There can be no marriage between same-sex partners. To indicate otherwise is pretty ignorant of what 'marriage' is, and condones a destructive lifestyle. Leaving all biblical references to homosexuality out of it, a simple viewing of 'the AIDS quilt' is a demonstrable indicator of what marriage never is, was, or could be. For purposes of legality, there are 'civil unions' which bestow all the same legal rights and responsibilities to 'partners' which are enjoyed by "married' people. To elevate abomination to the same status as the sacrament of 'marriage' demeans it.
I do not care if they love each other...their love is misguided. Because I love my dog, don't mean I want to marry him.
I do not believe the quest of 'marriage' legitimacy is spurred by the desire for legal rights. Civil unions can be made to be
identical to marriage....it's just not marriage, which is only between a man and a woman. I will never ever support this effort
to legitimize and mainstream gay life...in fact, I will support any and all efforts to REMOVE rights from these people as long as they assume that my marriage received as a sacrament is the same as gay coupling. Those who would argue otherwise are ignorant and seek to make something which is good, and proper, and natural and blessed into something less. This I will oppose.
They have the same right to get married as anybody else. I just wonder why they would want to since they are gay.
C. Davis
The same reason as a straight couple i.e. they love each other.
They don't have the same rights. Their "civil union", if any, doesn't entail the same rights, and those who oppose have this petty argument that marriage can only be defined between a man and a woman.
Quote:
Yes it does. It demeans the real marriage that my husband and I have.
The same reason as a straight couple i.e. they love each other.
Good for them, now leave the private life in the bedroom where it belongs.
I have no need to know if another person is gay or straight, and they have no need to tell me.
Quote:
They don't have the same rights. Their "civil union", if any, doesn't entail the same rights, and those who oppose have this petty argument that marriage can only be defined between a man and a woman.
The Constitution grants all citizens equals rights and protections under the law. Or did you miss that part. Here's a link to it. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
Civil unions should not have the same rights as a marriage, since they are not a marriage.
If gays want the same rights, they need to take it up with the state in which they reside, not the Federal Gov.
Second, marriage is between a man and a woman, civil unions are between two consenting adults of the same sex. T
hey are not the same, were never intended to be the same and thus do not convey the same rights or responsibilities.
Quote:
How does it demean it?
The effeminate sheep say hello.
It demeans it by telling all others that, what one has, can be had by others who are unwilling to put forth the effort.
Butt feel entitled to those same benefits.
There can be no marriage between same-sex partners. To indicate otherwise is pretty ignorant of what 'marriage' is, and condones a destructive lifestyle. Leaving all biblical references to homosexuality out of it, a simple viewing of 'the AIDS quilt' is a demonstrable indicator of what marriage never is, was, or could be.
How is it destructive? Gay couples make more on average than straight couples, for one. AIDS has nothing to do with lesbians or gay men.
You're reading it wrong.
Roman law of the time defined natural eunuchs as whole, capable of having sex, and not diseased or deformed. They were allowed to marry and adopt children. Eunuchs resulting from castration or deformity were not. The only distinction between natural eunuchs and "normal" men is that they were unable to procreate with women -- thus they were considered "eunuchs."
A common argument is that it was about undescended/deformed testicles.
Undescended testicles were not called natural eunuchs by Roman law. Even Clement and Josephus talk about the fact that "natural" eunuchs are able to have sex but that the spirit is unwilling.
There was a law in Rome that if someone was suspected of being a "natural" eunuch, he was tested by the best prostitutes in the land via attempting to arouse him. That would not be necessary if we were talking about undescended testicles.
The Constitution grants all citizens equals rights and protections under the law. Or did you miss that part. Here's a link to it. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html
Civil unions should not have the same rights as a marriage, since they are not a marriage.
If gays want the same rights, they need to take it up with the state in which they reside, not the Federal Gov.
Don't be obtuse. Gays are protected via the Constitution on the federal (5th Amendment) and state level (14th Amendment used for Roe vs. Wade). It's just a matter of throwing religion out of the picture, which will happen at some point in the future.
Quote:
It demeans it by telling all others that, what one has, can be had by others who are unwilling to put forth the effort.
Butt feel entitled to those same benefits.
They may have the right to get married, but I have the right to refuse to officiate that ceremony! I will not marry two men or two women; that would be against the law of God! I have even declined to marry men and women of different faiths that is my option.
I could care less if a man wanted to marry his dog; which I’m sure will be the next thing those that condone gay marriages will approve of. It’s sick and wrong, but look around we are going to H3ll in a hand basket!
Gay Marriage/Rights
