[shinsgirl]

Two people should be allowed to get married no matter what gender in my opinion. Marriage is just a piece of paper that makes a relationship miserable so, let them get married. What's the big deal? I'm so happy that it was legalized in another state!! Woot!

[Ninja Delusion]

Everything is arbitrary. What rationale is there to limit it to two people and not three or four? To humans in general? Why is it "sick" for blood relatives and thereby illegal? As for consent laws--arbitration of arbitrations: All is relative. Whose standard do we submit to in all things moral? I'll be damned if I bow the moral knee to the god damn glorified opinion of some other asshole human being. One opinion isn't going to offset another. There is no authoritative leverage.

Fuck the separation of church and state. Religion=assemblage of doctrines. That isn't going far enough. We need a separation of philosophy and state. Philosophies are disenfranchised doctrines. If a given philosophy was bundled together with a few others, it would essentially be a religion. Fuck the wholesale dogmatism target of religion when idle philosophies are inherently no better. No less authoritative. Replacing "God" with "man." Why the fuck should I adopt another man's ideas of what right and wrong is? "tolerance" is no less or no more arbitrary than "intolerance." I demand for those who cry moral high ground to cite the transcendent "stock" backing their "worldviews." Something beyond the "self."

[Xfactor]

Originally Posted by Zodiak ↗

now what will they have to complain about?

Adoption

[PlaystFreak]

The government should not say who can marry or not marry, whether they are straight or gay.

[Sharon]

Originally Posted by Ninja Delusion ↗

If it is a religious institution, then why is the state meddling with it?

Marriage is an act intended between a man and a woman for the intention of procreation. Of religious origins, yes.

Delicate issue, but the majority I speak to about it all think it shouldn't be allowed.

As for adoption, I've heard of kids walking in on gay couples IN BED Dad and dad? Mummy and mummy? Surely must confuse children when the social norm is mum and dad?

Hot topic

[tbgo]

Originally Posted by Sharon. ↗

Marriage is an act intended between a man and a woman for the intention of procreation. Of religious origins, yes.

Delicate issue, but the majority I speak to about it all think it shouldn't be allowed.

As for adoption, I've heard of kids walking in on gay couples IN BED Dad and dad? Mummy and mummy? Surely must confuse children when the social norm is mum and dad?

Hot topic

This is a parody post, right?

This person is actually a mod??

Marriage is an act intended between a man and a woman for the intention of procreation.

Then people beyond the age of child bearing years, or those who are barren, should not be granted marriage.

Of religious origins, yes.

No. Do your research.

As for adoption, I've heard of kids walking in on gay couples IN BED Dad and dad? Mummy and mummy?

What's the difference if they walked in on a father and mother in bed?

Surely must confuse children when the social norm is mum and dad?

Uh, no. You really live in another era. You must be completely sheltered from the real world. Yikes!

Everything you wrote reveals that you're a person with a lot of hangups.

[MattyD]

Considering that the Romans and Greeks were far more open about homosexuality, we really aren't as 'advanced' in our ways as we think we are

[TheHitman]

i think people are kinda missing the point of all this... just because they passed this law, it really doesn't matter to you, unless your gay and marriage minded. The world isn't going to end or anything. And the whole social norm thing, that's to the couple to decide how they will explain it to the child. Just because the stork story is th socially accepted version of where babies come from doesn't mean all parents tell their kids that. The oldest woman in the world said that she lived as long as she did by staying out of others lives. i think maybe we should all start working towards living a little longer and follow that advice. i don't give a damn what anyone does as long as they don't interfere with the way i live my life and don't force their belives on me. That's the main problem with religions now that i think about it...

[Ninja Delusion]

Originally Posted by tbgo ↗

This is a parody post, right?

This person is actually a mod??



Then people beyond the age of child bearing years, or those who are barren, should not be granted marriage.



No. Do your research.



What's the difference if they walked in on a father and mother in bed?



Uh, no. You really live in another era. You must be completely sheltered from the real world. Yikes!

Everything you wrote reveals that you're a person with a lot of hangups.

Lol, what research have you done? I'm an anthropology, archaeology major. Marriage certainly does have its origin in religion--Not Judeo-Christianity, but religion nonetheless. One needn't look farther than to the world's oldest civilization, Sumeria, to evidence the claim.

Because I do not feel like making a vain effort concerning your straw-man argument--for any such effort would fall on deaf ears-- I'll just let someone else do it:

"An individual who is impotent, or another who is infertile, does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman in principle, procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law. But when it is impossible in principle, as between two males or two females, it’s impossible in principle. If you say that that’s a marriage, you are saying marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation. You have changed its definition in such a way as, in fact, to destroy the necessity for the institution, since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations was to regulate, from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation." -Alan Keyes

---------------------------------------------------------
Also, I think it's pretty shitty of you to attack Sharon on the personal level especially when she took on an objective disposition. Not all extremists are religious extremists, you over-zealous advocate. How are you any better than the next snake-oil salesman preacher peddling his brand of prejudices? You do the same thing. Does a dogma by any other name (than religion) "smell as sweet?"

[Ninja Delusion]

Originally Posted by MattyD ↗

Considering that the Romans and Greeks were far more open about homosexuality, we really aren't as 'advanced' in our ways as we think we are

The Greeks and Romans also advocated sex with children and at times, animals. Spartans destroyed the children that were deemed "weak." It was also completely lawful for a Roman citizen to put his children to death for whatever reason he willed. How terribly advanced!