No more divorce in North Carolina.

Most religions marry, not just the Christian ones.

I think the Feds need to stay out of marriage and let the states and their people decide what they want to do with regards to marriage. Then the states should let the churches handle who they deem married or not.

 

I personally wouldn't marry a dude, multiple women (although…) or a first cousin, but what valid reason is there to make those unions illegal other than not making you uncomfortable with what other people are doing? If the parties are consenting adults, I'm not sure who the victim is.

 

First cousins have messed up kids but second and third aren't such a problem.

 

Doesn't a ban on same sex marriage do just that?

This philosophy posits that laws should be opinion based vs. objective in nature. There is no objective basis for making same sex marriage illegal. The logical conclusion of your argument is that opinions matter more than facts so as long as the majority share in that opinion that such opinions should be codified into law. That's not supposed to be the way it works in a free society.

If you know something is wrong do you speak up or do you crumble under the weight of the masses who disagree with you? Most of the people of Mn wanted a new Vikings stadium but some conservatives in our legislature were offended by the notion of the state getting involved in building venues for private entities. Using your logic those people should have just shut their mouths because they were in the minority.

Yes. Who are you (or the majority) to disallow consenting adults from entering into civil contracts (marriage) with each other? What rights of yours (or anyone's) are violated as the result? What moral superiority do you claim to support that position?

Genetic anomalies aside, why not?

Freedom is always just a "want" by enslaved minorities when they existed. Your position seems to be that those "wants" should be discounted simply because they exist in the minority.

What conventional wisdom of morality is that? Be specific and support your answer with facts and logic please.

What major problem is present that requires us to allow straight marriage by law?... especially when becoming unmarried is so simple to accomplish. To answer your question I must first point out that I don't support gay marriage but I do support same-sex marriage. Marriage, in it's current form most places, discriminates on the basis of sex, not whether someone is gay, bi, or straight. IMO, there is no good reason to limit one's freedom to marry someone of the same sex because doing so violates nobody's individual rights nor has the potential to do so. Laws should be based on whether implementing them protects individual rights or not.. don't you agree? Additionally, there are several problems that allowing same-sex marriage to take place would solve. That you don't have the answer to that question already tells me that you haven't taken the time to research the topic.

You "want" to walk to the park. Not a significant enough problem. A lot of people want to do stuff.

Some people want to marry someone of the opposite sex.. just because they "want to" and not because they are solving some mystical "problem" you keep referring to without actually identifying. Child pornography and wreckless driving are real problems and that can be supported by actual facts.

Lets say the majority banned a certain food because they didn't like the way it tastes... and then ask your question in the context of making such food legal to eat for the minority. Your position is that the majority should be able to limit the freedoms of the minority simply because they can. That's not a good enough reason to limit freedom.

 

Just so you know, I have two close friends who happen to be gay. They know my thoughts on the subject and they respect that. But we just don't bring it up. If they were to marry their SO's, I'd go to their weddings, but I wouldn't bring my kids. You see, both of these guys know their sexual preference is not "normal", and they both know I have no fashion sense. And that is my issue with the whole political context. Gay activists don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment. They want to shout to the world that they're gay. What goes on behind their closed doors should not even be a government issue. Why is it? And don't try to relate this to racial equality.

 

One of your kids could turn out to be gay regardless of whether they attend a gay wedding. Perhaps moral, not the word normal, is the word you were looking for. They average Joe who ends up marrying a supermodel is not "normal". Would you take your kids to that wedding?

Agreed. Unfortunately, so long as there are laws that prevent them from marrying who they want to marry, they can either attempt to sway politicians or judges to allow them to get married. Which do you prefer?

It's (government) not in anyone's bedroom until you bring marriage into the picture... straight people included. Marriage is a government issue regardless of whether you are gay or straight.

 

Just for the record, all of my gay friends are far more normal than Jay Barfield.

 

You have friends?

 

Whoops! I was with your right up until this statement. The goobermint is all up in our bedrooms with anal sex laws, consenting adult laws, cohabitation laws, even 'common-law' marriages. None of which require the folks to be married.

 

Dude, you are not exactly "normal" either.

 

Just gays and bikers, with some overlap. (So to speak.)

 

Question to Barfield:

Your son wants to marry his boyfriend. Would you go to the wedding?

 

Dude, you were holding the camera for Kenneth Pinyan, so that makes your every opinion invalid.

 

What's immoral about gay marriage?

Do you want the gov't or the church to define that?

 

That's a trick question. If you raise your kids with good Christian values and don't take them to gay weddings, they'll be straight.

 

I'm gonna have to ask Mom when Dad took David to a gay wedding.

 

You got that straight! Or you got that Right. Or somesuch...

 

I love my kids unconditionally. So yes, I would. But he would also know my thoughts on the subject.

 

Wreckless driving is what everyone should aspire to; reckless driving is a punishable offense.




Not to be pedantic or anything.

 

Ching! :up: