Defending Heterosexual Marriage: Did you hear Melissa Ethridge's comments?

[danih37]

Who is “suffering?”

What source can you cite for this claim? I never heard any such thing. Racists opposed interracial marriage because they didn’t like the idea, not because they felt an interracial union wouldn’t constitute valid marriage. The two situations are nothing alike.

Many people are suffering. They can’t get protection for their families.

They felt that interracial marriage was wrong, degrading, and not real marriage because it brought down white people…
same thing is happening here, except it’s being imposed on gays by straights.

 

[danih37]

1. A “right to be miserable?” It isn’t the government’s job to keep people from being “miserable.” Government exists to maintain civic order and protect its subjects from external threats. Not to make people happy.
2. Anyone who relies on the government to keep from being “miserable” will be miserable no matter what.
3. Marriage is not a “recognition of love.” Marriage is an institution upon which all of family life relies.

Well the government forces people to be miserable if it denies them their basic, unalienable rights.

It is a recognition of love at this point in society. And the definition changes from person to person, so who are you to define what marriage means for everyone else?

 

[Gamera]

I love how people ignore the statement “consent between two adults”
Wanted to say thank you. Your points are well worded and thoughtful.

Why “two?” By your reasoning, shouldn’t THREE people who “love” each other have a “right” to get their polygamy “recognized” by the state? What gives you the right to limit it to “two?” Why are you forcing your morality down other people’s throats? Either you concede that marriage has natural limitations or else it’s “anything goes.”

 

[danih37]

Why “two?” By your reasoning, shouldn’t THREE people who “love” each other have a “right” to get their polygamy “recognized” by the state? What gives you the right to limit it to “two?” Why are you forcing your morality down other people’s throats? Either you concede that marriage has natural limitations or else it’s “anything goes.”

I don’t care if more than two people get married. I care about the consenting adults part. I’m not forcing morality about that down anyone’s throat.

 

[Gamera]

Well the government forces people to be miserable if it denies them their basic, unalienable rights.

But we aren’t talking about any basic unalienabvle rights. We are talking about changing the definition of marriage into something it isn’t.

It is a recognition of love at this point in society. And the definition changes from person to person, so who are you to define what marriage means for everyone else?

Who are you to limit marraige to two people? Why not three or four?

The whole point of a “definition” is that it DOESN’T change from person to person. Words have meanings. That’s why they exist.

 

[Gamera]

I don’t care if more than two people get married. I care about the consenting adults part. I’m not forcing morality about that down anyone’s throat.

Why consenting adults? Who are you to force your morality on minors?

What about a mother and son who are consenting adults? Should they be allowed to marry?

 

[danih37]

But we aren’t talking about any basic unalienabvle rights. We are talking about changing the definition of marriage into something it isn’t.

Who are you to limit marraige to two people? Why not three or four?

The whole point of a “definition” is that it DOESN’T change from person to person.

Well if people don’t want the definition of marriage to change, it should afford rights to couples, it should strictly be a sacred, religious union.

And I already made my point about the second statement.

And definitions can change from person to person. Ask people what they say love is. It’s all contextual.

 

[danih37]

Why consenting adults? Who are you to force your morality on minors?

What about a mother and son who are consenting adults? Should they be allowed to marry?

Incest and polygamy I can’t speak for. If it’s two consenting adults, I’m not going to argue.

And there is a big issue with minors. Legally you aren’t responsible for yourself until you’re 18, so to consent fully, and legally, and know what you’re getting yourself into, you have to be an adult.

 

[Gamera]

Well if people don’t want the definition of marriage to change, it should afford rights to couples, it should strictly be a sacred, religious union.

Couples don’t have rights. Individuals have rights. And gays and straights have the exact same rights – neither can change the definiton of marriage.

America is founded on the principle of limited government. The government doesn’t possess unlimited power. It has limits to its authority. One such limit is that the government can’t go around changing things outside its jurisdiction. Government doesn’t get to take a natural institution – say, the father/son relationship – and redefine it. Government doesn’t get to say “from now on only women can be parents, not men.” That is beyond government’s authority. When the government attempts to take something which isn’t marriage and decree it to be a “marriage,” then everyone’s rights are jeopardized.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just because they can’t procreate just not make them unnatural.

It is a part, not the only part but part

There are some who believe that gays are part of the population as a form of population control. All part of God’s plan.

that makes very little sense, death rate is a much larger factor

Ok. The first two articles are fully propaganda.

no, no the data is the data the bonds are different

They are written highly skewed and made to make people believe that homosexuality is perverse and wrong.

do not mix the beliefs and the data, the beliefs are controlled by the individual but the data is not

I know more gay couples who have been together for over 30 years than I do straight ones who have been together more than 15.

well that is possible but highly unlikely, additionally if read the data you will find adultry is also far more common, again just another piece of proof

They list all the things about divorce…what’s the divorce rate of heterosexual couples in the US right now? Over half? And that doesn’t so much look like research to me as it does bias.

Divorce rate is high however if you study divorce you will find it is age related, in older hetero couples the data is drasticly different

And how many unmarried straight couples live together? The articles are equating living together as the same as marriage, which isn’t how it works, gay or straight.

again hetero’s will marry with out permission this is called Natural Marriage

So the one who are in a committed loving relationship shouldn’t be allowed to marry because other gay people commit dangerous sex acts? Does that make sense to you?

That is not what is being stated, homo relationships are different than hetero relationships.

Again we are not against SSA people, their relationships are simply very different

 

[danih37]

Couples don’t have rights. Individuals have rights. And gays and straights have the exact same rights – neither can change the definiton of marriage.

America is founded on the principle of limited government. The government doesn’t possess unlimited power. It has limits to its authority. One such limit is that the government can’t go around changing things outside its jurisdiction. Government doesn’t get to take a natural institution – say, the father/son relationship – and redefine it. Government doesn’t get to say “from now on only women can be parents, not men.” That is beyond government’s authority. When the government attemtps to take something which isn’t marriage and decree it to be a “marriage,” then everyone’s rights are jeopardized.

That is a huge lie. America is also founded on separation of church and state. And having marriage afford rights is therefore wrong. Either everyone needs to be able to marry who they love and get rights, or civil unions with the same rights need to be enacted, taking marriage out of the government.

 

[Gamera]

Incest and polygamy I can’t speak for. If it’s two consenting adults, I’m not going to argue.

And there is a big issue with minors. Legally you aren’t responsible for yourself until you’re 18, so to consent fully, and legally, and know what you’re getting yourself into, you have to be an adult.

But who are you to restrict marriage to people who “consent fully?” By your own standard, you’re depriving irresponsible people of their right to be happy! You’re forcing irresponsible people to be miserable!

16, not 18, makes you an adult in the criminal justice system in most states. So why not 16?

 

[wisdomseeker]

As I said before, two consenting adults.

It is wrong because the Living God says it is wrong and there is final. the Living God is more important than me and you.

:byzsoc:

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[danih37]

no, no the data is the data the bonds are different.
do not mix the beliefs and the data, the beliefs are controlled by the individual but the data is not

And your information was also found on sites that are already anti-gay. This data is skewed and produced by people trying to find the results they want. Similar to the “research” done when african americans were slaves and studies said that they has smaller brains.

well that is possible but highly unlikely, additionally if read the data you will find adultry is also far more common, again just another piece of proof

Those articles are propaganda, not proof.

again hetero’s will marry with out permission this is called Natural Marriage

And those hetero couples who move in together…where is the research on how long they last? How about they compare that to gay couples living together instead.

That is not what is being stated, homo relationships are different than hetero relationships.

How? I don’t see how it’s different. I know straight couples who do some weird stuff in bed too.

 

[Gamera]

That is a huge lie. America is also founded on separation of church and state. And having marriage afford rights is therefore wrong. Either everyone needs to be able to marry who they love and get rights, or civil unions with the same rights need to be enacted, taking marriage out of the government.

It’s a “huge lie” that America is founded on the principle of limited government? Darn! Well, then, tell Albany Law School that I want my money back, because that’s what they taught us in Constitutional Law class.

“Separation of Church and State” is totally irrelevant here. When did I even mention religion?

 

[Gamera]

It is wrong because the Living God says it is wrong and there is final. the Living God is more important than me and you.

:byzsoc:

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

That’s why homosexual acts are wrong. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that is the issue here. The issue here is not whether gay sex should be illegal, but whether the government can re-define marriage.

 

[danih37]

But who are you to restrict marriage to people who “consent fully?” By your own standard, you’re depriving irresponsible people of their right to be happy! You’re forcing irresponsible people to be miserable!

16, not 18, makes you an adult in the criminal justice system in most states. So why not 16?

That’s it…responsible adults. When you lower the age you affect other laws, molestation crimes, statutory rape, things of that sort.

I don’t see what other laws letting two gay people marry each other would affect.

Actually in the criminal justice system it depends on multiple things if you are tried as an adult at that age. Degree of criminal sophistication, Can they be rehabilitated, Previous delinquent history, Success of previous attempts on juvenile court to rehabilitate (if applicable), Circumstances and gravity of crime.

 

[danih37]

It’s a “huge lie” that America is founded on the principle of limited government? Darn! Well, then, tell Albany Law School that I want my money back, because that’s what they taught us in Constitutional Law class.

“Separation of Church and State” is totally irrelevant here. When did I even mention religion?

No. It’s a lie that everyone has the same rights.

 

[danih37]

It is wrong because the Living God says it is wrong and there is final. the Living God is more important than me and you.

:byzsoc:

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

So because of your religion, homosexuals shouldn’t be able to marry the one they love?

 

[siamesecat]

Whatever one believes morally in regards to minors, we are talking about LEGAL marriage here. and LEGAL contracts can only be made between CONSENTING ADULTS. Whether the legal age of adulthood is 16 or 18 is not relevant - the fact is they have to be of legal age. It just isn’t possible to allow kids to marry anymore than to have them sign a business contract. Even if morally some can and does claim that marrying a 12 year old is fine, legally it would be completely impossible without radically changing laws to make minors capable of making contracts in all areas. I have no argument against incest or polygamy, as I said earliier. To be honest, although I’m morally against both, I believe both should be legalized. I hate the consequences of incest, but they will happen regardless of the right to marry, and I just don’t see legal justification to ban it. Incest has always happened throughout history - it was very common for cousins to marry in many societies - which is an argument used to justify protecting heterosexual marriage.