100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why the States Should Be Out of Marriage. (Or Legalize All M | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Let's look at this issue from another angle. When the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the Act's conservative foes kept asking congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to force citizens to purchase health insurance. When the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, did conservatives ask congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to regulate marriage? I do not know of any conservative who asked that. Let's cut to the chase. The main reason why opponents of same-sex marriage are opponents is because their religions tell them that same-gender sexual activity is sinful. However, in the USA, it is unconstitutional to turn religious beliefs into civil laws. What American opponents of same-sex marriage need to admit is that the freedom of religion stated in the 1st Amendment give people the right to not conform to religious teachings. The question that I have is this: Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents? fallacious reasoning to assume people ONLY oppose same sex marriage because of religious belief,, is no more reaonable than saying they oppose murder ONLY Because of religious belief the bible also says thou shalt not kill, but certainly more than just the religious believe killing is wrong more than just the religious find homosexual activity unhealthy/unnatural as well but the problem is not that people are trying to stop people from being with whom they love,, the issue is that people dont wish for our culture be forced to treat all relationships equal in terms of their PLACE in the culture male female unions CREATE life,, there is no equivalent relationship in terms of significance to the culture,,,, that is why there is an INTEREST in supporting, monitoring, and encouraging it homosexual unions are not only not of that same social significance, they cannot be in any way be supported on the grounds of what they bring forth so there is no reason to have to be forced to act as if they are as socially significant and important as heterosexual unions,,,,there is no reason to force the culture to pretend its the same thing,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 03/29/13 10:28 PM
|
|
Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents? Apparently not....most illogical, but unfortunately, very human. 
can the proponents of same sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to vote on how they wish to define marriage for government purposes? we tolerate alot, in the name of freedoms we tolerated the broken homes and increased welfare that came with increased oligarchy and the swift change from the 'freedom' for women to work to the 'expectation' for women to work,,, leaving far too many children in virtually parentless environments and we tolerate the fatherless homes that began to increase in number with the 'sexual revolution' where sex was just something people do and the commitment made no difference yeah, we can tolerate whatever we HAVE to,, but until we HAVE to, we can do our part to prevent it too,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can the proponents of same sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to vote on how they wish to define marriage for government purposes? I don't think so...I know I wouldn't. I think they would very much prefer to live in a free republic...I know I would. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can the proponents of same sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to vote on how they wish to define marriage for government purposes? I don't think so...I know I wouldn't. I think they would very much prefer to live in a free republic...I know I would. the government 'serves' the people , remember? it is of the people, by the people, and for the people,,,, so, theres no way around having the people make decisions about their environment and their culture,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can the proponents of same sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to vote on how they wish to define marriage for government purposes? I don't think so...I know I wouldn't. I think they would very much prefer to live in a free republic...I know I would. the government 'serves' the people , remember? it is of the people, by the people, and for the people,,,, so, theres no way around having the people make decisions about their environment and their culture,,,, the government 'serves' the people , remember? it is of the people, by the people, and for the people,,,, It's supposed to, but if the people aren't happy, I guess they aren't being well served and if the service doesn't improve, I guess it isn't a government of the people, by the people, or for the people. so, theres no way around having the people make decisions about their environment and their culture That's right...and any so-called "government" that makes the wrong decisions "on their behalf" should be summarily fired. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hopefully grown ups know that no person or government is gonna make everybody 'happy'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 03/30/13 02:42 AM
|
|
hopefully grown ups know that no person or government is gonna make everybody 'happy' It is up to the people themselves to do their duty and ensure that ALL the people have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all the other rights that the people wish to grant themselves, to do their duty to protect those rights from ALL enemies, big or small, foreign or domestic. The choice between true, egalitarian freedom and oppression and tyranny has always been the peoples' to make. Whether they choose to govern or be governed, the people will always get the government they deserve. IMO, peoples everywhere have suffered enough for their old errors in judgment. They deserve much better now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hopefully grown ups know that no person or government is gonna make everybody 'happy' It is up to the people themselves to do their duty and ensure that ALL the people have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and all the other rights that the people wish to grant themselves, to do their duty to protect those rights from ALL enemies, big or small, foreign or domestic. The choice between true, egalitarian freedom and oppression and tyranny has always been the peoples' to make. Whether they choose to govern or be governed, the people will always get the government they deserve. IMO, peoples everywhere have suffered enough for their old errors in judgment. They deserve much better now. it is up to people to have a clear conscious and take responsibility for their part in the community/culture,,,,, and I believe most people do, although they will disagree about what type of commmunity/culture that will be and they will definitely disagree on what constitutes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sat 03/30/13 08:16 AM
|
|
...and they will definitely disagree on what constitutes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness Only if they are complete idiots and not competent to govern themselves. Any reasonable human being would agree exactly on what these things constitute. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 03/30/13 08:35 AM
|
|
...and they will definitely disagree on what constitutes life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness Only if they are complete idiots and not competent to govern themselves. Any reasonable human being would agree exactly on what these things constitute. really? because I have read different perspectives of all those concepts from very educated and experienced people... its like saying people have to agree about what 'happiness' is,, its a concept until it is defined, and it happens to evolve around emotions and standards and culture,, which vary from person to person and region to region to say that people have to be idiots to disagree, or to think that people will ever 'exactly' agree screams of naivety,,, btw, saying 'if you dont know, I cant explain it' or 'if you dont agree you're an idiot' does little to actually give a DEFINITION that is not strictly emotional, or that can be exactly agreed upon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents?
