I am writing a paper over Human Rights and I need to incorporate substantiating evidence from Locke and Rousseau about Article 16 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which details why men and women should be free without limitation to marry and found a family.How would Locke and Rousseau feel about the idea of marriage?
You should really just do your own work. Learning about Rousseau and Locke are pivotal to understanding the struggle for human rights. Not to mention you're coming across as a lazy, cheating git who doesn't want to do his/her own work.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
How does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
From an answer to my last question:
';Gay Marriage will and has where it has been adopted eroded the Rights of Biological Fathers.';
anyone care to explain how?How does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
So let me get this right, people don't want to allow gays to get married (particularily gay women) because they feel that women will think that they don't ';need'; a man to have a child.
WHAT!?
None of this is making any sense.
Sorry to burst some people's bubbles but a woman is just as capable of raising a child as any man. Also a woman doesn't need a man to have a kid. Maybe to have sperm she does but no she doesn't need a man.
So basicly people think that gay rights is making men seem like they are unneeded for children. Awe, get the frick over it!!!
My boyfriend and I are just as capable of raising a child as any straight couple and I don't understand how gay marriage takes away the rights of the fathers. I know a lesbian couple with kids, they are fantastic mothers and I think they provide a perfect example to their daughters that you don't need a man. We need to find a way to make women more independant and not so dependant on a man. It wold solve a lot of issues.
I read that study at the top and I have no friggin clue what it's talking about. I don't see anything it's trying to prove. Sorry but I don't.
-ConnorHow does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
There may be many reasons to marry, but marriage serves only one purpose. The only purpose for marriage is so a man and a woman will not have illegitimate children, plain and simple. Please understand that most people, me included, are all for gay rights. Marriage isn't a constitutional right, not even for heterosexual couples. The agenda of the so-called gay marriage proponents isn't so everyone has equal rights. The agenda is concerning acceptance of their lifestyle. Common sense should be apparent concerning this issue, but it's being twisted. For example, if two women wanted a child they would need the help of a man, directly or indirectly. There is no way to predict whether that child would ever need the father. Think about it, there is a reason it takes both a man and a woman to have a child. We would be selfish to assume that that child doesn't need both of those parents. There are different ways to raise a child successfully, but who can say to that child, ';you don't need a dad, or a mom';. We are the same society that takes pets away from their parents and think that that's perfectly ok.
Gay marriage doesn't affect the rights of fathers whatsoever with the exception that two gay men can legally adopt which is obviously a good thing.
What is frustrating is when people (generally in my experience men's rights groups) suggest that statistics show all sorts of problems that arise from fatherless families. These problems can't be assumed to exist in single sex families and here's why: Firstly, you can have a gay male couple (2 dads) this is always ignored because the focus is on single women or lesbian couples. Secondly, these statistics have been conducted under circumstances where a father should have been present but wasn't or when a father was present for a while and then wasn't. Both of those situations are essentially observations on dysfunctional familes (in that the family structure has changed from what it started as). Of course if a child's parents get divorced or if their dad does not see them either through the father's or mother's fault then that child is more likely to suffer from various issues. You would need additional proof, however, to show that these problems arise when there is no change to the family dynamic (as in a gay couple that don't get divorced and are always there for their children). There are no statistics that exist yet about children that have grown up in single sex familes because it hasn't been legal for long enough. I am very supportive of men's rights and very critical of feminism but this is one issue that the men's rights groups I've come across have got totally wrong, and regardless of what people might say it is homophobic, unquestionably.
After years, and years of waiting. Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals finally got the right to marry.
But after Prop. 8 the finally married couples are getting forced to divorce.
What the marriage helped with was:
Example:
If two guys had a daughter. And if one of the guys died, the other guy could keep his daughter without fighting.
Before that ever happened, lets take that example again, if one of the fathers' died, the other guy COULD NOT have his daughter.
But now that Prop. 8 did not go through (prop. 8 is where that L/G/B/T's could not marry) all the newly married couples, are not forced to divorce.
Which, is completely not fair.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/cha…
Father's Rights Before Gay Rights
February 27, 2004
by Mark Charalambous
The evidence is incontrovertible. The greatest predictor of social pathology in children is fatherlessness. Suicide. Teen pregnancy. Drug abuse. Crime. School dropouts. All the social pathologies of youth correlate higher with father absence than any other factor, including poverty.
In 1999, more than a quarter of all children lived without their father—17 million children—according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. This is now a low-end estimate.
The highest rates of such pathologies occur in the African-American community. The single-mother family has unfortunately been the paradigm for black families in the U.S. for decades. We’ve all heard the statistics. One in three black men between 20 and 29 has some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system. No wonder responsible black leaders oppose gay marriage. They understand the staggering human and social cost of raising children without fathers. Society simply cannot afford this social experiment any longer.
Since the explosion of divorce and out-of-wedlock births and the feminization of family courts, rates of child pathologies in the other communities, including whites, are following suit.
And now, to add insult to injury, our judges are bending over backwards, usurping the democratic process, to further empower women who want nothing from men other than their issue and their paychecks. These are the same people, Margaret Marshall and her friends in the legal community, who have time and time again ruled against fathers who fight against overwhelming legal odds to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.
The hue and cry about civil rights for lesbians and gays is particularly galling for Massachusetts’ fathers. Our civil and human rights have been ruthlessly violated by these same judges for decades. Whether it is affirming the “right” of a custodial mother to move with the child to the other side of the country, or overturning a lower court decision that actually brought a measure of rationality to the state’s notorious “abuse prevention” law (Ch. 209A), Margaret Marshall is always found on the same side of the issue: for the woman—regardless—and against fathers and their inalienable right to the custody, care and protection of their children.
Marshall epitomizes the feminization of the courts. Her gay marriage fatwa is the logical capstone to her transparent agenda: the remaking of society along feminist lines. Just check the N.O.W. web site. The redefinition of family requires the dismantling of the father-child relationship, which in turn requires the demonization of men. Fathers, the last impediment, must be redefined out of “family.” Operationally from the state’s point of view, “family” has already been redefined as “mother and children,” ever since “I’m a single mom” transmogrified from a social stigma to an entitlement. Gay marriage and same-sex “families” further erode the special nature of the biological family, and will make it even easier to discard dad.
The aimlessly spinning moral compass of Marshall and the liberal intelligentsia views same-sex families as an equivalent alternative to the biological nuclear family. Marshall can find no rational distinction between same-sex partners and normal couples. What’s more, she finds any contrary notions contemptuous. All that argues against her point of view are public opinion, common sense, natural law, decades of research showing that children need mothers and fathers, several thousand years of civilization, all the major religions that we know of … oh yes, and two billion years of the evolution of life on planet Earth.
