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

Exactly!!

 

Because separate but equal is unconstitutional. Marriage will be just fine for same sex couples,

 

I will just point out that marriage is not always between one man and one woman in the religious sense, either. Some religious people may always hold such a belief, but it's not all religious people nor all religions. Not even all who take the title of Christian.

 

Are you aware that the majority of aids infected people are heterosexual?

 

Precisely. It means something different for many people. I hardly think it can be restricted to one single definition just because some groups of religious people want to restrict it to that.

 

Separate but equal is unconstitutional

 

You keep making this about religion when it's not. Plenty of people, both heterosexual and homosexual have completely secular, non-religious wedding ceremonies. The ceremony portion is just as optional as choosing to get a marriage license granted by the government.

Here is what some people do, they choose to have a religious wedding ceremony in the congregation of their choice and they choose not to get the marriage license.
Some people choose to skip the ceremony entirely and get a marriage license from the government.
And most people like to have both, the religious ceremony recognized by their congregation as well as the government granted marriage license.

But either is totally optional when choosing to be married.

Sorry but I am confused. Is it called marriage when recognized by the government or not? If it is purely a religious term then why are you not objecting to the use of it by the government?

Again nobody is attacking the churches. They can call a tea party a skirmish of dancing leprachauns and define it as such if they wish to for all I could care. It doesn't matter. Our issue is with how the federal government views and defines the union of two persons. They have chosen to call it marriage, so we all call it marriage.

I know you want to take a word and make it exclusively your own to define it how you like, but that's just not gong to happen.

The religious are not supportive of marriages between gays and lesbians because they believe that uniting intimately with someone of the same sex is an offence in the eyes of their chosen deity(ies). But that is their problem and this issue has absolutely nothing to do with them. Their objections to same sex marriage also has nothing to do with the definition of the word 'marriage' and everything to do with denying certain human beings equality of certain orientations rights simply because they believe certain persons are or should be second class citizens.

 

I appreciate the debate guys but I have probably doubled my post count on this thread. Lol.

I stuck with the definition of marriage because of the religious connection which is one of the largest groups in opposition to gay marriage. I also recognize there are people of all walks of life that don't agree with me as there are those that disagree with you. But as a problem solver, I look for the path of least resistance for achieving my goal. I would have tried to avoid any connection with religion as possible. Simply a different prospective I guess.

 

Christians being upset is not a standard we use to decide the rights of people. You are very wrong about the history of marriage even in this country and you are ignorant of the efforts of these so-called Christians are trying to outlaw even civil unions.

But tell you what, I am upset I can't buy beer on Sunday....should we change that law because of that? If not why not?

 

Insult noted

 

Well as interesting as this debate was, the religion argument just isn't applicable to government and law. There is a separation of church and state for several reasons, one them being to protect religious entities from government and public interference and to protect the public and those who are not religious or of varying faiths from a potentially overbearing religious entity.

 

17 states...not exactly an overwhelming mandate for gay marriage. The fact you have to go to court to force The People to accept gay marriage is a testament to what most people think about it.

Yes they cannot biologically procreate with one another. Can you please explain why that is? I mean, if homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals and visa versa, then why has Mother Nature not created us all as hermaphordites? Doesn't it seem logical that Mother Nature prefers heterosexual coupling?

 

Those who actually believe that procreation is not key to marriage are delusional. Yes I know the mantra is that procreation is not a prerequisite to marriage but come on now...If a guy never had to worry about a pregnancy, an aborted fetus or wondering whether she was taking BC, why should he make any kind of commitment? And if he did, what would be the reason? To get more sex from the same woman when there is a world full of horny women? Why get married at all?

 

I love the way you make a presumptive statement about what I 'must' be for and then summarily state that procreation is completely irrelevant. Talk about a house of cards foundation....

Since procreation is the reason most heterosexuals get married and, it can only take place between a man and woman, even infertile heterosexual couples serve to bolster the naturally preferred heterosexual coupling model so, yes they should be granted marriage licenses.

 

If you are against same sex marriage because they can't procreate(even though they can and do) then in order to not be a hypocrite you have to be against infertile, geriatric and paralyzed couples marrying also.

And this is where your argument is self defeating and falls apart. You can't exclude a group of people from marriage using the inability to procreate as your justification, while allowing another group of people who also can't procreate. The law doesn't work that way.

 

Just like they had to go through the courts to eliminate segregation. That wasn't very popular either, but it was the right thing to do.

Does it matter? My friend cannot biologically procreate with her husband either, but that's not stopping them from having children or being legally married.

So your argument now is, if it's natural it is right and anything otherwise is wrong? Is that what you're going with?

 

Actually, what seems apparent is that mother nature prefers diversity, and that simply humping and reproducing as much as possible is not the model humans follow (otherwise we'd be more like insects, reproducing by the millions), which are all basically 100% replicas of each other. I believe you assume an over-simplified reproductive model of reproduction and inheritance which can fail to explain MANY attributes of humanity which do not promote individual production. Regardless, such an appeal to nature seems non-sensical in the first place... marriage and monogamy itself are not "natural", and by your standards, apparently that means that nature prefers that nobody be married or monogamous.

 

The definition of marriage in this country is a union between two people, in some parts this is still restricted to a man and woman, but not for long.
Your definition is the old definition. Just like the old definition of property, used to include slaves.
The culture has redefined marriage, the law lags the culture in some states, notably those states where the local culture lags the national culture.

And marriage has been redefined, get with it.
Once the culture decides something, the law follows. In a culturally advanced area like Massachusetts, the supreme court found the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional six years ago, but today it seems like every couple of weeks another judge finds the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.
Because the culture has shifted, Massachusetts has had that same constitution since 1793, yet it was only six years ago that it was found to allow same sex marriage, because before that, the culture wasn't OK with same sex marriage.
And as that cultural shift sweeps across the nation, more and more judges, and legislatures and voters in referendums, will allow same sex marriage.

 

You do realize that Mother Nature is not a real entity right? All kidding aside, nature does not have preferences, as long as another generation is being born, our species will survive and with a population of 7 billion people and only 3.5% of them homosexual (depending on who you talk to), we are in no danger of extinction.

It took the court to force "The People" to accept interracial marriage, does that make it wrong?

 

Perhaps, remember, it was "nature" that created and separated the races. You wouldn't want to (*)(*)(*)(*) nature off.

 

I'm sure the same views were expressed by those who argued against "freedoms" for women and minorities in decades past.