Ok guys lets go for it, lets take religion completely out of government. Why shouldn't gays get married? I mean they love each other right? why stop there.. we should let brothers marry brothers, moms marry their kids sisters marry sisters and since we have now equipped dolphins and chimpanzees with communication devices, why not if you want to make dolphin love wanna marry a dolphin? go for it! why not? I mean there is no religious holy roller bible thumper telling you you can't? Why not? If they "love each other " why deny them the right to have equal rights to do so?
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
And then there's the fact that we've already applied those arguments. I mean those very dangerous arguments were the ones that allowed black people to marry white people. And we all know what that led to. Look, one of those uppity children is running for President.
Why yes, it's terrible that we've changed the definition of marriage over the years. It needs to go back to its original definition - a white Christian male takes a white christian female as his property.
I don;t get why anyone wants to get married .. But hey that is just me to each his own. So we should then allow for anyone who wants to share these benefits to partake in it including marriages in same family and not exclude them just as same sex marriages were excluded. We need to include everyone who wants to get married this time so we can get it right rather than picking and choosing who this right belongs to. Who do we think we are God? LMAO wait Jesus wasn't white remember? hahahah! too funny
Mccain will probably drop dead within his 4 year term. Then we will DEF. have another bush president, this time Female. All Palin is is a milf, LOL. She was on SNL which was surprising....
Anyways, I don't understand it either. They talk about this country is so free, lol....ye...free alright. Nothing is free anymore. We can't do many things in this country. Sure we are free to an extent but so are other countries like England for example and Canada. Please Obama get in office so we won't have more Bullshit for the next 4-8 years, lol.
Ohh yes just what we need More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
Oh come on, LOL. I can't believe people actually take that shit seriously. They also said that Palin is Princess Diana's distant cousin. All of that is gabage and I don't pay attention to it.
It's funny Colin Powell who...wow is so republican...wow?....is actually going for Obama. I know he's not racist either. He's doing it because he knows this country needs change and Mccain will not bring change. Mccain is an idiot and for you to even post that idiotic picture of Obama being related to Bush, LOL. I don't care what the news feeds you, haha. Obama will be nothing like Bush.
Other researchers discovered Obama is distant cousins with actor Brad Pitt. LOLOLOL said another news post from a site I just read from google....see it's all retarded bullcrap.
Mccain will probably drop dead within his 4 year term. Then we will DEF. have another bush president, this time Female. All Palin is is a milf, LOL. She was on SNL which was surprising....
Anyways, I don't understand it either. They talk about this country is so free, lol....ye...free alright. Nothing is free anymore. We can't do many things in this country. Sure we are free to an extent but so are other countries like England for example and Canada. Please Obama get in office so we won't have more Bullshit for the next 4-8 years, lol.
Ohh yes just what we need More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
Oh come on, LOL. I can't believe people actually take that shit seriously. They also said that Palin is Princess Diana's distant cousin. All of that is gabage and I don't pay attention to it.
It's funny Colin Powell who...wow is so republican...wow?....is actually going for Obama. I know he's not racist either. He's doing it because he knows this country needs change and Mccain will not bring change. Mccain is an idiot and for you to even post that idiotic picture of Obama being related to Bush, LOL. I don't care what the news feeds you, haha. Obama will be nothing like Bush.
Other researchers discovered Obama is distant cousins with actor Brad Pitt. LOLOLOL said another news post from a site I just read from google....see it's all retarded bullcrap.
DNA doesn't lie. LOL! Um no it is not bullcrap, factcheck.org has documented this as fact. Both Obama and cheney have confirmed this silly. YUP they are all cousins hahah
Republicans will stay out of peoples buisness when democrats get out of peoples wallets.
Now while I don't like gay marriage they need a 3/4 majority of the states to ban it, and that ain't gonna happen.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Republicans will stay out of peoples buisness when democrats get out of peoples wallets.
LMAO...wow...ok I'm done even replying here. I'm sick of republicans and democrats going back and forth and finger pointing. Politics has to be the most retarded thing our country has going. It was funny, at Obama's speech last saturday down the road (3 blocks from my house) 11 cars tires were slashed. Guess he found out he was south and they hate him down here, bunch of racist pricks or some military guy who wants to keep his big bonuses rolling in. I live in a Military town eh.
I'm white btw, and I am going for Obama. He'll bring change. Mccain won't. I'm done replying to this retarded off topic bullcrap. All in all to the OP, politicians need to stay out of gay marriage and let them do what they want and they need to let people have faith in what they believe in. Problem with Palin is she is trying to bring Christianity into the politician field by banning gay marriage, lol. I'm done replying. Fuck Politics.
Republicans will stay out of peoples buisness when democrats get out of peoples wallets. Now while I don't like gay marriage they need a 3/4 majority of the states to ban it, and that ain't gonna happen.
they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
Originally posted by deviliscious I don;t get why anyone wants to get married .. But hey that is just me to each his own. So we should then allow for anyone who wants to share these benefits to partake in it including marriages in same family and not exclude them just as same sex marriages were excluded. We need to include everyone who wants to get married this time so we can get it right rather than picking and choosing who this right belongs to. Who do we think we are God? LMAO wait Jesus wasn't white remember? hahahah! too funny
I know. Those uppity blacks marrying white women caused all sorts of horrible things.
