Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[Yup!]

Because someone else asked why a father couldn't marry his daughter or some such nonsense, which I feel is a mockery of our situation. It doesn't matter what I say as it will be dissected to death and quite frankly this whole thing is exasperating. I would love to marry, or have a civil union, whatever keeps people's panties from getting in a bunch, my partner of 22 years. I don't mean to come off as an ass, because I think you are asking a genuine question. I'm just so tired of having my life and our relationship compared to and called "sinful" behavior.

And I still haven't received an answer. I do not ask to mock, I ask to understand.

100 years from now, if a father wants to marry his adult daughter, who he's been with for longer than 22 years, why would you want to prevent it?

100 years ago, no one even considered allowing gay marriage, so I'm trying to understand why it is you can't see 100 years from now someone asking the question, and wanting the same rights you are asking for now.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'll refrain from my speculation of what your response would be. I know why I'm against a father marrying his daughter, but I'm curious why you are.

 

[foszoe]

The question is, "Are there any religious organizations willing to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples, but whose free exercise of religion is thwarted by people freely exercising their religion to be against gays?"

So is the question, "Are there any religious organizations willing to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples, but whose (referring to the religious organization prefiously mentioned) free exercise of religion is thwarted by people freely exercising their religion to be against gay marriage who belong to another religious organization?"

If my understanding is correct, I don't know of any, perhaps you do?

My understanding is it's the government who says the organizations can or can't marry homosexual couples.

 

[Pooty22]

I'm done having this argument. It's just like gun rights. The anti's will always be anti's and the pros will always be pros.

 

[Yup!]

I'm done having this argument. It's just like gun rights. The anti's will always be anti's and the pros will always be pros.

You never had the argument.

 

[Pooty22]

I'm done with this thread . It's just like gun rights. The anti's will always be anti's and the pros will always be pros.

You never had the argument.

FIFY

 

[zebov]

I'm done having this argument. It's just like gun rights. The anti's will always be anti's and the pros will always be pros.

That's unfortunate, because I actually don't have an opinion formed on the matter of what a homosexual union ought to be called from a legal perspective ("marriage", "union", "contractual bondage" , etc.). Perhaps you too don't care what it's called (as with IndyGal65), but if you do, could you give a cogent argument for your side to help a fence-sitter like myself?

 

[Yup!]

I've actually flip flopped on the issue numerous times myself. I truly don't firmly know where I stand on it, but I also know, it's not an issue that will get me to the voting booth in November.

 

[foszoe]

Okay

Another quality post on the way to 50!

 

[IndyGal65]

And I still haven't received an answer. I do not ask to mock, I ask to understand.

100 years from now, if a father wants to marry his adult daughter, who he's been with for longer than 22 years, why would you want to prevent it?

100 years ago, no one even considered allowing gay marriage, so I'm trying to understand why it is you can't see 100 years from now someone asking the question, and wanting the same rights you are asking for now.

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'll refrain from my speculation of what your response would be. I know why I'm against a father marrying his daughter, but I'm curious why you are.

I simply do not equate incest with homosexuality, but I see what you are trying to ask. I know that one reason incest is not a good thing is due to possible birth defects, should that couple decide to have a child. My other opinions could be turned around to use against me, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[zebov]

I've actually flip flopped on the issue numerous times myself. I truly don't firmly know where I stand on it, but I also know, it's not an issue that will get me to the voting booth in November.

Aye, it's just about as far down the list as can be for me too, but it's starting to become one of those things you can't read the news without hearing about so I figure it's time for me to actually educate myself a little bit on what is actually being discussed. Sure do wish we had some sort of organization out there to provide good analysis of current events so I didn't have to spend hours upon hours researching a topic to come to an educated conclusion... something like "news" or "journalists," but alas, that is too much to ask these days.

 

[Pooty22]

Another quality post on the way to 50!

Calm down. I'm typing all of these responses on my phone. I hit the wrong button. If you've read any of my other posts you'd realize I don't care about getting how ever many posts it takes to do whatever.

 

[CathyInBlue]

My understanding is it's the government who says the organizations can or can't marry homosexual couples.

And it's the anti-gay marriage people, under the tissue thin guise of promoting "traditional" family values, who have laws passed by those governments.

And in answer to your query, Wikipedia :: Blessing of same-sex marriages and same-sex unions in Christian churches

And that's not even counting non-one-true-religion recognitions of same-sex marriages.

 

[Yup!]

I simply do not equate incest with homosexuality, but I see what you are trying to ask. I know that one reason incest is not a good thing is due to possible birth defects, should that couple decide to have a child. My other opinions could be turned around to use against me, so I'm not going to bother.