They're going to have to learn how to deal with it, as it's slowly going to happen more and more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at this issue from another angle. When the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the Act's conservative foes kept asking congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to force citizens to purchase health insurance. When the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, did conservatives ask congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to regulate marriage? I do not know of any conservative who asked that. Let's cut to the chase. The main reason why opponents of same-sex marriage are opponents is because their religions tell them that same-gender sexual activity is sinful. However, in the USA, it is unconstitutional to turn religious beliefs into civil laws. What American opponents of same-sex marriage need to admit is that the freedom of religion stated in the 1st Amendment give people the right to not conform to religious teachings. The question that I have is this: Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents? fallacious reasoning to assume people ONLY oppose same sex marriage because of religious belief,, is no more reaonable than saying they oppose murder ONLY Because of religious belief the bible also says thou shalt not kill, but certainly more than just the religious believe killing is wrong more than just the religious find homosexual activity unhealthy/unnatural as well but the problem is not that people are trying to stop people from being with whom they love,, the issue is that people dont wish for our culture be forced to treat all relationships equal in terms of their PLACE in the culture male female unions CREATE life,, there is no equivalent relationship in terms of significance to the culture,,,, that is why there is an INTEREST in supporting, monitoring, and encouraging it homosexual unions are not only not of that same social significance, they cannot be in any way be supported on the grounds of what they bring forth so there is no reason to have to be forced to act as if they are as socially significant and important as heterosexual unions,,,,there is no reason to force the culture to pretend its the same thing,,, Murder and same sex marriage are two completely different things. Murder, of course, being wrong. Same sex marriage? Not wrong. The majority of those who are against it are so because their religion tells them to think that way. Do you believe that heterosexual marriages where the couple has no children are less important than those who do have children? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at this issue from another angle. When the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, the Act's conservative foes kept asking congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to force citizens to purchase health insurance. When the U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, did conservatives ask congressional leaders what part of the U.S. Constitution authorized Congress to regulate marriage? I do not know of any conservative who asked that. Let's cut to the chase. The main reason why opponents of same-sex marriage are opponents is because their religions tell them that same-gender sexual activity is sinful. However, in the USA, it is unconstitutional to turn religious beliefs into civil laws. What American opponents of same-sex marriage need to admit is that the freedom of religion stated in the 1st Amendment give people the right to not conform to religious teachings. The question that I have is this: Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents? fallacious reasoning to assume people ONLY oppose same sex marriage because of religious belief,, is no more reaonable than saying they oppose murder ONLY Because of religious belief the bible also says thou shalt not kill, but certainly more than just the religious believe killing is wrong more than just the religious find homosexual activity unhealthy/unnatural as well but the problem is not that people are trying to stop people from being with whom they love,, the issue is that people dont wish for our culture be forced to treat all relationships equal in terms of their PLACE in the culture male female unions CREATE life,, there is no equivalent relationship in terms of significance to the culture,,,, that is why there is an INTEREST in supporting, monitoring, and encouraging it homosexual unions are not only not of that same social significance, they cannot be in any way be supported on the grounds of what they bring forth so there is no reason to have to be forced to act as if they are as socially significant and important as heterosexual unions,,,,there is no reason to force the culture to pretend its the same thing,,, Murder and same sex marriage are two completely different things. Murder, of course, being wrong. Same sex marriage? Not wrong. The majority of those who are against it are so because their religion tells them to think that way. Do you believe that heterosexual marriages where the couple has no children are less important than those who do have children? actually, I do, socially speaking if nothing is produced beyond our own happiness and self fulfilmment, it has nowhere near the significance of a relationship that produces another person that can influence the world, and who must have the immediate and social effort put into t hem to MOLD Them into that person,,, but since we cant play God and know for sure who will have children and who wont, the best we can do is uphold a special place for heterosexuals to commit ,,,,, repeating an assumption about why people disagree or agree with a lifestyle choice doesnt make it any more true people should stop assuming religion is the basis for values they dont agree with,, religion brings to light values that people ALREADY have,, and many who arent exposed to religion have similar views, and many who reject 'religion' share simlar views,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents?