Who are we to question God? Church says they're not human. Church said they didn't have souls. Lets listen to God's will today!
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
I know. Those uppity blacks marrying white women caused all sorts of horrible things. Who are we to question God? Church says they're not human. Church said they didn't have souls. Lets listen to God's will today!
I still have no clue why you bring up race.. I mean most people have mixed families these days so it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense. The whole point of marriage is for reproduction , sure there are cases where people cannot bear children after they got married, but their physical problems are not a reason to justify everyone doing it. where does the church say that? I have no idea what you are talking about. I am just saying that if we allow for same sex marriages we should not exclude everyone else that wants to get married to, otherwise you are being just as judgemental about their rigths as these bible thumpoers about gay rights.. it IS all the same thing. Race has nothing to do with sex so I have no idea why you focus on race so much. Does that really bother you so much that you can't think about people without referring to how dark their tan is? that is pretty sad..
Originally posted by deviliscious they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
No they shouldn't, the states should not have the right to take away the rights of homosexual people nor should Congress.
I am going to use some of your reasoning here.
If the States have the right to ban same sex marriage then why not interracial marriage or prevent the marriage of people from different social classes.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Republicans will stay out of peoples buisness when democrats get out of peoples wallets. Now while I don't like gay marriage they need a 3/4 majority of the states to ban it, and that ain't gonna happen.
they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
Well it would be a states vote if I am right on this. The houses would pass the bill then 3/4 of the states legislators would have to pass it. Now that could just be admendments to the constituion but I think they could do a that too though it might have to be a admendment.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Originally posted by deviliscious they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
No they shouldn't, the states should not have the right to take away the rights of homosexual people nor should Congress.
I am going to use some of your reasoning here.
If the States have the right to ban same sex marriage then why not interracial marriage or prevent the marriage of people from different social classes.
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. That is a "preference" not a born condition. Marriage as defined by the church is the "combining of a man and a woman to become one in the eyes of God, they become a single entity a bridesgroom in the eyes of God" well every other choice of sexual preference cannot do that from what the church says, so why would they want to?
I mean If it is just partnership rights they want I say let them have it, but it should be determined by the state, if people in that state disagree to it they can move to a state that agrees to it. Why exclude mothers from marrying daughters? why exclude brothers from marrying brothers? Why exclude sisters from marrying sisters? IF we allow for same sex marriages should we not also allow for these consenting adults to do as they wish? IT is the same thing, what you propose is to discriminate against those relationships but allow for same sex relationships. Why should the others who want to get married to also be excluded from these "benefits?" How much money someone has or how dark their tan here is not in question, whether or not their sex is capable for reproduction is.
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. Can you choose whom you love? If you can then stop loving whoever you do and if you are sexualy attracted to them choose not to be. If you are thinking, "thats stupid" well that is my point. That is a "preference" not a born condition. Marriage as defined by the church is the "combining of a man and a woman to become one in the eyes of God, they become a single entity a bridesgroom in the eyes of God" well every other choice of sexual preference cannot do that from what the church says, so why would they want to? The only law that matters in our country is that of the Constituion, Bill of Rights and the amendments, so it does not matter how marriage is defined by the church. However marriage is different than a civil union in the eyes of the law. Civil unions only exist in Vermount, New Jersey and Connecticut, other states do not have to recognize civil unions, marriage they do however. I mean If it is just partnership rights they want I say let them have it, but it should be determined by the state, All marriage is determined by the state, try getting a church ceremony done without a marriage license then try to jointly file taxes. Do you just have something against it being called a marriage, because at this point it is semantics. if people in that state disagree to it they can move to a state that agrees to it. That is a very expensive way to get married, why should they have to move to recieve equal treatment under law? Why exclude mothers from marrying daughters? why exclude brothers from marrying brothers? Why exclude sisters from marrying sisters? IF we allow for same sex marriages should we not also allow for these consenting adults to do as they wish? IT is the same thing, what you propose is to discriminate against those relationships but allow for same sex relationships. Actually no I am all for people marrying their relatives if it is consentual. Why should the others who want to get married to also be excluded from these "benefits?" How much money someone has or how dark their tan here is not in question, whether or not their sex is capable for reproduction is. Why does it matter if they can reproduce or not? The purpose of marriage is not reproduction, marriage's purpose is a personal matter, marriage is a legal contract that entails joint ownership of property and joint responsibility of children if you have them, the reasons for entering in this contract is up to the individual and you can reproduce just fine without being married.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. Can you choose whom you love? If you can then stop loving whoever you do and if you are sexualy attracted to them choose not to be. If you are thinking, "thats stupid" well that is my point. Yes you can choose who you love, and some people do not even ahve the capacity to love. JUst because I kiss a girl does not mean I am a lesbian. All of that is silly. Yes it is totally a choice. SOme people like leather it turns them on, some like fur, some like both...it's all the same. That is a "preference" not a born condition. Marriage as defined by the church is the "combining of a man and a woman to become one in the eyes of God, they become a single entity a bridesgroom in the eyes of God" well every other choice of sexual preference cannot do that from what the church says, so why would they want to? The only law that matters in our country is that of the Constituion, Bill of Rights and the amendments, so it does not matter how marriage is defined by the church. However marriage is different than a civil union in the eyes of the law. Civil unions only exist in Vermount, New Jersey and Connecticut, other states do not have to recognize