TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
...
I don't think the government should "marry" people at all. In my view, yes, I think there shouldn't be any civil unions. I think marriage should not be meddled with and defined by the government.
The removal of "permanent" from the definition of marriage - is that where you live? I'm not aware that in the US all definitions of marriage that include homosexual marriage have removed that word. But again, so what? Why is it a problem?
I meant that marriage can be ended very easily now, so instead of solving their problems and working out their differences, couples divorce. This is very traumatic for their children and it is emotionally painful for them too. The word "permanent" may still be their, but marriage is not actually permanent nowadays.
I want to know what harm sex before marriage or sex between homosexuals does to people outside of the people having the sex. Adults making their own decisions can live with the consequences and don't need others living their lives for them.
In a lot of cases it isn't responsible adults making the choice to have sex before marriage that get them into trouble, but irresponsible teenagers. The harm done to them is largely spiritual harm, something I know isn't going to faze most of them, but as a Christian I value the spiritual side of life far more than the physical.
Having kids be confused is a problem? Kids are confused every day, and as parents our job is to explain things to them. Should we not raise vegetarians because we'd have to explain why other kids eat meat? Hell, should Jewish parents celebrate Christmas and not tell their kids the truth about Santa to protect them from confusion?
I agree, that is a bit of a weak point.
It's highly debatable that homosexuality is part of sexuality? I'm sad that someone taught you this.
I suppose you either didn't read Part IV of the article or you dismissed it as nonsense because you read it on a Catholic, anti-gay-marriage article. I think there is something to that data. Do you have the counter evidence? I currently don't have any reasons against believing that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind other than being told that it isn't. How do I know that it wasn't just declared a non-disorder due to political and social pressure and not conclusive evidence/lack of evidence?
I am also curious as to why you tell me how sad you are over my religion. Do you think your condescending tone will change my mind and make me realize the errors of my ways? Should I go mope in a corner and tell you how sad I am that you don't believe in God in almost all of my posts? Are you just trying to be expressive of your feelings--will you let me know when you're happy too? I don't think it's necessary to tell me how sad you are. If you continue I'll do the same thing and you can see how pointless it is.
I don't have a problem with government and religion having separate terms for marriage, if that's how you want to put it. If "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of religion and a "civil union" is a union between any two consenting adults in the eyes of government, that would be fine with me.
What I mean is that the government should stay clear of all marriages and unions of any sort. People can form their own groups for marrying if they so wish and marry how they want. Then the government isn't infringing on my religious beliefs and other people don't feel unequal. I would much rather there was no such thing and gay marriage once again became an unheard of thing, but that isn't going to happen. The next best thing is for governments to take a step back, drop all laws on the subject, and permit organizations for the purpose of marrying people to spring up, much like funeral homes (meaning it would be the type of business a funeral home is, not a church or something like that).