Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 43  Next

Of course the terminology is not important to the secularists, but it is important to those whom find a greater meaning in it. You can easily change the terminology to appease the religious, and provide all people with legal civil union to appease gays and those who support equality.

   

That just sounds like over complicating an issue and it would end up giving everyone the same thing.

   

lol... wouldn't be giving everyone the same thing be simplifying the issue?

   

But can you prove that it is different?

   

You can't prove anything about emotions, you also can't disprove it.

Oh, and at least change your name if you're going to troll.

   

Yes I know that, but it fails to address the point I was making.


Yes, she wanted to. I have never denied that want was a reason for two people to get married, but rather necessity was the reason for the state to grant such a privilege.

   

Indeed. Thus love should not be the reason for the state to grant marriage. Thank you for supporting my argument!


But everyone loves WarHawk! And who said anything about trolling?

   

Love shouldn't be, freedom should. People should have the freedom to do that type of thing, no one gets hurt, not even the people involved.

   

It's sad how many boast of or talk big about freedom just so long as it has all the stipulations THEY want or their church demands. Freedom for all does not come with small print, and equality means exactly that, that which is equal. No add ons for race or sexual orientation or sex or religious preferance. just equal.

   

They already have freedom. Case and point: sodomy has been legal for quite some time now.

   

Does anyone actually disagree in this forum?

It is just so darn Canadian!

   

For anyone interested in a logical (rather than emotional or religious) argument against gay marriage...

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

   

Good post! Thats one of the better arguments. However, I'm inclined to pick it apart.


Article: The purpose of gov't encouraging hetro marriage is to progress society thru procreation:
Jade: I see this as a case more for adoption rights of gays.
Article: But children are shown to need 1 parent of each sex to develop properly
Jade: Then divorce should be illegal and parents of illegitimate children should be legally obligated to be married. 1 parent of each sex may be Ideal, but it is rare. There are other male/female role models beyond fathers or mothers
Article:But we still should no encourage these types of family
Jade: I would argue that the reasons theses studies show children need both male and female parents comes more from societies treatment on homosexuals and single parents rather than the acctual direct impact of the parents on the children. People who say that 'gay parents raise disfucntional children' are the ones contributing to the childrens disfuction by stereotyping children of gays as disfuctional and treating them different in society.
Article: Well I'm just going to bring up the ol' slipperly slope argument.
Jade: Plain and simple, this is just changing marriage from being between a man and a woman, to being a union of two, legal age, consenting adults. There is no where to down from there.

I would also like to note that the author: "Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics" It seems Mr. Kolasinski sees most of this debate as a financial one, as I would expect a future dr. of financial economics to see it. This is not a question of money or love. It is, first and foremost, a question of freedom. They aren't hurting anybody, beyond a few tax breaks which they could get by a gay couple marrying a lesiban couple to save money. The truth is, most people who don't like gay marriage don't like it for the following reasons:

1. Religion
2. Old morals
3. Uncomfortable with it for a personal reason
4. General bigotism
5. Economic reasons (ie, my marriage makes babies (a greater burden for the tax payer) which help society, so I deserve tax breaks, homosexuals don't.

   

Well, that all is possibly true but I do not think all people have the same thoughts on the reasons of having marriage, and certainly most people do not believe marriage is solely for the creation of new citizens.

And, is the actual reason the state does not mandate sterility testing the cost involved? I think that is false. Can you imagine the public outcry if the state required you to test your sterility prior to becoming married?

And also, homosexual couples often do have families through the use of artificial insemination, surrogate mothers or adoption.

And if the state wants babies, why don't they set up some sort of baby factory? You can get alot more babies with a baby factory than with marriage. Require an women and man to randomly have sex in the factory to ensure a woman is always pregnant! The men go out and work, and the women stay in the factory with their 40 or 50 babies. We could increased the birth rate ten times! Now that is better than marriage! Look, is that the case of "Utilitarian Secular Baby Factories vs Secular Procreation Marriage." or what?

   

Glad you posted your age, you got alot of growing up to do. Everybody can dream i guess.

   

Previous  1 ... 7  8  9  10  11  12  13 ... 43  Next