| reggin_bolas said: Of course gay couples can still adopt but their relationship never amounts to anything more than a civil union. Look guys, all laws and statutes are essentially discriminatory. Young people can't buy alcohol for example. Men can't work at places like hooters (as waiters). The reason it's very important to add a new amendment is to avoid persecuting Christians and other religions. We know the SC decision will open up the floodgates for litigation against clergy and other organizations if they refuse to wed same-sex couples in their places of worship. Also this whole spiel about love and it doesn't harm anyone is just bunkum. If that's the main reasoning then a man can marry a tree for example. It doesn't harm anyone right? The guy is in love right? The line has to be drawn. |
How is same sex marriage more damaging to families than divorce? There are people who get married only to divorce days later just for fun. Is this not worse for the family unit than monogomous homosexuals forming lifelong bonds and starting families? The line has to be drawn not at divorce but same sex marriage? I find this to be utterly ridiculous to be frank.
The seperation of church and state is integral to the American way of life (or what is left of it) and you're telling me that nanny government needs to forget that so they can swoop in and protect the Church from litigation relating to same sex marriage? Are you insane? This is not the government's purpose and it never was.
News flash: people can already marry trees, buildings, animals, rollercoasters and themselves if they want because marriage is an archaic concept that has been altered many, many times.
Finally, you're also telling me that any religious organization or culture that either wants to follow their traditional definition of marriage or redefine marriage to include same sex couples shouldn't have the right to do so? Are you joking? I know a same sex couple that work for the United Church (in which they were married) and you're telling me that they do not deserve this right? You're telling me that the clergy that married them should not be allowed to do so? You're telling me that the United Church should not be able to bless same sex marriages on a national level? Are you seriously telling me that the government should impose the views of one group on all others in order to deny them their rights?
Also, same sex unions rarely grant the same rights as marriage, stop pretending that it is a viable solution.
