Marriage is a civil right in the US

'The only qualification? What about religious beliefs? Should atheists be allowed to get married? After all your claim against same sex marriages seems to be that these people are doing things contrary to the bible’s teachings, so by the same token should you not bar Atheists, People of other faiths, thieves, murderers, adulterers, witches . (and so the list goes on) from marriage?The point is if you are defending the holy union of matrimony against those who go against the bibles teachings why stop at with the Gays?If you have no problem with Marriage for atheists, thieves, murderers, adulterers . and so on, then you have no argument against homosexuals other than bigotry. After all you even say: So if by your own admission, reproductive ability or urge has nothing to do with marriage, then why heterosexuality the only qualification? If reproductive ability is removed as a requirement for marriage then it isn’t intuitively obvious (with or without common sense) why marriage should be limited to one ”man and one woman’.Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

esspecially to the last paragraph.

---

'The only qualification? What about religious beliefs? Should atheists be allowed to get married? After all your claim against same sex marriages seems to be that these people are doing things contrary to the bible’s teachings, so by the same token should you not bar Atheists, People of other faiths, thieves, murderers, adulterers, witches . (and so the list goes on) from marriage?The point is if you are defending the holy union of matrimony against those who go against the bibles teachings why stop at with the Gays?If you have no problem with Marriage for atheists, thieves, murderers, adulterers . and so on, then you have no argument against homosexuals other than bigotry. After all you even say: So if by your own admission, reproductive ability or urge has nothing to do with marriage, then why heterosexuality the only qualification? If reproductive ability is removed as a requirement for marriage then it isn’t intuitively obvious (with or without common sense) why marriage should be limited to one ”man and one woman’.Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

Wrong. Nowhere in there is reproduction mentioned. It is all to do with what sex you are, your interest and drive in getting all hot and sweaty, and your personal leanings. Actual successful reproduction is not a part of that. (though is often the result, between fertile couples)Your argument harks back to the ”reproduction is the reason for marriage’ argument, that even Faith has stepped away from. And if Faith has given up on any particular argument then you know it’s got to be unsound.

So now you object to two people who love each other NOT being married.. Nice one.

Why line up for all that hatred and intolerance that gets directed at gays just for small financial gain? Easier to marry a like minded woman and get a few free shags into the bargain . Anyway as has been pointed out there have been scam marriages since time immemorial, purely in the hetero realm, so this is not a strong argument against same sex unions.

Ok, as Faith is decidedly not interested in aswering this, anyone on the "No To Gay Marriage" team care to have a crack?

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

---

So equal in all but name? Isn’t that like when the European Union tried to force UK chocolate makers to change the name of their product to ”Vegelate’ as it wasn’t really ”chocolate’ at all ( No, Really!)

Actually No, SNC is right. By your arguments, to deny marriage to those who would potantialy abuse it for personal gain, you would have to shut the whole thing down and deny it to one and all. To limit this 'potential fraud' preventative to couples of the same sex (purely because it was a same sex relationship) is out-right discrimination.Edited by ohnhai, : No reason given.

isnt that the same as saying while it's ok for the Heteros to rip the system off with dubious marriages it's not ok for the Homos?

It's still a poor argument. If Heteros dont use marriage to defraud on any great scale (your observations) why do you think is would be more of an issue with same sex unions?On a side note. the vast majority of the conversation and argument has been against male/male pairings. are lesbian unions less of an issue?

Faith: Why the reluctance to answer this question?

And we'd apreciate some answers......

You may feel you have answered the other questions resolutly but my direct question regarding the tansexuals that get married most cirtainly has not.I would be interested in your views.to re-state. (again)

---

Would you have a problem with two transsexuals (post-op) of opposite sex getting married? To spell that one out for you. If Barry became Cathy and Jill became Jack, would you object to Cathy and Jack getting married? What if Cathy met Tom and got married would you object? What if Jack met Sandy, would you object to marriage?

---

Hi ya watzmagiga. Sure has.But think on this. If marriage is a 'Christian tradition' (and I assume by that you mean ”only a Christian tradition’) then why does virtually every other religion, society and culture have marriage tradition? More over, if marriage WAS a Christian thing in and of itself, that does leave you with the little problem of explaining why the Romans, Greeks, Jews and Egyptians (to name but a few) practice marriage centuries before the birth of Christ ? Simple. Marriage has been practiced by humans for millennia. Way before Jesus was even a twinkle in his daddy’s eye.There have been many definitions of marriage through centuries and ”heterosexual monogamy’ has been but one (and not an exclusively Christian one at that). It is ridiculous for Christianity to lay claim to the sole rights to heterosexual monogamy, let alone “marriage”.It could even be argued that heterosexual monogamy was actually invented in the animal kingdom first, many species follow observable monogamous relationships.It plainly absurd that one group of humans would, could or should force their interpretation of the universal concept of a monogamous relationship on any other group.In short if same sex couples want to define their monogamous relationships as marriage then there is no reason for them not to, save for the exclusionist discrimination of a group who mistakenly believes it alone has the right to define what marriage is.Oh and PS.. Homosexuals no more 'Choose to be gay' than you chose to be straight, male or a Kiwi.PPS: Whoot ! Post 500 this is

No Faith. Not always.