Marriage for love is both a novel and relatively modern concept, and the Christian aversion to divorce is an oddity even compared to the other Abrahammic religions.

Actually 'plural marriages' as they call are still a core tenate of their religoun.  They official gave up the practice to allow Utah to become a state, but it is still pratice and still a core value.  But it's only the only man many woman kind.

But they seem to be trying to bring it back if you look at some other cases.

Ok, So you couldn't answer my quetions. 

But I'll will answer yours:  Because it is a complete and deceptive lie.  It is not suported by Biblical teachings, it's only made up by people against civil rights as some attempt to spin that other people have their families recogized is somehow an attack on them.   (I points out lying is a sin.)

As far at the LGBT lobies spending monies, do you think people should not be allowed to defend themselves when disturbed people try to control others and go after eleminating and removing their rights?  What should women do if someone wanted to remove their right to vote, work or own property?  Just sit there?

The Morman spend million promotion their own agenda, pretty fancy to call it 'charity.'  Do you realize how many cultures they have wipped out to incorporate into their own?

They have even converted Ann Frank something like 9 times to try to make her Mormon, thus attempting to erase her Jewish herritage. 

Also, you don't seem to understand US law.  Federal law, as it was in this case, trumps state law.  A state can not make a law that says women do not have the right to vote - but could have a 'domestic recomendation' because Federal laws guarantee the right of women to vote.

Oh, the old 'the world is ending if we allow this' arguement.

Same Sex Marriage does nothing to address multiple marriages or children, etc.  I have no idea why any resonsable person would think it would. 

All that it does address is the gender of the person to whom one can marry.  It is a just another step to do with gender equality, just like removing gender restrictions on the right to vote.  Did you know women served as elected officals in the US goverment before they even had to vote?

Same sex couples have always been here.  Legal same sex marriage makes stronger couples and a better society in general.

Interestingly France is the only country that has allowed all genders to chose between a marrige and a domestic partnership. What they found is the number of oppisite sex couples getting married went down in favor of Civil Unions.

Marriage is so ingranded in US Law it's just easier to include same sex couples, rather than change all the books, and Marriage in the USA doesn't have to be a religous thing.

In this case Marriage is a right as it is defined by US Law.  It's not just my opion. 

It is in the US constution and has much to do with how a family is defined.  I think children of same sex parents should have the same rights as any other children.

And technicaly, while I personally find it immoral, people don't have to be in love to get married.  Some people do it for money for immigration prurposes.  They do try to check those couples with an interview, and you can get in major trouble, like lose your citizenship if caught, but it does happen.

I stopped reading this with an open mind the moment you utilized the slippery slope argument.

You've already redefined marriage. Marriage, in the context of human history, has already allowed for the polygamy and polyandry. These types of marriages have existed for as long as the concept of marriage has existed. By refusing to acknowledge these as legitimately defined marriages, you've already redefined what marriage is to fit within your own personal cultural moorings. So that argument simply doesn't work.

It amazes me how any sensible person can make the slipper slope argument in regards to marriage. Children, animals and "anything" else lack one very important legal qualification that adults have: consent. Children are not old enough to consent to most things legally, especially marriage, which is why they can't get married. Same goes with animals and "anything" else. In order for this to happen, this whole idea of consent in legal matters will have to be removed. But for homosexual marriage? We just have to change (or remove) some language in existing marriage laws.

And regarding your comments on marriage having no secular meaning: no one is forcing churches to marrry anyone. If you truly beleive that marriage has no meaning in a secular government, then absolutely nothing is being lost with these laws: the US government has always been secular, meaning marriage never had any meaning in the United States outside of the Church, which won't be impacted by these laws anyway. So I don't really see the issue.

I'm really surprised that there is so much push back on VGchartz. I never understood why people are worried about gay marriage. It's not like us straight people are very good at marriage anyways.

Oh, and I can't stand the "I don't hate gays, I just don't agree with them" argument. How can you disagree with who someone is? That's insane to me.

"So this tells me you will soon follow with incoherent babbling, and you certainly obliged."

Let me explain something that everyone seems to not understand. The arguments I make come straight in a sense from scholarly articles I read on meta-ethics. Example: Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. A good read for those who don't understand meta-ethics or understand how to frame morality in a coherent way.

Define my terms for those confused or want simple layman understanding.

objective truth: true regardless of personal opinions.

subjective: based on personal opinions.

Meta-ethics: The study of the foundation of morally. Why do we consider certain morals true and why are they true.

Morality: the standard by which we consider what is right or wrong.

Social Norm: something we consider right because of our own society. Not necessarily true for other societies to be considered true.

Circular reasoning: to assume the conclusion into the argument itself.

Bandwagon fallacy: to say something is right because the majority agrees. (I.e God exist because there more who believe than don't)

"I provide you with solid legal"

I will explain my points in simpler terms and in layman format. If you don't understand still please tell me and I will gladly try to further explain in depth for you in a easier way. Ok, let's begin. What is the problem with from arguing from legal stance on why your morality is true? The reason why it is incoherent is that it argues from a social norm which is really a bandwagon fallacy that is circular in reason. Let's explain why. When you argue that x( x being the legal law) is true because of x says it's true, your arguing your conclusion into the arguement. Let me further explain with deductive reasoning:

1. If x is legally wrong than it is morally wrong.

2. X is legally wrong.

3. Therefor, X is morally wrong.

This is your argument. That because in America it is legally wrong( consent) than it is morally wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong, ok? So, that sounds like a logically coherent argument right? Well, no. Why? You haven't answered the question why is the legal law itself true. We are forced to believe that the law itself is objective. But why? Is it because many people agree? Well we know that can't be true because than that would lead to more problems like is anything right because it's agreed with the most. When people change from agreeing to disagreeing on that stance is it both true and false at the time? Obvious not because that go against logic number one law the law of non-contradiction. The idea that nothing can be both true and false. So, is it right because it's right? No, because they would just be arguing in circle were anyone could claim anything true if they proclaim it. But, wait maybe you feel that it is so obvious that it's like self-evident? Here is problem can you really prove that is without a shadow of doubt that isn't based on your own personal morality or random decision based on nothing more than chance. What do I mean by chance? I am saying is, simple is it true because it's actually true (objective) or that the current society just picked and could likely change they morality like most societies do(subjective).

