Originally posted by WindDancer
Link> pm if you would like talk about it.Back to the issue is like I was saying. If gay marriages contribute to the commonwealth of a nation is fine. The ethics come in 2nd place but what matters is if gay marriages can contribute to the regular flow of society.
dun worry about the PM..i hate waxing religion
how about instead of asking how it contributes to the regular flow of society.....how does it hinder it?
Originally posted by Iirima
Most nations of the world are overpopulated, wait that was off topic, anyway...
Raz, you said I respect what I can control, but would I respect what I can't control. All I can do is put in my vote on the issue as one person, but whatever happens in general is out of my control. If it becomes legalized, then that's the laws of the land I live in. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it or even like it.
You also asked me why I don't agree with it, because I'm against homosexuality, both from a Jesus standpoint, and that of my own personal opinion (for those who seem to think Bible believers can't think on their own). So if I'm against homosexuality (the act not the people), then I'm against their getting married.
W/o ref. to religion, basically here's what we're talkin' about...
Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
__________ & ___________
Defense of Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a U.S. federal law defining marriage as only a heterosexual union of a man and a woman. The law is intended to curtail the legalization of same-sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution by allowing a state to determine for itself whether it must recognize such a union recognized by other states or jurisdictions.
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996 after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican controlled United States Congress.
Critics of DOMA argue that the law is unconstitutional on several grounds including:
Congress over-reached its authority under the Full Faith and Credit clause
the law illegally discriminates and violates the equal protection clause
the law violates the fundamental right to marriage (including same-sex marriage) under the due process clause
Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been presented to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize same-sex marriages or not. Some states have by legislation or referendum overturned their state court's recognition of such unions while Vermont is currently the only state to have given some legal recognition to such. California as well has a state-wide system for the registration and recognition of domestic partnerships.
In response to the growing number of legal and political challenges, some proponents of DOMA have proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution, which would override certain local and state loopholes and remove any possible application of the Constitutional "full faith and credit clause" being applied to same-sex partnerships, marriages or civil unions in other states.
"The bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."
To be honest, I think the main issue of debate is really whether or not homosexuality is innate. If one is either born heterosexual or homosexual, than to deny the same rights, including marriage, would be descriminatory. If everyone agreed that it's just a matter of how one is born, the marriage issue probably wouldn't be an issue. Check out the following links.... (& don't stop too short on the last two, because they aren't anti-gay as you might think in the beginning)
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html
Originally posted by The Force
it's because those ppl don't understand why those other ppl like the same sex, basicallyoh and sorry yerss i just had to ad in the last bit
So because some people fali to understand some things, or are closed minded on that field, that should be restricted to other peolpe...made illegal.