Same sex marriage: what is it really?

Your Star · Jan 3, 2011

cpwill said:
people of what? the nation? the state? there is room to argue that the supermajority of the nation meant to desegregate government facilities (which would include public schools) as part and parcel of the 14th Amendment; as that is what they set about to doing before the Supreme Court ruling reversed them.

The people of the south. You know, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

Your Star · Jan 3, 2011

cpwill said:
perhaps our differing predictions here stem also from our differing assumptions of the issue at hand; with you seeking out the "civil rights" parallel and myself seeking out the "sexual issue" parallel. i think in particular, though, when people marry and have children they tend to lose their tendency towards support of homosexual marriage; though I admit off hand I have no data to back up my presumption.

does anyone have a good breakdown of the voting records from the States that have put Homosexual Marriage on the ballot?

Why would you think this?

cpwill · Jan 3, 2011

Your Star said:
The people of the south. You know, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

then no, 'the voters' of the South would have voted pretty much lockstep against desegregation. this provided two problems: 1. to a degree they had been preempted by the voters of all the states and 2. "the voters" of the South could be demonstrated to be an artificially constructed group due to the degree of denial of the first point.

cpwill · Jan 3, 2011

Your Star said:
Why would you think this?

the point at which people marry and have children is also when they begin to exhibit a host of other socially conservative facets. they tend to reengage in local churches, for example. in your group while you were at college everyone was free love and you went with the pack because like most people you go with the pack. in your group a decade later at church everyone thinks that marriage is important and sacred and you're beginning to recognize some truth to that and your'e like most people who go with the pack.... etc.

Your Star · Jan 3, 2011

cpwill said:
then no, 'the voters' of the South would have voted pretty much lockstep against desegregation. this provided two problems: 1. to a degree they had been preempted by the voters of all the states and 2. "the voters" of the South could be demonstrated to be an artificially constructed group due to the degree of denial of the first point.

So you agree, if it had been voted on by the people, then African Americans rights under the Constitution would have been denied.

cpwill · Jan 3, 2011

it's a tricky question; and i'm sympathetic to the logic that becaue the state electorate had been unconstitutionally supressed it's findings weren't constitutionally valid. so the question becomes what do we mean by "voted on by the people". certainly the results would have been drastically different had we allowed the local governments to run the ballots than if we had had federal troops do so a'la Reconstruction.

the problem (especially with the Cooper decision) was that the Court eventually went with a "Because I Said So" justification; which in an issue as wound up in our system of Federalism as that one was, shall we say, unrefined.

CriticalThought · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
More Americans Pro Life than Pro Choice for the First Time

Younger Voters Trend More Pro-Life

what i found interesting in that last one was that the 18-29 age group was the most likely of all the cohorts to say that Abortion should be illegal in any circumstance. I think much of our generation will include a general rejection of the Boomers.

I'm not suprised. I tend to be very libertarian minded and I find myself on the fence when it comes to abortion.

Due to institutional racism, I'm not sure that African American women are not targeted for abortion in an effort to keep the African American population down. Yeah, I know that sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory but taking in consideration the disproportionately high number of abortions that African American women have, especially when African Americans are the ethnic group with the highest religiosity in the country, and you have to wonder what the hell is going on to lead to these numbers.

My theory is that marriage has so declined in the African American community that it has lead to a situatoin where it is not uncommon that an African American male can have several children with several different women and be married to none of them. At the same time, African American women are enrolling in college at vastly higher rates than African American men. As such, I think African American women are choosing to have abortions at far higher rates in order to avoid raising illegitamate children that might hinder them from pursuing things like higher education.

There are quite a few unintended consequences of abortion rights and no fault divorce and I think if we are going to be a responsible society, we need to examine what we can improve the situation. Of course that is why I support marriage equality. I just can't see how alloiwing more people to marry in a time when marriage is not very attractive to a lot of people, would be a bad thing.

Of course, if I learned anything from the DADT repeal, it is the true animosity is lying under the surface. It won't be until marriage equality is established that we get an idea of people's true colors.

Your Star · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
the point at which people marry and have children is also when they begin to exhibit a host of other socially conservative facets. they tend to reengage in local churches, for example. in your group while you were at college everyone was free love and you went with the pack because like most people you go with the pack. in your group a decade later at church everyone thinks that marriage is important and sacred and you're beginning to recognize some truth to that and your'e like most people who go with the pack.... etc.

