by trying to keep homosexuals from marrying....shouldnt they concentrate on keeping the divorce rate down among heterosexuals?
2006-09-01 07:09:14 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Coragryph (in a rare instance indeed) is wrong.
It is not a semantic question (although it can be couched as such).
The question is what kind of relationship does the state regulate and provide rights for.
The only rights involved in a marriage are: right to a judicial dissolution (e.g., divorce), child custody and placement issues; and estate law (what happens to property with and without a will).
One group says (see above) that it is not a marriage if it is two people of the same sex. Their basis -- the Bible. So, please do not believe it is not a religious question.
Another group says - what is the purpose for marriage? If for children, then all married people who cannot have children (infertility or age) should be stripped of their rights as married couples. If, however, it is to promote social bonds and provide for rights and remedies, then the gender of the partners does not make a difference.
This is why I support a change in state laws so that no state recognizes marriage (let that debate go back to the churches), and instead ONLY recognize civil unions. A marriage (in traditional sense) would be included as a civil union, as would a non-traditional "marriage." Then, the churches who argue about what is a marriage (and, by the way, what about those who believe that you cannot divorce, is a second marriage a marriage?), but there would be no dispute over civil union.
Those in support of traditional marriage still can have a traditional marriage, and that would be a recognized union. But they would not be able to dictate to others what an "appropriate" marriage is, for the term would be left to the secular community, with the legal community only concerned with the civil union -- all of which would receive the rights, obligations, and remedies existing under the law.
2006-09-01 07:37:58 · answer #1 · answered by robert_dod 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your level of contentment has nothing to do with being or not being saved. It is a matter of what your future will be. Christians pray for all to be saved because they believe that God loves all his children equally. You should be glad that another human being actually cares what happens to you. I do understand however why you might feel the way you do. Christians can sometimes be very condemning to those who do not believe in Christ. They judge...and we are not to do that. All we can do is make sure you have heard the word of God and Christ and show ourselves as an example of what God/Christ has done in our own lives. If our life is not a good example...why would anyone else ever want to be like us? I am not talking about being sin free. We are not free from sin. We make mistakes just like anyone else. What we do have however is a deep trust in our hearts that God will continue to love us regardless of the mistakes we make. That trust is what we must try to teach others.
2016-03-17 06:09:23 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have yet to understand why we need a marriage amendment. Gay marriage is not taking away the right or privileges of those who are already married. Why do they fear the loss of their marriage. Yes deal with issue of divorce oh I guess Republicans are not gay or get divorce.
This is attempt by the right wing Republicans to divert from the real issues like the economy, failed war, political corruption, gas prices and the environment.
They use the gay marriage to throw fear in to the public.
2006-09-01 09:41:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
marriage is just the part of love that the state can see.
we should not be in the business of choosing other people's loves. i am glad to live in a time when my father couldn't simply sell me to someone. i cannot deny something that has brought me so much joy to anyone who wishes share it.
divorces are sad, but we pay too much attention to weddings and the other pieces of love that leave papers and records. we should all simply think very hard about the teams we pick for ourselves, but mistakes happen and you shouldn't ever be trapped in misery with someone. it is hard to be married, but it is the relationship that is important... not the papers and not the "failures". love is sacred, but it lends no sanctity to marriages that aren't held sacred by the people who are joined by them.
2006-09-01 07:17:01 · answer #4 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spirit Walker Neither are breeders. I agree the divorce rate should be talked about if they want to fly with that agenda. Some straight conservatives are absolute bastards who have no touch with reality.
2006-09-01 07:13:22 · answer #5 · answered by Karrien Sim Peters 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You miss the point.
It's not about saving or protecting the 'institution' of marriage.
It's only about saving the 'definition' of marriage. This is not a religious or cultural debate, it's a linguistic-semantic one.
2006-09-01 07:23:48 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Divorce should be illegal right along with gay marriage. But seriously, get rid of benefits for ALL marriages, and watch the marriage (and divorce) rate go down...
2006-09-01 07:17:20 · answer #7 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree!
2006-09-01 07:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the right winger clam the Democrat are for gay marriage but thy believe it should up to the state I don't understand the big fight
2006-09-01 07:13:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a many sided problem, but queers living together is NOT marriage. Lev 20:13
2006-09-01 07:11:19 · answer #10 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 0⤊ 5⤋