civil unions, marriage they do however. It should be the states choice to accept and not accept this. Not impose laws that force states to accept this when clearly the voters who voted the people into office that oppose this do not accept this, all this asks for is civil war. I mean If it is just partnership rights they want I say let them have it, but it should be determined by the state, All marriage is determined by the state, try getting a church ceremony done without a marriage license then try to jointly file taxes. Do you just have something against it being called a marriage, because at this point it is semantics. I think anyone who wants to jointly file taxes should be able to, though I do not think they should get a tax break from doing so unless the other person is a dependant. Taking care of your sick mother , you can claim her as a dependant, this should be no different. if people in that state disagree to it they can move to a state that agrees to it. That is a very expensive way to get married, why should they have to move to recieve equal treatment under law? State laws vary on alot of things, why should marriage be any different , I mean why should prices on houses be any differnt in texas than california? this is not an issue of money this is an issue of states being controlled by the people who live there and not being controlled by people who do not. If they don't agree with the majority of people in their state feel free to get enough people in that state to vote them out of office, if you do not have enough people to do that in your state move to one that does. That is how democracy works. Why exclude mothers from marrying daughters? why exclude brothers from marrying brothers? Why exclude sisters from marrying sisters? IF we allow for same sex marriages should we not also allow for these consenting adults to do as they wish? IT is the same thing, what you propose is to discriminate against those relationships but allow for same sex relationships. Actually no I am all for people marrying their relatives if it is consentual. so if you gfelt like marrying your mom you should be able to? Why should the others who want to get married to also be excluded from these "benefits?" How much money someone has or how dark their tan here is not in question, whether or not their sex is capable for reproduction is. Why does it matter if they can reproduce or not? The purpose of marriage is not reproduction, marriage's purpose is a personal matter, marriage is a legal contract that entails joint ownership of property and joint responsibility of children if you have them, the reasons for entering in this contract is up to the individual and you can reproduce just fine without being married.
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices? I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
Yes you can choose who you love, and some people do not even ahve the capacity to love. JUst because I kiss a girl does not mean I am a lesbian. All of that is silly. Yes it is totally a choice. SOme people like leather it turns them on, some like fur, some like both...it's all the same. No actions does not equal desire but there is a problem with grouping orientations with kinks. Being heterosexual isn't a choice of course you are born that way. Prefering leather or something of the like is a kink and is developed as a pychological attraction. You don't have much choice in the matter but you could change your kink, your orientation, not so much. Also why does it matter if homosexuality is a choice or not?
It should be the states choice to accept and not accept this. Not impose laws that force states to accept this when clearly the voters who voted the people into office that oppose this do not accept this, all this asks for is civil war. And I think it is more important to protect people's right of equal treatment under law, no matter how much people protest. It is not so much imposing law as it is keeping the state and federal governments from stripping rights away from people. If people want to suceed over this issue then maybe it is for the best they harbour very unamerican ideas anyway.
I think anyone who wants to jointly file taxes should be able to, though I do not think they should get a tax break from doing so unless the other person is a dependant. Taking care of your sick mother , you can claim her as a dependant, this should be no different. I agree
State laws vary on alot of things, why should marriage be any different , I mean why should prices on houses be any differnt in texas than california? this is not an issue of money this is an issue of states being controlled by the people who live there and not being controlled by people who do not. If they don't agree with the majority of people in their state feel free to get enough people in that state to vote them out of office, if you do not have enough people to do that in your state move to one that does. That is how democracy works. We don't just live in a democracy where majority wins, we have a constitution and bill of rights that superceed the whims of the majority. This is an issue of people being controlled by the majority, trying to discriminate against them and bar them from participating in a public contract. When it comes to civil rights the state should have no say to it, it should be granted to all people regardless.
so if you gfelt like marrying your mom you should be able to? Yes as should anyone
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices?
This isn't really about religion, they do not want laws to force religions to perform marriage rituals for them, they just want the same abilities as hetero married couples have. Believe it not marriage isn't the creation of religion, it is a societal concept. So if churches want to hate homosexuals and marry to fornicate then fine have fun with that but that isn't the only purpose and concept of marriage and it should not have any effect over peoples legal abilities.
I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
I agree, but then there is the issue of wills and visitation still which comes with marriage, abilities that same sex couples still don't have.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
...it is considered a "Separate but Equal" clause, even with Partnerships and Marriage being identical for legal purposes.
Can't understand why anyone would call that the exact definition of 'separate but equal' applied to the 'same' schools, the 'same' restrooms, the 'same' busses.
Race and Marriage are two separate items. Marriage is based on religion which is shared by many races.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage."
But redefining Marriage, just once, will lead to Marriage to be redefined again, and again. With approval of Same-Sex Marriage will come Polygamy.
"This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue."
California already allows for partnerships; however they seek the "M" word, Marriage. Following that the pressure will be onto the Churches for Marriages to be performed. Then Polygamy is next.
The Line must be drawn across the sand.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
California already allows for partnerships; however they seek the "M" word, Marriage. Following that the pressure will be onto the Churches for Marriages to be performed. Then Polygamy is next.
The Line must be drawn across the sand.
So draw it at Polygamy and until then stop picking on gay people you big meany.
Originally posted by deviliscious ...... The whole point of marriage is for reproduction ........
I have no idea what you are smoking, but it must be some really good stuff.