Not really. Society changes, the fact that we are even having this discussion, and SSM is a possibility in the next few years is an indicator that society is changing. It was a religious conviction that different races shouldn't marry one another. Now that isn't even a blip on the radar. It will soon be that way for SSM.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
not really. it was from a fairly decent college and has served me well; though admittedly it prepared me better for my masters' program than for most professions (though I was fortunate to find one where it did).

but yet you ignore history in your logic.

cpwill said:
:roll: is that sort of your way of saying you have no response?

nope its my way of saying that it was more of NOTHING for the topic I was discussion has to discriminating against gays.

cpwill said:
which means nothing. you said you were "supposed" to be a Christian. is this your parents church and you are obligated to go? did you put this duty on yourself?

no it was my dads church and yes I have gone on my own, meaningless to the debate but i answered anyway

cpwill said:
do you support the right of children to marry? why? do you hate children? why do you support the right of gays to marry, but not children? your hypocracy rings so hollow.....

more deflection from reality, to bad your example is not in anyway parallel what so ever LMAO
children are not consenting adults are they? I love your strawman tactic its entertaining, transparent but funny none the less

cpwill said:
full gay rights. every American should have equal treatment before the law. keep marriage defined as it is.

Translation: more hallow BS, if they aren't granted marriage it is NOT equal no matter your spin, the reality is without marriage it is unequal

so again, every american EXCEPT gays, thanks for your honesty

also defined by who? you? the law? websters? the bible?
no matter the choose the LAWFUL definition the ONLY one that matters is currently discriminating.

cpwill said:
yes. you seek to belittle presumably because you haven't actually thought very deeply about this issue, and need to cover. unfortunately, it sort of just makes you look.... childish.

wrong you are just over sensitive and cant defined your points with logic, I on the other hand can. There is no sound reason to STOP gay marriage. and if thinking deep is defined by you THANK GOD because this thread proves thats about spit deep with you. If deep thinking is this "(I support) full gay rights. every American should have equal treatment before the law. keep marriage defined as it is."then I want to be shallow forever LMAO

cpwill said:
says the person who hates children

more deflection. no surprise

cpwill said:
did it ever occur to you that perhaps well meaning men and women might actually disagree?

Depends on what you mean by disagree. You are TOTALLY free to disagree, I fully support that right 100%

This is my stance:
In America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc

and i also believe and support in your rights to do so but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I can’t imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry. It doesnt get anymore pompous, arrogant, selfish, hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a consenting adult they cant marry another consenting adult is beyond me.

so well meaning ENDS at that, once you try and stop it NO in my opinion you arent a well meaning american, you are an oppressor and discriminator.

cpwill said:
:lol: alright, what question am i so afraid of?

jeeeez you dodged so many who knows now but ill ask you some I can think of and RE-ASK you my question in this thread that was a simple YES/NO question you choose to talk around.

1. Do you think it was right and a good think for interracial marriage to be made legal against the majority?

2. Do you think that "most" of your arguments hold water since most of them were the same arguments AGAINST minority and women rights.

3. Do you think it was right to make women and minorities equal against the majority (I admit I could be making this part up as I do NOT have the states but for argument sake well say its true)

3. if there was a vote tomorrow for gay marriage would you vote YES to allow it or NO to disallow it.

please just answer yes or no and spare me the circle talk.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

Your Star said:
Why would you think this?

I was wondering that too?
what if their children are gay, id say in those cases it has "potential" to do just the opposite.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2011

CriticalThought said:
I'm not suprised. I tend to be very libertarian minded and I find myself on the fence when it comes to abortion.

Due to institutional racism, I'm not sure that African American women are not targeted for abortion in an effort to keep the African American population down. Yeah, I know that sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory but taking in consideration the disproportionately high number of abortions that African American women have, especially when African Americans are the ethnic group with the highest religiosity in the country, and you have to wonder what the hell is going on to lead to these numbers

:shrug: that was the deliberate purpose behind the founding of planned parenthood (though Margaret Sanger also wanted to include the 'mongrelized asian hordes'); many an organization has continued to find new justifications for its' continued existance as the old ones became outmoded.