They're going to have to learn how to deal with it, as it's slowly going to happen more and more. i like the way liberals say these things, as if our opinion means nothing.. real liberalish thinking there... as long as your right and everyone else is wrong, "we can just learn to deal with it"... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can American opponents of same-sex marriage tolerate living in a nation in which others are free to contradict the religious beliefs of those opponents?
They're going to have to learn how to deal with it, as it's slowly going to happen more and more. i like the way liberals say these things, as if our opinion means nothing.. real liberalish thinking there... as long as your right and everyone else is wrong, "we can just learn to deal with it"...
You can be against it all you want. That doesn't mean it's not going to be legalized just because you don't want that to happen. Are you so selfish that you want everyone to live by your rules? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, I do, socially speaking
if nothing is produced beyond our own happiness and self fulfilmment, it has nowhere near the significance of a relationship that produces another person that can influence the world, and who must have the immediate and social effort put into t hem to MOLD Them into that person,,, but since we cant play God and know for sure who will have children and who wont, the best we can do is uphold a special place for heterosexuals to commit ,,,,, repeating an assumption about why people disagree or agree with a lifestyle choice doesnt make it any more true people should stop assuming religion is the basis for values they dont agree with,, religion brings to light values that people ALREADY have,, and many who arent exposed to religion have similar views, and many who reject 'religion' share simlar views,,, Just because you provide a "special place" for heterosexuals to commit to each other does not mean that they will have children. Many heterosexual couples decide not to have children. Should they not be allowed to marry because of that? Should they not receive the same benefits as other married couples because they've chosen not to have children? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, I do, socially speaking
if nothing is produced beyond our own happiness and self fulfilmment, it has nowhere near the significance of a relationship that produces another person that can influence the world, and who must have the immediate and social effort put into t hem to MOLD Them into that person,,, but since we cant play God and know for sure who will have children and who wont, the best we can do is uphold a special place for heterosexuals to commit ,,,,, repeating an assumption about why people disagree or agree with a lifestyle choice doesnt make it any more true people should stop assuming religion is the basis for values they dont agree with,, religion brings to light values that people ALREADY have,, and many who arent exposed to religion have similar views, and many who reject 'religion' share simlar views,,, Just because you provide a "special place" for heterosexuals to commit to each other does not mean that they will have children. Many heterosexual couples decide not to have children. Should they not be allowed to marry because of that? Should they not receive the same benefits as other married couples because they've chosen not to have children? actually, because of the human ability to CHANGE THEIR MINDS, I dont feel intent to have children should qualify a heterosexual marriage I wouldnt mind seeing benefits being parentally based though , as opposed to 'marriage' based, to appease the whingers who scream discrimination although I do understand the importance of trying to encourage people who are having children together to publically and legally commmit,,,,, I would certainly support civil unions between consenting adults with no IMPLIED sexual element at all, just for the sake of the equal 'civil' rights I would support religion continuing to 'marry' the individuals they wish to and to support and uphold those marriages within their churches,,,, seperate the SEXUAL ACTIVITY, which indirectly results in government supported ACTIVITY,, and stick to the alleged 'civil' issues and I am in complete support mandating that the law view sodomy and respect sodomy and protect sodomy , the way it views, respects, protects heterosexual (procreation) activity, I do not support civil rights is not about sexual activities,,,have civil unions to address those rights,, dont mess with 'marriage' which does have an implied expectation for sexual activity,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
government, guidance, directing, support, are not four letter words
we are not close to making it illegal to be obese just because we place some guidelines on the products sold we are only close to having the government 'involved' in same sex relationships because people are trying to FORCE certain benefits and support from the government for their relationship choice til now, government has stayed out of same sex relationships, and we are not close to being a nation where those relationships are not permitted,, |
|
|
|
|
