There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated.
This has just delayed the marriage equality movement. The under 30 voters were against Prop 8 by a 2 to 1 margin while the over 65 voters were for it by that same margin. Is there any doubt which will pervail in the future?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated. [/quote]
I assume you’re also in support of preventing numerous other groups of people marrying as well, on the grounds they have “genetically undesirable” traits? Infertile people, deaf people, blind people, really fucking stupid people?
[quote]Floortom wrote:
This has just delayed the marriage equality movement. The under 30 voters were against Prop 8 by a 2 to 1 margin while the over 65 voters were for it by that same margin. Is there any doubt which will pervail in the future?[/quote]
I think the ethnic vote is far more important to look at than the age of the voter.
Hispanics voted against gay marriage 2-1. And the hispanic population will do nothing but get bigger in the future.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated. [/quote]
God has nothing to do with my marriage. My husband and I are atheists, we committed to each other, it has nothing to do with your god.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
I like how conservatives say “We need smaller government which stays out of our lives.” Then they vote to regulate the family life of private citizens. LOL
Haha, exactly.
[/quote]
What do you mean? It seems the courts have been forcing themselves in peoples lives by redefining family and marriage.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Floortom wrote:
This has just delayed the marriage equality movement. The under 30 voters were against Prop 8 by a 2 to 1 margin while the over 65 voters were for it by that same margin. Is there any doubt which will pervail in the future?
I think the ethnic vote is far more important to look at than the age of the voter.
Hispanics voted against gay marriage 2-1. And the hispanic population will do nothing but get bigger in the future.
[/quote]
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated.
God has nothing to do with my marriage. My husband and I are atheists, we committed to each other, it has nothing to do with your god.
[/quote]
[quote]
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.[/quote]
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?
The ideas of family has changed quite a bit over the course of human history. It is not written in stone but rather by the conscious decisions of individuals planning and acting in society and as such is subject to the universal laws of change. It is an incorrect assumption to say that homosexual couples serve no purpose as a family unit as they can serve a benefit to children with no families.
The idea that human life would cease to exist if homosexuality was the norm is also an incorrect assumptions that reproduction needs to be sexual. There is no way of knowing the course nature could have taken under different situations and we do not know what would happen in the future under more normative homosexual relationships. Sometimes in nature reproduction is forced on a species thru mutation.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
PublickStews wrote:
I like how conservatives say “We need smaller government which stays out of our lives.” Then they vote to regulate the family life of private citizens. LOL
At least on Cali’s Prop 8 - it is the hispanic vote that is the most influential.
Hispanics are hardly a conservative demographic.
Do you talk out of your ass like this on a regular basis, or is it just an election season thing? [/quote]
Hispanics, however, are a very religious demographic. This will influence their opinions on social issues like this.
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?[/quote]
Why do you have to mess with the conservative definition of marraige.
There are two sides to every coin. I don’t think the government has the right to tell a church they have to marry a homosexual couple. It is a church those are their beliefs.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
There is a reason, marraige is a religeous definition. It is a binding convenant before God between a man and a woman.
So legalities aside, don’t call it marraige that simple.
Oh for those of you who say separatin of church and state. remember being homosexual you don’t reproduce. which means no offspring. So natural selection would have killed you off. It is not a genetically desirable trait.
So a true evolutionist would not accept this a normal trait either.
There is a movement in this country to rip apart the traditional family, if something that is not geneticlly favorable is considered a disease then so is homosexuality and I don’t see why it should be celebrated. [/quote]
Right…and the gay group that fundamentally rejects religion, wants the religious instutution rights of “MARRIAGE”. they already have rights as a civil union, just like marriage.
We need to get our values back people. The people ALREADY rejected this years ago, but the liberal courts decided the people vote doesn’t matter.
doogie wrote:
I don’t see how conservatives can give a fuck if gay people marry each other.
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t think they all do. I know if I had a vote on it I might vote for gay marriage and I would certainly vote for some sort of civil union.
Most people are pissed that the courts are trying to circumvent the will of the people by finding something that isn’t there in state constitutions.
That is the real battle.
I agree that activist courts are a problem. But when given a choice, why do conservatives vote against gay marriage?[/quote]
Outside of the ones heavily influenced by religion I don’t think many of them are, at least against some form of civil union.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The ideas of family has changed quite a bit over the course of human history. It is not written in stone but rather by the conscious decisions of individuals planning and acting in society and as such is subject to the universal laws of change. It is an incorrect assumption to say that homosexual couples serve no purpose as a family unit as they can serve a benefit to children with no families.
The idea that human life would cease to exist if homosexuality was the norm is also an incorrect assumptions that reproduction needs to be sexual. There is no way of knowing the course nature could have taken under different situations and we do not know what would happen in the future under more normative homosexual relationships. Sometimes in nature reproduction is forced on a species thru mutation.[/quote]
please enlighten me with an example, proven, not theoretical model.
and yes without sexual organs producing eggs and sperm, no reproduction. Science and invitro fertilization are not genetic phenomena such mutation.
Why do you have to mess with the conservative definition of marraige.
There are two sides to every coin. I don’t think the government has the right to tell a church they have to marry a homosexual couple. It is a church those are their beliefs.
[/quote]
No church is going to be forced to marry a homosexual couple. That’s about as strong an argument as the bestiality one that inevitably pops up in this discussion.