Unless you truely believe that people who are single cannot become parents, that God prohibits an unmarried person from conceiving?
The purpose of marriage is legal property rights. Western law comes down to us through Roman law, that is why so many of our legal terms are Latin. Judean ideas of marriage had no influence on Roman law, Roman law formed under the Republic, long before Rome had any contact with Jews. At that time there was no Church of Rome, no one God. Which Roman church/priest was charged solely with sanctifing marriage?
Societies use marriage, recognized by the State, to transfer property rights, either to children through inheritance, or, as in some cases, to the wife upon death of her husband. It depended whether the State recognized whether the woman had a right to hold property. It is used in modern times to transfer health and retirement benefits also.
Children conceived out of wedlock, that is, bastards, had no right to inherit property. You may be the bastard child of the King of France, but you could never sit upon the throne. That right was reserved solely for children conceived in marriage. Could you even imagine the King of France offering a bastard daughter's hand in marriage to the King of Spain? That would be an insult to the King of Spain.
Marriage is a State institution founded in many early societies in which the head of State was also the head of the Church. It has nothing to do with one God, it was created long before the concept of one God. It was applied to religion by that head of State to keep the masses in awe, rather than hopping from mate to mate in wild abandon.
Had it not been this way, the Father's Day would have been a very major, and confusing, holiday.
Yes you can choose who you love, and some people do not even ahve the capacity to love. JUst because I kiss a girl does not mean I am a lesbian. All of that is silly. Yes it is totally a choice. SOme people like leather it turns them on, some like fur, some like both...it's all the same.
No actions does not equal desire but there is a problem with grouping orientations with kinks. Being heterosexual isn't a choice of course you are born that way. Prefering leather or something of the like is a kink and is developed as a pychological attraction. You don't have much choice in the matter but you could change your kink, your orientation, not so much. Also why does it matter if homosexuality is a choice or not? Yes being heterosexual is a choice, just like choosing neastiality is a choice, Some people everything turns them on, some people cerating things turn them on, this is all about emotional control, and what you chose to do. Some people are attracted to things that aren't even human... That is a choice and something they can control. If they choose to go further with it or keep it a fantasy that is their choice to do so. It should be the states choice to accept and not accept this. Not impose laws that force states to accept this when clearly the voters who voted the people into office that oppose this do not accept this, all this asks for is civil war. And I think it is more important to protect people's right of equal treatment under law, no matter how much people protest. It is not so much imposing law as it is keeping the state and federal governments from stripping rights away from people. If people want to suceed over this issue then maybe it is for the best they harbour very unamerican ideas anyway. Since when has gay marriage become unamerican? Why did the constitution not specifically protect gay marriage? IF this was meant to be protected and ruled upon by the constitution they would have put a clause in there there would ahve been a" freedom of sexual preference" section in the bill of rights.
I think anyone who wants to jointly file taxes should be able to, though I do not think they should get a tax break from doing so unless the other person is a dependant. Taking care of your sick mother , you can claim her as a dependant, this should be no different.
I agree
State laws vary on alot of things, why should marriage be any different , I mean why should prices on houses be any differnt in texas than california? this is not an issue of money this is an issue of states being controlled by the people who live there and not being controlled by people who do not. If they don't agree with the majority of people in their state feel free to get enough people in that state to vote them out of office, if you do not have enough people to do that in your state move to one that does. That is how democracy works.
We don't just live in a democracy where majority wins, we have a constitution and bill of rights that superceed the whims of the majority. This is an issue of people being controlled by the majority, trying to discriminate against them and bar them from participating in a public contract. When it comes to civil rights the state should have no say to it, it should be granted to all people regardless. They have the same right as anyone else. You do realize that there are pastors that refuse to marry completely heterosexual couples as well? Yup if they do not believe that the couple is sanctioned in the eyes of God they can and do refuse to marry them. Even in this time and day, Pastors have certain rules couples must follow before they will agree to marry them. Pastors even in this day and age can require couples to refrain from sex, go to counseling, take tests and write and essay as to why they should be married prior to the pastor agreeing to do so.
so if you gfelt like marrying your mom you should be able to?
Yes as should anyone LOL.
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices?
This isn't really about religion, they do not want laws to force religions to perform marriage rituals for them, they just want the same abilities as hetero married couples have. Believe it not marriage isn't the creation of religion, it is a societal concept. So if churches want to hate homosexuals and marry to fornicate then fine have fun with that but that isn't the only purpose and concept of marriage and it should not have any effect over peoples legal abilities.
I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
I agree, but then there is the issue of wills and visitation still which comes with marriage, abilities that same sex couples still don't have.
Well that is the thing I don't get about these rules , laws ect... Okay you have a person with no family not married why can they not have their neighbor next of kin if they wish? This is not a Gay only issue here this applies to many in this country without spouses or family members to be there. I think that wills, visitation, insurance, everything should be determined by the person not any court of law or any business to determine who that person can name as a dependant, next of Kin, for visitation, or taxes. That should not be determined by anyone other than the people involved and there should not be restrictions placed upon them at all. Regardless of if you gay or straight or bisexual or abstinent those things have nothing to do with marriage or family and should be left up to the people involved to decide not the courts.
If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage.
Why do gays want to marry, then? Marital rights. Spousal elections. Medical reasons. Visitations.
This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue.