Our children have suffered enough from these pious social engineers who seek to impose their heightened sense of moral relativism through judicial fiat. The legislature must permit the people to vote on the definition of marriage, and then the “gang of four” must be removed from the bench.
First post got it just about right.
My solution is to get rid of marriage licenses and tax cuts for married couples. Take that away and no one would have a problem.
Delila moot point... marriage and family are on the chopping block, one or two generations and it will be gone.
I find the notion strange, so I can't answer.
How would anyone adopting a child erode father's rights?
Why don't we just cut to the chase and you can tell me how wrong I am.\
Excellent answer Khankrum (I think that's the sp.)
';Gay Marriage will and has where it has been adopted eroded the Rights of Biological Fathers.';
anyone care to explain how?How does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
So let me get this right, people don't want to allow gays to get married (particularily gay women) because they feel that women will think that they don't ';need'; a man to have a child.
WHAT!?
None of this is making any sense.
Sorry to burst some people's bubbles but a woman is just as capable of raising a child as any man. Also a woman doesn't need a man to have a kid. Maybe to have sperm she does but no she doesn't need a man.
So basicly people think that gay rights is making men seem like they are unneeded for children. Awe, get the frick over it!!!
My boyfriend and I are just as capable of raising a child as any straight couple and I don't understand how gay marriage takes away the rights of the fathers. I know a lesbian couple with kids, they are fantastic mothers and I think they provide a perfect example to their daughters that you don't need a man. We need to find a way to make women more independant and not so dependant on a man. It wold solve a lot of issues.
I read that study at the top and I have no friggin clue what it's talking about. I don't see anything it's trying to prove. Sorry but I don't.
-ConnorHow does gay marriage affect the rights of fathers?
There may be many reasons to marry, but marriage serves only one purpose. The only purpose for marriage is so a man and a woman will not have illegitimate children, plain and simple. Please understand that most people, me included, are all for gay rights. Marriage isn't a constitutional right, not even for heterosexual couples. The agenda of the so-called gay marriage proponents isn't so everyone has equal rights. The agenda is concerning acceptance of their lifestyle. Common sense should be apparent concerning this issue, but it's being twisted. For example, if two women wanted a child they would need the help of a man, directly or indirectly. There is no way to predict whether that child would ever need the father. Think about it, there is a reason it takes both a man and a woman to have a child. We would be selfish to assume that that child doesn't need both of those parents. There are different ways to raise a child successfully, but who can say to that child, ';you don't need a dad, or a mom';. We are the same society that takes pets away from their parents and think that that's perfectly ok.
Gay marriage doesn't affect the rights of fathers whatsoever with the exception that two gay men can legally adopt which is obviously a good thing.
What is frustrating is when people (generally in my experience men's rights groups) suggest that statistics show all sorts of problems that arise from fatherless families. These problems can't be assumed to exist in single sex families and here's why: Firstly, you can have a gay male couple (2 dads) this is always ignored because the focus is on single women or lesbian couples. Secondly, these statistics have been conducted under circumstances where a father should have been present but wasn't or when a father was present for a while and then wasn't. Both of those situations are essentially observations on dysfunctional familes (in that the family structure has changed from what it started as). Of course if a child's parents get divorced or if their dad does not see them either through the father's or mother's fault then that child is more likely to suffer from various issues. You would need additional proof, however, to show that these problems arise when there is no change to the family dynamic (as in a gay couple that don't get divorced and are always there for their children). There are no statistics that exist yet about children that have grown up in single sex familes because it hasn't been legal for long enough. I am very supportive of men's rights and very critical of feminism but this is one issue that the men's rights groups I've come across have got totally wrong, and regardless of what people might say it is homophobic, unquestionably.
After years, and years of waiting. Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals finally got the right to marry.
But after Prop. 8 the finally married couples are getting forced to divorce.
What the marriage helped with was:
Example:
If two guys had a daughter. And if one of the guys died, the other guy could keep his daughter without fighting.
Before that ever happened, lets take that example again, if one of the fathers' died, the other guy COULD NOT have his daughter.
But now that Prop. 8 did not go through (prop. 8 is where that L/G/B/T's could not marry) all the newly married couples, are not forced to divorce.
Which, is completely not fair.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/cha…
Father's Rights Before Gay Rights
February 27, 2004
by Mark Charalambous
The evidence is incontrovertible. The greatest predictor of social pathology in children is fatherlessness. Suicide. Teen pregnancy. Drug abuse. Crime. School dropouts. All the social pathologies of youth correlate higher with father absence than any other factor, including poverty.
In 1999, more than a quarter of all children lived without their father—17 million children—according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. This is now a low-end estimate.
The highest rates of such pathologies occur in the African-American community. The single-mother family has unfortunately been the paradigm for black families in the U.S. for decades. We’ve all heard the statistics. One in three black men between 20 and 29 has some kind of involvement with the criminal justice system. No wonder responsible black leaders oppose gay marriage. They understand the staggering human and social cost of raising children without fathers. Society simply cannot afford this social experiment any longer.
Since the explosion of divorce and out-of-wedlock births and the feminization of family courts, rates of child pathologies in the other communities, including whites, are following suit.
And now, to add insult to injury, our judges are bending over backwards, usurping the democratic process, to further empower women who want nothing from men other than their issue and their paychecks. These are the same people, Margaret Marshall and her friends in the legal community, who have time and time again ruled against fathers who fight against overwhelming legal odds to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.
The hue and cry about civil rights for lesbians and gays is particularly galling for Massachusetts’ fathers. Our civil and human rights have been ruthlessly violated by these same judges for decades. Whether it is affirming the “right” of a custodial mother to move with the child to the other side of the country, or overturning a lower court decision that actually brought a measure of rationality to the state’s notorious “abuse prevention” law (Ch. 209A), Margaret Marshall is always found on the same side of the issue: for the woman—regardless—and against fathers and their inalienable right to the custody, care and protection of their children.
Marshall epitomizes the feminization of the courts. Her gay marriage fatwa is the logical capstone to her transparent agenda: the remaking of society along feminist lines. Just check the N.O.W. web site. The redefinition of family requires the dismantling of the father-child relationship, which in turn requires the demonization of men. Fathers, the last impediment, must be redefined out of “family.” Operationally from the state’s point of view, “family” has already been redefined as “mother and children,” ever since “I’m a single mom” transmogrified from a social stigma to an entitlement. Gay marriage and same-sex “families” further erode the special nature of the biological family, and will make it even easier to discard dad.