There are quite a few unintended consequences of abortion rights and no fault divorce and I think if we are going to be a responsible society, we need to examine what we can improve the situation. Of course that is why I support marriage equality. I just can't see how alloiwing more people to marry in a time when marriage is not very attractive to a lot of people, would be a bad thing.

how about this folks; i'm up for a trade. We will extend the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals, but get rid of no-fault divorce. who's in?

roguenuke · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
perhaps our differing predictions here stem also from our differing assumptions of the issue at hand; with you seeking out the "civil rights" parallel and myself seeking out the "sexual issue" parallel. i think in particular, though, when people marry and have children they tend to lose their tendency towards support of homosexual marriage; though I admit off hand I have no data to back up my presumption.

does anyone have a good breakdown of the voting records from the States that have put Homosexual Marriage on the ballot?

I know that my stance on same sex marriage really hasn't changed since I was a teenager. Of course, neither has my pro-life stance. I think they are completely separate issues.

To me, same sex marriage is the right of homosexuals to marry who they actually want to (along with giving them all the things that come with it) vs. the "right" of some to maintain their traditional marriage definition. No measurable harm can happen from allowing gays to get married. And no one else's rights are really being infringed upon, since no one nor religion owns the word marriage. Abortion, otoh, is about the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the baby. Right now we really don't give an unborn child any rights, however, that doesn't change the fact that a baby loses their life because of the choice of the mother. There is harm done, but that harm is not considered as important as the mother's reproductive rights, legally speaking.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2011

Your Star said:
Not really. Society changes, the fact that we are even having this discussion, and SSM is a possibility in the next few years is an indicator that society is changing. It was a religious conviction that different races shouldn't marry one another. Now that isn't even a blip on the radar. It will soon be that way for SSM.

it was never a religious convinction that races shouldn't marry; it was a conviction that people sought to use religion to justify once darwinism fell through on them. the New Testaments' approach to homsexuality here is literally 180 degrees from its' approach to ethnicity.

CriticalThought · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
how about this folks; i'm up for a trade. We will extend the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals, but get rid of no-fault divorce. who's in?

I think that was the point of covenant marriage. I strongly support that idea. Before they get married, people can choose whether they want a "no fault" marriage or a covenant marriage.

Of course, if I were an authoritarian I would require that all same sex marriages be covenant marriages.

Your Star · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
it was never a religious convinction that races shouldn't marry; it was a conviction that people sought to use religion to justify once darwinism fell through on them. the New Testaments' approach to homsexuality here is literally 180 degrees from its' approach to ethnicity.

Did you even read the quote Centrist provided about the ruling Loving got before their case got to the SCOTUS. Of course there it was a religious conviction.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
:shrug: that was the deliberate purpose behind the founding of planned parenthood (though Margaret Sanger also wanted to include the 'mongrelized asian hordes'); many an organization has continued to find new justifications for its' continued existance as the old ones became outmoded.

how about this folks; i'm up for a trade. We will extend the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals, but get rid of no-fault divorce. who's in?

which definition?
websters already includes it

I also dont like how people treat marriage but under the law it is only a contract so if a person wants out then so be it, again its none of my buisness.

roguenuke · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
the point at which people marry and have children is also when they begin to exhibit a host of other socially conservative facets. they tend to reengage in local churches, for example. in your group while you were at college everyone was free love and you went with the pack because like most people you go with the pack. in your group a decade later at church everyone thinks that marriage is important and sacred and you're beginning to recognize some truth to that and your'e like most people who go with the pack.... etc.

I think you are definitely wrong on this. First, not everyone believes the same way that their church does. Plus, they could always just find a church that fits them, rather than changing their views on issues like homosexuality.

Along with this, that is not how most issues of discrimination work. My grandparents were pretty much all against interracial relationships (1 set was actually pretty racist all around, the other set just didn't think the races should mix). My parents and my mother's brothers and sisters have no problem with such relationships, in fact I have cousins who are mixed. My husband's bio father asked him the same question my grandparents asked my father when they were told that he was marrying my mother "what color is she" (I'm not joking either, I was sitting on the couch when the question was asked of my (now) husband).

