Voters Approve Same-sex Marriage for the First Time

reply to post by SaturnFX


so homosexuals arent born that way either then, its learned and a symptom of something?



i dont think people are understanding the point i was making.

and for the record, i couldnt care less if gays want to marry each other. it doesnt affect my personal life. couldnt care less if they want to be together.


what i do care about is the issue being forced on so many and the hate towards people who say they dont support it. why are people only allowed to have an opinion if it agrees with the gay supporters opinion? and why do people who say they support traditional marriage get demonized as homophobic and all sorts of crap? if somebody says they support gay marriage do they get demonized for hating traditional marriage? are they heterophobic?


the hypocrisy is what i dont like.

and perhaps pedophile was the wrong word? i was meaning more if say a 30 year old and a 13 year old want to get married, both consenting, or something along those lines. should that be ok too? if that is just who the 30 year old is attracted to and the 13 year old is attracted to him, then why not? in plenty of parts of the world, and at one time here in the states, 13 was considered plenty old enough.

maybe make the girl 16. does that change it? or the other way around and the boy is 13 and woman is 30?


if we are really going to open it up for everyone, it should really be for everyone right?

Originally posted by pngxp
I was meaning more if say a 30 year old and a 13 year old want to get married, both consenting, or something along those lines. should that be ok too?

They can in some states.

With parents approval.

reply to post by pngxp


It is not true consent when you have someone who is 30 and 13 no matter if there is genuine attraction. There is a power and authority dynamic at work which makes it impossible to be 100% consensual.

Originally posted by pngxp
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

so homosexuals arent born that way either then, its learned and a symptom of something?

Damn dude, how do you read something then come up with the opposite of what it says.
Scientists have weighed in...they say homosexuality appears to be biological, not learned behavior. There are differences in brain makeup.
So no..not learned behavior in the same way blue eyes is not learned behavior.

what i do care about is the issue being forced on so many and the hate towards people who say they dont support it.

Its fine to disagree with gay marriage...thats fine, but you unfortunately used a strawman argument.
Like if you said, if you let people put chicken on their pizza, next you will let people murder children..
its a absurd leap to try and back your point up.
This is known as a strawman argument
You suggest something false and absurd, then attack that absurd statement to prop up your initial view.

and why do people who say they support traditional marriage get demonized as homophobic and all sorts of crap?

Well, how you approach this subject is definately crazy and arguably homophobic.
Now..let me demonstrate something for you.
I personally do not support the notion of gay people becoming married..yet nobody accuses me of being homophobic. My personal view on gay marriage is that marriage itself is a religious institution, and only a religious institution should therefore decide who gets married by their qualifications.
And judeo-christian religion states pretty clearly that homosexuality (especially man/man) is very much a no-no..

However, the government is currently running this religious institution, and the government -must- be equal...so yes..I encourage the corruption of this institution until either it truely is equal (down the line, I fully expect human/robot marriages to be recognised..equality and whatnot). or until the actually proper move is made, which is government stop recognising marriage and drop any/all aspects of it from policy..instead simply recognizing a civil union between two consenting adults.

My view isn't anti-gay, its anti-government in this area...marriage is a religious institution, government has no right to weigh in...so, until religious institutions finally freak out enough to demand government never try to get into the business of religion, I will personally cheer its corruption.

Church/state should be forever seperate.

and perhaps pedophile was the wrong word? i was meaning more if say a 30 year old and a 13 year old want to get married, both consenting, or something along those lines. should that be ok too? if that is just who the 30 year old is attracted to and the 13 year old is attracted to him, then why not? in plenty of parts of the world, and at one time here in the states, 13 was considered plenty old enough.

Still illegal. lol

maybe make the girl 16. does that change it? or the other way around and the boy is 13 and woman is 30?

STILL ILLEGAL!
Unless its russia or something, then meh.

if we are really going to open it up for everyone, it should really be for everyone right?

Listen..
biologically speaking, humans become sexually attracted to other human being starting as young as 14 years old (post-pubescent). We then have laws that dictate when we can start doing stuff to them.
Currently, in this country (usa), it is 18 for the age of consent.
Do I find a 60 year old man dating a 18 year old woman weird?
Yes
The lucky bas--rd
But its legal, and biologically the norm

Drop the gay people = raping kids..thats just in your mind and not in any identifiable reality.
There are strong arguments to be had in opposition to gay marriage...but so far, you are using the weak and non arguments.
rethink the issue...try to figure out why your truely opposed to it...get to the root of it...and see if its relevant to an objective reality. And drop this rather stupid pedo line..only the most kooky low brow taliban style religious use such a easily defeated nonsense point.

Legal Federal Government Marriage is a contract for protection and rights of those joining together as one unit/family/household. It also offers benefits not available by any other means. Which means currently it is excluding gay couples from these benefits simply because they are of same sex.

There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples. Partners in same-sex couples cannot receive these important benefits -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. www.nolo.com...

