And Gay Marriage Has Actually Hurt Humanity In What Way(s)??

I'm answering your questions. You are choosing to ignore the answers.

 

I've seen a LOT of homophobia (of the Duck Dynasty flavor) expressed... but nothing has proven that homosexual marriage is some kind of 'real' problem. Sure, in some people's minds, gay is a MASSIVELY TERRIBLE thing. In reality, it is nothing like that.

 

The right to marriage has been in numerous court cases defined as just that....a right, a basic human right.

Sorry, you don't get to call marriage privilege just to suit your needs.

 

Exactly!!

 

On the contrary: We do NOT all know any such thing, because it's a false accusation. You don't just get to make up whatever crap about gay people you want without having to substantiate those assertions of fact. Keep it up, and I will report every one of your offending posts for the rule #10 violations they are.

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, we can do that. If you're just here to spew anti-gay filth, then I will do everything in my power to take you down because such behavior contributes nothing of value to this forum, regardless of the topic. Consider yourself duly warned.

 

Hang on, saying you are impacted by people getting a spouse rate for insurance has nothing to do with same-sex marriage...
By your logic, EVERYONE who gets married equally impacts your pocket book by getting a spouse rate from an insurance company. Why do you only oppose same-sex couples getting married?

 

The problem is that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe many use "right" to marry when it should be "freedom" to marry. None of us have the right to marry IMO, but we do have the freedom to. The gay activist use equality in this argument and the only way that argument stands is if you change the definition of marriage. That is where this movement loses my support.

 

Your view is certainly outdated. Your definition of marriage is one that has hardly been universal for ALL time.
We don't adhere to the Biblical parameters consistently and generally never have.

Your 'beliefs' are no standard by which people's rights should be determined. And that isn't the way things are. I can respect your right to hold a 'belief'... but I don't see any reason to bind the rest of society to the same.

 

When Minnesota legalized gay marriage, the tourist industry reported a HUGE increase in tourism. This brought in MILLIONS of dollars into our economy.

 

The question is not so much whether or not whether homosexual marriage hurts your pocketbook, but whether or not it's justified in doing so.

I think it is.

[hr][/hr]

A compromise? Let the insurance companies decide what's in their voluntary contracts. If those being insured dislike it, they can sod off

There's no reason why we can't consent to different insurance contracts. Letting individuals make their own decisions is usually the answer.

 

My definition of marriage is the definition used in this country since it's inception and that is all that should matter since we are discussing the issue in this country.

You view of biblical parameters is certainly arguable, but has no bearing on the definition of marriage. You again use "rights" when it comes to marriage while I don't believe we are given the right to marry by this country. It provides us the freedom to do so.

My beliefs are based on the rules this society used to create itself, it is you that is asking for the change.

Again, you cannot have a same sex marriage without redefining what marriage is.

 

Well, that doesn't necessarily define anyone's literal 'right' to be married.

A lot has changed, even since the inception of this nation.

There is no reason (fully logical, legally valid or practical) that gay couples should not be allowed to marry; we already know that is a FACT.

The efficacy of this 'debate' itself, is essentially over.

 

And of course, you cannot show 'tangibly' or even 'legally' why that redefinition is any problem at all.

 

Except for the fact that marriage is/was defined as between one man and one woman. It was not defined as a relationship between two same sex people. Marriage by definition could not happen without redefining what marriage is. This is fact. Are you saying otherwise?

And that was the point of my comment and if you chose to let it be, fine.

 

I really don't follow you here. Marriage is what marriage is until someone decides to change what it means so as to make an agenda possible. Without a redefinition, you cannot have the argument of equality.

 

Sounds like an appeal to tradition.

Traditionally marriage in this country did not allow black people to marry white people, but that changed over time. That right there destroys your entire point. And even long before that young ladies were not permitted to date or choose their spouses, their fathers made those choices for them. But that changed too.

"It's always been that way so it should remain that way." is not a good argument against change.

Things change, even things that were traditionally acceptable at the inception of our nation, slavery for example.

 

Sorry but black people marrying white people doesn't have anything to do with man and woman or my point. When our laws changed, did it allow black men to marry white men? No because marriage was not between two men, of any color.

Do you agree for there to be even such of a thing as gay marriage it requires the definition of marriage to include same sex couples?

 

We are talking about the legal definition, and yes - we do think the legal definition should stop excluding marriages between persons of the same sex from recognition. Your statements regarding interracial marriage are disingenuous, as this was also a change in the legal definition to end the exclusion of marriages between people of different races from recognition.

As for the definition of the word outside the legal context, language evolves as societal change is ongoing. Trying to stop that process is futile. The change has already taken place, as evidenced by those who debate from the opposing side using the term gay marriage. Whether they realize it or not, opponents have already adapted to this change in the language; they're already using the word marriage (if sometimes sneeringly) to refer to same-sex couples even though they disagree with providing those unions legal recognition.

 

Please point me to where marriage was defined excluding interracial marriage. I will not deny our laws prevented it, but I do not believe the definition mentioned race. The law was wrong for racial discrimination and rightly changed.

Legally definitions should not change the meaning of the word.

What is funny here is I don't really care about gay marriage one way or the other. I support same sex couples having every legal right and benefit as any other couple that make a legal agreement.

 

You and millions of others really need to get over this.

You aren't making the argument; certainly not enough of one to deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

People know better now than they used to.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm saying, that you do not have an reason truly valid enough... to deny homosexual couples the literal right to legally marry.

That is evident today (right now).

 

Johnny I have nothing to get over. It is you that is trying to make change. It is you who won't listen to why some oppose you. It is you that that feels you will force change no matter what my rights are. We Johnny are done discussing this topic.

 

Okay, keep on believing that; reality is passing you right by.

 

Sorry but may I ask how allowing more people the option to have their union recognized under the government affects your rights?

 

My previous comment may have been construed as being rude, and for that I apologize. But my point alludes you.

I have nothing to lose because a decision on gay marriage does not change my life at all. As a person that wants gay people to have the same legal rights and benefits of other couples, I supported societies acceptance of same sex relationships. My support ceased WHEN the movement attacked what marriage is. Why, because while some may not see marriage as anything as a tax deductions a legal bond, others see it as a ceremony held in front of GOD which takes place between one man and one woman and those people are being told their wishes no longer matter.

You see, as a person in the middle, I can see both sides and all my initial comment was meant to do was make you think about a prospective outside of the one you already have.

With that being said, my personal opinion on the matter is government should not be involved in marriage at all, it should be a ceremony conducted by a man of faith and whether that ceremony is conducted at all should be determined by rules of that faith conducting the ceremony.

 

Well, everyone isn't religious AND the State must oversee marriages in order to protect the rights of those entering into it. I'm no lawyer, but I know that it's about much more than the State just being 'nosy'.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a good and simple inquiry!!