Why is fighting gay marriage such a big issue for many of you?

Actually, I was quite aware of that.

To put it another way: The definition of marriage in the US has remained constant throughout the 200-year-plus history of this country.

Well, until now, anyway...

I imagine no such thing.

But I do find it, well, utterly fascinating that you feel quite unable to advance your views in any logical manner; but must, instead, resort to ad hominem assaults upon those with whom you disagree...

 

How come in Turkey it's not prosectude?

 

What a friggin moron. So what if my best friend is gay? My cousin? Am I supposed to just not give a shet because some ignorant neanderthal can't get past the 1950's? PLEASE keep making this an issue. You're driving the Youth Vote, the Gay Vote, The Moderate Vote and the Above an IQ of 80 Vote, directly t the Dems....

 

Noooo. The word "marriage" came along in the English language at that time. The definition of a husband and wife comes from Latin word marītāri which goes back to BC Rome. Marriage defined as between a man and a woman goes back to ancient mesopotamia. In other words as far back as recorded history.

 

Give it time, for the official Statecraft to work in Turkey:

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of [Homo killers]." (Obama)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/turkey-free-speech-erdogan-crackdown


"026.165
YUSUFALI: "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
PICKTHAL: What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males,
SHAKIR: What! do you come to the males from among the creatures

026.166
YUSUFALI: "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
PICKTHAL: And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
SHAKIR: And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits..." http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/026-qmt.php#026.165

"Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done." http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/038-sat.php#038.4447

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html

 

Can you point out in these fictional, promotional books where they specifically talk about "gay marriage"?


But really, you all have answered the topic of the thread. It is a big issue based on religious beliefs and/or personal bigotry. The thread should be over once answered.

 

And could include multiple partners back then... it's wasn't strictly defined as "one man and one women" before the middle ages.

 

They're going down a dangerous path.

As another poster noted, it's got nothing to do with objective civil rights, rather, opposition is purely based on subjective interpretations of religion, and from subjective senses of the aesthetics of attraction.

Basically, they're saying they have the right to stick their noses into the lives of strangers, and tell those strangers what they can and cannot do between themselves with their lives.

What's next? If you don't like pistachio ice cream, then it should be banned and others should not be allowed to eat it?

If two guys want to legally combine their assets and liabilities as part of living and sleeping together, so what? That's their business. They'll find out for themselves what a tangle that is if they choose to separate.

And if it's a sin before God, then that's an issue between them and God - "Judgement is Mine saith the Lord" - it's NOT for some hick to decide how two people should live who are not hurting each other, not hating each other, not hurting their community, not hurting their country... they're *just* LOVING each other!

 

Yest it was. Its called multiple marriages. Each and every one of them between a man and a woman. A man with 4 wives doesnt have one marriage, he has four.

 

Why is fighting for gay marriage a big issue for those who are not gay? For the same reason that fighting for civil rights was a big issue for those whites who were not denied them. For the same reason people are motivated to help the poor even though they are not poor themselves. The reason is because many of us have something called empathy, and we can see the troubles of people outside of our own little worlds and do what we can to allow everyone to fully experience liberty and justice. A more just and free society is beneficial to us all.

 

Because upholding the constitution is a big issue. Cant just cast it aside whenever dealing with your favorite identity politics group of the day like LGBTers.

 

Can you prove this? I don't recall any of them mentioning same-sex marriage.

 

So we're back to the original question, then: How do you plan to stop them using it in a way you find disagreeable? Apparently your strategy is to whine about it.

I've been quite clear in stating what I think about it. If you think the meaning of words is static, rigid, very inflexible then you are misinformed.

Says the guy who in his next post complained about someone else arguing ad hominem, attributing the quoted post to me in error.

You are making an incorrect assumption. The purpose of language is communication, and that being true, it serves many contexts, a political-philosophy function being but one of them.

It all boils down to you wishing you could control other people's use of language, to make it conform to your worldview. But no one has any obligation to accommodate you in that.