Anyone can have a religious marriage. NO ONE FORCES anyone to have a legal government marriage. If you think marriage is a only a religious institution - - - then marry before God and be done with it. Don't have the government marriage.

Its very hypocritical IMO - - - to claim Marriage as a Religious institution - - - then also get the government marriage to have all the benefits - - - while denying a minority group these same benefits.

The following should probably have its own thread. But I'm not in the position to monitor a thread.

Is this much hate acceptable?

NOM (National Organization for Marriage) - - a group created for one purpose - - to stop gay marriage. And is also listed on the SPLC as a hate group.

Regroups and plots their next move after 3 states vote for marriage equality and Minn voted down banning same sex marriage.

Brown (its leader, Brian Brown) promised to keep up the fight against same-sex marriage and asked his followers for more money. The group is also going after corporations like Starbucks which publicly advocate for marriage equality. NOM's plan is to garner support in the Middle East, an area hostile to same-sex marriage and an area the coffee chain is interested in expanding in.

"[Starbucks's] international outreach is where we can have the most effect," Brown said. "So for example, in Qatar, in the Middle East, we've begun working to make sure that there's some price to be paid for this. These are not countries that look kindly on same-sex marriage. And this is where Starbucks wants to expand, as well as India. So we have done some of this; we've got to do a lot more." www.advocate.com...

reply to post by SaturnFX


I do have to disagree with you a little bit in your post. Marriage is not originally a product of religious institutions but was adopted by them so they could reflect the values of each particular religion. That is why you have groups that define marriage as man/woman, man/woman/woman, woman/man/man or what are the duties of each partner in a marriage.

The law (as someone recently informed me) for America it that ALL marriages are civil and are only religious to the individual couples who see fit to perform it by their faith. Most definitions of marriages found in dictionaries and other places define marriage as "is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship" or "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life". It isn't until you get to 4th or 5th definitions that religion and spirituality begin to appear.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I do have to disagree with you a little bit in your post. Religion is not originally a product of religious institutions but was adopted by them so they could reflect the values of each particular religion. That is why you have groups that define marriage as man/woman, man/woman/woman, woman/man/man or what are the duties of each partner in a marriage.

The law (as someone recently informed me) for America it that ALL marriages are civil and are only religious to the individual couples who see fit to perform it by their faith. Most definitions of marriages found in dictionaries and other places define marriage as "is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship" or "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life". It isn't until you get to 4th or 5th definitions that religion and spirituality begin to appear.

Then in that case, it should be equal.
Still think they should call it something else though as marriage traditionally has meant the religious ceremony of marriage.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Traditionally, marriage was a business contract. Only in the last century have we seen the emphasis really put on romantic/love marriages.

There are certain laws and protections that are only granted to married couples that makes it important for it to extend to same-sex couples. In some cases if you're not married and your husband or wife dies you have no legal right to make any funeral arrangements or decisions. If they were sick, it would be the next blood relative to make medical decisions and not the person they spent most of their adult lives with.

Without marriage couples would also be overlooked by adoption agencies. Regardless of what coupledom your marriage falls under there is a good chance that you want to have a family but one of the conditions at times can be "stable family unit" which usually translates to "marriage certificate".

Here is a site about the Real History of Marriage.

Don't dismiss it because the site is One Spirit Project. I've been debating this issue for about 20 years. This site covers most everything.

I suggest reading it in its entirety.

First, the issue isn't about what constitutes a family. The issue is whether our government has the right to ban citizens from enjoying their civil right to marry who they choose simply because certain segments of society find their choice to be morally corrupt.

Second, a family is not "one man married to one woman, period". That is one form of a family. It is not the only form. And historically, even in Judaism, it was most certainly not one man and one woman. Many of the major patriarchs of the Bible had multiple wives. And their families also included children!

Third, comparing gay marriage to slavery is comparing apples and oranges. Slavery was an instutition that placed one person in control of the other-- there was an innate inequality. The slave was not even considered a human being, but a mere possession and the consent of the slave to enter into this institution was not required. Marriage is an institution in which the consent of both parties is required and in which the parties are equal partners.

onespiritproject.com...

reply to post by amatrine


According to the bible, he destroyed them because they were wicked, didn't descriminate about why they were wicked. Shortly after Lot fornicated with his own daughters, and he was supposed to be righteous.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Hopefully Obama will pass something where even if your state does not legally recognize same-sex marriage it will recognize another state's marriage license regardless.

Yawn, all it means is that America's death will be all the quicker. It is funny, as soon as all the chips are in line for mass voting fraud it happens. GMO bill and pro deviant garbage. America will just die a quick death as those who built the country will allow it to fall then defend such an ungodly, ruined nation.

reply to post by SaturnFX

maybe make the girl 16. does that change it? or the other way around and the boy is 13 and woman is 30? STILL ILLEGAL! Unless its russia or something, then meh

No, it isnt. Parental consent is all that is needed.

reply to post by korathin


Other countries have had legal same sex marriage since the early 2000s and they are doing just fine.