Riomacleod
Registered Senior Member
How about we explore why it's still ok to tee off on white males, as if they have the sole providence of bigotry and if it weren't for them the world would be holding hands singing a 70's protest song?
If there was no right or wrong then gay marriages would neither be right or wrong, but also rejecting gay marriages would not be wrong.I believe in right and wrong.
Really shows the scope of your intellectual capability.
Originally posted by truth
There is no paranoia or anything mystifying. I just simply find it despicable that there is actually a desire/agenda to destroy the family make up and replace it with something perverse and wrong.
Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Just like I don't think single men or single women should be allowed to adopt children.
Originally posted by truth
I don't think I said a thing about homophobia.
Originally posted by truth
I love it when you someone says they do not like something that is part of the liberal agenda, they are automatically hate mongers or prejudiced. What garbage.
Originally posted by truth
And from the comments I first posted, I think that the overall intention is to destroy something right and good and sacred all in the name of making excuses for creating a deviant lifestyle.
Originally posted by truth
I don't revel in the fact that I am a heterosexual. I don't have to go around wearing it as a badge of honor. I am not so full of myself as to scream my sexuality at others.
Originally posted by truth
Some things are wrong. It is as simple as that. It does not always need to be these so-called gray areas that liberals love.
Originally posted by truth
Just because I don't approve of the lifestyle and choice, does not in anyway constitute hate.
Supporting or not supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with allowing them any lifestyle they choose.well letting the majority of americans choose a lifestyle for every one else seems a ridiculous thing.
Well you have a point -- every tradition must be examined and scrutinized fully but usually there's some reason why it became a tradition. We should try to find the reason and then only with full information dismiss the tradition if necessary.going by what is traditional is ridiculous. many traditions are founded on prejudices and discrimination. traditions dont evolve
wth society. they are stagnant and help continue prejudices
Originally posted by okinrus
Forexample if someone was to deny someone the right to share their own property with someone else for no apparent reason then that person would be a bigot.
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
(The times, they are achangin'. Until the US changes its discriminatory practices where all men and women ARE created equally, they will continue with their formulated "traditions." I have two lesbian friends (I'm hetero). One works for a major industry. She wanted to put her partner and "their" child (child of partner) on her medical insurance. Her company told her this was considered "a luxury" and as such was so costly she couldn't afford it. I think this is blatant discrimination and should be argued in court.
Allowing couples joint contracts is different than redefining marriage.They do not have government supported shared property rights, medical coverage for partners, inheritance rights, custody rights, or ANY of the other rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples that ARE allowed to marry.
As far as the law or definitions is concerned, I would say it broils down to the people. Each person has their own individual reason but this is less important.Who defines it?
This depends on your tradition.Traditionally the wife is expected to be subserviant to her husband, take his last name and obey him.
Is that the tradition that you want to preserve?
Married couples are given benefits because the goverment recognizes that they are the ones raising our children. This should really be more explicit in the law but is the only reason they would get those benefits.What, other than 1 man and 1 woman, do you want to preserve about the "traditional definition"?
And specifically WHY?
What is the benefit?
Originally posted by okinrus
Allowing couples joint contracts is different than redefining marriage.
Originally posted by okinrus
As far as the law or definitions is concerned, I would say it broils down to the people. Each person has their own individual reason but this is less important.
Originally posted by okinrus
Married couples are given benefits because the goverment recognizes that they are the ones raising our children. This should really be more explicit in the law but is the only reason they would get those benefits.
I'm only speaking of the definition of marriage that the State uses We can pretty much call anyone married; it's the benefits given to married couples that depend on the definition. These are benefits given to married couples; they are benefits not rights. They are there because politicians have this idea of supporting the family; it has nothing to do with rights. This may seem strange illogical perhaps but that's what politicians do. The benefits given to state marriage are not basic rights. I'm denied them as well. Yet if a homosexual couple does raise children, then I believe they should get the same benefits as heterosexual marriages.So marriage is no longer a personal thing? It's not "Their marriage" it is the people's marriage? That's very collectivist of you to say. I'm not sure what point it was that society gained the sanctioned right to deny groups of people basic human rights, which are supposed to be protected equally, so I can't agree with you here.
I'm speaking of only the benefits given to marriage under the law. This is, after all, the only reason for the state to get into marriage at all. As far as I'm concerned, the state has no bearing on whether someone is really married or not.Second, your assertion is flawed; Marriage is not provided to married couples simply because they produce and raise children.