On 12/27/13, 10:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/27/2013 9:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.
Hence the "B" in the acronym
It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory.
I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and
then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.
They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.
I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/
I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.
I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.
What's left in reasons to object?
From a modern, practical and non-religious point of view I think the
main objection is based on the same reason that gays are striving *for*
legal recognition of same sex marriages.
Money.
Those who are pushing for legal recognition of same sex marriages are
doing so in order to qualify for the same tax breaks and
financial/social benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
Otherwise, there is no compelling reason to have legal recognition of
gay couples living and sharing their lives together. They can just do
so. There are no laws against it that I know of.
Remember, it wasn't very long ago that the remote *concept* of legal,
same sex "marriages" was unheard of.
The concern many have is where do you draw the line? The government
giveith and the government takeith away when it comes to tax codes.
Those who object based on religious grounds are really in the same boat
you are in when you complain about religious organizations working to
influence legislation that furthers their interests.
You object because it "jams their beliefs down your throat".
Maybe some people want to raise families and teach their children in
older, more traditional beliefs and values. A government that condones
same sex marriages is probably just as offensive to some people as the
religious zealots are offensive to you.
Disclaimer: This is my gut feeling for the objections some have. It
is not necessarily what I believe. I believe that I really don't give
a ****.
Thanks for your response. Considering the high percentage of
"traditional marriages" that fail and end in divorce, I don't understand
why there would be objections to gays marrying and a percentage of those
marriages ending in divorce, in tax codes, social security, hospital
visitations, et cetera.
And to those who object on religious grounds...well, no one is forcing
any of them into a gay or straight marriage. Legally, no one is forcing
gay marriage onto anyone. And "the government" shouldn't "condone" or in
any other way have opinions about the validity of the sorts of marriages
in which consenting adults engage. It's not the government's business,
is it?
To beat a dead duck, I read on wiki that the patriarch of Dumb Duck
Dynasty married his wife when she was 16 years old. At least she was
older than Miriam probably was when she gave birth to that Jesus fellow.
Miriam probably was 13. In those days, most girls in that part of the
world were engaged at 12, and married at 13.
--
Religion: together we can find the cure.