I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
Probably. It's just the only argument towards forbidding gay marriage that I've ever seen that has any logic and reasonableness to it.
Im sure this issue has been debated over and over again but since im doing research and studying Id love more opinions cause its fun.
Also let me add not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.
I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about womens rights, equal rights interracial marriage etc. they were dumb and didnt apply then and they certainly havent changed now
now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.
That means 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
but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
I cant imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao
Does it get anymore pompous and arrogant and selfish and hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a person they cant marry another one is beyond me.
I myself im not gay so i REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there buisness some how.
Anyway maybe this time will be different, it actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Who thinks they have a sound reason on why they should get to determine who two consenting adults can and can not marry.
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.
My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.
It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
If you give the civil unions you are giving them "marriage" because 'separate but equal' will not stand scrutiny.
I'd really the to the "them" attitude be a thing of the past.
If you give them civil unions you are giving them "marriage" because 'separate but equal' will not stand scrutiny.
Has nothing to do with separate but equal. It has to do with two dudes does not make a marriage. It takes a man and a women, period.
I'm fine with civil unions (which are essentially just contracts, nothing too bad about that), but marriage is something to be left to private institutions. However, I see equality of access to gay and straight couples as the most important issue here.
Only logical anti-gay marriage position that I know of is the one that takes government out of the marriage business altogether. This position is usually based on not wanting to allow special privileges for folks just because they are married.
Go on
123456789
It has everything to do with separate but equal. It doesn't stop with civil unions, they are a means to an end, so giving civil unions is giving marriage. Giving the civil rights is giving marriage. That's the result your choice brings.
Generally speaking, sure, if you don't support what it is.
"Cultural Universal". Everywhere on Earth, in any place, at any point in time, marriage is about the raising and socializing of children. Modern gay marriage is not, thus it is counter-culture.
There's no reason to care about your relationship if you aren't raising children whether you're gay or straight, living together or not. Go live with whomever you want. Have your life and I hope you live a good one. The legal buffs are for couples raising children, because raising children is the State's interest in promoting a relationship. Marriage is not for heteros looking for a tax brake, it's not for gays looking for social validation of their identity.
Gays don't make their movement about children. They make it about rights, etc, so there is no reason to care about gay marriage.
They can have civil unions or get the government out of the marriage business altogether.
Two men or women do not make a marriage. They should however have all the rights and privileges of a married couple no matter what it is called.
My reasons for being against gay marriage is purely religious and semantics.
It is not open for debate. It will immediately turn this thread into a religious bashing session. Not interested in that.
Has nothing to do with separate but equal. It has to do with two dudes does not make a marriage. It takes a man and a women, period.
I'm fine with civil unions (which are essentially just contracts, nothing too bad about that), but marriage is something to be left to private institutions. However, I see equality of access to gay and straight couples as the most important issue here.
Marriage is not about equality.