|
County in Oregon Bans all Marriages
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
Yep.
Now to make it national, permanent, and retroactive. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
lol... my first thought was that "hmm why not just permit all marriages instead of banning them :conf:" but this explained it a bit at least :p
| quote: | | The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages. |
yeye, rather cool thing to do anyway :p |
|
|
| Izzy |
| wow, imagine a world full of single people. |
|
|
| caddyshack |
| quote: | | "It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally." |
i don't get it, gay people ARE treated equally. no one is stopping them from getting married as long as it is with the other sex.. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
wow, imagine a world full of single people. |
I would be down with that :D |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| wait, but are divorces still legal:conf: :eyes: :conf: |
|
|
| smokeape |
Damn, and I thought we were backward down here in Dixie. Those motherf*ckers have lost all sense of reality. Time to visit the courthouse and oust a few ultra-liberals physically. The church can actually proceed on the morally right path and marry man and wife, but reckon folks cannot get the license or get the marriage recorded. Hmmmm. Where's John Lennon when you need him, dammit!
:nervous:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by caddyshack
i don't get it, gay people ARE treated equally. no one is stopping them from getting married as long as it is with the other sex.. |
There's a slight problem with that, they aren't attracted to the opposite sex.
I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question/propose a hypothetical scenario. Assume for a moment that you're gay. From what we know, being gay appears to be either genetically determined, or a mixture of biological factors and environmental factors. Either way, I think it's reasonable to assume that being gay isn't a choice, you're attracted to the same sex and that's that, just as heterosexual people are attracted to the opposite sex. It just happens, there's no choice in the matter. Now, imagine that the majority of people in the US are actually gay. You want the right to marry the opposite sex, but keep getting the following argument thrown back in your face: "Straight people aren't being discriminated against, nobody is stopping them getting married, as long as it's with the same sex!". Evidently you'd become rather annoyed, no?
What (secular) reasons you can provide for not extending marriage to gays. It's blatantly obvious that child bearing isn't the focus of marriage, if it were, then by definition infertile couples would need to be excluded from getting married.
Diginut is the only person I've seen mount a decent case against extending marriage to gays (I'd actually like to continue that discussion sometime, as he had some interesting points), and although I disagree with him, I've yet to see anyone else actually construct an argument that doesn't entail some kind of religious undertone. When it comes down to it, "because the Bible/Koran says so" seems to come out as the real reason behind a lot of people's opposition to it. In all honesty, if the government is going to be in the business of offering marriage licences, then it shouldn't be discriminating against people, and/or unduly restricting who can obtain them.
But yeah, back to the original topic, the government getting out of the marriage business altogether is the best thing that could happen IMO.  to the OP. |
|
|
|
|
