Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

biblical view of love and unity = Disney = chick flicks

you can call it whatever you want but it ain't rational or realistic

Neither is two perverts sodomizing each other. Who said anything about a Bible? If that's rational an realistic to you, what about: adultery, beastality, polygammy, and incest?

Now, my choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm why should it bother you?

Now, your choice is who you choose to be, and if you're causing no harm you're all right with me!

So then, if I have three 16 year old cousins, then I should be able to marry them and have children with them? That doesn't infringe on your rights? I should be able to do that right? They do it in Saudi Arabia, why not here? If American culture means nothing now, then I should be able to act as I please right?

I'll never understand why this is such a big deal. If two consenting adults want to get married, fine. If someone feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I can understand that and I'm ok with that debate. But comparing gay marriage to beastiality, sodomy, and incest? Sorry but you lost me with that line of caveman thinking.

I'll never understand why this is such a big deal. If two consenting adults want to get married, fine. If someone feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I can understand that and I'm ok with that debate. But comparing gay marriage to beastiality, sodomy, and incest? Sorry but you lost me with that line of caveman thinking.

I'm guessing two dudes being married does involve the sodomy... lol

I'll never understand why this is such a big deal. If two consenting adults want to get married, fine. If someone feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I can understand that and I'm ok with that debate. But comparing gay marriage to beastiality, sodomy, and incest? Sorry but you lost me with that line of caveman thinking.

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.


Here here :food-smil

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.I'm with your premise, however the gov't (state, not Fed) does have to be involved to a point with adoption/welfare of children, dispostion of property in the event of divorce or death with no will, etc.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but if that's what someone wants to do, have at it. To me the Fed should get out of the "defining marriage" business one way or the other. This is a state level issue IMO. If there comes a time where there's a dispute between states concerning gay marriage that needs to be settled, let the SCOTUS do it's job and decide the specific dispute, not try to legislate gay marriage laws on a national level.

A comrade in arms, I like you already. This is great stuff.

saden, you're just a few years away from the conservative table. You can sit between me and LastDon. Don't worry you can thank us later. :laughing-

TheLastDon always tells me there is no hope for me so drink up, enjoy yourselves and don't wait for me cause I ain't coming. Plus you probably don't want me there as I might set the tent on fire.

I'm guessing two dudes being married does involve the sodomy... lol

:rofl:

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

I've got no issues with that. I didn't mean to limit anything by saying two people. But how does beastiality or incest enter the conversation?