Homosexual Marriage

[Suburbanite]

Does someone have to have any control over marriage?

I mean, if you Christians are actually correct then God will be the final judge of these people's insult to marriage anyways.

[Starboy]

How about Vishnu? Or Buddha? Or Confusious? The thing about freedom of religion is there cannot be such a thing if Christian dogmatists tell everyone which religion they should be following or even if they are telling people to follow any religion at all. No one is telling Christians how they should live their lives they should not be telling others the same. There is a great deal about Christianity that if practiced by any other group would get them sent to jail.

Starboy

[Ken Carman]

Once again I find that I don't easily fit into the choices given. Pedophile not being acceptable I can't say "anybody should be able too." I can imagine all kind of weird cultish marriages that shouldn't be allowed, so the church/minister thing doesn't work. (Does that mean rabbi's and priests don't count?) Diversity is marvelous but should be limited as explained above. Yet, over all, for the most part, it's none of the government's damn business. Who we "do" should, for the most part be limited by consent. But I emphasize "for the most part." I'm more "liberal" than most on this topic if the election tripe sold by some pudits is to be believed, but everything has it's limitations.

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by Suburbanite, Does someone have to have any control over marriage? I mean, if you Christians are actually correct then God will be the final judge of these people's insult to marriage anyways.

I could have you apply that logic toward the anti administration anti american left, just sit back and let it happen and LET GOD.

Something tells me that wouldn't be an option, huh?

[Suburbanite]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I mean, i know you are trying to turn it around because you've dichotomized the world into right and left and have made a huge leap of faith into believing somehow I am a leftist, but I just don't understand the logic. Allow god take care of what? I'm not a Christian or a God-dependant defect, I don't believe any of that mumbojumbo so I'm not about to wait for God to sort anything out.

[Osborn F Enready]

Texans said: I thought states started using licenses after the emancipation proclamation to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other.

I say: If you have any type of proof or text that proves that, please share this link as I would love to see it. That may be the case, but as far as I have been able to tell marriage licenses were for the sole purpose of uniform blood testing of couples wanting to marry (and have kids would be the assumption, to protect the kids). Any info on the origination of marriage licenses would be appreiciated though, as I have done extensive looking into this topic.

[little zz]

Originally posted by BrightKID, The choice is up to you. If Jesus or the government should not speak on the issue of marriage; who should?

Let's see... The ones being married?

Would be a good start.

[Mia]

I voted 'other'. Explanation: who gives a poop? This is the 4th topic in volconvo I've seen on this issue. I feel there are bigger things to be concerned with in the nation and the world.

Who cares is homosexuals solidify legally what they are already doing?

Stupid, prejudiced waste of time to go to all the trouble of fighting it.

I won't be debating, as I already did in topics one and two started in here. This is my only comment.

[little zz]

Well, Mia, I agree.

I also believe that the whole homesexual marriage issue was a smokescreen to distract Americans from more important issues.

It worked.

tsk, tsk.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mia, I voted 'other'. Explanation: who gives a poop? This is the 4th topic in volconvo I've seen on this issue. I feel there are bigger things to be concerned with in the nation and the world. Who cares is homosexuals solidify legally what they are already doing? Stupid, prejudiced waste of time to go to all the trouble of fighting it. I won't be debating, as I already did in topics one and two started in here. This is my only comment.

The difference: this is a poll, Mia. I wanted something somewhat quantifiable. I am not even looking for debate. I have my own opinion and it won't be changing. I just thought I'd get a read on the views volconvo members have. That's why I tried to think of as many descriptions as I could

[Mia]

PH, and that's why I voted and responded. Otherwise, I would have just ignored it!

But I wanted to participate because you're just that cool.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Mia, But I wanted to participate because you're just that cool.

Thanks for the ego strokes, Mia. I like you, too. Thanks for participating in the poll.

The results (so far) are about what I expected, having dwelled on volconvo for seven months. This site is a hangout for the social liberals, even if the financial views are often conservative.
But I was interested to see that no one has yet selected "a celebration of diversity" as their main response. Why is that, in your opinion?

