Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Go marry your car tomorrow. Have a ceremony, make your own marriage contract. Tell all your friends so you can be 'recognized' as a 'couple.' There is no law against it. The government will not interfere. Obviously you aren't going to get a marriage license.....Well at least not yet.

 

"Parrot" ???? I quoted court precedent that clearly established that link. Did you have some more authoritative source? I didnt think so. You just have your personal opinion.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...-dealing-homosexual-people-5.html#post4651856

 

They sure do want to run everyone's lives..

Funny.. gay marriage is a civil rights issue.. nothing more.

 

Marriage is a voluntary arrangement. Marriages arent required. Is it interfering by the government when the individuals are the ones making the request?
And it is the liberals who want to EXPAND that government involvement to include gay couples.

 

Exactly. They want the government to interfere in other people's lives if they think it necessary, but can't stand the thought of the government interfering in their own lives.

Hypocrites, the lot of them.

 

Amen to that!!

 

___Indeed.___

 

To start off, I have to point out that I have homosexual friends, whom I would love to see married with children someday. Not only that, but I'm not Christian as many people seem to believe, so you can cross religion right out of my debate. And I will admit to- however with guilt- that I have not read all of the posts on this thread. So please excuse me if I am being rude and just repeating what has already been said.

But I will say that gay marriage should not be allowed in America, because America does not offend anyone.

If people are going to take offense at small things like Christmas trees and "Merry Christmas!" then how can we turn around and tell Christians that their offense is wrong? I've heard people argue that relationships are private, not public like some Christmas displays, but that's not true. Relationships are very open and public.

Why should we give one group economic benefits when another group is offended and against it, when that same group is silenced in the name of offending another group?

 

but as I pointed out - I am past childbearing age so this will no more be the case for me whether I marry a man or another woman ...

so why should marriage benefits be extended to me and other older couples?

or younger people who have no intention of haning children etc?

it seems to me you are claimingthat procreation is the difference - but clearly it is not.

you should not accuse people of being dishonest just because they are exposing your homophobia.

 

Whats that now, 3 times responding to my question by asking questions. I was previously answering your stupid asked and answered already questions because I thought it might prompt you to answer mine.

 

dixon, if nothing else your tendency to respond to pertinent dialog with nothing more than alogic and irrelevancy, evokes the asking of questions. After awhile, people will give up taking you seriously, counter any damage your approach generates and ignore you intellectually.

 

I answered the questions. She still has not. You are confused.

 

I don't see where gay marriage should be denied, and you have not absolutely proven me or anyone else who holds that position wrong.

 

I don't see where gay marriage should be made available, and you have not absolutely proven me or anyone else who holds that position wrong.

 

Peoples rights are not based upon others being offended.

There has to be a rational logical bases for denying a person a right. A person or a group of people being offended is not a rational or logical reason for deny a right.

 

Also, good news, it appears that the case against prop 8 takes one more step closer to making it to the supreme court and a national victory for gay marriage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't "religious institutions" benefitting from not being taxed even if their religious leaders make millons a year?

do you think that, maybe, atheists might find that offensive?

 

No but rights are proscribed based on others rights being violated. Such as the right to describe marriage as only between a man and woman.

Correct so why do gays want to deny heterosexuals the right to have their own institution? Gays can certainly establish there own institutions.

True...Which is why gays need to get over it.

 

So, let Gay people have their own version of the institution of marriage, including equal rights under the law that marriage provides to heterosexual couples.

Let's just call it "GAY marriage!". giggle:

 

Gay couples are not equal to Hetero couples because Hetero couples procreate. That part would have to be resolved but essentially...Go for it. Err...good luck on that....

 

procreation is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with who can and can't marry. that's why heterosexuals who are incapable of procreating can still marry.

 

HA!! Here comes the broken-record mantra!! Why don't you reply to my post instead of spreading propaganda? Maybe you could actually READ it.

 

lol, I did reply to your post. I directly refuted it. procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. that's why people who are incapable of procreating, are allowed to marry.

 

That's not propaganda. That's the facts.

 

That is surely the truth (fact).