The aimlessly spinning moral compass of Marshall and the liberal intelligentsia views same-sex families as an equivalent alternative to the biological nuclear family. Marshall can find no rational distinction between same-sex partners and normal couples. What’s more, she finds any contrary notions contemptuous. All that argues against her point of view are public opinion, common sense, natural law, decades of research showing that children need mothers and fathers, several thousand years of civilization, all the major religions that we know of … oh yes, and two billion years of the evolution of life on planet Earth.
Our children have suffered enough from these pious social engineers who seek to impose their heightened sense of moral relativism through judicial fiat. The legislature must permit the people to vote on the definition of marriage, and then the “gang of four” must be removed from the bench.
First post got it just about right.
My solution is to get rid of marriage licenses and tax cuts for married couples. Take that away and no one would have a problem.
Delila moot point... marriage and family are on the chopping block, one or two generations and it will be gone.
I find the notion strange, so I can't answer.
How would anyone adopting a child erode father's rights?
Why don't we just cut to the chase and you can tell me how wrong I am.\
Excellent answer Khankrum (I think that's the sp.)
What do you think of this solution to the gay marriage issue?
Since conservatives and Christians don't want gay marriage ';forced on them';, what about this solution?
Conservatives, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and in general anybody who doesn't approve of gay marriage, is not allowed to marry one of the same gender.
Gay people, both male and female, is allowed to marry one of the same gender.
Nobody who doesn't like gay marriage is going to get anything forced on them. Great huh? :DWhat do you think of this solution to the gay marriage issue?
Good point!
My solution is this......same-sex marriage should be an available option in for anyone wishing to have a non-religious ceremony, since people do have secular weddings and since the people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it for religious reasons. In terms of religious ceremonies, that should be left up to each denomination or sect to decide. That way, same-sex couple gain their rightful entitlement to marriage and the many benefits that it provides, while at the same time, religious officials who feel homosexuality contradicts their faith would not be put in a position where they feel forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies.What do you think of this solution to the gay marriage issue?
That's the way it is now. No one forces any one to marry in this country (theoretically)
What I find funny is that anyone can get married now. Doesn't have to be made legal.
My solution is that marriage certificates go away completely and they all become civil unions. That way any two people, hetero or homosexual, can get them.
In other words everyone becomes the same in that the government contracts have nothing to do with marriage. It's simply a contract entered into by two people. With all the same rights and privileges as current marriages in all the states.
Then religious institutions can, and they already do, decide who they are going to recognize as ';married'; and perform only the marriage ceremonies they want to. Since marriage itself is just a symbol, and means something different to each person, this seems the simplest solution to me.
That would be an amazingly simple solution, but you're forgetting some things. The conservatives/Christians/whoever else doesn't approve don't mean that they don't want gay marriage ';forced'; on themselves (making gay marriage illegal to only people who aren't gay doesn't have much of a point...), but that they don't want it to be legal because it is not ';right'; to them, which is sad because there is really supposed to be a separation between church and state...Christians themselves don't have any right to rule the world.
Well I think people should have the right to get married to people of the same gender even if they don't approve of all the laws surrounding it. Another solution is to take the word ';marriage'; out of all civil documents and leave it for the churches. All couples, gay or straight, can be allowed to wed in a civil ceremony with the same rights as a church marriage. The leaders of churches can determine whether or not they marry gay or straight couples, based on their religious beliefs or what their congregation supports. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, but marriage has traditionally been allowed to straddle the line between both. This solution would uphold the constitution and allow us to further practice what we preach: religious freedom and equal pursuit of happiness.
Great, I agree IF that was the ONLY issue. Unfortunately, the issue goes much deeper than that.. it is not SIMPLY about any one thing.
So unfortunately, you have constructed a simplified version of the issue and proposed a solution to that, which really isn't a solution IF it doesn't address all the issues.
BUT, if that was the only worry.. then you'd be golden
Marriage has been and will be between a man and a woman. If you want a ';partnership'; or a ';union'; with someone of the same sex that is your business but stop trying to usurp the term marriage.
How will this effect the County clerks that are authorized to marry people? If one of them objects to performing the ceremony for a same sex couple will they get fired from their jobs?
If people want to talk about religion then gay marriage isn't against my religion so i should be able to mary who I want. Hate, however, is against my religion and their hate is effecting my life.
But in reality religion shouldn't even be an issue because America is secular.
It's a great idea, but there are many Christians and Jews that approve of gay marriage--just thought you should know. I know a lot of them don't, but many do which is good!
You make a great point! I don't understand why so many are against it in the first place. If people don't want same-sex marriage, don't get one!
Since it's illegal to force people into marriage in this country, there is no issue.
There are just bigots who think they own marriage as a cultural institution, despite the fact that marriage is a dynamic institution that predates their religion.
That's a sucky plan. What about Christians, Jews, and Muslims who ARE gay? Can they not marry?
And that would never work any body because no one can prove if you are gay or not, and nobody can prove what religion you are.
GOD HAS THE SOLUTION !!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS SUCH AN ISSUE,,, IS CAUSE IT IS END TIME PROPHESY !!!
BUT SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY BLINDED PEOPLE OUT THERE THEY CAN NOT SEE !!!
EVEN SO MUCH BLINDNESS IN THE REALM OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH ..BUT DO NOT SEE !!
So you have to be a self-declared homosexual to marry a person of the same gender?
Sounds fair. Marrying someone is kind of declaring your love for them, so you have to come out of the closet if you haven't already.
I like it.
How about we just remove this religious issue from politics entirely, by making it so no marriages are honored by the government??
I think its silly to give married people tax breaks. If I live with my disabled sister, why can't I get the same benefits? Or if I live with my girlfriend?
Bad solution. No amount of mental gymnastics can make homosexual marriage a good thing.
The government should stay out of marriage all together. It should be between the people who want to get married and who ever is marrying them.
And then what about the polygamists? Based on your theory they are ok too.
Any my neighbor who wants to marry his car, is that good too?
no the answer is simiple leave it alone alow how ever wants to to get gay maried is they do this the n people will get over it just like they mostly have ove racesim
Great solution!
Ya too bad the conservatives want to force there beliefs on other people.
it's going to take some time
they didn't like interracial marriage at first either
Sounds Super
You see, that would be the simple solution.
But alas... =/
let em have it, just don't do it in front of me
Not how it works.
thats the idea
what a stupid ideal...huh :d
What about polygamy? You're being awfully discriminatory against people who love two women at a time. How dare you force your antiquated morality on what is at heart a secular issue?
It's prudes and people like you who try to run other people's lives that are turning this country into a theocracy!
What if my two husbands want to visit me at the hospital and I die with only ONE husband at my side? Why can't I get medical insurance for both of my men? *sob* Why won't they read ';My three dads'; at my son's elementary school?!? How is this any different than Alabama lynchmobs?! Tell me! HOW??
you miss the important issue of hot lesbians bieng required to have regular threesomes with guys in order to make sure two hot women don't go to waste.
there would be exceptions like if the lesbian couple were porn stars or sexual exhibitionists on a regular (weekly) basis in a public area so people could see and appreciate the beauty of thier relaitonship.
