Same Sex Marriage should be legally recognised and accepted.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
| Started: | 2/23/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 1 year ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,979 times | Debate No: | 21411 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (2)
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Pro OK, I shall make my arguments first, and take the time to define some of the words, as my right of motion affirmer. SSM - Same Sex Marriage What is Marriage? Marriage is defined as the social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce). But the usual point of contention is the why people should get married. I'd contend that it is out of love. Love and commitment is the modern reason for people to get married. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1] In addition, marriage is a right sanctioned by the UN. The United States Article two states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1) When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1) The answer is obvious. In conclusion to this point, marriage should, by its definition and law, be allowed in all countries. Won't somebody please think about the children!? In the scenario that you believe that we should have marriage for children, then I would like to point out that homosexual parents are not just equal to, but occasionally better than, heterosexual parents. Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. If we want our children to be happy, then it is only fair that we allow homosexual parents to marry. The allowing of IVF and other such things, especially adoption, would mean that marriage is a good idea. The Libertarian Approach I want to bring in a libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation by Olston, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill: "Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling..."[2] In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have to give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others. Financial Issues Also, I would like to 'steal' my final argument from Bluesteel, simply due to the brilliance of his point: ""The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim. After all, it is quite a simple one to do: get the 84,000 homosexual couples living in California[8], reduce it by, say, 50% for those who won't get married. Then, separately, work out the average married person's money return every year based on marriage tax returns, and divide it by 2 to make it per couple, then multiply it by 3 to compare it to the 349 million dollar cost that the study states. That would provide the comparison. I would very like my opponent to do this if he uses this argument." ---[6] In conclusion, marriage should be legalised so it becomes in line with modern democracies, and in line with modern laws. It should be legalised because there is no strong reason to criminalise it. It should be legalised because it improves the financial system of where it is legal, and on philosophical grounds to protect personal liberty and freedom. I shall wait for my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you. 1 - http://motherjones.com... 2 - On Liberty, page 9. 3 - http://www.livescience.com... 4 - http://www.time.com... 5 - http://www.tandfonline.com... 6 - http://www.debate.org... 7 - http://online.wsj.com... 8 - http://online.wsj.com...  Con Though very exhausted, and reluctant to participate in this debate(hence my very late response), I will attempt to dismantle my opponents argument. Marriage(as deffined by Webster) - a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.[A] Since the uprise of the rebellious homosexual mob; it's been very successful at capturing the mind of the fickle - and Webster has added a 2nd deffinition. We are not to discriminate! the article my opponent sites is very easily manipulated to mean what ever he wants it to. Discrimination - the act of discriminating.[B] Discriminating - making a distinction.[B2] There is clearly a difference between homo - and hetero - sexuals; One can bring forth the next generation, and one cannot. This is the only reason it is recognized. The state does not care if you love someone, and has no buisness in non-procreative type relationships. E.g. - (Bare with me as it is a bit funny) you have a Peanut Butter, jelly, and bread; these ingredients make what we call a PB&J sandwich. If we were to make a sandwich using only peanut butter or only jelly - it would cease to be a PB&J sandwich! You cannot now call it one just because you believe it is unfair to discriminate a title and benefits of taste! You cannot get the taste of a PB&J without the jelly or without the peanut butter... this is what the SSM argument is essentially demanding; That regardless of what PB&J is, they wish to only have 2 of the ingredients and still get the same taste. It's impossible because they do not have the missing ingredient! in the actual case - it is procreation which is the missing ingredient. It's not about procreation! This is always a common objection, usually in reference to the states whom allow 1st cousins to marry as long as they cannot reproduce. Seems to be a critical blow; however, this relationship is still procreative in type - one man and one woman. Since this is a debate of what the law should be, I would push that not only should SSM not be recognized by the state, but those types of unions either. As they are dangerous and cannot produce children. It's a RIGHT! Is it a right? or is it simply a benefit of the procreative union? Contrdiction(a DDO member) sites philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis very wisely:"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." [C] I would also add; Why are only the elderly allowed benefits by AARP or more affordable housing? Very simply, they have lived very long lives and are not able to care for themselves as they once we're able to; this is still a