As far as gay marriage goes, it is pretty much the same thing. My mother and her family have no problem with same sex marriage, and they are all Catholic. None of the children, either my mom's or my cousins, have any issues with gays at all.

I honestly think that such issues are more about exposure to actually having to tolerate the people that you are discriminating against that brings equality. And it generally doesn't go away once a person does realize and try to change their biases/intolerance.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
it was never a religious convinction that races shouldn't marry; it was a conviction that people sought to use religion to justify once darwinism fell through on them. the New Testaments' approach to homsexuality here is literally 180 degrees from its' approach to ethnicity.

so is your argument that it was never really in religion to be against interracial marriage or racism for that matter people just twisted it and used it for a tool to try and do so? or now the interpretation changed and we no longer practice it that way?

roguenuke · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
how about this folks; i'm up for a trade. We will extend the definition of Marriage to include homosexuals, but get rid of no-fault divorce. who's in?

I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, just the other day I was talking about this with my husband. I think that when children are involved in the marriage, the couple should have to work on their problems (exceptions could be made for abuse and perhaps some other things). If there are no children involved, the couple should be able to get a divorce whenever they want though.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2011

Centrist77 said:
but yet you ignore history in your logic.

actually i think it's been pretty ably demonstrated here that i have a much firmer grasp of the history of this issue than yourself, at least, as far as you are demonstrating.

nope its my way of saying that it was more of NOTHING for the topic I was discussion has to discriminating against gays.

you're the one who went with the sidelining to the history of Christians in this venue.

no fair later complaining that it didn't turn out how you like

no it was my dads church and yes I have gone on my own, meaningless to the debate but i answered anyway

well that makes sense.

more deflection from reality, to bad your example is not in anyway parallel what so ever LMAO
children are not consenting adults are they? I love your strawman tactic its entertaining, transparent but funny none the less

:shrug: and homosexuals are not in man-woman relationships. do you really not get here that your charge of hypocricy because i choose to utilize a definition of marriage is rung hollow by the fact that you then impose your own? you can argue that mine should change because of this reason or the other; but to claim hypocricy for the act of having a definition is self-defeating.

Translation: more hallow BS, if they aren't granted marriage it is NOT equal no matter your spin, the reality is without marriage it is unequal

on the contrary. nowhere are you promised equality of result as a right. however i agree that their relationships remain unequal as regards the social institution of marriage. because society does not view them as equal.

which is what i pointed out in the beginning.

wrong you are just over sensitive and cant defined your points with logic, I on the other hand can. There is no sound reason to STOP gay marriage.

none at all eh. perhaps you could list for us some of the conservative thinkers whose cases you have read and your subsequent reasoning for why their arguments are predicated on inaccuracies?

Depends on what you mean by disagree. You are TOTALLY free to disagree, I fully support that right 100%

no one asked if you believed in the right of free expression. you were asked if you believed it possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue.

jeeeez you dodged so many who knows now but ill ask you some I can think of

ah. perhaps you could go back and quote all these.

and RE-ASK you my question in this thread that was a simple YES/NO question you choose to talk around.

sure as soon soon as you answer the simple YES/NO question of "have you stopped raping children" ?

1. Do you think it was right and a good think for interracial marriage to be made legal against the majority?

I think that you type too fast. However I will say what I have already said about Loving in this thread: the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons; and I will reiterate as I stated above that their case would have been significantly strengthened had they pointed out the Constitutional questionability of the electorate.

2. Do you think that "most" of your arguments hold water since most of them were the same arguments AGAINST minority and women rights.

I think you are utilizing a stereotype here, and one i have already answered.

3. Do you think it was right to make women and minorities equal against the majority (I admit I could be making this part up as I do NOT have the states but for argument sake well say its true)

given that both women and minorities were given equal rights by a supermajority of the citizens of the United States of America, i'm afraid you are, in fact, making this question up.

3. if there was a vote tomorrow for gay marriage would you vote YES to allow it or NO to disallow it.

if there were a vote tomorrow on whether or not to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions i would vote against it.

please just answer yes or no and spare me the circle talk.

sure. so did you know growing up that you would end up raping children? just yes/no please.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2011

roguenuke said:
I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, just the other day I was talking about this with my husband. I think that when children are involved in the marriage, the couple should have to work on their problems (exceptions could be made for abuse and perhaps some other things). If there are no children involved, the couple should be able to get a divorce whenever they want though.

