I apologize for assuming you were Canadian. It was probably due to your location although your being American certainly explains a lot.
Did you never have a religious leader growing up tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin"? Probably not since if you'd had a more religious background you'd probably be less hateful.
Just posting to echo those above mentioning the contactual aspects of marriage and how they're vitally important for those married. I've been married to my same-sex spouse for almost 8 years now. We have stuck together through some rough patches precisely because we're married. It's the easiest thing in the world to depart from a relationship in which those involved are, basically, strangers before the law. Marriage is serious business, business involving FAR more contractually/legally/officially than what one poster above scoffed stereotypically as being about "what goes on in the bedroom." Marriage actually comes to entail just about everything EXCEPT what goes on in the bedroom as couples mature. Marriage is designed to force, if you will, couples to take care of each other; it's an institution that imposes perks, yes, but also burdens so that the "taking care of" part isn't passed on to the State or to any of the rest of society. Marriage is a GOOD THING for those involved and society does have a vested interest in promoting it- gay or straight, the more marriages, the less burden YOU have to take care of my partner.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to frege64 For This Useful Post:
It is only fair that two people, regardless of sexuality are able to make a declaration of their of their love for each other and to make a commitment to be there for each other, sharing the burdens and in the rewards that such a commitment bestows.
It is simply inhumane to prevent people from making this commitment and then compounding the slight through hospitals denying next of kin status or a system (which the couple have paid into)denying them the same rights and safeguards in the event of bereavement.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Barnet Flame For This Useful Post:
People who want to ruin the sanctity of marriage can suck my d$ck.
...can't say I'm that exclusive...
Also, I like this diagram as a representation what the sanctity of marriage means in biblical terms. I mean this is what we're talking about, right? I'm all for polygamy too you know, and slavery's great, as long as it's consensual
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I apologize for assuming you were Canadian. It was probably due to your location although your being American certainly explains a lot.
Did you never have a religious leader growing up tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin"? Probably not since if you'd had a more religious background you'd probably be less hateful.
I just find it baffling that conservatives who otherwise are staunch advocates of individual freedom object to responsible taxpaying citizens having the right to determine their domestic partnerships.
I just find it baffling that conservatives who otherwise are staunch advocates of individual freedom object to responsible taxpaying citizens having the right to determine their domestic partnerships.
It's just mind-boggling.
It's because these so called conservatives never think things through to their logical conclusion on almost everything.
These guys don't like the Koch brothers, but this is generally how big business operates to influence the Republicans and their followers. What's that old saying, 'If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth' and everyone follows the party line. That was why it was good and rare that this Republican spoke up.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
you know, saunders had some good material in there, but then he ruined it with a bunch of absolute crap.
I find it tough when someone objects to social sceintists due to whom is funding their institution. What you're saying is that none of the social scientists have any ethic or personal integrity to come to independant conclusions. That may be the case for one or two, but when multiple come to the same conclusion, I think you're argument loses credibility.
By sanders coming out with that ridiculous attack ad, lets think of what the alternative is for someone who legitimately belives the retirement age should be increased before social security benefits kick in (within their particular jurisdiction). You'd not be able to fund any objective research by experts within the area because Sanders is trying to claim that they are all bought. You'd be left with a bunch of rhetoric based on things other than actual facts.
You're being sucked in by petty politics.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Albany, New York (CNN) -- New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the state's marriage equality bill hours after it passed the Republican-controlled Senate on Friday night, making it the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Cuomo signed the bill into law after the legislature cleared the way to legalize same-sex marriage with a 33-to-29 vote, the first time a state Senate with a Republican majority has approved such a bill.
The new law, which will allow same-sex couples in New York to marry within 30 days, drew a sharp rebuke from opponents, who spent millions to try to defeat the measure.
"We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization," the state's Catholic bishops said in a joint statement released late Friday. It was signed by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and seven other bishops.
"We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization," the state's Catholic bishops said in a joint statement released late Friday. It was signed by Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan and seven other bishops.
I often see the bolded portion said by gay-marriage opponents, but they never expand on why they think allowing homosexuals to marry will negatively affect heterosexual couples. Can anyone provide a logical explanation for that to me so I can understand both sides of this issue, because try as I might, I just can't fathom any reason to deny gay marriage other than pure bigotry and intolerance.