Let's use your own argument. Is consent right because it's legally right or is just difference of opinion. Well to give you the maximum chance of testing this to be true, I will not use other countries. I will use good ole' USA.  Does the USA actually promote the idea of consent is what determines sex or marriage? Wait.. let me do one more thing to further help your claim. I will not use an argument from mentally challenge people. Seem fair? Hopefully I maximized this experiment in your favor. Wait... let's use a issues you claimed to be true about, how about beastlity and consent? Ok, so let's the do the experiment ! What are our factors in this? The issue must be about beastlity and only about beastlity. I can't use societies besides America. No, using animal moral laws only the United States. So, does the United States have a self-evident belief that beastlity is wrong because of consent. Let's see what the results conclude!

-scanning-

Well I have some bad news for you seems the United States failed the test.

How? Over ten states have legalized beastlity and there are actually more states that legalized then in previous history. Guess how? Through the courts. Apparently the animals have enough consent for me to have some fun with them. Let's name states. Florida, Hawaii,Iowa,Kectucky,Louisiana,Missouri,Arizona,Colorado, Connecticut,Montana, etc. Shows to me that consent does not stop love. You argued that this things don't exist in the perfect law and consent was so highly viewed. Your own country doesn't agree with your terms on morality, other societies don't, and I don't? Why are you right. What is there left to defend? Nothing exist for you to defend. Bet most of the people reading my reply on my pedophile not caring about consent are not going to reply to this? What are you going to say? The animal has more consent then 11 year old. I can have sex with my horse but that child no way he is highly underdeveloped compared to that horse in intelligence or consent. Consent becomes just a buzzword at this point doesn't. Are we going to pretend that I never wrote this and we truly believe in consent? I live in Florida right now I could invite a cop over my house to have sex with any animal. Maybe a dog I just bought or maybe my beautiful horse. Think about that and read that slowly 3 times. Tell, me you think law is objectivly in any sense. Why don't I invite you over my house and watch a dog have sex with another human and than look me in eyes and tell "well that's the law and they agree it's ok, it has enough consent to ok this." They believe consent doesn't matter. The judge. The person having sex with the animal. The people who believe no matter what the law if it's a law and it was agreed upon, it's right. Doesn't effect you? We have two consenting creatures having sex what's the problem? The problem living by the law as the objective moral it's like the saying of warriors in ancient past "live by sword, die by the sword". You will realize real quick this world does agree on any one issue completely even in your own society and the quicker realize that you accept that the more time you have re-think your beliefs. Who do you have besides yourself to convince that constant matters to anyone. Every law made by humans are in self-interest it's time to drink that morning coffee and wake up.

"Because if you can't answer this without any personal belief or emotion, "

This is my point and my problem with secularism is that you can't get any moral truths. You left either going with flow or whatever or giving up on morals. When look the problem of secularism is we don't know why anything is wrong and we try to speak up for your morals you will be flooded by the voices of "what is right for and what's right for me." There is nothing that transcends any one person opinion because it's all relative. We have to stop and say what do I really believe?

Personal note: I hope you didn't believe I attacked in any of my discussions. I only wanted to attack your arguments. I have no problems with you personally and I actually enjoyed debating you. In philosophy there is a saying "attack the arguments not the man". Anytime I used ignorant or incoherent I am saying your argument is incoherent and ignorant of the facts. People tend to think those words means they think the person is stupid or incompendent. But fact is ignorance is biss with everyone and that includes me. If it seems I pushed to hard it was because I was trying for you see my point of view. When reading your work I tried to see things from your point of view instead of just pushing my points. I'm truly sorry if I offended you or you felt I thought less of you. I want to stress I do not care to attack you as person my desires are to attack your arguments as you know the Internet is hard to show how on truly feels. I hope I am able to convert that message with this post. I had a lot fun debating you. I look forward to your response. Thank you.

I don't know why a mod is encouraging someone quote-mine and than actually discuss the content of my post. It would be like me quoting an article on why Hitler was a bad person and quoting one part without putting in context what he was actually saying.

My new post further explains my point in respectful matter where I give a even more detail on reasoning why the society itself doesn't following consent. If you disagree with my points then tell me why and let me is it simply a misunderstanding of my point. My arguments themselves are my personal beliefs but arguments that attack arguments. I don't know if you ever watched philosophical debate or read before but this how it usually conducts itself. One person shows some wrong with there point by playing the role of what would contradict the argument. Example, if I argued that abortion was wrong morally, how the extremes of the opposition opens up because of his ideology.

I would greatly appreciate if you fully read my post instead of the drive-by comments. If you have question on what I am saying do so by asking, but to do "1 line" wow that's crazy or does he really believe that?

Is not only disrespectful but goes against the very purpose of moderation which is to promote healthily discussions. If you feel that you can't do this for any reason be that read my post fully or ask questions, then I respectful ask you don't bother responding to me or encouraging such behavior. I would actually like to have discussion that go beyond one-liners. Like the current person I'm debating who is giving a nice discussion.

Thank you and hopefully we can have nice discussion.

(if this a double post. Merge it with some space of my last post)