Some people are gay, whether you like it or not, and trying to gain some support for monogomous relationships. So why do you fight against monogamy by fighting marriage? Would you prefer they slept around more? Nobody's going to stop having sex, so now you're forcing it to be out of wedlock. Does that really support your moral system?
And if you think marriage was invented by your religion, it may interest you to know that the Ancient Greeks married, 400 B.C.E. So the idea that it was "God's" idea doesn't hold water.
2007-03-20 03:22:33 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Who is this "we" you talk about?
Marriage is a church sacrement, and governments should stay out of trying to define it.
Conversely, government and employee benefits are government and employer business, and churches should stay out of *that*.
BTW...God predates your 400 BCE Greek fetish.
2007-03-20 06:11:19 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
so what if the Greeks married in 400 BC? Did you know that marriage was around thousands of years before that? That is a pretty dumb argument & reasoning. If you are going to quote facts in a discussion, make sure you know what you are talking about 1st. Or at least something you heard about & not just make up a number that only you think sounds impressive.
As far as legalizing gay marriage, even the hard core pro-gay candidates are against it. They will accept a union of sorts, but not marriage.
2007-03-20 03:45:41 · answer #2 · answered by ricks 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I like the first ammendment. It's great. It says that Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion- among other things. If you advocate that Congress pass a law that infringes on the Judeo-Christian religion- forcing them to recognize and accept that which they've been forbidden, you've lost sight of that ammendment, haven't you? Gay people should get married if they want to. Just not in a church that forbids it. And if, as an employer, my religious beliefs prohibit my acceptance of homosexuality, should I then be forced to disregard those religious beliefs.
See, you tried to make it seem all simple, cut, and dry. But it isn't. There are serious issues here.
Oh, and Jews were around a couple thousand years before 400 B.C. You know Jews, right? Their faith is one half of the Judeo-Christian idea.
2007-03-20 03:34:32 · answer #3 · answered by Tom Jr 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Marriage is, in reality, man and woman. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. The things that homos and lesbos do with each other is rather immoral. Does it make it any more moral because it's called a "marriage?" Doubt it.
Immoral people can do with they want behind their own closed doors. But now that they are trying to force their agenda on a moral public, they've opened their own can of worms and are asking for a fight. There's still enough good and decent people that will not stand for it.
2007-03-20 03:31:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sorry there Skippy...I am going to use one of YOUR own type arguments against you....the Marriage was and always has been a man woman thing even back to that 400 BC ...so why are you trying to redefine it...
I am not against committed relationships....I AM against gay marriage...as I said marriage is one man+one woman
I am looking to have a new term for a new recognized relationship
Why not try...Civil Union....give it all of the ....ups and DOWNS..good and bad parts of a marriage...just don't call it that..you will find more of us willing to accept that rather than trying to ram your ideals down our throats..if you agree to compromise you win all of the rights...and a term for your special relationship...you try and do that..if you don't .I and people like me will fight so you get nothing...got the idea...
2007-03-20 03:37:30 · answer #5 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Neither. One ought to inspire celibacy exterior of marriage, whether one is gay or as we talk. Marriage is the ony perfect relationship wherein sexual relatives might nicely be expressed. gay marriage is a contradiction in words, as marriage is a union of a guy and woman. It grow to be the comparable in Greece in 4 hundred BCE as that's as we talk.
2016-10-02 10:53:34 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Live your own life as morally and Godly as you can, and mind your own business. What people do behind closed doors is their business so long as they harm no one it's a non issue.
Meanwhile back at the ranch the Bush administration has destroyed the American industrial base, pushed the domestic economy to third world service economy status in that global market these thieves keep yappig about and has the U.S. on the brink of World War 3 against an EU backed Iran in the Middle East. IN GOD WE TRUST had better hold water it's all we got.
2007-03-20 03:30:59 · answer #7 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If it were up to some, the government wouldn't be involved in anything!! However, I do believe that the government, state and federal, should stay out of intimate relationships, be it man/woman or man/man. The government has no right to tell someone who they can or cant have a relationship with, therefore, the government should have no say in who an individual can commit to under oath.
2007-03-20 03:34:12 · answer #8 · answered by panthrchic 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Marriage does not equal monogamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Not now, not ever.
We, as a "christian" nation would like to think that christian concepts of morality are the same concepts of law and justice.
"A" does not necessarily equal "B".
I do not think that the government has a constitutional authority to legislate morality. Whatever you believe moratlity to be.
If one persons actions do not violate anothers person's rights, then the government has nothing to do with it. Period.
2007-03-20 03:40:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
God was around a long time before 400 b.c. What a foolish statement!
The answer is neither.
2007-03-20 03:41:39 · answer #10 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