CONSTITUTION DO NOT LET THEM RESTRICT RIGHTS SO INTIMATE AS MARRIAGE IN YOUR FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
so why shouldn;t brothers who love each other get married? sisters? mom marrying her daughter? if they are in a loving relationship why not let them have the same rights? what about those who enjoy beastiality? Since CHimpanzees have been proven to love, and have now been equipped with communication devices why should we not allow for chimpanzee -human marriages? Would not the same reasoning for allowing Gay marriages apply here?
Why the hell do you anti gay marriage people keep using that flawed argument? Do you even think your arguments through before you use them?
Marriage should be left up to religion, since marriage was created by religion. It isn't up to the government to regulate marriage, it is however up to religion to determine. Marriage can be recogonized by governemt as a contract between a man and a woman, because that was how it was created in religion. A "partnership" can be recognized between anyone. Why would anyone want the government regulating religion to force government views upon those who's religion does not agree with the context of their relationships? Now I am all for people having a choice as to what they want to do with their life, but that is exactly what it is , a choice. Gay guys sleep with women, lesbians sleep with men.. all of this happens regardless of how they were born. These are all choices. Some are born male. some are born female, some are born hermaphrodite, that is a born condition, just like what color your eyes are what color your hair or skin. That was not a choice. Who you want to sleep with is a choice. Now I do not believe in any group getting special rights simply because they made a choice. I have reviewed all of the information in this matter, and it is wrong. You can show me this nut here says that it is a born condition, and I do not care. A born condition is something you have no choice over. Now because I have kissed girls that makes me a lesbian? No I chose to do that, it is all about choices, and yes by many standards an unnatural choice due to the fact that if nature had intended men to mate with men they would have given the ability to reproduce without the need of a female, the same goes for women if nature had intended for us to mate with each other we would not need a male in order to do that. Now I have nothing against anyone who wants to partner with someone of the same sex, just that is their choice to do so, and they shouldn't receive special rights for it, that is just silly to think you should. No moreso than if someone wanted to get a boob job, and then say hey I want special rights for people with boob jobs. It makes about as much sense lol. It is their choice to do so, but not something you should be treated special for. LMAO!
Had to answer this one since it's so obviously ad absurdum. Interestingly though, few of your statements are that absurd.
In the case of marrying animals, we can keep that verboten due to consent and public health issues. Ditto for minors. In the name of public health we could also mandate that those who want to heterosexually marry siblings, cousins, parents, etc., be sterilized so as to prevent birth defects. Sterilization would not be needed in a homosexual marriage of relatives.
Everything else.... Why not? If you're stupid enough to want more than one wife or husband then you pretty much deserve what you get.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in their bedrooms is none of the government's business.
Had to answer this one since it's so obviously ad absurdum. Interestingly though, few of your statements are that absurd. In the case of marrying animals, we can keep that verboten due to consent and public health issues. Ditto for minors. In the name of public health we could also mandate that those who want to heterosexually marry siblings, cousins, parents, etc., be sterilized so as to prevent birth defects. Sterilization would not be needed in a homosexual marriage of relatives. Everything else.... Why not? If you're stupid enough to want more than one wife or husband then you pretty much deserve what you get.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in their bedrooms is none of the government's business.
A mother marrying her daughter has no possibility for reproduction, a sister marrying her sister has no possibilites for reproduction, a brother marrying his brother has no possibilities for reproduction, so the case of birthdefects and all that is thrown out the window. There is only "moral" implications here. There are more diseases transferred through human / human sex, than any other form of sex and Gonorrhea and VD, are caused by anal sex . Animals are less dangerous to sleep with than humans! LMAO! So if you are using a public health threat as a reason to not allow human- animal relationships since we have no equipped chimpanzees and dolphins with communication devices, so the verbal issue is not an issue any more, It has been proven that homosexual male sex is more of a public health risk than beastiality, due to the amount of diseases caused by anal sex vs sex with animals.
Had to answer this one since it's so obviously ad absurdum. Interestingly though, few of your statements are that absurd. In the case of marrying animals, we can keep that verboten due to consent and public health issues. Ditto for minors. In the name of public health we could also mandate that those who want to heterosexually marry siblings, cousins, parents, etc., be sterilized so as to prevent birth defects. Sterilization would not be needed in a homosexual marriage of relatives. Everything else.... Why not? If you're stupid enough to want more than one wife or husband then you pretty much deserve what you get.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in their bedrooms is none of the government's business.
A mother marrying her daughter has no possibility for reproduction, a sister marrying her sister has no possibilites for reproduction, a brother marrying his brother has no possibilities for reproduction, so the case of birthdefects and all that is thrown out the window. There is only "moral" implications here. There are more diseases transferred through human / human sex, than any other form of sex and Gonorrhea and VD, are caused by anal sex . Animals are less dangerous to sleep with than humans! LMAO! So if you are using a public health threat as a reason to not allow human- animal relationships since we have no equipped chimpanzees and dolphins with communication devices, so the verbal issue is not an issue any more, It has been proven that homosexual male sex is more of a public health risk than beastiality, due to the amount of diseases caused by anal sex vs sex with animals.
Marriage also means that it is illegal for you to have sex with someone that you aren't married to. This is more of a contract between individuals and not intrusive government intervention. If everyone entering a marriage is clean, then the chances of disease are minimal since those in the marriage should only be having sex with each other. If all parties have an STD, then the chances of the disease to spread are also minimal since all inside the marriage should only be having sex with each other.
