The sanctity of marriage
 

http://www.komotv.com/stories/30719.htm

I'm not sure what kind of institution anti-gay marriage people are trying to preserve, given the disregard many people and, indeed, the law, has for any so-called "sanctity" in marriage. As long as heterosexuals so dishonor marriage and the law doesn't require anything more than the required genitals, and in some cases a blood test, what is being preserved? Why is the only thing the majority of the country REALLY seems to value about marriage is that it involves only a man and a woman?

Since it's already being abused....lets throw the entire thing out the window.

Yeah, that's a good attitude to have.

Re: The sanctity of marriage
 

We already talked about this in that other thread and towards the end all you did was insult and lie about being an investment banker - with grammatical mistakes in your post as well.

Why did you create a whole new thread for it?

-Rudey

How is letting gays marry throwing marriage out the window? How is letting people that love each other and care for each other, arguably what the sanctity of marriage is about, marry qualify as "abuse"?

Instead, our current policy is to allow people to marry that make a mockery of it and prevent people from marrying that truly want to celebrate a solemn commitment. It's a litte ass-backward

my feeling on this is that if someone loves someone- regardless of their SEX (sex and gender are different) then they should be allowed to get married...

plain and simple....

i just think people that try to force people into doing things that THEY want just isn't right...(abortion.... gay marriage... even legalizing drugs... why spend all this money locking people up... if we'd legalize it- it wouldn't be as expensive ((thus the drug lords... ending up as regular people) ... and then we could invest the money in rehabilitation programs....)

just let people live.... :rolleyes:

Forcing me to accept gay marriages, even though it is against my beliefs and making a further mockery of it is 'right' though...

I've heard both sides of the argument, as I am sure everyone has a thousand times. You are not going to change my mind and I'm probably not going to change yours. Bringing it up over and over again, and then letting it fall into insults certainly isn't going to do anything besides get people pissed off.

The bottom line is, most of the US does not want gay marriages. Unless the Supreme Court sets a new precedent for the 1st Amendment.

It states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Most people can't even tell you the exact wording, all they know is 'separation of church and state' and act like they know what is going on.

Sorry, you don't.

No one's forcing you to accept it. You can still hate it, just like KKK'ers may hate that black people have civil rights, that certain people may hate that you have the right to go to your church, which they disagree with. Soem people might not want to accept that other pierce and tattoo their bodies in ways those people find offensive, disgusting and amoral. Nevertheless, they don't have to accept it to allow it to happen. Someone with "disgusting" tattoos and body piercings affects you about as much as gay people getting married. If you don't like it, you can look away and refuse to comingle with those people in social, professional or whatever situation you like.

You still haven't explained what how gay marriage is a mockery of marriage. The heterosexual marriage I mentioned was a mockery. Loving, caring relationships are mockeries? how so?

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God.

That is the definition of a marriage, without state involement. Which according to the 1st Amendment is how it should be interpereted.

Yes, I am being forced to accept it. If I was not forced to accept it then I would not have to recognize gay marriages, but by it being granted by the state means by law I have to accept it.

I am not opposed to a state sponsered civil union. If a gay couple wants to be recognized as partners by the state and recieve all the benefits and tax breaks etc given to a straight couple that's up to the state.

Using the term marriage is not accurate in the context of gay marriage.

Why would gay couples not accept civil unions with all the rights that accrue to a married heterosexual couple if the rights include child custody, estate issues, right to decide an incapacited partner's medical treatments, etc.?

I have no issues with gay couples and the depth of their commitment to each other. But I think that marriage in the traditional sense should be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

I don't feel the need to justify my position, and I don't ask anyone to justify their differing stance to me. And I think that my feelings are in the majority of the American mainstream. Something like 70%.

Could that change? It's possible. Marriage is under attack in a sense, so civil unions could be the wave of the future for all folks out there. It's certainly an evolving issue, whether hard liners on either side like it or not.

Well, separate but equal didn't work before, even though it sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I think playing the semantics game is silly, frankly. If there is no qualitative difference between the two, why do we have to call it something different just to protect some people's delicate sensibilities or try to fool ourselves into thinking there IS a qualitative difference.

However, there COULD be a qualitative difference if, say, marriage was only done by churches and civil unions were done by law. Some people could get both, if they wanted to be recongized by God or Allah or whoever AND they wanted the tangible benefits. Some people could choose to do only the church wedding and be called marriedbecause, oh I don't know, maybe they don't want the guvmint all up in their business. Some people may just do the union through a justice of the peace or deputy, because they don't care for religious recognition. But, even in this case, some gays would get married because some churches are not against gay marriage. They are apparently reading a different Bible than Coramoor.

But, if the law simply made it that hetero couples that got married were called married and homo couples that got married were called "unionized" or something, I would be embarrassed for our country, that we are fooling ourselves into thinking that we are "preserving" something when really, both groups of people are doing exactly the same thing, in churches, out of churches, on beaches, etc., but we just call it something different. Ever heard the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"?

He/She can't answer that for you. Search his/her name out to see some of his/her other responses.

Evidently he thinks that marriage is only about free benefits except can't explain why people choose to divorce and give up said benefits and even incur financial damage. Then he thought that a civil union wouldn't work even though those benefits are granted, because it's a case of separate but not equal. Logic does not flow.

In this other thread he also talked with such annoying speech (often) and ill grammar (once) that it bothered me - although not as much as when he lied and pretended he was an investment banker too...just like me!

-Rudey

Preach it Rudey! You are the man! I just hope you don't get burned out before Election Day - some serious education and enlightenment needed on this Board.
Check out : I'm voting for John Kerry and here's why" thread. :eek:

To start out, I don't particularly disapprove of homosexuals marrying. I think a stable home is important to a child whether there is a mommy and a daddy or two daddies or whatever.

That said, I think one of the problems those who are against the concept of gay marriage have is that it goes against the norm of what we have been conditioned to believe marriage should be. If gay sexual relations can be outlawed in many states and eventually become so accepted that marriage is allowed to ensue, what is next? Sex and marriage between adults and children? Goats? (j/k about the goats)

Perhaps they just feel that allowing something that is, to their minds, radical, is only a harbinger of more radical things to come.

Marriage is an economic union for the purpose of rasiing children. Anthropologically.

Shared assets shared labor etc.

Religiously its a whole different thing. . well not really but it has more mystical importance. However, at the end of the day, its still a union for the purpose of having kids.

The state has defined marriage over the years outside its religious meanings.

So the question is whether marriage is entirely secular and and is just an odd form of corporation either to raise kids or just pool assets.

In this case, it should be possible to have group marriages also because it could easily be argued that the combined assets of a group environment would exceed the assets of a nuclear family when it comes to raising kids.

As far as gays go . . . Marriage the way a lot of people are arguing it will be up to the individual churches. The state just has to make a dterminant on what the point of marriage is.

And don't think that the state has gotten involved in marriages out of respect for love. ITs money.

I don't believe in God. Does that mean I can't get married?