PeinQAkatsuki wrote: quater wrote: PeinQAkatsuki wrote:Sure they can marry. But some people just think it's weird if they marry someone of the same sex.
I don't find it odd. Mostly because I don't CARE if you marry someone of the same gender. I just care if you're happy or not. All that matters to me.
I think that it's okay to be gay. Or lesbian. Or bi. Or whatever. I think it's okay to marry someone of the same sex. It's not my personal preference (very much into the opposite sex), but if it's yours then go right on ahead. I don't have the right to stop you.
We don't think its weird. We think its immoral and not constitutionally protected. And we don't like that judges can just decide for an entire state whether its legal. Constitutionally it should be at the very least, put to a vote.
If you do it in your bedroom that's between you and God and the person you're doing it with. But when you ask for a marriage license you're forcing a religion to submit to your beliefs and accept you as a societal unit with the same importance as two opposite genders marrying. And that is separation of Church and State, miss. Go and have your civil unions if it keeps your taxes in order.
But homosexuals have no 'right' to marriage.
I never said that you thought it was weird, Q. I'm not sure why you're including yourself in that. I just said some people. Wasn't including you ^_^
I don't think that love should be a law. Plain and simple. If you love someone of the same gender, that's just fine. I don't think that there should be a clause in the Constitution stating who can and cannot marry.
And as far as social acceptance goes, who says that the people getting married are aiming for social acceptance? If they love each other, that should be their number one concern, not whether they're accepted or not. And forcing a religion is obviously not what they're going for either. They're not looking to defy social status, or forcing religions to accept them. They're looking for someone to spend the rest of their life with.
And what are you getting at with your last two sentences? Forgive me, but I don't understand what you're saying.
I agree. Love shouldn't be a law. That has nothing to do with anything else in your argument. I think there should be a clause in the constitution protecting the religious institution of marriage. But there isn't. Too bad.
I wasn't talking about social acceptance. Love is not really an argument, I'm sorry. Its a nice gesture, but it has no bearings on this issue.
Marriage is a religious institution. People who are married get certain benefits from the states, but this is protection of marriage and encouragement of it only. Its no different than not collecting taxes on a Church. They protect a religious institution because, if you did start to collect taxes on a church, it'd disappear. In a like manner, marriage is protected by the state. If you started to change it, redefine it, then it'd become unused, much like in Europe where it is dropping off the map. And marriage is a societal benefit. So the state protects the institution and in return all of society benefits. There's no downside.
However, if the state forces religion (And I say religion because not just does it attack sacred Christian doctrine, but Jewish and Islam and others as well) to accept the marriage of like gender people, that is an attack on freedom of religion, and it is the state redefining Church doctrine. That is a separation of Church and state.
Civil unions, which I am somewhat in support of, though my support is very weak, is the idea that two people of the same gender can be legally bound. The state recognizes their union. The Church does not. This means they'll get most of the benefits that a married couple has but they're not forcing many major religions to accept the idea that homosexuals can marry. Which again, they have no right to marry Constitutionally or even in any limited concept of the idea.
Marriage is not something that anyone who loves another can do.
Would you support: The binding of an older 'gentleman' to a young girl?
The binding of three, four people in love?
The binding of men to animals, or objects?
The binding of men to sisters, brothers?
The binding of men to people not mentally prepared to understand the idea? (retarded children, for example? People not physically well?)
No! You'd say, "that's preposterous! But Q! That's slippery slope. We're not saying that!" I agree. But all those beings above could be just as much in love as a homosexual to another homosexual. So why then, doesn't marriage accept the above? Because there are certain boundaries we must put around marriage. No one would agree with a man marrying his sister. No one would agree with a man marrying a little girl. The state protects society and marriage from this. And in the same way, another rule to marry is that you must be of different gender.
Don't like it? Don't get married. Its not that big of a deal. Many, many, many people never get married.
]
I Ama's right, though. Gay's are humans AND in this case Americans, so they have rights. Just not the rights to get married. Which I think they should 
by 