[sublimeonlinez]

Homosexual Marriage is not a problem If I had the authority I would allow it to happen. And I mean everywhere. What is the problem? Tell me! Lets keep it real. As honest as we want to be I want to know exactly why homosexuals should not be married, why they dont deserve to have children?

[PatrickHenry]

My view is that homos can NEVER be married, no matter what the government rules say.[SIZE=3]<BECAUSE>[/SIZE] Marriage is a traditional concept that itself resists redefinition. Marriage is man and woman in family relationship. Plural marriage is still marriage. Homosexual relationships, as committed as they might be, will NEVER qualify as marriage to people who have tradition as a guide. Thus the election results in eleven states.

Homos having children is a different subject that I do not choose to debate here.

[Mia]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Mia, But I wanted to participate because you're just that cool.

Thanks for the ego strokes, Mia. I like you, too. Thanks for participating in the poll.

The results (so far) are about what I expected, having dwelled on volconvo for seven months. This site is a hangout for the social liberals, even if the financial views are often conservative.
But I was interested to see that no one has yet selected "a celebration of diversity" as their main response. Why is that, in your opinion?[/b][/quote]

Because while many may be tolerant,and in favor of human rights for all, few non-homosexuals see anything to celebrate about homosexuality.

It's not just diverse - it's, well, I don't want to get into it, but it's not like a different hair color or clothing style.

[PatrickHenry]

To be a little unPC: Maybe I shoulda wrote "a celebration or PERversity". Heh. No. That would be wrong...

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, My view is that homos can NEVER be married, no matter what the government rules say.[SIZE=3]<BECAUSE>[/SIZE] Marriage is a traditional concept that itself resists redefinition. Marriage is man and woman in family relationship. Plural marriage is still marriage. Homosexual relationships, as committed as they might be, will NEVER qualify as marriage to people who have tradition as a guide. Thus the election results in eleven states. Homos having children is a different subject that I do not choose to debate here.

No one cares about pleasing traditionalists, they are the butt of every joke in a non-traditionalist's household. It isn't the traditionalists place to accept or not accept homosexual marriage one bit.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, My view is that homos can NEVER be married, no matter what the government rules say.[SIZE=3]<BECAUSE>[/SIZE] Marriage is a traditional concept that itself resists redefinition. Marriage is man and woman in family relationship. Plural marriage is still marriage. Homosexual relationships, as committed as they might be, will NEVER qualify as marriage to people who have tradition as a guide. Thus the election results in eleven states. Homos having children is a different subject that I do not choose to debate here.

If traditional people wish to repect the tradition of no homosexual marriage then I say good for them. No one is forcing them to have homosexual marriages. You already have the freedom to live by your traditions. Why do you want to dicate tradition to others that do not hold to your traditions?

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

If traditionalists want marriage to be pure, THEY SHOULD UNITE TO GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE, OUT OF GIVING FAVORED CITIZEN TAX STATUS TO THOSE WHO MARRY.

It is not a government issue, once again, to define marriage.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, so the only one having authority to grant "marriage" to ANY couple, is the head of the religious institution. Last time I checked, the U.S. Government was not the head of the Christian religions.

This is a two fronted battle. Married people enjoy the tax breaks they get for being married, and having children, and they don't want to give them up. (even though it is unconstitutional to begin with, as all taxes are to be levied EQUALLY) Homosexuals want to have the SAME RIGHTS, as Heterosexuals, and that is THEIR RIGHT. Taxes are one front on this battle

The other front is the perception, or accepted perception of "marriage" the word, as DEFINED BY A RELIGION. I explained above, this is the responsibility of the church to say that NO MINISTER, acting in the name of the CHRISTIAN FAITH, shall MARRY TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX.

It has nothing to do with the government, never should have, and hopefully soon won't. Marriage licensing is a practice long overdue to be removed, and it should be, which would remove all say in the governments part.

Common sense.

[Texans 4 Furors]

A-freaking-men.