Except teaching our children that such behavior is proper, get real.
Be as gay as you want, just drop the agenda.
A solution to a decisive issue requires compromise. I see none here. It seems to say, your way or the highway. Life doesn't work that way.
As long as you do not make me legally recognize them. By that I mean give me a tax break on social insecurity taxes etc. inevitably paid to them
00H... N0 NEED T0 GET FLiP...
Conservatives, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and in general anybody who doesn't approve of gay marriage, is not allowed to marry one of the same gender.
Gay people, both male and female, is allowed to marry one of the same gender.
Nobody who doesn't like gay marriage is going to get anything forced on them. Great huh? :DWhat do you think of this solution to the gay marriage issue?
Good point!
My solution is this......same-sex marriage should be an available option in for anyone wishing to have a non-religious ceremony, since people do have secular weddings and since the people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it for religious reasons. In terms of religious ceremonies, that should be left up to each denomination or sect to decide. That way, same-sex couple gain their rightful entitlement to marriage and the many benefits that it provides, while at the same time, religious officials who feel homosexuality contradicts their faith would not be put in a position where they feel forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies.What do you think of this solution to the gay marriage issue?
That's the way it is now. No one forces any one to marry in this country (theoretically)
What I find funny is that anyone can get married now. Doesn't have to be made legal.
My solution is that marriage certificates go away completely and they all become civil unions. That way any two people, hetero or homosexual, can get them.
In other words everyone becomes the same in that the government contracts have nothing to do with marriage. It's simply a contract entered into by two people. With all the same rights and privileges as current marriages in all the states.
Then religious institutions can, and they already do, decide who they are going to recognize as ';married'; and perform only the marriage ceremonies they want to. Since marriage itself is just a symbol, and means something different to each person, this seems the simplest solution to me.
That would be an amazingly simple solution, but you're forgetting some things. The conservatives/Christians/whoever else doesn't approve don't mean that they don't want gay marriage ';forced'; on themselves (making gay marriage illegal to only people who aren't gay doesn't have much of a point...), but that they don't want it to be legal because it is not ';right'; to them, which is sad because there is really supposed to be a separation between church and state...Christians themselves don't have any right to rule the world.
Well I think people should have the right to get married to people of the same gender even if they don't approve of all the laws surrounding it. Another solution is to take the word ';marriage'; out of all civil documents and leave it for the churches. All couples, gay or straight, can be allowed to wed in a civil ceremony with the same rights as a church marriage. The leaders of churches can determine whether or not they marry gay or straight couples, based on their religious beliefs or what their congregation supports. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, but marriage has traditionally been allowed to straddle the line between both. This solution would uphold the constitution and allow us to further practice what we preach: religious freedom and equal pursuit of happiness.
Great, I agree IF that was the ONLY issue. Unfortunately, the issue goes much deeper than that.. it is not SIMPLY about any one thing.
So unfortunately, you have constructed a simplified version of the issue and proposed a solution to that, which really isn't a solution IF it doesn't address all the issues.
BUT, if that was the only worry.. then you'd be golden
Marriage has been and will be between a man and a woman. If you want a ';partnership'; or a ';union'; with someone of the same sex that is your business but stop trying to usurp the term marriage.
How will this effect the County clerks that are authorized to marry people? If one of them objects to performing the ceremony for a same sex couple will they get fired from their jobs?
If people want to talk about religion then gay marriage isn't against my religion so i should be able to mary who I want. Hate, however, is against my religion and their hate is effecting my life.
But in reality religion shouldn't even be an issue because America is secular.
It's a great idea, but there are many Christians and Jews that approve of gay marriage--just thought you should know. I know a lot of them don't, but many do which is good!
You make a great point! I don't understand why so many are against it in the first place. If people don't want same-sex marriage, don't get one!
Since it's illegal to force people into marriage in this country, there is no issue.
There are just bigots who think they own marriage as a cultural institution, despite the fact that marriage is a dynamic institution that predates their religion.
That's a sucky plan. What about Christians, Jews, and Muslims who ARE gay? Can they not marry?
And that would never work any body because no one can prove if you are gay or not, and nobody can prove what religion you are.
GOD HAS THE SOLUTION !!!
THE ONLY REASON IT IS SUCH AN ISSUE,,, IS CAUSE IT IS END TIME PROPHESY !!!
BUT SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY BLINDED PEOPLE OUT THERE THEY CAN NOT SEE !!!
EVEN SO MUCH BLINDNESS IN THE REALM OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY KNOW THE TRUTH ..BUT DO NOT SEE !!
So you have to be a self-declared homosexual to marry a person of the same gender?
Sounds fair. Marrying someone is kind of declaring your love for them, so you have to come out of the closet if you haven't already.
I like it.
How about we just remove this religious issue from politics entirely, by making it so no marriages are honored by the government??
I think its silly to give married people tax breaks. If I live with my disabled sister, why can't I get the same benefits? Or if I live with my girlfriend?
Bad solution. No amount of mental gymnastics can make homosexual marriage a good thing.
The government should stay out of marriage all together. It should be between the people who want to get married and who ever is marrying them.
And then what about the polygamists? Based on your theory they are ok too.
Any my neighbor who wants to marry his car, is that good too?
no the answer is simiple leave it alone alow how ever wants to to get gay maried is they do this the n people will get over it just like they mostly have ove racesim
Great solution!
Ya too bad the conservatives want to force there beliefs on other people.
it's going to take some time
they didn't like interracial marriage at first either
Sounds Super
You see, that would be the simple solution.
But alas... =/
let em have it, just don't do it in front of me
Not how it works.
thats the idea
what a stupid ideal...huh :d
What about polygamy? You're being awfully discriminatory against people who love two women at a time. How dare you force your antiquated morality on what is at heart a secular issue?
It's prudes and people like you who try to run other people's lives that are turning this country into a theocracy!
What if my two husbands want to visit me at the hospital and I die with only ONE husband at my side? Why can't I get medical insurance for both of my men? *sob* Why won't they read ';My three dads'; at my son's elementary school?!? How is this any different than Alabama lynchmobs?! Tell me! HOW??
you miss the important issue of hot lesbians bieng required to have regular threesomes with guys in order to make sure two hot women don't go to waste.
there would be exceptions like if the lesbian couple were porn stars or sexual exhibitionists on a regular (weekly) basis in a public area so people could see and appreciate the beauty of thier relaitonship.
Except teaching our children that such behavior is proper, get real.
