't see gay people as being selfish. I just see them as wanting equality. Just like everyone else. IM all for their equality as people, and civil unions to afford them that equal treatment under the law,,,with the EXCEPTION of equally having a LEGAL Expectation for sexual consummation,,,,or sexual activity period,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now its about divorce and contracts? wha? nonono... this is about allowing gays the same privelege as non-gays to marry. Not to unite civilly. To marry. Just because one religious beleif holds a particular definition of marriage to gender, doesnt mean another religious beleif will also. If someone is gay, and wants to marry the love of their life, and believe this love is blessed by God, who are you to define their religious belief. Its most definitely discrimination. Some people who are religious get very selfish and want things to be their way. In my opinion, religion is a personal choice. If someone does not agree with gay marriage, fine, but there's no need to force their religious beliefs on others. They get selfish and want everyone to conform to their way of believing. seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, Chick-Fil-A ? They're not standing up against straight marriage. I don't know anyone who is rallying against straight marriage. I see the opposite quite often here, though. I dont rally against it, I do use my vote to prevent it from altering the legal definition of a 'marriage' contract though,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
oldhippie1952
on
Sun 08/26/12 11:25 AM
|
|
The love is not the same as it is physical pleasure only, they cannot create a child. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? My love with a woman can produce a child and has been defined as such for thousands of years. LBGT people are an abomination to the Lord and an aberration of nature as even wolves will tear a “gay” wolf to shreds. What you do in your privacy is yours, Yeah, I stood with the hundreds of thousands with Chick-fil-a on Wednesday, not the paltry handful on Friday. Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Allowing same sex to marry sends the message it is normal, which it is not, to young people. Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people? When LGBT can marry, marriage will be a sham. So anyone who cannot create a child (there are straight people who cannot) can't have the same love you do? Their love means less than yours does because you could possibly create a child? Why? What about those who choose not to have children? Does their love mean less as well? Also, keep in mind that just because someone stands up for gay rights like I do, doesn't mean we're all gay. Do you think I'm gay simply because I stand up for their equal rights? Good to know I disgust you because I think for myself, rather than what the bible tells me to think. And apparently you think people like me should not be allowed to marry? Because I stand up for equal rights? #1 Answer the questions. You said you think so therefore don't play dumb. Who are you to judge what I believe and to try and force me to believe in your immorality? Marriage was defined in the Bible a long time ago, since when do you predate the Bible? Why do you try to corrupt the minds of young people by pretending an abnormal act is a normal act when it goes against nature itself? #2 Quit trying to put your pseudo beliefs and assumptions in others mouths. #3 "I think for myself" apparently new age groupspeak for "I haven't any morals." So, when are you going to champion bestiality rights? They are people too who love their "partner." How come you aren't championing them? #4 Now I got to go till tomorrow, try to answer the questions this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 08/26/12 11:31 AM
|
|
smh
its not fair to compare it to beasitiality because we dont know if the animals truly consent or not its more like consentual incest,,,,because its between consenting adults,,, and IM sure that will be the next platform to gain a national stage,,after they successfully get the medical profession to oblige with accepting it as just as normal as any other consentual relationship,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems like gay people are equally selfish, wishing everyone else to CONFORM to their view of man on man and woman on woman being EQUAL to the male female bonding that creates life,,,, This is why sterile people should not get married. If you are sterile, and incapable of creating that bond which creates life, then your marriage is not equal to a real, proper, hetero, child-producing marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhh, lovely I posted before reading this entire thing if it is coming down to RELIGION, than let each religious group validate whatever unions they wish as THEY Define them should not be a government issue,,,,, the government is not to be concerned with RELIGION or RELIGIOUS BELIEF,, last I checked it can be concerned with SOCIETY though, which starts with future lives and the foundation they are offered,,,,,that HAS to start with a man and woman,,,,by biological LAW.... last I checked, marriage was not invalidated upon failure to reproduce. Therefore it is not the issue. it is an issue, since ability to reproduce is DEPENDENT upon the gender and that ability(creation of more citizens) becomes an issue with great SOCIAL IMPACT and that DEPENDENCY on upholding some commitment in t hose reiationships,, even though they do not ALWAYS produce children, therefore has a great SOCIAL IMPACT as well,,,, it is also an issue since marriage IS invalidated by a failure to have a sexually monogomous relationship,, which has far more socially reaching consequences amongst heterosexuals who are CREATING LIFE or at RISK of creating life,, than it is for homosexuals who can never create it (With each other) the sexual element and expectation of MARRIAGE is the issue that keeps it from being something that is the same for 'same sex' as it is for 'opposite sex' because 'same sex' carry NO RISK of creating life and their behavior in their bedroom has no RISK of any impact beyond their bedroom,,,, in other words, there is NO reason to encourage, support, or EQUATE it with heterosexual activity,,, It terms of the ability to create life, homosexual sex is equal to sex between sterile people. There, I just equated them. |
|
|
|
|