Gonorrhea and VD are NOT CAUSED by anal sex, but are easily SPREAD by anal sex. In fact, VD is commonly spread through vaginal sex; hence the name Venereal Disease.
STD are not caused by sex. STDs are spread through sex.
I never said that animals were less dangerous to sleep with than humans, please highlight where you think I said that. In fact, I stated that we could keep bestiality illegal due to risks to public health. Perhaps you misinterpreted the meaning of "verboten?" The word is German. It means forbidden.
I think it's funny how people place homosexuality in the same arena as incest and bestiality... think that says a lot about a person.
Oh it does? I am tired of people saying that because I "messed around " with girls I am a lesbo. It is all about preference and choice, and some disagree with those choices, that doesn't mean we should changing marriage laws because people like to " Have fun" .. no Instead we should remove the legal benefits of marriage so that everyone single, gay straight .. everyone has a fair playing field.
Comments
So your argument is pretty much the definition of the slippery slope fallacy? Well, glad to see religion is sticking to what it knows.
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
No not at all, I think that if we should allow for same sex marriages we should allow for everything else. Plain and simple. Why not ? the same arguements that c an be made for same sex marriage applies to all of these others as well. Might as well take care of them all in one move. It is the same thing. LOL!
What I can't figure out though is why these people even want to get married .. it is a cruel religious torture.. and they want to partake in it LMAO!
And then there's the fact that we've already applied those arguments. I mean those very dangerous arguments were the ones that allowed black people to marry white people. And we all know what that led to. Look, one of those uppity children is running for President.
Why yes, it's terrible that we've changed the definition of marriage over the years. It needs to go back to its original definition - a white Christian male takes a white christian female as his property.
I don;t get why anyone wants to get married .. But hey that is just me to each his own. So we should then allow for anyone who wants to share these benefits to partake in it including marriages in same family and not exclude them just as same sex marriages were excluded. We need to include everyone who wants to get married this time so we can get it right rather than picking and choosing who this right belongs to. Who do we think we are God? LMAO wait Jesus wasn't white remember? hahahah! too funny
Ohh yes just what we need
More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
Oh come on, LOL. I can't believe people actually take that shit seriously. They also said that Palin is Princess Diana's distant cousin. All of that is gabage and I don't pay attention to it.
It's funny Colin Powell who...wow is so republican...wow?....is actually going for Obama. I know he's not racist either. He's doing it because he knows this country needs change and Mccain will not bring change. Mccain is an idiot and for you to even post that idiotic picture of Obama being related to Bush, LOL. I don't care what the news feeds you, haha. Obama will be nothing like Bush.
Other researchers discovered Obama is distant cousins with actor Brad Pitt. LOLOLOL said another news post from a site I just read from google....see it's all retarded bullcrap.
Ohh yes just what we need
More of the Bush Cheney bloodline.. does this guy have any more cousins we can elect if 4 more years?
Oh come on, LOL. I can't believe people actually take that shit seriously. They also said that Palin is Princess Diana's distant cousin. All of that is gabage and I don't pay attention to it.
It's funny Colin Powell who...wow is so republican...wow?....is actually going for Obama. I know he's not racist either. He's doing it because he knows this country needs change and Mccain will not bring change. Mccain is an idiot and for you to even post that idiotic picture of Obama being related to Bush, LOL. I don't care what the news feeds you, haha. Obama will be nothing like Bush.
Other researchers discovered Obama is distant cousins with actor Brad Pitt. LOLOLOL said another news post from a site I just read from google....see it's all retarded bullcrap.
DNA doesn't lie. LOL! Um no it is not bullcrap, factcheck.org has documented this as fact. Both Obama and cheney have confirmed this silly. YUP they are all cousins hahah
Republicans will stay out of peoples buisness when democrats get out of peoples wallets.
Now while I don't like gay marriage they need a 3/4 majority of the states to ban it, and that ain't gonna happen.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
LMAO...wow...ok I'm done even replying here. I'm sick of republicans and democrats going back and forth and finger pointing. Politics has to be the most retarded thing our country has going. It was funny, at Obama's speech last saturday down the road (3 blocks from my house) 11 cars tires were slashed. Guess he found out he was south and they hate him down here, bunch of racist pricks or some military guy who wants to keep his big bonuses rolling in. I live in a Military town eh.
I'm white btw, and I am going for Obama. He'll bring change. Mccain won't. I'm done replying to this retarded off topic bullcrap. All in all to the OP, politicians need to stay out of gay marriage and let them do what they want and they need to let people have faith in what they believe in. Problem with Palin is she is trying to bring Christianity into the politician field by banning gay marriage, lol. I'm done replying. Fuck Politics.
they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
I know. Those uppity blacks marrying white women caused all sorts of horrible things.
Who are we to question God? Church says they're not human. Church said they didn't have souls. Lets listen to God's will today!
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
I still have no clue why you bring up race.. I mean most people have mixed families these days so it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense. The whole point of marriage is for reproduction , sure there are cases where people cannot bear children after they got married, but their physical problems are not a reason to justify everyone doing it. where does the church say that? I have no idea what you are talking about. I am just saying that if we allow for same sex marriages we should not exclude everyone else that wants to get married to, otherwise you are being just as judgemental about their rigths as these bible thumpoers about gay rights.. it IS all the same thing. Race has nothing to do with sex so I have no idea why you focus on race so much. Does that really bother you so much that you can't think about people without referring to how dark their tan is? that is pretty sad..