Be as gay as you want, just drop the agenda.
A solution to a decisive issue requires compromise. I see none here. It seems to say, your way or the highway. Life doesn't work that way.
As long as you do not make me legally recognize them. By that I mean give me a tax break on social insecurity taxes etc. inevitably paid to them
00H... N0 NEED T0 GET FLiP...
How do I find a site that will offer free marriage and death records in California?
I need to get old copies of an old marriage license and a death record before I can get my drivers lic. renewed...HelpHow do I find a site that will offer free marriage and death records in California?
you can try ancestry.com Don't know if this will get you current records,it is usually used for genealogical purposes. You probably will need to send for the records from the clerk of courts office.How do I find a site that will offer free marriage and death records in California?
Site 1 below has California deaths 1940 - 1997.
Site 2 has the whole USA deaths from roughly 1960's to March 2006.
However, the DMV is probably going to want notarized copies, which means $20 - $25 each and snail mail.
There are no free state-wide marriage lookup sites.
you can try ancestry.com Don't know if this will get you current records,it is usually used for genealogical purposes. You probably will need to send for the records from the clerk of courts office.How do I find a site that will offer free marriage and death records in California?
Site 1 below has California deaths 1940 - 1997.
Site 2 has the whole USA deaths from roughly 1960's to March 2006.
However, the DMV is probably going to want notarized copies, which means $20 - $25 each and snail mail.
There are no free state-wide marriage lookup sites.
Why should gay marriage be illegal just because your religion says its icky, I mean a sin?
Do you have a better reason than God told me it is bad.Why should gay marriage be illegal just because your religion says its icky, I mean a sin?
Ok, so this is based on what I have heard from Christians (as well as logic) and is minimally scientific for the purpose of...well...christians who are reading it:
God gave man free will. Free will means that man has the choice whether to be with god or forsake him.
The justification that is given against homosexuality is that, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (ie the reasonable justification of the homosexual trait as a trait that increases fertility in females), homosexuality is a choice by man to forsake god, and is therefore an abomination, as is stated in the bible.
Animals were not blessed with free will, so they go about their lives as they were created by god. Man was given dominion over all the animals of the planet because they do not possess free will.
Now:
Homosexuality has been proven to occur naturally in animals.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/2007…
http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9906/990615…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuali…
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an…
(Just a few sources because people questioned it last time)
so, If
there are homosexual animals
and if
animals do not have free will
then
homosexuality in animals must be a naturally occurring phenomenon (In other words, they were made that way)
and if
homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in animals, the same must be true about human beings as per simple reasoning
(A logical person would see that if one species has the ';free will'; trait and one does not
and that both of the two species share the potential to carry a trait such as homosexuality
Then homosexuality must arise independently of the ';free will'; trait)
If Homosexuality is then naturally occurring in humans, it is not a choice that some humans make to turn their backs on god.
If homosexuality is not a choice made by homosexuals, then it is logical to assume that homosexuals are as much in “god's image” as heterosexuals, and deserve all the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Long story short, ';God's word'; must have been misinterpreted, or was not the word of ';God'; in the first place.
Isn't reason just wonderful?
By the way, not gay, proud defender of equality and rational thought.
Besides, from a legal standpoint:
Marriage as a state institution has nothing to do with marriage in the church. All citizens of the United States have equal rights under the law and to deny homosexuals the civil institution of marriage is the same as if you were denying it to blacks or Hispanics. I’m not saying that your religion can’t refuse to marry them in churches, (bigotry in my opinion but whatever, it’s a club so you’re entitled) just that according to our constitution, freedom is the same for everyone.
So it's not unnatural and we all know that quoting scripture alone is circular logic so what else could it be? I mean even if it is a ';sin';, homosexuality is a victimless ';sin';Why should gay marriage be illegal just because your religion says its icky, I mean a sin?
';...they didn't have a better reason.'; You are clearly insane and blind.
http://www.jlarue.com/wtbs.htm…
http://www.truthsetsfree.net/s…
I agree with the best answer
marriage is man-made
Because I'm against it on grounds other than biblical reasons. The Constitution does not ';create'; rights and there exists no legal precedence for granting gays extra-Constitutional rights (other than activist judges claiming otherwise).
Chosen lifestyles should never be afforded legally protected status.
Do you have a reason for supporting it other than it intentionally goes against the bible, and because you just want to appear ';enlightened'; and all fuzzy inside for supporting something that accrues to no societal advantage whatsoever?
Such thinking is in and of itself a social disease that needs to be stamped out resolutely.
Besides, God didn't say anything about ';gay marriage' itself.
Hmmm. I wonder why? Maybe because He said homosexuality itself is an abomination and further shouldn't ever need to address something like ';gay marriage'; in the first place?
Because maybe it's automatically understood by reasonable and thinking persons everywhere as such?
Oh, - and God ';said so';. Don't like it?
Sue Him. I'm sure that whacky California 9th Circus Court of No appeal will be glad to let you file a motion to do so.
I don't really care whether it's illegal or not--it's wrong if you believe the Bible--God can and has punished sin severly (any and ALL sin) and the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin. Everyone sins, Christians are far from perfect and don't claim to be, at least I hope not, God did NOT create homosexuality just like he didn't create any sin no matter what it is. The key difference in this should be that the ACT of homosexuality is wrong, not that there's anything personal against the person. God hates promiscuity just as much as homosexuality which gay or straight commit daily in this culture.
Gay people can't help being gay, they are born that way. It's not fair to deny them happiness just because they don't do what everyone else does. Them being gay doesn't affect any straight person, it affects your life in no way. So why not let them be happy to? The only reason people have is like you said ';because god told them to';. They don't think for themselves, they just read the bible. If god is so great, shouldn't he accept everyone? They do nothing to hurt anyone, so i see nothing wrong with it. Religious people are blind followers of a book.
Just call it something else. Civil union, etc.
Biologically speaking, marriage is the civilized practice or institution of joining the human sexual partners for reproduction. Any deviation from this definition is scientifically defined as a ';perversion'; of human biology.
My reasons for being against gay marriage are as much secular as they are spiritual. You can't redefine words or institutions just to suit someones perverted behavior, It contributes greatly to the degradation of society and sends confusing messages to an already confused generation of youths, It not only harms those practicing but society as a whole, Not one single society of the past that has adopted this behavior has survived, And everyone that has has crumbled as a result, Why do you think we would be any different ? I am 100 % behind helping homosexuals and getting them the help and treatment they need, But accommodating their perverted behavior is not going to accomplish that, The only thing it's going to accomplish is sending them the message that this behavior is normal and prolong their road to recovery. Merry CHRISTmas ! %26amp; God bless !