clear distinction(discrimination). Is there a right to everyone to receieve welfare? Of course not, only those who are in need. All of these can be viewed as an unfair discrimination in the Pro-SSM logic. But the same reasons these are afforded to those who strictly qualify, are the same reason why Marriage benefits are only recognized and accepted by those whom qualify - the type that can reproduce. SSM is not criminal and is not viewed in any such way. It is not banned. It is just not recognized as something it is not. Referring to the above quotation - many argue that the reason friends are not recognized is because the type of love that they share. Is that not discrimination as well? Now it is not only about love, but only the romantic type. The reasons for recognizing SSM are invalid and unimportant to the greater good - a future generation. Homosexuals make good parents if not better parents then heterosexuals! In this argument the burden of proof comlpetely lies on my opponent. I will now counter this argument by first stating; in any custody case, the parent who is often with new partners or practices promiscuity, and has no consistant life style providing stability, will undoubtedly be denied their rights over there children. What does this have to do with Homoseuxals making good or better parents? Let us explore that now. The majority of gay relationships last shorter then 6 months. (1) Very few gay relationships surpass 2 years. (2) Only 2.7% of gays have 1 partner throughout their whole life. (3) One study says they have 8 sexual partners per year. (4) Another said they have 500-1000 throughout their whole life. (5) This is a suitable household for an impressionable mind? Of course this can happen in either type of relationship, but the chances are much higher for the homosexual. There is no reason to grant SS-couples any of the benefits of traditional marriage as they do not qualify. It is a discrimination - but a lawful on. Just like how auto insurance companies can charge you more for you driving record or deny you coverage all together - it is just not good buisness. I am at work(insurance won't sell itself ;p) and cannot go into much further detail, so i await my opponents rebuttal. Sources: [A] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [B] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [B2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [C] http://www.debate.org... 1) Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12. 2) M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125. 3) Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," 354. 4) Xiridou, 1031. 5) A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pro Definitions of Marriage
 Polls around the world[3] have shown that homosexual marriage[4] is becoming more and more popular. Modern studies show anti-gay testament to be constantly becoming a minority, in Britain, 70% of people support it, Canada 66% support it, in America it has became majority opinion in favour of SSM. Denial of this union is going directly against the wishes of the people. Con Here we go again... The straw man is a very interesting fella, i will admit. However, he has no place in this debate, so please stop using him to distract our voters from the issue at hand. If you wish to debate who deffinition is better, I'll leave the burden of proof on you, as I simply used a well recognized source. I did mention that there was a second part to the definition - and it mentions the same-sex version as well. Although it is used secondary, the SSM 'movement' has definately been recognized more then it should be. Discrimination Yet again, the violen does not stop it's lingering whine. My opponent will ask me to provide reason why my deffinition is 'better' then in the very next paragraph presents his as 'Best'. I hope he will provide proof, other then the obvious support it provides to his position. No one has described discrimination as anything other than a negative, and to use the word properly - you will only be describing how something is not allowed or recognised based on a destinction. In this case a group of individuals wishes to reap the benefits of an establishment in which they are not in the slightest bit capable of meeting the requirements. There was no acknowledgement of the argument i presented regarding the benefits granted by the state and other organizations for the elderly. This is like me pressing the state to allow me social security because i am unemployed, or asking for dependant tax credit because i own a dog. This is the discrimination SSM is faced with. You cannot produce children, know one needs to accept you as though you can. Please stop bothering the state(especially CA) when we have much more legitamate and recognisable issues to address. Marriage is like a PB&J sandwich. A new brand of jelly he says! How interesting. Is it still not jelly? Different brand or flavor can more adequately be equated to a different race. Bare with me - Jelly's:Women: StrawberryHispanic GrapeItalian PeachBrazillian Do you see? have i addressed the point? it is still jelly. 