Anyone else glad that prop 8 passed?

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]

Europeans built infrastructure in Africa and it IMPROVED Africans' daily lives. Before Europeans came, they didn't have sanitation, electrictiy and they barely scraped by with food. After, Europeans gave them everything, oh and what did they do with it? They pissed it all away, apparently they love killing more than living civilized lives! Please, know your facts before calling anything uncredible.

Ultimate-Playa

Wrong, without Europeans Africa would remain undeveloped.

this is practically the same thing as the florida amendment 2 right?

if so i voted against it and am disappointed that it passed

This thread needs to be closed, it's just a bunch of blind unwarranted hate, most of the arguements I've seen no here are just outright dumb, someone said they don't want the human race to die out, it wouldn't genious, gay people don't want everyone to be gay they just want to be happy, if you had any common sense you'd know this, gay people aren't trying to make everyone like them or anything even remotely long those lines, they just want to be happy together but people like you have to ruin it and make their lives h*** for no real reason other than blind hatred and some bigoted point of view that your parents probly hammered into your mind at a young age.

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

Crazy_Soviet

I agree, but your about to get flamed.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

-Austin-

I agree, but your about to get flamed.

Because love is love, do you know why you like women, I mean really, don't say some BS reason like boobs or something dumb, I mean do you know exactly why your body and mind are specifically and only attracted to women, highly doubt it, it's the same for gay people, we don't know why we like other boys, we just do.

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

-Austin-

I agree, but your about to get flamed.

I doon't understand why you have an election sig when it's been and gone but that dosn't mean it should be illegal

if you don't understand then don't marry a guy, there's no reason to stop other people doing it

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

Crazy_Soviet

evey time i see this issue come up my question is always why? why in the hell do people care so much about what gay people do? its such a non issue that so much time and enegry is being wasted on. its not going to effect anything if gay people start getting married the world isnt going to suddenly explode. some people need to get lives of there own and stop worrying about what other people do.Blackfriend8

THANK YOU!

Why can't everyone just get that in their head, it's not gonna hurt anyone, it's just letting people be free and be happy.

umm prop 8 is a CLEAR violation of the seperation of church and state.

that's the only problem i have with it. now that it has been passed, what else will come. if something like this can be passed, surely they can pass a law banning all satanist churches or something. when will it end?

umm prop 8 is a CLEAR violation of the seperation of church and state.

mistervengeance

Second...just to clear up the reason we have freedom of religion in this country was so that state could not mandate a specific religion. You had the right to worship in the church you wanted.

That said...this topic should be stickied. Too many threads and they all say the same thing. No deviation.

[QUOTE="Blackfriend8"]evey time i see this issue come up my question is always why? why in the hell do people care so much about what gay people do? its such a non issue that so much time and enegry is being wasted on. its not going to effect anything if gay people start getting married the world isnt going to suddenly explode. some people need to get lives of there own and stop worrying about what other people do.Yaoi-Mikey

THANK YOU!

Why can't everyone just get that in their head, it's not gonna hurt anyone, it's just letting people be free and be happy.

Finally someone I agree with.

[QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]

Europeans built infrastructure in Africa and it IMPROVED Africans' daily lives. Before Europeans came, they didn't have sanitation, electrictiy and they barely scraped by with food. After, Europeans gave them everything, oh and what did they do with it? They pissed it all away, apparently they love killing more than living civilized lives! Please, know your facts before calling anything uncredible.

DivergeUnify

Wrong, without Europeans Africa would remain undeveloped.

well we were fine living in caves, but we don't live in them anymore

fact: european powers did invest quite a lot into modernizing africa, from rail roads to sanitaries, flowing water etc etc

not saying that they didn't **** up a lot of things, but there were some benefits to the whole thing that are often ignored. A stale form of goverment for instance is also one of it

oh just btw: I read an article on BBC (I think) that there are actualy people in zimbabwe who want the british back since aperently live was better under them

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population. Crazy_Soviet

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Ultimate-Playa"]

Europeans built infrastructure in Africa and it IMPROVED Africans' daily lives. Before Europeans came, they didn't have sanitation, electrictiy and they barely scraped by with food. After, Europeans gave them everything, oh and what did they do with it? They pissed it all away, apparently they love killing more than living civilized lives! Please, know your facts before calling anything uncredible.

Ultimate-Playa

Wrong, without Europeans Africa would remain undeveloped.

how is being undeveloped a bad thing? there are still tribes living deep within the rainforests in africa without contact to the outside world, they're not blowing anything up.

you're saying that simply because the europeans developed africa, it justifies the slave labor, mistreatment, racism, etc. they have been subjected to?