No they shouldn't, the states should not have the right to take away the rights of homosexual people nor should Congress.
I am going to use some of your reasoning here.
If the States have the right to ban same sex marriage then why not interracial marriage or prevent the marriage of people from different social classes.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
they should leave it up to the states rather than have other states dictating what is best for them. When we take the power from the states to make their own decsions we will have civil war.
Well it would be a states vote if I am right on this. The houses would pass the bill then 3/4 of the states legislators would have to pass it. Now that could just be admendments to the constituion but I think they could do a that too though it might have to be a admendment.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
No they shouldn't, the states should not have the right to take away the rights of homosexual people nor should Congress.
I am going to use some of your reasoning here.
If the States have the right to ban same sex marriage then why not interracial marriage or prevent the marriage of people from different social classes.
You are born male, female or hemaphrodite. You do not choose that, you do not choose your hair, eye, skin color. You choose whether or not you want to love a man, woman, chimpanzee, your sister your brother, your mother. That is a "preference" not a born condition. Marriage as defined by the church is the "combining of a man and a woman to become one in the eyes of God, they become a single entity a bridesgroom in the eyes of God" well every other choice of sexual preference cannot do that from what the church says, so why would they want to?
I mean If it is just partnership rights they want I say let them have it, but it should be determined by the state, if people in that state disagree to it they can move to a state that agrees to it. Why exclude mothers from marrying daughters? why exclude brothers from marrying brothers? Why exclude sisters from marrying sisters? IF we allow for same sex marriages should we not also allow for these consenting adults to do as they wish? IT is the same thing, what you propose is to discriminate against those relationships but allow for same sex relationships. Why should the others who want to get married to also be excluded from these "benefits?" How much money someone has or how dark their tan here is not in question, whether or not their sex is capable for reproduction is.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices? I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices?
This isn't really about religion, they do not want laws to force religions to perform marriage rituals for them, they just want the same abilities as hetero married couples have. Believe it not marriage isn't the creation of religion, it is a societal concept. So if churches want to hate homosexuals and marry to fornicate then fine have fun with that but that isn't the only purpose and concept of marriage and it should not have any effect over peoples legal abilities.
I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
I agree, but then there is the issue of wills and visitation still which comes with marriage, abilities that same sex couples still don't have.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Race and Marriage are two separate items. Marriage is based on religion which is shared by many races.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
"If you believe nothing else, believe this: gay people are NOT your enemy and not a "threat" (lmfao having to write that) to YOUR marriage."
But redefining Marriage, just once, will lead to Marriage to be redefined again, and again. With approval of Same-Sex Marriage will come Polygamy.
"This is NOT a threat to YOUR or the "institution of marriage," and stop saying it is to cloak your bigotry and ignorance on the issue."
California already allows for partnerships; however they seek the "M" word, Marriage. Following that the pressure will be onto the Churches for Marriages to be performed. Then Polygamy is next.
The Line must be drawn across the sand.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
So draw it at Polygamy and until then stop picking on gay people you big meany.
I have no idea what you are smoking, but it must be some really good stuff.
Unless you truely believe that people who are single cannot become parents, that God prohibits an unmarried person from conceiving?
The purpose of marriage is legal property rights. Western law comes down to us through Roman law, that is why so many of our legal terms are Latin. Judean ideas of marriage had no influence on Roman law, Roman law formed under the Republic, long before Rome had any contact with Jews. At that time there was no Church of Rome, no one God. Which Roman church/priest was charged solely with sanctifing marriage?
Societies use marriage, recognized by the State, to transfer property rights, either to children through inheritance, or, as in some cases, to the wife upon death of her husband. It depended whether the State recognized whether the woman had a right to hold property. It is used in modern times to transfer health and retirement benefits also.
Children conceived out of wedlock, that is, bastards, had no right to inherit property. You may be the bastard child of the King of France, but you could never sit upon the throne. That right was reserved solely for children conceived in marriage. Could you even imagine the King of France offering a bastard daughter's hand in marriage to the King of Spain? That would be an insult to the King of Spain.
Marriage is a State institution founded in many early societies in which the head of State was also the head of the Church. It has nothing to do with one God, it was created long before the concept of one God. It was applied to religion by that head of State to keep the masses in awe, rather than hopping from mate to mate in wild abandon.
Had it not been this way, the Father's Day would have been a very major, and confusing, holiday.
Marriage in it's religious purpose is for reproduction. to "bring your multitudes upon the earth" Yes we can reproduce without marriage but in the eyes of those who created marriage that is sin.. so why on earth would anyone who are considered sinners in the eyes of these religous organization want to partake in their cruel religious practices?
This isn't really about religion, they do not want laws to force religions to perform marriage rituals for them, they just want the same abilities as hetero married couples have. Believe it not marriage isn't the creation of religion, it is a societal concept. So if churches want to hate homosexuals and marry to fornicate then fine have fun with that but that isn't the only purpose and concept of marriage and it should not have any effect over peoples legal abilities.
I have no idea why there should be any benefits to being married legally vs not being married, Yes I can understand receiving tax breaks due to dependants but not due to being married, Instead of making marriage legal to everyone why not remove the benefits and tax everyone equally. Having dependants = more mouths to feed on less income, and that has nothing to do with marriage. keep the tax breaks for dependants.