Try to take two plugs and plug them into each other - is there electricity? No. A plug goes into an outlet then it works.
Gay Marriage has nothing to do about religion. It is just wrong. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. PERIOD.
If we cave in now, then in ten years will be debating marrying children. In twenty five years we will be debating marrying animals. In fifty years will be debating marrying radiators, coffee makers, hockey sticks, and BMWS.
Because, polygamy is so much better, right? That's what everyone in the bible does!
Haha religions know nothing. Screw them, God made the gay people, so shouldn't these God Worshippers accept gay marriage?
LOL @ icky. I don't think it's icky, I think it's hot ;-)
And no, I can assure you nobody has any reasons besides ';it's a sin... it's gross...etc'; aka they really don't know they just say what their pastors told them
Better reason. That is the best reason! gays don't deserve marriage. It is a christian institution.
gay marriage should be illegal because that's what the people want.
The carnal mind finds no fault with a gay marriage, but divine love never made it. Each person must make choices on earth. If wrong, then truth will correct them as needed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Icky. . .(lol)
I once asked--because I was so naive back then, and had a burning desire to know--my gay room mate how he and his boyfriend ';did it.';
Wish I hadn't asked.
Well if you believe in God then that should be enough. If you don't then it's just unnatural.
icky lolol
that was funny
I personally would leave it up to GOD...WHo am I to Say that Mr. SULU from Star Trek and Ellen can't be married.??
Why should the rule of the council of many people where wisdom be overthrown for the council of few where tyranny resides? That is, why do gays hate democracy all of a sudden? Four imposed this on everyone. How democratic! First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes nero in a 10 fold carriage.
This is just a trumped up excuse to sue the churches, temples, and mosques. One must confine such 'union's to other places would be nice to hear in a law, instead, which would help many people to be able to deal with the issue as some had falsely started this division for whatever motive available including suing centers of faith for non compliance.
What non Hypocrisy they proclaim while approving and doing the same evils and works that they point out in the bible examples given so that everyone could come to repentance and a knowledge of the Gospel truth. These same, who complain, have had many partners for sex themselves. What makes them our spiritual guide, then?
Gay marriage is unnatural, disgusting, and repulsive, just to put it nicely. It should definitely be illegal, and harsh punishments should be in place for those who break this law.
God made man and woman, and they can make love and reproduce. Their genital shows that one fit to the other and can reproduce.
In homosexuality, their genital can't fit one to another. And if they use other things that's disgusting before God.
Because the lifespan of a Homosexual is shorter than average. So if your for Gay behavior your for taking peoples lives. And if you are against it you are trying to spare their lives. I do it because I love them.
Becuase religion is proven by laws of science. If we want to play God any further, we may aswell just set the earth on fire and clal it ';Hell';.
First because God said it is an abomination in his sight,
and second have you ever explained to a child as to why
are those men kissing mommy,,and it just look,s nasty.
It is an unnatural unclean act.
Vile affections, passions of infamy, and disgrace.
Repugnant !!
the uh erm defitinition yeah words will uh hmm soon mean whatever people want them to mean it'll be vocabulary chaos cat will mean dog mass hysteria my god WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!
Yep
rebel only the lord can judge.
yes crossing dressing is a sin
look up the word moral(s).olay cream
Ok, so this is based on what I have heard from Christians (as well as logic) and is minimally scientific for the purpose of...well...christians who are reading it:
God gave man free will. Free will means that man has the choice whether to be with god or forsake him.
The justification that is given against homosexuality is that, despite mounting evidence to the contrary (ie the reasonable justification of the homosexual trait as a trait that increases fertility in females), homosexuality is a choice by man to forsake god, and is therefore an abomination, as is stated in the bible.
Animals were not blessed with free will, so they go about their lives as they were created by god. Man was given dominion over all the animals of the planet because they do not possess free will.
Now:
Homosexuality has been proven to occur naturally in animals.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/2007…
http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9906/990615…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuali…
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an…
(Just a few sources because people questioned it last time)
so, If
there are homosexual animals
and if
animals do not have free will
then
homosexuality in animals must be a naturally occurring phenomenon (In other words, they were made that way)
and if
homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in animals, the same must be true about human beings as per simple reasoning
(A logical person would see that if one species has the ';free will'; trait and one does not
and that both of the two species share the potential to carry a trait such as homosexuality
Then homosexuality must arise independently of the ';free will'; trait)
If Homosexuality is then naturally occurring in humans, it is not a choice that some humans make to turn their backs on god.
If homosexuality is not a choice made by homosexuals, then it is logical to assume that homosexuals are as much in “god's image” as heterosexuals, and deserve all the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Long story short, ';God's word'; must have been misinterpreted, or was not the word of ';God'; in the first place.
Isn't reason just wonderful?
By the way, not gay, proud defender of equality and rational thought.
Besides, from a legal standpoint:
Marriage as a state institution has nothing to do with marriage in the church. All citizens of the United States have equal rights under the law and to deny homosexuals the civil institution of marriage is the same as if you were denying it to blacks or Hispanics. I’m not saying that your religion can’t refuse to marry them in churches, (bigotry in my opinion but whatever, it’s a club so you’re entitled) just that according to our constitution, freedom is the same for everyone.
So it's not unnatural and we all know that quoting scripture alone is circular logic so what else could it be? I mean even if it is a ';sin';, homosexuality is a victimless ';sin';Why should gay marriage be illegal just because your religion says its icky, I mean a sin?
';...they didn't have a better reason.'; You are clearly insane and blind.
Report Abuse
http://www.jlarue.com/wtbs.htm…
http://www.truthsetsfree.net/s…
I agree with the best answer
marriage is man-made
Report Abuse
Because I'm against it on grounds other than biblical reasons. The Constitution does not ';create'; rights and there exists no legal precedence for granting gays extra-Constitutional rights (other than activist judges claiming otherwise).
Chosen lifestyles should never be afforded legally protected status.
Do you have a reason for supporting it other than it intentionally goes against the bible, and because you just want to appear ';enlightened'; and all fuzzy inside for supporting something that accrues to no societal advantage whatsoever?
Such thinking is in and of itself a social disease that needs to be stamped out resolutely.
Besides, God didn't say anything about ';gay marriage' itself.
Hmmm. I wonder why? Maybe because He said homosexuality itself is an abomination and further shouldn't ever need to address something like ';gay marriage'; in the first place?
Because maybe it's automatically understood by reasonable and thinking persons everywhere as such?
Oh, - and God ';said so';. Don't like it?
Sue Him. I'm sure that whacky California 9th Circus Court of No appeal will be glad to let you file a motion to do so.
