Marriage is a civil right in the US

I don't mean to intrude and in no way am I trying to offer any middle ground, but after 2 threads and almost 600 posts, can't we just agree to disagree?

i'm not agree or disagreeing to anything at just this second. i'm just trying to get faith to explain the logic of position, and the specifics of what here claims actually mean.it's a pretty reasonable question.

---

Not if it's already been done and ignored or otherwise abused.

well, if i have simply missed where you have provided the details and specifics i'd like to know, kindly point me to the post where they were provided.

---

No, we can't just agree to disagree.You can only agree to disagree if what you're arguing over has no real effect; this does. If Faith's side wins, loving couples all over America are denied their civil right to the legal protections and privileges of marriage; while if Schraf's side wins, we will see a wave of immorality sweeping America, the collapse of the family structure that sits at the heart of the social order and the rapid decline of America into depravity.These are not stakes we can "agree to disagree" over.Edited by Mr Jack, : Spelling

Chances are that this bill will get shot out of the sky before it can even make a landing. And even if it somehow gets through, the country can expect to have court battles for years to come.It is now clear that people like faith will not give into the immorality of gay union. It is also clear that there is no chance on Mount Olympus that you will agree that gay marriage will destroy the very fabric of society as we know it.Arach, after over a dozen posts of asking faith to clarify, don't you think it's pretty clear she's not going to no matter what?

quote:

---

Nobody is addressing me any more so I'd appreciate it if you'd change the subtitle to suit the actual content of the conversation.

---

I addressed you directly several times regarding the questions I asked in message #249 of this thread.

quote:

---

The questions aren't hard, but most if it ignores that I've already answered it, and the rest is just silly, and I have no more interest in this thread. Sorry.

---

That's a bail if I ever saw one.

You may feel you have answered the other questions resolutly but my direct question regarding the tansexuals that get married most cirtainly has not.I would be interested in your views.to re-state. (again)

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

---

quote:

---

after over a dozen posts of asking faith to clarify, don't you think it's pretty clear she's not going to no matter what?

---

Yes.However, it is important to demonstrate (by asking her to clarify) the weakness of her argument and reasons for believing as she does.None of us for a moment believe that Faith will ever change her opinion, but the fence-sitting lurkers need to see how very weak her position is.

I get Faith's logic, and I agree with her assessment on decline of society.History has shown that people "pull together" and succeed better as a nation when the population has a key set of values for the population. For example, ethnic and religious conflict (i.e. set of values of a population) frequently boil over into violence and degradation.Gay marriage is clearly unpopular with the population, and I believe most people recognize that the practice and openness of homosexuality promotes the destruction of a core set of values and traditions that represents the masses' unity and goals for their kids to look up to.It is not just this issue that is tearing this country apart. It is just another cog in a destructive wheel churning against values of the majority.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

Hey im not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in this discussion, because I really didnt have time to read 270 posts. But has it been mentioned that marriage is a christian tradition. Obviously bible doctrine is clearly against homosexuality, and biblically marraige is where a man and woman are united into one. (please read the next parragraph before bombarding me with abuse)Im not saying that people dont have the right to choose to be gay, which I believe they do. But the basic concept of the term "marriage" is that it is the joining of a man and a woman. Over in my little corner of the world in New Zealand, gay marriage rights are a hot topic. Gay people in New Zealand can have what is called a civil union. They have all the same rights as married couples (dont quote me on that 100%, I think gay couple adoption is still being discussed) but they are not "married" as such.I think people have the right to choose to be homosexual. But they should not try to take what was not intended for them, marriage.p.s. As for what I read on the first page of this thread. I think that it a load of rubbish. There is only one race, the human race. This was one of the conclusions of the human genome project. I firmly believe God has no issue with interracial marriage. This is just a side note, I know its off topic and most of you probably dont care.Matt

Hi ya watzmagiga. Sure has.But think on this. If marriage is a 'Christian tradition' (and I assume by that you mean ”only a Christian tradition’) then why does virtually every other religion, society and culture have marriage tradition? More over, if marriage WAS a Christian thing in and of itself, that does leave you with the little problem of explaining why the Romans, Greeks, Jews and Egyptians (to name but a few) practice marriage centuries before the birth of Christ ? Simple. Marriage has been practiced by humans for millennia. Way before Jesus was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.There have been many definitions of marriage through centuries and ”heterosexual monogamy’ has been but one (and not an exclusively Christian one at that). It is ridiculous for Christianity to lay claim to the sole rights to heterosexual monogamy, let alone “marriage”.It could even be argued that heterosexual monogamy was actually invented in the animal kingdom first, many species follow observable monogamous relationships.It plainly absurd that one group of humans would, could or should force their interpretation of the universal concept of a monogamous relationship on any other group.In short if same sex couples want to define their monogamous relationships as marriage then there is no reason for them not to, save for the exclusionist discrimination of a group who mistakenly believes it alone has the right to define what marriage is.Oh and PS.. Homosexuals no more 'Choose to be gay' than you chose to be straight, male or a Kiwi.PPS: Whoot ! Post 500 this is

What kind of paranoid BS is this?What do you think society is? Where did you get this nutball idea that any society, let alone OUR society, has ever been anything but a seething cauldron of discord and conflicting agendas?Can you name a date when things were better than today?When was the day there was no war, or that america was as perfect as apple pie, cuz I certainly can't point to one. Society has allways been crumbling in the eyes of those from previous generations essentially because society is not a stable entety. It's an ever changing thing and that's good, that's how a society survives.Seriously dude, give some thouught to what you are saying.Edited by Yaro, : No reason given.

Thank you, Things Change, and watzimagiga. Unfortunately, winning a debate around here is a matter of popularity, which side has the most and the loudest voices declaring the other side wrong whether they have a shred of reason on their side or not.Although I agree with your conclusions, watzi, I have to say that my argument has been that marriage is NOT specifically a Christian tradition, in fact it is universal among all peoples throughout all time, and always it unites male and female. That's the point of it as you affirm. Thanks for joining in.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.