I'll even take that.

Redress · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
perhaps our differing predictions here stem also from our differing assumptions of the issue at hand; with you seeking out the "civil rights" parallel and myself seeking out the "sexual issue" parallel. i think in particular, though, when people marry and have children they tend to lose their tendency towards support of homosexual marriage; though I admit off hand I have no data to back up my presumption.

does anyone have a good breakdown of the voting records from the States that have put Homosexual Marriage on the ballot?

I don't see it as primarily a civil rights issue.

cpwill · Jan 4, 2011

Centrist77 said:
so is your argument that it was never really in religion to be against interracial marriage or racism for that matter people just twisted it and used it for a tool to try and do so? or now the interpretation changed and we no longer practice it that way?

not until the late 19th and early 20th Century did any part of Christian theology ever discuss interacial marriage; except to comment that in Christ there no longer was any distinction between the races. in premodern Christian culture there are multiple public incidents of interracial marriage. note, for example, Othello the Moor from Shakespeare; where the strife wasn't that a white woman married a black man, but rather that a passed-over junior officer was jealous of how loved Othello was. but fast forward to an era where now eugenics is science, and then take the institutions built upon eugenics, and deprive them of their moral stance via the fell swoop of the Holocaust. people will always seek to anchor their arguments in the most unassailable sources, and so yes, as social darwinism fell apart and science no longer lent its' credibility to opposing miscegination, some sought instead to anchor the argument in the bible. the move didn't work as Christian theology wasn't a natural home for such a belief system; and in fact it could be said that it objectively failed as instead the Christian church ended up on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement (just as it had been on the front lines of the abolitionist movement).

but yes, just as Jim Wallis today claims that the New Testament is secretly all about how Christ wants us to support Obamacare, people who feel strongly about a subject will often seek to anchor it in Christianity in order to lend it credibility.

the problem at claiming that the racial and sexual arguments are same-same is that while the New Testament doesn't discuss the sin of miscegination (if anything it would seem to encourage it), it does discuss the sin of homosexuality; and when it discusses marriage it is always within the definition of a man and a woman.

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
actually i think it's been pretty ably demonstrated here that i have a much firmer grasp of the history of this issue than yourself, at least, as far as you are demonstrating.

nope in your logic you clearly ignore how the majority doesnt always get its way ESPECIALLY when it comes to the constitution.

cpwill said:
you're the one who went with the sidelining to the history of Christians in this venue. no fair later complaining that it didn't turn out how you like

good lord what planet are you on, all i said is that religion has in fact been used against those movements, interracial marriage, womens and minority rights. Those are FACTS and you went on babbling about good things religion has done, which I agree religion has done great things! People have also used it to support those same movements which I CLEARLY said. The problem was you just seemed to choose ONE side of reality coin,I didnt let you, so it worked out for me VERY well for me thanks LMAO
seems you are even still in denial about that fact

cpwill said:
:shrug: and homosexuals are not in man-woman relationships. do you really not get here that your charge of hypocricy because i choose to utilize a definition of marriage is rung hollow by the fact that you then impose your own? you can argue that mine should change because of this reason or the other; but to claim hypocricy for the act of having a definition is self-defeating..

wrong again, I claim you have hypocrisy because you want to force your religion on others AND because you say you want equality while denying it to gays.

cpwill said:
on the contrary. nowhere are you promised equality of result as a right. however i agree that their relationships remain unequal as regards the social institution of marriage. because society does not view them as equal.

which is what i pointed out in the beginning.

more circle talking that says nothing, its discrimination and thats why its wrong for it to be unequal.

cpwill said:
none at all eh. perhaps you could list for us some of the conservative thinkers whose cases you have read and your subsequent reasoning for why their arguments are predicated on inaccuracies?

