-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Would you support same-sex marriage in your state?
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think his arguement can go back further. Marriage was "founded" from a religious point of view not by any state or country.
Oh and One Nation Under God
and One Nation Under God
Just some reading.
LongCoolMother
Diamond Member
no one is denied civil rights because of their sexual orientation. where in marriage law does it require you to state your sexual orientation? you can be homosexual and marry an opposite sex, and that would be perfectly fine. again, what civil rights are denied because of their sexual orientation? everybody, regardless of their sexuality is subject to the exact same restrictions.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
I'm ignoring your first link because it's to "Christianity Today" so I doubt it will be impartial.
The second link just agrees with my statement that it was added to the pledge as part of the communist hate movement. The pledge is a different argument altogether, but of course "under god" doesn't belong in the pledge.
But you can't explain how granting equality damages the people in our country either?
Well, in America our national language IS English. If someone can't speak English they are at a disadvantage, maybe not kicked out but I will not learn their language unless I am in their native country.
If everyone is so much for separation of church and state why not make all those not married in a religion civil unions and those married in a church a marriage? This will clear everything up.
I wasn't trying to prove or disprove you, just some quick things I found. Both sides I guess.
There is some damage when you view marriage as a SARCRED vow between a man and a woman. There is something special (I'm not saying gays can't be special) about a couple who have taken on the responsibility to devote their lives to each other, raise children all in the eyes of God. Our nation was build with God in mind. Yes times have changed and we are now more liberal than ever. I suppose it's time to change everything we disagree with so everyone is happy and moral and justified doing things that were once illegal.
There are two different aspects on this, the benefits of the union has to do with the government and the law, in the eyes of the government there is no religion and no love involved. It is simply a civil union between two consenting adults which brings some benefits and some things that may or may not be beneficial depending on the future of the couple.
The love aspects does not have anything to do with marriage, it has to do with the couples feelings towards eachother, there is no law against two people who hate eachother to get married.
When it comes to the religious parts, it is up to the church to deny to wed the couple if they so wish, it has nothing to do with gays, lesbians or anyone else as long as they are two consenting adults.
I won't vote in this poll though since i am not an American.
The love aspects does not have anything to do with marriage, it has to do with the couples feelings towards eachother, there is no law against two people who hate eachother to get married.
When it comes to the religious parts, it is up to the church to deny to wed the couple if they so wish, it has nothing to do with gays, lesbians or anyone else as long as they are two consenting adults.
I won't vote in this poll though since i am not an American.
They are demanding access to the CIVIL construction. Very few want access to any religious approval, and for good reason - why would they want their relationship blessed by an organization that views them as evil and outcast?
Nor would the government be able to compel a religious organization to marry them.
It's fine to make the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage, but you can't use them interchangeably.
What homosexuals are doing has no effect on the sacredness of a vow that someone else makes. By this logic, we should have already dumped the concept of marriage because millions of heterosexual Christians have ALREADY trashed the sacredness of their vows.
I'm getting married in November, and my marriage is not going to be affected in any way by gay people getting married, straight people getting divorced, or any other external influence. That vow made will be between me, my wife, and God. No one else is concerned and I am concerned iwth no one else.
You said earlier you don't have a problem with "civil unions." Churches will still not marry gays. How, then, are gays making marriage any less sacred?
Which is the move to legalize it and make them actual citizens, who would have to pay taxes.
I completely agree with you though, ILLEGAL immigrants should not have the same rights as the rest of us... especially those who have to wait years to be legal immigrants or who have higher prerequsites to come to America.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