Well I will tell you why I think incest is wrong. I think, like you, children born into an incestual relationship have in increased risk of birth defects. However, birth defects are not the fault of the person, so I'll accept babies with birth defects into this world, and treat them equally. It's already happening, whether they the parents are married or not, so to me this argument is secondary to my real reason I'm opposed to it.

 

[GBuck]

I would love to hear a single, logical argument against allowing homosexual adults to marry that wasn't based on religion. "Adam was only given one choice..." "Marriage is an institution of God..." "My faith does not allow..." Are all fine and good for you, but you have no right to force that on anyone else. Seriously, how does two dudes getting hitched shape your marriage in any way?

And seriously, if you wanted to go with the, "the .gov shouldn't change a definition," argument, you should have never let them into the marriage business in the first place. Except, oh, wait, it was to your benefit to receive tax breaks. Everyone is fine with the .gov until it is something they don't agree with, regardless of what it does to others.

Oh, by the way, please define the word bolded in the following quote by Frank Sinatra...

This is a song about a couple of adult people who have spent, oh, quite a long time together, till one day, one of 'em gets restless and decides to leave. Whether it's the man or woman who left is unimportant. It's a breakup.

It's a lovely marriage of words and music, written by Stephen Sondheim.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I was in an honors course in undergrad school that delved into the question of Creationism vs. Evolution. (Cliff's Notes: Evolution is Science, Creationism is Religion, and never the twain shall meet.) An evangelical in the class claimed that it was kosher for all three primordial males, Adam, Cain, and Abel to procreate with the single primordial female, Eve, because they were so new and fresh out of the packing that there were no genetic defects in the human genome yet, so incest wasn't a taboo.

Still, that beggars the imagination how you could equate homosexuality and incest today, seeing as the possibility of generating a 2 headed, 6 armed, 12 toed baby in a modern homosexual union is the same as with Eve and her boys.

 

[Yup!]

FIFY

All I was saying was that you never argued. You came here, stated your opinion, then refused to hear or entertain the other side. That's not an argument.

 

[zebov]

I would love to hear a single, logical argument against allowing homosexual adults to marry that wasn't based on religion. "Adam was only given one choice..." "Marriage is an institution of God..." "My faith does not allow..." Are all fine and good for you, but you have no right to force that on anyone else. Seriously, how does two dudes getting hitched shape your marriage in any way?

And seriously, if you wanted to go with the, "the .gov shouldn't change a definition," argument, you should have never let them into the marriage business in the first place. Except, oh, wait, it was to your benefit to receive tax breaks. Everyone is fine with the .gov until it is something they don't agree with, regardless of what it does to others.

Oh, by the way, please define the word bolded in the following quote by Frank Sinatra...

If I understand your argument, you are saying that marriage is defined as it is due to tradition. You reject this tradition, which could very well be appropriate (the rejection, that is). What do you suggest marriage be defined as and why?

 

[IndyGal65]

Well I will tell you why I think incest is wrong. I think, like you, children born into an incestual relationship have in increased risk of birth defects. However, birth defects are not the fault of the person, so I'll accept babies with birth defects into this world, and treat them equally. It's already happening, whether they the parents are married or not, so to me this argument is secondary to my real reason I'm opposed to it.

Agreed...I meant nothing towards babies with birth defects, just that it could happen. So what is your real reason? After your response, I have to get some shut eye...I have lost all track of time and I have to get up at 5:30!

 

[sepe]

I would love to hear a single, logical argument against allowing homosexual adults to marry that wasn't based on religion. "Adam was only given one choice..." "Marriage is an institution of God..." "My faith does not allow..." Are all fine and good for you, but you have no right to force that on anyone else. Seriously, how does two dudes getting hitched shape your marriage in any way?

And seriously, if you wanted to go with the, "the .gov shouldn't change a definition," argument, you should have never let them into the marriage business in the first place. Except, oh, wait, it was to your benefit to receive tax breaks. Everyone is fine with the .gov until it is something they don't agree with, regardless of what it does to others.

Oh, by the way, please define the word bolded in the following quote by Frank Sinatra...

That damn Sinatra was probably just drunk when he said that. We all know that he was one of those heathens that did as he pleased.

 

[Yup!]

I was in an honors course in undergrad school that delved into the question of Creationism vs. Evolution. (Cliff's Notes: Evolution is Science, Creationism is Religion, and never the twain shall meet.) An evangelical in the class claimed that it was kosher for all three primordial males, Adam, Cain, and Abel to procreate with the single primordial female, Eve, because they were so new and fresh out of the packing that there were no genetic defects in the human genome yet, so incest wasn't a taboo.

Still, that beggars the imagination how you could equate homosexuality and incest today, seeing as the possibility of generating a 2 headed, 6 armed, 12 toed baby in a modern homosexual union is the same as with Eve and her boys.

I don't equate the acts in today's world, but society did 100 years ago, and I argue that society will again in another 100.