2 jelly's make a jelly sandwich 2 PB's make a PB sandwich They are both sandwiches, true, but they are not a PB&J, and no one in their right mind would ever think to call them one. Funny he chose to address this, and still failed to understand the point. The slippery slope! I never claimed there was a slippery slope, but i thank my opponent for admitting it was one. There is not much to argue - it is very simple; you either can produce children, or you cannot. man + woman = babies, Babies = Future maen and women which equals more money and a future; man + man = affection and love which equals a few movies? a one time payment from the wedding? Thats great, I am very happy for you, but what does this benefit the state? It doesn't and is a complete waste of everyones time. I also wish to clarify, that i never said SSm was dangerous - i said 1st cousins procreating was. Nonsense! I believe this could fall under the discrimination topic, but like usual, my opponent will attempt to distract you with straw men. So when he says 'unheard of' he means people he doesn't consider worth listening to, even if they make sense. He goes on to address the entire point of the source i sited even though he claims there is no argument; The logic is sound, and there is no reason to acknowledge friendship whether it be romantic or not, in the context we are debating. Pro-SSM logic - The logic of those who support SSM. In regards to Hewitt vs Hewitt, SSM is not needed to avoid the problems MRS. Hewitt encountered. The same type of legal agreements are made all the time amongst business men and women, and are made that way to avoid any wrong doing from either party. You do not need the benefits of marriage to avoid an issue like recieveing half of a dually afforded endeavore, you only need a peice of paper stating so. Splitting hairs As well as failing in his humor, my opponent also fails to realize that permiscuity is not a suitable life-style for a child to be around. We all know, there are many heterosexuals who meet this criteria, and when do so unchallenged, usually wreck the lives of their children. Those who are challenged must either change or lose custody. Why would that matter to anyone? because the statistics show the results of this type of up-bringing. The statistics are acurate regarding the amount of partners a homosexual is likely to have, and my opponent is not going to gain much ground siting similar polls and different results. My opponent goes on to discredit my sources and promote his, but essentially only repeats his unimpressive tactic of "my sources are better then yours". I am a bit tipsy so this conclusion will be short.. 1) Marriage is for procreative relationships 2) If you cannont procreate you are not entitled to the benefits of such who can 3) The state has no reason to recognise love 4) Child rearing is not just sponsorship and image; but lasting healthy relationships with productive outcomes. The entire argument posed by my opponent is completely without any solid ground. Why must we recognise and 'accept' something that simply is not what it claims to be? It is not a question 'lawfully' about morality or normality - but simple PB&J logic. If you are not a duck, do not quack like a duck, do not look like a duck, and cannot produce another duck.. you are not a duck. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pro I thank my opponent for this debate, and as per common courtesy and precedence request no new arguments be made in the final round. That's the last straw... My opponent claims I have made a 'straw man' argument, by criticising his definition. Which he admits is his own. Which he admits he gave. Which means it is not a 'straw man' by all meaning of the word. Also, my opponent strangely seems to cite the idea that he gave a second definition. He, however, stated that it was due to "the uprise of the rebellious homosexual mob", connoting it is a false definition, but most importantly he does not give the definition. In addition, he did not address the point I made that his definition basically abandons the entire debate, because he uses circular reasoning to define the word in such a way that de dicto wins the debate. This is a terribly poor argument at best, and poor conduct at worst. Quick reference to the discrimination definition: I specifically said that even putting to one side my distaste for Merriam Webster, discrimination has been well known for being with negative connotation, and other dictionaries reflect this, and the Oxford Dictionary, something I class as a lot stronger authority due to its history, use the example of discrimination against homosexuality. What do you call a pun sandwich? My opponent's analogy of the sandwich is making me more and more disturbed. Firstly, keep in mind that different flavours of jam give different tastes, but they are still essentially a sandwich. No matter what the race of the people involved, similarly, the marriage is exactly the same. I am not affirming that a homosexual marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage, but are both essentially equal. And I do not address my opponent's analogy logic because the analogy is flawed. And the answer to the pun was punini. There should be a humour mark, seriously... Benefits of the State My opponent dropped both the financial and the democratic argument point, then has the audacity to claim the state has no benefit from recognising these marriages. Therefore, I consider this argument a non-point, and although I cannot defend it from scrutiny next round, I refer my opponent again to my two arguments: the financial and the democratic arguments made. Recognition of friendship My opponent's entire argument relied on authorities, who did not put forth an argument, but their conclusion. I have no doubt that in the source they wrote that in (a couple hundred page document), they put forth a coherent, valid and very possibly logical argument. However, my opponent simply put forth their conclusion. Now, I accept that some people think this. I don't think that because some people think this, there is a logical argument. Also, regarding the Hewitt v Hewitt case, many cases of union are not recognised. This could be solved easily by the recognition of homosexual marriage. Splitting Hairs v Hastly Generalisation My opponent firstly ignores my argument, which states how studies have showed that gay marriage gives healthy children. Then my opponent cites his sources about homosexual marriage. Well, let's point out that his sources will include that almost 100,000 homosexual marriages were annulled by the passing of Proposition 8, as well as other such laws in other regions boosting this statistic. But more importantly, let's recognise what my opponent's logic is: As many, not all, homosexuals have short marriages which are weak, we should ban homosexual marriages. Let's go through some logical equivalents: As many, not all, ethnic minorities are likely to commit crimes, all should be put in prison[1] As the majority of people steal from the workplace, people should be put in prison / workplaces should be banned / etc.