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

umm prop 8 is a CLEAR violation of the seperation of church and state.

LJS9502_basic

Second...just to clear up the reason we have freedom of religion in this country was so that state could not mandate a specific religion. You had the right to worship in the church you wanted.

That said...this topic should be stickied. Too many threads and they all say the same thing. No deviation.

like it or not, the gay marraige issue is a religious cause. the constitution says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to repeat and clarify: congess shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise of.

marraige is a religious institution. the CONSTITUTION says you cannot prohibit the exersice of religion.

i know since technically it's a state law, this doesn't apply, but still, this is a founding principle of this great country, and it should be respected by everyone.

i guarantee if somehow this law were tried in court up to the supreme court they would find it unconstitutional.

umm prop 8 is a CLEAR violation of the seperation of church and state.

that's the only problem i have with it. now that it has been passed, what else will come. if something like this can be passed, surely they can pass a law banning all satanist churches or something. when will it end?

mistervengeance

[QUOTE="Crazy_Soviet"]

I'm glad it passed.

I just can't inderstand why would any man fall in love with aother man.

Its disgustying.

-Austin-

I agree, but your about to get flamed.

You both don't understand and you think it's "disgustying" because you're either not gay or you don't take the time to put yourself in their shoes. You don't understand that a man that feels attraction to another man or a woman that feels attraction to another woman doesn't feel that way by choice. It takes a non-understanding mind to think this is so. Do you honestly think you can snap your fingers, say "I'm gay and believe that it's the truth? Homosexuals can't become straight the same way either. They are attracted to those of the same sex in the same way that you're attracted to those of the opposite sex. It's impossible to feel any different.

i guarantee if somehow this law were tried in court up to the supreme court they would find it unconstitutional. mistervengeance

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

umm prop 8 is a CLEAR violation of the seperation of church and state.

mistervengeance

Second...just to clear up the reason we have freedom of religion in this country was so that state could not mandate a specific religion. You had the right to worship in the church you wanted.

That said...this topic should be stickied. Too many threads and they all say the same thing. No deviation.

like it or not, the gay marraige issue is a religious cause. the constitution says:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

to repeat and clarify: congess shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise of.

marraige is a religious institution. the CONSTITUTION says you cannot prohibit the exersice of religion.

i know since technically it's a state law, this doesn't apply, but still, this is a founding principle of this great country, and it should be respected by everyone.

i guarantee if somehow this law were tried in court up to the supreme court they would find it unconstitutional.

Marriage is ONLY religious if done in a church. It is always CIVIL.

You can't say it's a religiious issue since non religious people are against gay marriage as well. You entire argument fails on that point alone.

Without repodution are spieces will have no future. I don't want the human race to die off just so we can satisfy less then 2% of the population. Crazy_Soviet

I'm actually very upset that prop 8 got passed. I don't think the people should decide what's right and what's not, especially regarding issues over social equality. -Sun_Tzu-

But the government should? You do know what happens when a government is given the authority to decide things like this?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm actually very upset that prop 8 got passed. I don't think the people should decide what's right and what's not, especially regarding issues over social equality. Theokhoth

But the government should? You do know what happens when a government is given the authority to decide things like this?

Yeah I know what happens when the government is given the authority over things like this. Governent abolished slavery. Government gave women the right to vote. Government allowed blacks to drink at whatever waterfountain they choosed.The majority of society will almost always supress the minority, which is exactly what's happening now over the issue of gay marriage.I don't want the majority to dictate what's "right" and what's "wrong".

.I don't want the majority to dictate what's "right" and what's "wrong".-Sun_Tzu-

the term marriage should be ditched, they better call it a civil union. it's a shame that a referendum has been held that denied a group of people their human rights. The right for a legal union, to get some social security, how is this hurting the heterosexual marriage? I just don't get why people are against it, it's like saying 'because I don't like chocolate, you are not allowed to eat it as well'.TheFlush

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm actually very upset that prop 8 got passed. I don't think the people should decide what's right and what's not, especially regarding issues over social equality. -Sun_Tzu-

But the government should? You do know what happens when a government is given the authority to decide things like this?

Yeah I know what happens when the government is given the authority over things like this. Governent abolished slavery. Government gave women the right to vote. Government allowed blacks to drink at whatever waterfountain they choosed.The majority of society will almost always supress the minority, which is exactly what's happening now over the issue of gay marriage.I don't want the majority to dictate what's "right" and what's "wrong".