I agree, but then there is the issue of wills and visitation still which comes with marriage, abilities that same sex couples still don't have.
Well that is the thing I don't get about these rules , laws ect... Okay you have a person with no family not married why can they not have their neighbor next of kin if they wish? This is not a Gay only issue here this applies to many in this country without spouses or family members to be there. I think that wills, visitation, insurance, everything should be determined by the person not any court of law or any business to determine who that person can name as a dependant, next of Kin, for visitation, or taxes. That should not be determined by anyone other than the people involved and there should not be restrictions placed upon them at all. Regardless of if you gay or straight or bisexual or abstinent those things have nothing to do with marriage or family and should be left up to the people involved to decide not the courts.
so why not just call that a "partnership" or a civil union? why call it marriage at all? Marriage according to most in this country is where a man and a woman become one in the eyes of God. Well if they aren't trying to force churches to recognize them as a bridegroom a single entity in the eyes of God, then why do they want to call it marriage at all?
It is not forcing churchs to recognize gay marriage - at all.
It allows, rather, through wills and trusts to leave one's loving partner an estate.
It is not just that "gay marriage" is legal or illegal. Until it is legal --i.e., gay marriage-- partnerships between same-sex loving couples have no legal rights. The courts will not recognize them.
It is a very serious issue. It does not mean YOUR church has to perform gay marriages - at all.
I know my church will not.
For me, faith has nothing to do with gay marriage. It really does not. My faith is my relationship between myself and God.
It is unfortunate how people have taken God, religion, and words like "institution" to prevent two loving people from having a legal relationship.
I have no greater friend than Jesus:
www.youtube.com/watch
so why shouldn;t brothers who love each other get married? sisters? mom marrying her daughter? if they are in a loving relationship why not let them have the same rights? what about those who enjoy beastiality? Since CHimpanzees have been proven to love, and have now been equipped with communication devices why should we not allow for chimpanzee -human marriages? Would not the same reasoning for allowing Gay marriages apply here?
Why the hell do you anti gay marriage people keep using that flawed argument? Do you even think your arguments through before you use them?
Had to answer this one since it's so obviously ad absurdum. Interestingly though, few of your statements are that absurd.
In the case of marrying animals, we can keep that verboten due to consent and public health issues. Ditto for minors. In the name of public health we could also mandate that those who want to heterosexually marry siblings, cousins, parents, etc., be sterilized so as to prevent birth defects. Sterilization would not be needed in a homosexual marriage of relatives.
Everything else.... Why not? If you're stupid enough to want more than one wife or husband then you pretty much deserve what you get.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in their bedrooms is none of the government's business.
A mother marrying her daughter has no possibility for reproduction, a sister marrying her sister has no possibilites for reproduction, a brother marrying his brother has no possibilities for reproduction, so the case of birthdefects and all that is thrown out the window. There is only "moral" implications here. There are more diseases transferred through human / human sex, than any other form of sex and Gonorrhea and VD, are caused by anal sex . Animals are less dangerous to sleep with than humans! LMAO! So if you are using a public health threat as a reason to not allow human- animal relationships since we have no equipped chimpanzees and dolphins with communication devices, so the verbal issue is not an issue any more, It has been proven that homosexual male sex is more of a public health risk than beastiality, due to the amount of diseases caused by anal sex vs sex with animals.
A mother marrying her daughter has no possibility for reproduction, a sister marrying her sister has no possibilites for reproduction, a brother marrying his brother has no possibilities for reproduction, so the case of birthdefects and all that is thrown out the window. There is only "moral" implications here. There are more diseases transferred through human / human sex, than any other form of sex and Gonorrhea and VD, are caused by anal sex . Animals are less dangerous to sleep with than humans! LMAO! So if you are using a public health threat as a reason to not allow human- animal relationships since we have no equipped chimpanzees and dolphins with communication devices, so the verbal issue is not an issue any more, It has been proven that homosexual male sex is more of a public health risk than beastiality, due to the amount of diseases caused by anal sex vs sex with animals.
Marriage also means that it is illegal for you to have sex with someone that you aren't married to. This is more of a contract between individuals and not intrusive government intervention. If everyone entering a marriage is clean, then the chances of disease are minimal since those in the marriage should only be having sex with each other. If all parties have an STD, then the chances of the disease to spread are also minimal since all inside the marriage should only be having sex with each other.
Gonorrhea and VD are NOT CAUSED by anal sex, but are easily SPREAD by anal sex. In fact, VD is commonly spread through vaginal sex; hence the name Venereal Disease.
STD are not caused by sex. STDs are spread through sex.
I never said that animals were less dangerous to sleep with than humans, please highlight where you think I said that. In fact, I stated that we could keep bestiality illegal due to risks to public health. Perhaps you misinterpreted the meaning of "verboten?" The word is German. It means forbidden.
I think it's funny how people place homosexuality in the same arena as incest and bestiality... think that says a lot about a person.
Oh it does? I am tired of people saying that because I "messed around " with girls I am a lesbo. It is all about preference and choice, and some disagree with those choices, that doesn't mean we should changing marriage laws because people like to " Have fun" .. no Instead we should remove the legal benefits of marriage so that everyone single, gay straight .. everyone has a fair playing field.