[2] This kind of generalisation is recognised as a fallacy, and does not stand. I also wish to point out that I cited multiple studies which disagree with his conclusion from Bell & Weinburg. Conclusion To conclude, my opponent has dropped my arguments from democracy and financial gain as per the time of writing this post. The popular opinion wants to legalise gay marriage, and the state would gain financially from legalisation of such things. I have adequately, in my eyes, shown false the claim that gay parenting is bad (ignoring the irrelevance of such a thing), and shown the problems in the sandwich analogy. My argument regarding the freedom of each person also remains untouched. Finally, the definition my opponent gave stating marriage's purpose is for procreation is one that we do not have to accept on face value. I thank you for reading this debate, and for the reasons outlined, I urge a vote for PRO. 1 - http://www.scotland.gov.uk...; 2 - http://www.prnewswire.co.uk...; Con Yawn... This debate I finally near the end, and I rejoice in its conclusion. My conduct has not been par with my opponent and I admit this much; I also admit I could care less. The definition of marriage has always been the one I provided, and though SSM has gained popularity, it has not redefined it in the slightest. Popularity is not a factor in this debate, as there are far too many examples of a popular idea being vastly immoral and/or completely irrational on every ground (slavery, segregation, forced religion,etc). We are being forced to accept an idea, whether we agree with it or not, and we are being harassed continuously to afford a portion of taxes, to an institution, that benefits only the institution! There is no interest in the common good, there is interest in a select group of people and there never ending infatuation with universal acceptance. Debunking false logic Throughout this debate, my opponent will continuously insist that discrimination is at hand, and that it is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. The passion in which he uses his words are very noble and sincere; however, they cannot overcome the impenetrable wall of common sense. My argument is not against homosexuals, as they most assuredly can share a genuine love for their partners, and in many cases, can surpass the love a heterosexual couple. The validity of their love is not up for debate, their rights to visit one another are very reasonable, their longing to be recognized as a union is valid and shouldn't be disrespected or condemned by any other human being, but they simply cannot produce another human being. This is an impossibility, whether it is true that they have had no choice in their sexual preference, or they simply decided they are only going to mate with the same sex. Nature(or God in my case) did not afford us the ability to reproduce unless it is with the opposite sex; and as a state who's interest is in the continuance of its society, you cannot afford to give special benefits or monies to an establishment that produces no fruit. Short-term benefits and Long-term consequences It has been mentioned in my opponents last post, that I avoided the argument for a possible revenue of $1Bil in additional rev for 6 years. What he failed to mention, was that is an estimate of if every gay couple were to get married for 6 years in a row! In addition, though at face value the number 1 billion may seem like quite a contribution! But in comparison to the cost it has imposed on the general elections and time invested on the mere consideration alone have caused most state to dismiss it without further review. In the very same source that my opponent cited, and as additional reason for dismissal, was that it would be a boom of income, and then reduced to below .1% of actual income. Not to mention the 27% of gays who marry in the US(compared to the 91% of traditional marriage) usually end in divorce long before any benefits can be given and actually only 15% last as long as 12 years![2] This give me and obviously the state pause when the argument of love is thrown in the mix. The Rule not the Exception! My client has put together a very heart felt argument, as I mentioned earlier, but still fails to realize and establish why the state should recognize and grant the benefits of traditional marriage to same-sex couples. We base laws and legislation on the RULE not the EXCEPTION. In this case the rule - is procreation, and the EXCEPTION would be love, and through the previous sources and statistics I've provided, we can clearly see the fickle idea of love that the average homosexual practices. Further statistics:  Theses show that not only are the same-sex couples incapable to procreate and contribute to the creation of future generations, but they seem to still lack the motivation to sustain their own relationships. Conclusion There is no reason for the state to recognize or accept SSM. It is a emotional and understandable frustration, but the stats and facts do not lie. It is not in any one but the Same-Sex couple best interest to recognize(not ban) and provide valuable and crucial tax benefits to those who cannot qualify to the most elementary and fundamental requirements of a traditional marriage. I hope you have seen the fallacies in my opponents arguments and I urge a CON vote. Thank you. Sources: http://online.wsj.com... http://www.frc.org... http://www.thedailybeast.com... |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
| Stephen_Hawkins | Paradox_7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
| Stephen_Hawkins | Paradox_7 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to recognize the adoption aspect of gay marriage, therefor not arguing on the childrens aspect of of pro's arguments.