Give the government the authority to decide what's right and wrong, and it will inevitably abuse that authority. What if the government rules something you consider wrong to be right? Will you be so gung-ho about supporting giving them that authority then? What if the government begins making decisions solely in the interests of the minority, like they do in Europe with Islam?

[QUOTE="TheFlush"]the term marriage should be ditched, they better call it a civil union. it's a shame that a referendum has been held that denied a group of people their human rights. The right for a legal union, to get some social security, how is this hurting the heterosexual marriage? I just don't get why people are against it, it's like saying 'because I don't like chocolate, you are not allowed to eat it as well'.LJS9502_basic

Then what is it according to you? marriage gives you certain rights in relation to each other, social security. Homosexuals don't get those rights only because they're both of the same gender, that is pure discrimination. A homosexual relationship is no different than a heterosexual relationship. We bought a house, we have jobs, we have a cat, we do groceries, we have a car, we pay taxes. And if we wanted we could start a family with children as well. And still, there are lots of people that want to deny us things only because we're both of the same gender.TheFlush

Benefits for couples don't have to be dependent on marriage. That is something the employer can...and does ...decide...and the government would decide the rest.

Government can add the benefits without the need of marriage and thus no voting is required. There is always another way around issues if you feel passionately about it.

[QUOTE="TheFlush"] Then what is it according to you? marriage gives you certain rights in relation to each other, social security. Homosexuals don't get those rights only because they're both of the same gender, that is pure discrimination. A homosexual relationship is no different than a heterosexual relationship. We bought a house, we have jobs, we have a cat, we do groceries, we have a car, we pay taxes. And if we wanted we could start a family with children as well. And still, there are lots of people that want to deny us things only because we're both of the same gender.LJS9502_basic

Benefits for couples don't have to be dependent on marriage. That is something the employer can...and does ...decide...and the government would decide the rest.

Government can add the benefits without the need of marriage and thus no voting is required. There is always another way around issues if you feel passionately about it.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I'm actually very upset that prop 8 got passed. I don't think the people should decide what's right and what's not, especially regarding issues over social equality. Theokhoth

But the government should? You do know what happens when a government is given the authority to decide things like this?

Yeah I know what happens when the government is given the authority over things like this. Governent abolished slavery. Government gave women the right to vote. Government allowed blacks to drink at whatever waterfountain they choosed.The majority of society will almost always supress the minority, which is exactly what's happening now over the issue of gay marriage.I don't want the majority to dictate what's "right" and what's "wrong".

Give the government the authority to decide what's right and wrong, and it will inevitably abuse that authority. What if the government rules something you consider wrong to be right? Will you be so gung-ho about supporting giving them that authority then? What if the government begins making decisions solely in the interests of the minority, like they do in Europe with Islam?

You make a good point in saying that I will not always agree with my government. But I'm not saying that government should have the absolute authority to decide what's right and what's wrong. It's just on issues over social equality that I feel that the government should have more authority than the people. Not that the government should have all the authority and the majority having none. I don't feel like the majority should suppress the rights of the minority, which is what is going on with prop 8.

I think the government should act as a moderator of sorts between the different social classes. And that is what the government has done in America's history. That's what our country was founded on. Everyone gets their unalienable rights, everyone gets their liberty, and everyone gets to pursue happiness (within the law of course).

American's have always embraced this idea of social equality, so how is it wrong for the government to carry out that promise?

Does it affect anyone in a negative way that a woman can vote? Does is affect anyone in a negative way that a black man can marry a white woman? The government isn't evil. One shouldn't "fear" their own government. Now with that being said, is the government perfect? Of course not. But the majority isn't perfect either. As James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." All I want from my government is to provide me and everyone else with social equality and equal opportunity. And by allowing a ban on gay marriage in 48 of the 50 states in the union, I just don't see how that can be considered social equality.

You make a good point in saying that I will not always agree with my government. But I'm not saying that government should have the absolute authority to decide what's right and what's wrong. It's just on issues over social equality that I feel that the government should have more authority than the people. Not that the government should have all the authority and the majority having none. I don't feel like the majority should suppress the rights of the minority, which is what is going on with prop 8.

I think the government should act as a moderator of sorts between the different social classes. And that is what the government has done in America's history. That's what our country was founded on. Everyone gets their unalienable rights, everyone gets their liberty, and everyone gets to pursue happiness (within the law of course).

American's have always embraced this idea of social equality, so how is it wrong for the government to carry out that promise?

Does it affect anyone in a negative way that a woman can vote? Does is affect anyone in a negative way that a black man can marry a white woman? The government isn't evil. One shouldn't "fear" their own government. Now with that being said, is the government perfect? Of course not. But the majority isn't perfect either. As James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." All I want from my government is to provide me and everyone else with social equality and equal opportunity. And by allowing a ban on gay marriage in 48 of the 50 states in the union, I just don't see how that can be considered social equality.