I dont need them I got YOU, you were inaccurate with your blanket statements.

cpwill said:
no one asked if you believed in the right of free expression. you were asked if you believed it possible for well-meaning individuals to come to differing conclusions on this issue.

and I clearly answered, the answer is 100% NO if it involves STOPPING gay marriage. Next time quote the whole thing and it will contain the answer genius lol

cpwill said:
ah. perhaps you could go back and quote all these.

no thanks, not really worth my time, you should have answered them the first time and not dodge them, history is proving you'll just dodge them or talk around them or give an empty bs bias answer anyway

the questions I asked will due but youll probably dodge them too.

cpwill said:
sure as soon soon as you answer the simple YES/NO question of "have you stopped raping children" ?

another dodge

cpwill said:
I think that you type too fast. However I will say what I have already said about Loving in this thread: the Court made the wrong decision for the right reasons; and I will reiterate as I stated above that their case would have been significantly strengthened had they pointed out the Constitutional questionability of the electorate.

good god thanks for the YES/NO answers and circle talking just like I said you would. Dodge 2
at least you got something right, I do type to fast.

cpwill said:
I think you are utilizing a stereotype here, and one i have already answered.

another fail at yes/no
dodge 3

cpwill said:
given that both women and minorities were given equal rights by a supermajority of the citizens of the United States of America, i'm afraid you are, in fact, making this question up.

wow, just wow, so the majority of americans were for minority rights and womens rights when they passed them? link please what was the percentage.

not to mention I said either way pretend it wasnt, pretend 75% of america against it what your answer?

dodge 4

cpwill said:
if there were a vote tomorrow on whether or not to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions i would vote against it.

again what a joke, atleat you told the truth about your answer and further showed your hypocrisy.

cpwill said:
sure. so did you know growing up that you would end up raping children? just yes/no please.

more deflection and diversion to save face but with your BS answers and question dodging everybody has all the info they need about you. I knew this is the BS you would give me and couldn't man up, now whip the egg of your face.:laughat:

AGENT J · Jan 4, 2011

cpwill said:
not until the late 19th and early 20th Century did any part of Christian theology ever discuss interacial marriage; except to comment that in Christ there no longer was any distinction between the races. in premodern Christian culture there are multiple public incidents of interracial marriage. note, for example, Othello the Moor from Shakespeare; where the strife wasn't that a white woman married a black man, but rather that a passed-over junior officer was jealous of how loved Othello was. but fast forward to an era where now eugenics is science, and then take the institutions built upon eugenics, and deprive them of their moral stance via the fell swoop of the Holocaust. people will always seek to anchor their arguments in the most unassailable sources, and so yes, as social darwinism fell apart and science no longer lent its' credibility to opposing miscegination, some sought instead to anchor the argument in the bible. the move didn't work as Christian theology wasn't a natural home for such a belief system; and in fact it could be said that it objectively failed as instead the Christian church ended up on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement (just as it had been on the front lines of the abolitionist movement).

but yes, just as Jim Wallis today claims that the New Testament is secretly all about how Christ wants us to support Obamacare, people who feel strongly about a subject will often seek to anchor it in Christianity in order to lend it credibility.

the problem at claiming that the racial and sexual arguments are same-same is that while the New Testament doesn't discuss the sin of miscegination (if anything it would seem to encourage it), it does discuss the sin of homosexuality; and when it discusses marriage it is always within the definition of a man and a woman.

you like reading your own words dont you? LMAO
ok so we agree religion WAS used on the negative side of those movements thanks, thats all you had to say

also please save the use of religion for defense of marriage because its MEANINGLESS

Law wise, religion plays ZERO role in marriage unless the people involved want it too.

Societ wise, the religious definition is nothing more than an opinion.

Lastly and this doesnt make it a worldly fact just going off of my life but everybody i know in my real life picks and choose what they want to use out of the good book. Now i am TOTALLY fine with that but once you try to use it for a defense or force it on others thats when they all instantly have egg on their face. Ill always laugh at a person that quotes Leviticus(among others) and only chooses PARTS of it to "obey" and cast judgment on others while violating numerous other parts. Its a joke. Thats why the religion argument NEVER works because MAN interpret it how they see fit when they see fit to do so. They choose to follow or not follow when they feel like it and change the rules, and when they do, GOD is never involved? how convenient

Same sex marriage: what is it really?

What is same sex marriage?

A special right

Equal protection

Other

Rage More!

Rage More!

Rage More!

Rage More!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Rage More!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Liberal Fascist For Life!

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"