Quote:

---

Syle said:
but it's not a civil rights issue, don't you see?

---

Quote:

---

Personally I am for the rights of homosexual unions so that they equate the same thing as a man-woman marriage, but I am not about to start redefining a WORD.

---

Quote:

---

I mean, why don't we just start calling dogs cats while we are at it...that is the point being made.

---

This argument has no bearing and I will show you why.

Lets say the government decided that cats were moral and dogs were immoral. So Obama puts together a national hit force to go to every house to execute every dog and then fine dog owners for their immorality. And then he also sent big fat stimulus checks to every cat owner in America. Then your cat dog point might have some bearing. But as it stands, the implication of excluding same sex couples from marriage has massive negative results for those couples in particular but for our society as a whole as it sets a precedent in which the government denies us access to our own rights because it has decided what is morally appropriate, based on archaic "religious traditions." "To protect our children from their own freedom to develop their own sexuality and be happy and free!"

Quote:

---

Syle said:
I am not about to start redefining a WORD.

It's a simple technical definition thing.

---

Quote:

---

zappaisgod said:
If you would, please quote me the passage in the Constitution that grants the government any involvement in the marriage question at all.  Thank you.  Since the Constitution is silent on this issue perhaps it should be left to the people to decide.

---

Tenth amendment 


Also the necessary and proper clause for federal tax purposes


Whether it should be left to the people as opposed to the state is a different question.  The fact is the states have the right to provide for marriage and they do.  They do not have the right to deny it on the basis of sex, which they also do.

Therefore in its present form in most states it is illegal.


Gluke took the words out of my mouth.  I'm sick of people ignoring the legal argument.  At least the marraige amendment folks are trying to do things legally.



Zappa, you can argue it shouldn't be a government issue all you want but this is irrelevant.  I agree with you but it is legal for the states to have marriage and they do.  They cannot discriminate, and from a policy perspective they shouldn't, either.



I have little sympathy for these folks that maintain it should be called "marriage" when a government grants a license to a couple and then bitch about "marriage" being redefined.  You can't have it both way folks, either government stays out of it, uses a more neutral name like union or just recognizes contracts, or you get marriage licenses available to everyone equally.  You can't demand the government still "marry" you  and then whine that they're doing it wrong when they follow the law.


For the life of me I can't understand the christian objections anyways.  Who thought we were living in a theocracy?  Did they think when the clerk issues the license after you pay your fee that jesus signs on the dotted line?  What did they think was going on here?  It's just a government form, the jews don't get pissy when catering licenses are given to people that aren't serving kosher food.  "Oh my god!  Moses said the law is to not eat pork!  They're eating pork against god's will!  Stop the government from licensing that establishment!!!!"

or

"They're trying to redefine food!  That's not food, moses God didn't give us that to eat!  They are trying to change over 2000 years of history by licensing that establishment to serve "food" "


The tyranny of the majority...

Quote:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

---

Syle said:
I am not about to start redefining a WORD.

It's a simple technical definition thing.

---

Ok, what IS the definition of marriage?  According to the bible, Abraham had three wives, so polygamy must be part of whatever definition you come up with, right?

---

Quote:

---

Syle said:

Quote:

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Quote:

---

Syle said:
I am not about to start redefining a WORD.

It's a simple technical definition thing.

---

Ok, what IS the definition of marriage?  According to the bible, Abraham had three wives, so polygamy must be part of whatever definition you come up with, right?

---

marriage as it's defined and known to our society today. i am not religious nor do i let religious doctrine lead my life.

---

Whether you are religious or not is irrelevant; the story originated thousands of years ago, so polygamy clearly existed back then.

Now you're saying "marriage as it's defined and known to our society today".

If the definition (which hasn't been stated yet) changes, then that definition becomes what's defined and known to our society today. 

Quote:

---

learningtofly said:
Marriage predates religion

---

Quote:

---

learningtofly said:
Either you use the original, which predates religion. Or you use the present day one as it is generally known, which is between a man and a woman.

---

Quote:

---

Syle said:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/fe89f7c4-c4be-4a69-a36a-f59dfa2e490e?comments=true&commentsSortDirection=Descending

I think Dennis Prager makes some fantastic points here. He is obviously not a homophobic person, and I feel actually very well articulates his position on the issue at hand. I particularly enjoy how Prager makes the obvious distinction between male/female vs white/black.

What are some of your thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Syle said:


marriage as it's defined and known to our society today.

---

Quote:

---

learningtofly said:
Marriage predates religion, so using a religious definition is pointless if you are trying to make the opposing view look stupid.

Either you use the original, which predates religion. Or you use the present day one as it is generally known, which is between a man and a woman. You cant just pick some arbitrary definition that we all know to be stupid.

---