-Sun_Tzu-

No rights are being suppressed. There is no right to marriage whatsoever. If the state were to not recognise heterosexual marriages, it could do that, because marriage is simply not a right here.The problem here is you see rights where there are none. The government should have no place in marriage. Another principal this country was founded on is the limiting of government influence on the states. The Constitution outlines the rights that the states cannot violate; anything else can be left to the authority of the states, and marriage, just like driving, is among these things.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You make a good point in saying that I will not always agree with my government. But I'm not saying that government should have the absolute authority to decide what's right and what's wrong. It's just on issues over social equality that I feel that the government should have more authority than the people. Not that the government should have all the authority and the majority having none. I don't feel like the majority should suppress the rights of the minority, which is what is going on with prop 8.

I think the government should act as a moderator of sorts between the different social classes. And that is what the government has done in America's history. That's what our country was founded on. Everyone gets their unalienable rights, everyone gets their liberty, and everyone gets to pursue happiness (within the law of course).

American's have always embraced this idea of social equality, so how is it wrong for the government to carry out that promise?

Does it affect anyone in a negative way that a woman can vote? Does is affect anyone in a negative way that a black man can marry a white woman? The government isn't evil. One shouldn't "fear" their own government. Now with that being said, is the government perfect? Of course not. But the majority isn't perfect either. As James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." All I want from my government is to provide me and everyone else with social equality and equal opportunity. And by allowing a ban on gay marriage in 48 of the 50 states in the union, I just don't see how that can be considered social equality.

Theokhoth

No rights are being suppressed. There is no right to marriage whatsoever. If the state were to not recognise heterosexual marriages, it could do that, because is simply not a right here.The problem here is you see rights where there are none. The government should have no place in marriage.

No rights are being suppressed? Let me give you an example. A lesbian couple are in a civil union is the state of California. Let's say that they go on vacation in Florida. One of the partners is pregnant, and the pregnant partner gets into an accident. Let's say that the accident has caused the fetus to compromise the health of the pregnant partner. If the doctor performs a c-section, the mother will live but it there is a chance the baby could die if it were born prematurely. Or the doctor can leave the baby in the mother's womb, but that could jeopardize the health of the mother.

Now there is a very difficult decision at hand. The pregnant partner is unable to make the decision because she is unconscious. But guess who else won't have any say in this decision? The other partner, because they've gotten a civil union in California, and they're in Florida, and civil unions aren't recognized across state lines. So the other partner has no right to decide what's going to happen to the woman she loves. Now if they had been able to get married in California the other partner would have the right to decide what happens to her partner.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]i guarantee if somehow this law were tried in court up to the supreme court they would find it unconstitutional. Vandalvideo

Just like Canada :roll:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You make a good point in saying that I will not always agree with my government. But I'm not saying that government should have the absolute authority to decide what's right and what's wrong. It's just on issues over social equality that I feel that the government should have more authority than the people. Not that the government should have all the authority and the majority having none. I don't feel like the majority should suppress the rights of the minority, which is what is going on with prop 8.

I think the government should act as a moderator of sorts between the different social classes. And that is what the government has done in America's history. That's what our country was founded on. Everyone gets their unalienable rights, everyone gets their liberty, and everyone gets to pursue happiness (within the law of course).

American's have always embraced this idea of social equality, so how is it wrong for the government to carry out that promise?

Does it affect anyone in a negative way that a woman can vote? Does is affect anyone in a negative way that a black man can marry a white woman? The government isn't evil. One shouldn't "fear" their own government. Now with that being said, is the government perfect? Of course not. But the majority isn't perfect either. As James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." All I want from my government is to provide me and everyone else with social equality and equal opportunity. And by allowing a ban on gay marriage in 48 of the 50 states in the union, I just don't see how that can be considered social equality.

-Sun_Tzu-

Lol, no kidding. If there's no right to marriage, than how can you deny someone it? Theres no right to deny. Furthermore, I'd like to see the people who voted yes to go to homosexual's houses and tell them how their definition of marriage caused them to lose theirs, and see how they take it.

No rights are being suppressed. There is no right to marriage whatsoever. If the state were to not recognise heterosexual marriages, it could do that, because is simply not a right here.The problem here is you see rights where there are none. The government should have no place in marriage.

