There is no limit to what can be included in a definition if you generalize it enough.

After all why stop with two people? Why not just say two living beings? The example that someone posted earlier about a man marrying his dog for instance. Even if you just limit it to human beings it says nothing about their respective ages, or even if both of them are alive.

What the pro-gay marriage is asking is for us to extend the definition of marriage ONLY to the degree THEY want, but no further, at least not yet. They're like the driver who drives 5mph above the speed limit but will block anyone from passing him because he feels breaking the speed limit is ok but only to the degree he personally is comfortable with.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not too men or two women or a man and a corpse, and I will continue to oppose any and all attempts to expand that definition beyond it's original meaning.

There have been plenty of protests against easy divorces over the years but like this gay marriage thing they have been shouted down by a loud and pushy minority. Many whose only dog in that hunt is in further tearing down anything and everything that the church stands for.

Good question. I've yet to see a strong argument for only two people.

The dog, the child, and the corpse are all unable to give informed consent. There's already a block on these unions for that reason.
(And why do these arguments always seem to head toward man on dog discussions?)

But the "original" definition of marriage hasn't always been the definition of marriage. Polygamy has just as long a history.

Well that post is a decent into sillyness after his arguement has fallen apart.
But sillyness can be dealt with in detail, in fact it is so easy to deal with in detail that one word trashes the whole line august has put forward.
Consent....so simple isn't it when it comes to matters that are no more than a legal contract, like marriage :yeah:

You're stretching. A dog can't give consent, or sign on the dotted line. Neither can a corpse.

A totally useless and irrelevant analogy.

That's fine, since none of us here can affect the issue in any direct way. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and mine is no better or more valid than yours, and vice versa.

I'll move to the US, start my own church and start marrying gays for a fee. I'll be rooooolling in cash :DL

And right there you have the problem - the State shouldn't be involved to start with. If it were not - this wouldn't be a question.

Why do "some" people - the small minority of extreme gay activists, insist that everyone else conform to their way of doing things? Why does that same small group have a problem with using the existing legal structure in place to give those couples the same rights without forcing their views on everyone else?

Your pool of actual couples who wish to marry is much smaller than you are led to believe. This is a very "loud" issue only because those who push for it are extremely vocal - the vast majority of the homosexual community (which is small in relation to general society) is not active on this. Don't be fooled into thinking its some massive push by some large part of society - its simply that the "squeeky wheel gets the grease" example of what gets attention in the media.

I'll raise the fee acordingly :03:

So what if it's a minority?Gun owners are a minority in America - a very vocal one, too. But their rights are sacrosanct.

Blacks are a minority as well - I guess there's a problem there too when they pushed their views on the rest of the country and made everyone change the way things had been done for hundreds of years in order to respect their rights.

That argument doesn't hold any water.

No, the small minority only ask for the same benefits as the majority. The majority say "No" and pat themselves on the backs for being better people. As to "everyone else", they're not being asked to "conform", just accept and stop denying equality to the minority. They oppress the minority and then blame the minority for trying to "oppress" them.

It doesn't matter if it's only one. Oppression is oppression.

So why are you cheering so loudly over the State's "correct" decision?

Have you ever seen Birth Of A Nation? :sunny:

I have not "cheered" it. I have problems with the amendment as it was written. However, I do support it over the worse alternative.

I have consistently maintained - in my history here at subsim - that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. The fact that it is however is reality - so if its going to be involved, I would rather see it protect what is a religious action as religion dictates it is rather than force religion to adapt to whatever standard is "fair, right and good" in the eyes of the state. Protecting religious freedom by NOT dictating what religion must say on this issue is more important to me than the "rights" of a few to get to call their shared lives by some term with a piece of paper.

But no one is saying that religions must marry homosexuals. There is no way the government could force churches to carry out a ceremony the church does not support. When I got married in a Catholic church, I had to meet certain obligations before the church would agree to conduct the ceremony. Any church has the option to not conduct any wedding that does not meet their conditions.


Then again, if a church has no problem with marrying homosexuals, the government is standing in their way, telling them they cannot perform the wedding. That doesn't sound like religious freedom to me.

This. No one is forcing any religious organization to conduct any services. This is about marriage at the courthouse.

Hmm, this sounds like discrimination.

Here in Canada where same sex marriage is legal, there have been cases where Marriage Commissioners refusal to marry gays on 'religious grounds' ended up in court. Quote: "accommodating the religious beliefs of the commissioners could not justify what would amount to discrimination against gays and lesbians."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...constitutional

Granted this is somewhat different than a church refusing as the commissioner is a public servant but it is discrimination none the less.

Possibly a church here in Canada is just one court case away from being forced to marry anyone who asks them to marry them.