Dropped argument= convincinv argument points of pro.
Thanks for the vote, by the way.
The definition of marriage is in fact a man and a woman, but pro made a good case on discrimination on why it should be defined differently. Although the discrimination case is false, I believe in this debate he proved it was discrimination and should be allowed. Pro wins this point.
For the think about the children argument con wins here because of is statistical evidence and he was more convincing.
He also won on financial issues showing that it may hurt the governments pocket book (may I ask how?).
Democracy is irrelevant, if that was the case many illegal things would be legal. If the majoriy wanted anything many bad things would happen and majority rule seldom dictates law.
pro won 2/3 arguments.
You should watch 'Trial at Nuremberg'
If you believe something that i do not, that is fine. I think you are wrong, and you think i am. However, you cannot pretend that it isn't written very clearly, that homosexuality is immoral in the bible. If you choose not to believe that part, then according to other scriptures, i am led to believe you are not very confident in your Christianity for what it is, but for what you've made it into, to suit your opinions. We can never do that - according to the word.
I could be wrong about this, as you haven't really made a clear statement as to what you believe; but so far you have only illustrated a misunderstanding of both what my position and views are on this topic, and what the holy scriptures of your faith clearly say about such a union. We are not to condemn them or treat them like any different then we treat our friends or family; which we correct out of love. In the case of a non-family member or actual friend, we simply keep our mouth shut unless asked, or unless given the opportunity to reveal our position.
I never used morality as an argument in the debate, nor did i refer to my faith as a reason why it should not be accepted or legalized. I provided a secular argument, because the topic prohibits my beliefs from being utilized as a proper reason. The motive behind my position is both obviously lawful, and supported by my faith. So it is a win/win. In any other circumstance i would most likely falter and be forced to betray my beliefs, and this is main reason why i could never get into government..I would only address issues if i feel i have clear reason to believe my position. I would only discuss lightly the things i am not decided on (best type of pizza, best football team, best movie ever made,etc.) as of today, the law does favor my explanation, and for reasons other then its immoral.
The reason the US was formed was off happiness because everyone was angry with the government in England. And "the pursuit of happiness"...recognize that?
"So then it isn't in fact immoral to discriminate?" Most people will still say it is but your argument was that it was all off morals. It's off the law.
As far that lame response goes.. if it is your belief that other shouldn't impose there beliefs, then you are doing exactly what you said people shouldn't do. You try to dress it up and call something else, but that is what you are doing. Further more, forcing someone to accept your beliefs is what you were proposing!
Btw, this is a constitutional republic remember?
We voted in CA and prop 8 passed.. but the court, overturned it. The majority of people (even in this liberal state) didn't want it.
Making more people unhappy? Now the state needs to recognize happiness huh? you sound like a toddler..
And the "force" argument is refuted (and ignored) in the debate: argument from democracy. More people want SSM than don't. You'd be making more unhappy than happy.
You make no sense.
also - i should look more into being a Christian?? what does that even mean?
You clearly haven't read anything i said, and just pick and choose which parts to acknowledge.. sounds familiar to those who do the same with the Bibles teachings.. pick and choose which parts you like.
Please just stop. You are humiliating yourself.