No rights are being suppressed? Let me give you an example. A lesbian couple are in a civil union is the state of California. Let's say that they go on vacation in Florida. One of the partners is pregnant, and the pregnant partner gets into an accident. Let's say that the accident has caused the fetus to compromise the health of the pregnant partner. If the doctor performs a c-section, the mother will live but it there is a chance the baby could die if it were born prematurely. Or the doctor can leave the baby in the mother's womb, but that could jeopardize the health of the mother.

Now there is a very difficult decision at hand. The pregnant partner is unable to make the decision because she is unconscious. But guess who else won't have any say in this decision? The other partner, because they've gotten a civil union in California, and they're in Florida, and civil unions aren't recognized across state lines. So the other partner has no right to decide what's going to happen to the woman she loves. Now if they had been able to get married in California the other partner would have the right to decide what happens to her partner.

what? What happeneed to my text/ Bleh. Btw I agree with you.

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-reproduction purposes(not saying it is the biggest reason obviously a lot of marriages don't produce children, but most at least have the potential).

-The greater biological connection. (as stated previously)

Funky_Llama

Call it the "naturalistic fallacy" if you want. Unfortunately, biology does not have much concern for what philosophical fallacys it may be committing.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You make a good point in saying that I will not always agree with my government. But I'm not saying that government should have the absolute authority to decide what's right and what's wrong. It's just on issues over social equality that I feel that the government should have more authority than the people. Not that the government should have all the authority and the majority having none. I don't feel like the majority should suppress the rights of the minority, which is what is going on with prop 8.

I think the government should act as a moderator of sorts between the different social classes. And that is what the government has done in America's history. That's what our country was founded on. Everyone gets their unalienable rights, everyone gets their liberty, and everyone gets to pursue happiness (within the law of course).

American's have always embraced this idea of social equality, so how is it wrong for the government to carry out that promise?

Does it affect anyone in a negative way that a woman can vote? Does is affect anyone in a negative way that a black man can marry a white woman? The government isn't evil. One shouldn't "fear" their own government. Now with that being said, is the government perfect? Of course not. But the majority isn't perfect either. As James Madison once said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." All I want from my government is to provide me and everyone else with social equality and equal opportunity. And by allowing a ban on gay marriage in 48 of the 50 states in the union, I just don't see how that can be considered social equality.

-Sun_Tzu-

No rights are being suppressed. There is no right to marriage whatsoever. If the state were to not recognise heterosexual marriages, it could do that, because is simply not a right here.The problem here is you see rights where there are none. The government should have no place in marriage.

No rights are being suppressed? Let me give you an example. A lesbian couple are in a civil union is the state of California. Let's say that they go on vacation in Florida. One of the partners is pregnant, and the pregnant partner gets into an accident. Let's say that the accident has caused the fetus to compromise the health of the pregnant partner. If the doctor performs a c-section, the mother will live but it there is a chance the baby could die if it were born prematurely. Or the doctor can leave the baby in the mother's womb, but that could jeopardize the health of the mother.

Now there is a very difficult decision at hand. The pregnant partner is unable to make the decision because she is unconscious. But guess who else won't have any say in this decision? The other partner, because they've gotten a civil union in California, and they're in Florida, and civil unions aren't recognized across state lines. So the other partner has no right to decide what's going to happen to the woman she loves. Now if they had been able to get married in California the other partner would have the right to decide what happens to her partner.

aren't there papers they can fill out that give those descision making abilities to a person of your choice.

[QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.Danm_999

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.superheromonkey

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.

What? Yes it did. Christianity is only 2000 years old. Unless they somehow knew about him before hand. I think civilization is much older than 2000 years.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="superheromonkey"]

-Marriage was initially a religious term that the govt in all of their separation of church and state wisdom meddled with. now the government is in a sticky situation. Honestly i feel religious people have a right to be pissed about it. I would prefer the govt to return the term back to religion and call everyone civil unions.superheromonkey

Incorrect. Marriage predates Christianity by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In many ages it was seen as no better than an economic agreement between families to pool resources.

-personally i think the deterioration of the family unitis one of the biggest social issues that we are facing and i feel that homosexual marriage would continue this. Call it slippery slope if you want, but i would make it more akin to a gateway drug.

superheromonkey

This reasoning has no substance either. Banning gay marriage is unlikely to strengthen the family unit, homosexuals won't simply join heterosexual families and conform to traditional standards.

And if the protection of the family unit was the real concern here, divorce would not be so liberal a process.

I agree that Divorce is also a problem. Marriage does not predate christianity. Marriage as we know it was designed as a christian institution. Whether or not men and woman existed in monoganous relationships before abraham does not matter. The fact is that the term and intstituion of marriage came into existence under a christian context.