DOMA is no more!!

You are opposing a separate ceremony for heterosexuals. Homosexuals have succeeded in becoming accepted into what has always been a heterosexual ceremony. The ceremony has its roots in Paganism and earlier. It celebrates procreation and new life. It's essentially a tribal ' blessing ' for heterosexuals. Now, the law has demanded- due to pressure from homosexuals- that homosexuals are included in the legal rights and privileges previously enjoyed by heterosexuals exclusively. However, homosexuality can never represent Man's fundamental nature, as characterized by heterosexual marriage. Cloning, test-tube reproduction, bots, whatever are simply synthetic processes which mimic natural birth. So, when it comes to procreation the heterosexuals have it. It shouldn't be offensive to homosexuals for heterosexuals to celebrate their own differences by way of an exclusively heterosexual ceremony. The gods would be pleased, I believe. Everybody happy. Would any gay person care to comment ?

 

homosexuality is a part of some peapoles fundemental nature and im hetero sexual and dont have or want kids

if you want a private non legal ceromony for being a fertile couple thats fine untill you make reproduction a requirment for legal marrage no cause for a couples fertility to give them new status

and infertile hetero sexual couples must allso be excluded

 

Marriage is of little interest to you then, apart from its legal and social implications.

You misunderstand. Fertility isn't a requirement for a successful heterosexual relationship. You are confusing the fundamental principle of the tradition with its practical anomalies.

Ergo, incorrect.

 

I do not support gay marriages or rather more accurately I am undecided about it. Even as a Christian minister the reason I am not enthusiastic about Gay Marriage has nothing to do with morals or religion. Jesus Christ did not condemn homosexuality in his entire ministry. On the other hand Islamic sharia law can apply the death sentence* for homosexuality. No its more secular law and concerns of secular law that gives me pause to throw my support behind gay marriage. Anyway call me softly approving of Gay Marriage morally and not so softly opposing it due to secular concerns.

*....muslim sharia law demands execution of homosexuals.flv - YouTube
► 3:38► 3:38

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA7YjIskWDcSep 4, 2010 - 4 min - Uploaded by fab4bear
"Muslim leaders agree, death penalty for gays. ... Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders, Nonie Darwish and others who ..

President of Islamic Council of Jamaica endorses death penalty for ...
www.jihadwatch.org/.../president-of-islamic-council-of-jamaica-endo...
Feb 2, 2010 – President of Islamic Council of Jamaica endorses death penalty for homosexuality under Sharia law. Chances are, we'll later be told that this ...


reva

 

Hmmm' the index page sez Moon was the last poster, a technical glitch or an invisible moon?

reva

 

Why crap in this thread with your hysterical anti-Islamic output, reva . There is no scope for sectarian drivel in the thread title whatsoever.

 

I tend to support gay marriage. Hopefully it will keep them off the street corners at night.

 

Indeed. I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry someone they hate and give them a house and half their worldly possessions like the rest of us.

 

Absolutely. I'd even support gay polygamy.

 

SHOCK!!!

Gays in this country can adopt kids! I know for an islamists to trust gays with adoption must be unheard of!

Rather have a kid grow up in a gay family then a foster home.

 

I've absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. Can anybody explain how this relates to what I posted ?

 

In the same manner that the abomination of hypocrisy is not tolerated, even in an Information Age?

 

Why is it that even in America, we can't seem to convince our elected representatives to bear true witness to our own laws, simply for the sake of the moral of true witness bearing? We even have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge to help out.

 

I'm just replying to see the last page since I can't see it no matter how many times I click page 7.

 

Why can't I read mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing page 7!????

 

If a gay couple wants to raise kids then they should have a right to get married.

Understand now?

 

It is a good day for ALL Americans when the courts and legislators extend equal rights to everyone. It's too bad that right wingers hate to grant the equal protection clause to all - but that's their problem, not anybody else's.

 

your analogy is absolutely correct. In my youth, it was illegal in many states south of the mason-dixon line for blacks to marry whites.... and the white folks there fought hard to keep those laws on the books. they lost that fight, of course, and the anti-gay marriage folks will lose their fight exactly the same way. It really has never been a matter of "if"... only "when".

 

The United States does not have civil partnerships. There is no recognition of same-sex couples' unions at the federal level. 31 of the 50 states do not recognize same-sex couples' unions in any form. 3 of these states have restricted recognition of unions exclusively to a marriage between one man and one woman (Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia). Only 19 states have extended recognition to the unions of same-sex couples (but it's only effective in 18 as of this writing) They are:

• California (Has domestic partnerships. Had extended marriage briefly to same-sex couples via a court decision. Voters later amended the state's constitution eliminating marriage recognition for same-sex couples, but a subsequent court decision allowed the couples married prior to the passage of the amendment to retain the state's recognition of those marriages)

• Colorado (has domestic partnerships, but they are not equivalent to civil marriage in scope)

• Connecticut (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• Delaware (has civil unions)

• Hawaii (has civil unions)

• Illinois (has civil unions)

• Iowa (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• Maine (passed a law extending marriage to same-sex couples, but it was overturned by voters before it became effective. Maine has domestic partnerships, but they are not equivalent to civil marriage in scope)

• Maryland (has passed a law extending marriage to same-sex couples, but it may be overturned by voters before it becomes effective)

• Massachusetts (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• Nevada (has domestic partnerships)

• New Hampshire (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• New Jersey (has civil unions)

• New York (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• Oregon (has domestic partnerships)

• Rhode Island (has civil unions)

• Vermont (recognizes same-sex couples' marriages)

• Washington (has domestic partnerships, has passed a marriage law, but it may be overturned by voters before it becomes effective)

• Wisconsin (has domestic partnerships, but they are not equivalent to civil marriage in scope)

 

Contrary to the OP's claim, it isn't over yet.

Defense of Marriage Act suit likely headed for SCOTUS

 

Why can we afford the waste of frivolous forms of legislation that engenders frivolous forms of litigation, during times of lowering Taxes?

 

Marriage is not merely a ceremony. The law's recognition of same-sex couples' as married is not universal. The USA does not recognize them, and there is a patchwork of laws among the individual states as noted in my post above. The individual states are not required to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples from other states.

Gladly. My comment is that what you suggest makes no sense in the USA, since people here can have most any kind of ceremony they want - including same-sex couples whose marriages are not recognized by the laws. Point being: There is no U.S. law that mandates what kind of ceremony one has. The regulation of marriage is a power of the individual states. I'm not aware of any that impose restrictions on what kind of ceremony one can have.

I suppose that if someone wants to invent an "exclusively heterosexual ceremony", they're welcome to do so. But it wouldn't be a legal matter.

 

um it happens to be true i dont want to marry but peapole who dont want kids marry as well

fertility is not required for a homo or bi sexual relation ship or marrage of any kind

still dont get what point your trying to make

 

you know moon if you want to sugest some special status for parrents who rase kids together i would not feel like objecting at this time

you would thinck the marrage is for children croud would turn their wrath on those who enjoy marrage and who choose to not rase children

 

When I was young, this was the "normal American family" --



Nowadays, this is more like the "normal American family" --



"To suppress minority thinking and minority expression would tend to freeze society and prevent progress… Now more than ever, we must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that whenever we take away the liberties of those we hate, we are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love." -- Wendell Willkie - Republican candidate for POTUS, 1940