I don't really care whether it's illegal or not--it's wrong if you believe the Bible--God can and has punished sin severly (any and ALL sin) and the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin. Everyone sins, Christians are far from perfect and don't claim to be, at least I hope not, God did NOT create homosexuality just like he didn't create any sin no matter what it is. The key difference in this should be that the ACT of homosexuality is wrong, not that there's anything personal against the person. God hates promiscuity just as much as homosexuality which gay or straight commit daily in this culture.
Gay people can't help being gay, they are born that way. It's not fair to deny them happiness just because they don't do what everyone else does. Them being gay doesn't affect any straight person, it affects your life in no way. So why not let them be happy to? The only reason people have is like you said ';because god told them to';. They don't think for themselves, they just read the bible. If god is so great, shouldn't he accept everyone? They do nothing to hurt anyone, so i see nothing wrong with it. Religious people are blind followers of a book.
Just call it something else. Civil union, etc.
Biologically speaking, marriage is the civilized practice or institution of joining the human sexual partners for reproduction. Any deviation from this definition is scientifically defined as a ';perversion'; of human biology.
My reasons for being against gay marriage are as much secular as they are spiritual. You can't redefine words or institutions just to suit someones perverted behavior, It contributes greatly to the degradation of society and sends confusing messages to an already confused generation of youths, It not only harms those practicing but society as a whole, Not one single society of the past that has adopted this behavior has survived, And everyone that has has crumbled as a result, Why do you think we would be any different ? I am 100 % behind helping homosexuals and getting them the help and treatment they need, But accommodating their perverted behavior is not going to accomplish that, The only thing it's going to accomplish is sending them the message that this behavior is normal and prolong their road to recovery. Merry CHRISTmas ! %26amp; God bless !
Try to take two plugs and plug them into each other - is there electricity? No. A plug goes into an outlet then it works.
Gay Marriage has nothing to do about religion. It is just wrong. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman. PERIOD.
If we cave in now, then in ten years will be debating marrying children. In twenty five years we will be debating marrying animals. In fifty years will be debating marrying radiators, coffee makers, hockey sticks, and BMWS.
Because, polygamy is so much better, right? That's what everyone in the bible does!
Haha religions know nothing. Screw them, God made the gay people, so shouldn't these God Worshippers accept gay marriage?
LOL @ icky. I don't think it's icky, I think it's hot ;-)
And no, I can assure you nobody has any reasons besides ';it's a sin... it's gross...etc'; aka they really don't know they just say what their pastors told them
Better reason. That is the best reason! gays don't deserve marriage. It is a christian institution.
gay marriage should be illegal because that's what the people want.
The carnal mind finds no fault with a gay marriage, but divine love never made it. Each person must make choices on earth. If wrong, then truth will correct them as needed.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
Icky. . .(lol)
I once asked--because I was so naive back then, and had a burning desire to know--my gay room mate how he and his boyfriend ';did it.';
Wish I hadn't asked.
Well if you believe in God then that should be enough. If you don't then it's just unnatural.
icky lolol
that was funny
I personally would leave it up to GOD...WHo am I to Say that Mr. SULU from Star Trek and Ellen can't be married.??
Why should the rule of the council of many people where wisdom be overthrown for the council of few where tyranny resides? That is, why do gays hate democracy all of a sudden? Four imposed this on everyone. How democratic! First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes nero in a 10 fold carriage.
This is just a trumped up excuse to sue the churches, temples, and mosques. One must confine such 'union's to other places would be nice to hear in a law, instead, which would help many people to be able to deal with the issue as some had falsely started this division for whatever motive available including suing centers of faith for non compliance.
What non Hypocrisy they proclaim while approving and doing the same evils and works that they point out in the bible examples given so that everyone could come to repentance and a knowledge of the Gospel truth. These same, who complain, have had many partners for sex themselves. What makes them our spiritual guide, then?
Gay marriage is unnatural, disgusting, and repulsive, just to put it nicely. It should definitely be illegal, and harsh punishments should be in place for those who break this law.
God made man and woman, and they can make love and reproduce. Their genital shows that one fit to the other and can reproduce.
In homosexuality, their genital can't fit one to another. And if they use other things that's disgusting before God.
Because the lifespan of a Homosexual is shorter than average. So if your for Gay behavior your for taking peoples lives. And if you are against it you are trying to spare their lives. I do it because I love them.
Becuase religion is proven by laws of science. If we want to play God any further, we may aswell just set the earth on fire and clal it ';Hell';.
First because God said it is an abomination in his sight,
and second have you ever explained to a child as to why
are those men kissing mommy,,and it just look,s nasty.
It is an unnatural unclean act.
Vile affections, passions of infamy, and disgrace.
Repugnant !!
the uh erm defitinition yeah words will uh hmm soon mean whatever people want them to mean it'll be vocabulary chaos cat will mean dog mass hysteria my god WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!
Yep
rebel only the lord can judge.
yes crossing dressing is a sin
look up the word moral(s).
What are some good arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
';Civil Unions give the all the legal rights of a marraige, so to me that's enough';
Because people think this. Perhaps at the state level for states that legalize gay marriage, gays that marry get most or some of the STATE benefits. However they get NONE of the 1138 FEDERAL benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.
http://gaylife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/X鈥?/a>What are some good arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
If it is reflective of the will of the majority of voters in that particular state, then it is a GREAT idea...
If it is forced onto an opposing majority of voters by lawyers, opportunistic politicians and a strident minority, then it is a TERRIBLE idea...
...see the distinction? ';Marriage'; is not about two people who love each other at the moment...';Marriage'; is a union that is sanctioned by a group, be it a church, tribe or state. The State cannot dictate to any church or group how they define their ';marriages.'; So when asking for a State sanction, shouldn't the People of that State have a say in the matter?What are some good arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
The impression that I get in listening to the debates about this issue is that it seems to center more around the use of the word ';marriage'; than it does around the actual subject of same sex unions.
Most people seem to think that a Civil Union, for instance, will suffice - but they seem also to forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that ';separate but equal'; is unconstitutional - and I suspect that this could apply to a word or phrase as well as to a school or university.
It's about freedom - simple as that - and tolerance and every ones rights as individuals to make choices (popular or otherwise) that don't infringe on any one elses rights.
Anyone who argues about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage had better pull their head out of the sand and check the statistics.
For the record, I am not gay and truly don't really understand this issue - but I do understand how a majority should not be allowed to impose their rules and regulations upon a minority - not in America anyways.
What are the good arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage? They are one and the same.
People marry for various reasons. Usually, they are in love or think they are in love. Sometimes they marry for money, property, citizenship, etc. Whatever the reasons are for heterosexual marriage hold true for Gay Marriage. There is no difference at all.