 

I was restating the question of the thread. Why are you quoting me? I responded to the thread in the rest of my post, which you did not quote...

 

How can someone use Obama's words after the 9/11 tragedy "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence" and change it the above?

Is there no shame?

 

Gay marriage isn't a problem. It's immorality that is the problem. And homosexuality is a leading behavior in that category. And gay marriage would help to hide the truth of the two previous facts.

If gays think they are a protected group, I think they're wrong. If they want the rights of marriage I would oblige them those rights in a partnership called a 'union', which would not then be equal to the legitimacy (though with the same rights) of 'marriage'.

But that would be just my personal self thinking, "Gays are pretty messed up, but in a way, they can't do better right now, so maybe giving them rights which they don't have by the Constitution might be a necessary and merciful thing to do at this point in history".

 

Is there no shame?? You're asking that of a guy who thinks it's cool to boink another guy in the bozo?

Ha ha ha. THAT'S what I call 'no shame'.

- - - Updated - - -

They don't have to. If you don't support homosexuality (which they DO say), then they obviously don't support homosexual marriage.



P.S. Pardy, why couldn't you figure that out for yourself?

 

Not true of course. "he word marriage is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. That definition easily fits gay marriage as the person getting married is provided with a husband or wife.Etymology is your friend."

 

Liberalis

Those are our reasons. The thread asks why it is a big deal for those against gay marriage.

 

Gay marriage is not against the Constitution but against your religious beliefs or your bigotry.

 

I didn't know DivineComedy thought it was cool.

They don't have to. If you don't support homosexuality (which they DO say), then they obviously don't support homosexual marriage.

See, they claimed that gay marriage was in those documents. Pardy asked for proof.

 

As a libertarian conservative I have to say that I don't approve of gay marriage but I also don't approve of people being denied equality. The truth is marriage is a cultural institution and has no place in government OTHER than to protect property rights. When I married my wife I swore an oath to her and to god. The only interaction with the government was to sign a piece of paper and pay a tax. I also believe this is a dual liberties violation. On one hand I totally understand the views of many Christians (I am a devout Christian myself) that marriage in America is largely a religious institution and therefore sacred. they have a right to protect it or at the very least not see it trampled on by the govt. On the other hand homoseuxals deserve the same rights as everyone else. If the state is going to regulate and provide marriages then they should do it for everyone. There ARE legitimate points on both sides. Liberals who hate Christians disregard their views of the faith and couldn't care less about trampling their rights. many of them look forward to it. Christians by in large want to inject their faith into government which IMO is a mistake but that is the cause for their opposition. Other groups have various issues regarding this debate such as adoption ect ect. All issues are relevant and make some genuine points.

The answer for this is very simple. WE have to remove the government from these cultural institutions. This country is governed by law not by whims of politicians (or at least it should be.) The purpose of government in marriage is property rights. We should encourage states to shift to civil union contracts which would protect the property rights of the couple in the event they decide to split up. these contracts can be varied in nature. They do not need to qualify a person for anything other than that protection.

Second we need to eliminate the progressive income tax. It's a ridiculous concept anyways. It allows politicians to morph and shape society through the tax code. Politicians are morons and the least moral people on the face of the Earth. Republicans get their hands on the tax code and they lower upper income taxes and provide breaks and subsidies for their little pet projects. Among these have been various marriage taxes ect. Push for some type of fair or flat tax and we immediately eliminate 90% of the corruption in Washington and simultaneously solve most of the issues regarding marriage.

That allows Marriage to be a cultural institution. That allows churches to protect the sacred institution upon which they seal a man and woman together while at the same time providing equality to everyone who seeks to form a union. Problem solved.

 

No, you limited the question to "those who are not gay". You gave your answers. I gave you mine.

 

If you read the OP, you would realize that the question is directed to "those who are not gay." My questions was no different.

 

Liberalis, you keep missing "fighting gay marriage" not about "fighting FOR gay marriage". I agree with your post but the homophobes just can't explain why they find gay marriage is a big issue.