Conservatives in opposition to gay marriage revere our founding fathers as heroes that believed in freedom and liberty for all americans.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states ';The right to the pursuit of happiness'; It would be contradictory to not allow gays to pursue happiness like straight americans can.
people like ';lord god obama';, your first answerer, crack me up. do they really think if gays are allowed to marry, EVERYONE is going to suddenly discover previously unknown homoerotic impulses and leave their hetero relationships to hook up with someone of the same gender?
maybe that's true in THEIR case, but it won't be true for the other 90% of us.
portia v cracks me up, too... marriage is an institution that can now only be entered into legally by consenting adults. that precludes people from marrying either children or pets, as neither is capable of giving informed consent. and NO one is going to force you into or impose upon you such a union.
also, no law can compel any religious institution into performing a religious ritual for any reason whatsoever, so pat robertson is DEAD WRONG when he says ';churches will be sued for not marrying gays!';
a good argument in favor of legally recognizing the cultural compact of marriage between same sex couples would be the stabilization of the relationship legally, financially, and emotionally. this would benefit society in general by discouraging promiscuity and encouraging adults to maintain healthier relationships by granting them a defined set of privileges and imposing a defined set of obligations.
no ';special rights'; would be granted to same sex couples that are not already available to heterosexual couples.
but i'll tell you what... to all those who oppose same sex marriage, i will change my position publicly and embrace yours if you can show me how government recognition of same sex marriage will in any way threaten the cohesion of their relationship with their spouse.
Gay marriage doesn't need any arguments. Basically a very small minority of American citizens have been denied a natural right. Though not in the Constitution, we're supposed to believe that 'All men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights'...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution itself says nothing at all about any kind of marriage. What it does say is that 'enumeration of certain rights ...shall not disparage other rights etc. (9th Amendment). The only argument against gay marriage rests on some religious grounds...grounds that would establish a religious standard for marriage even though marriage is a CIVIL event not connected to any particular religious faith. The only argument I can make is that some citizens are denied equality under the law and the equal protection of the law. Amendment 14. Read the amendments word for word and there's no doubt that this is a totally bogus issue that's only kept alive by the Jesus freak right...another good reason to keep church and state separated to the greatest degree possible.
What a person does in their personal life is no business of the government, religion is not supposed to enter politics, and if they want to marry, then they should be able to. Additionally, it's discrimination when heterosexuals get marriage benefits, insurance, medical visitation, estate benefits, etc., and homosexual couples don't.
There are none. The next step is legalizing homosexual couples the right to adopt children, thus denying a perfectly capable hetero couple the right to adopt a child, who really has no say so in the matter. I wouldn't want a Catholic priest adopting some poor kid anymore than i'd ant an open homo adopting one....degrading.
Look at the stupid people who say gay marriage is an oxymoron. Yeah, to YOUR religion. The government can make what ever they want and call it whatever they want. Why do you people care what the goverment thinks anyway? If you held your religious beliefs as high as you insist, you would not rely on the goverment to feel the same way as you do.
uhm....
Ben and Jerry's Hubby Hubby Ice Cream?
Seriously, I could care less.
Don't see the need for Government action on it though. Find a church that will accept it, then get er done.
Besides, why should we change the definition of a word just to suit a small segment of society.
Civil Unions give the all the legal rights of a marraige, so to me that's enough
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. I don't care if homosexuals want to be together, but stop trying to change the definition of a word. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Come up with your own word, then we'll talk.
I personally can't think of any good reasons to legalize gay marriage.
What's gonna happen next? Can people marry their pets? Can Polygamy become legal? Imposing your kinky sex life onto a majority who disagrees that it is natural doesn't seem right to me.
I personally think that gays should be allowed to marry if there are some laws passed that restrict them from being able to take legal action against certain churches, synagogues or mosques that might refuse to marry them in order to remain faithful to their beliefs.
More Freedom!
Less Government!
Cons HATE freedom and LOVE big government! Besides, they prefer to cruise men's public toilets for gay sex like Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
It should be legal because it will have absolutely no effect on anyone else whatsoever. The only people who have a problem with it are the religious freaks who like to stick their nose in everyone else's business.
Gay peoples are american citizens , they should have the same rights as all american do in this country .
The fact that there are no good reasons to deny American citizens the same rights as other American citizens (i.e. the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice).
So Democrat Men can marry other Democrat Men.
And can be Happy.
There are none. Homosexuals do not rate what normal people are.
the only one i can think of is ugh , I cant think of one as civil unions take care of it
My argument is that these are states rights, not federal rights.
God made Adam and Eve
not Adam and Steve
Because They are in love, and wish to marry....
extinction
None.
There are none
Because people think this. Perhaps at the state level for states that legalize gay marriage, gays that marry get most or some of the STATE benefits. However they get NONE of the 1138 FEDERAL benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.
http://gaylife.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/X鈥?/a>What are some good arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
If it is reflective of the will of the majority of voters in that particular state, then it is a GREAT idea...
If it is forced onto an opposing majority of voters by lawyers, opportunistic politicians and a strident minority, then it is a TERRIBLE idea...
...see the distinction? ';Marriage'; is not about two people who love each other at the moment...';Marriage'; is a union that is sanctioned by a group, be it a church, tribe or state. The State cannot dictate to any church or group how they define their ';marriages.'; So when asking for a State sanction, shouldn't the People of that State have a say in the matter?What are some good arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
The impression that I get in listening to the debates about this issue is that it seems to center more around the use of the word ';marriage'; than it does around the actual subject of same sex unions.
Most people seem to think that a Civil Union, for instance, will suffice - but they seem also to forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that ';separate but equal'; is unconstitutional - and I suspect that this could apply to a word or phrase as well as to a school or university.
It's about freedom - simple as that - and tolerance and every ones rights as individuals to make choices (popular or otherwise) that don't infringe on any one elses rights.
Anyone who argues about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage had better pull their head out of the sand and check the statistics.
For the record, I am not gay and truly don't really understand this issue - but I do understand how a majority should not be allowed to impose their rules and regulations upon a minority - not in America anyways.
What are the good arguments in favor of heterosexual marriage? They are one and the same.
People marry for various reasons. Usually, they are in love or think they are in love. Sometimes they marry for money, property, citizenship, etc. Whatever the reasons are for heterosexual marriage hold true for Gay Marriage. There is no difference at all.
Conservatives in opposition to gay marriage revere our founding fathers as heroes that believed in freedom and liberty for all americans.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states ';The right to the pursuit of happiness'; It would be contradictory to not allow gays to pursue happiness like straight americans can.
people like ';lord god obama';, your first answerer, crack me up. do they really think if gays are allowed to marry, EVERYONE is going to suddenly discover previously unknown homoerotic impulses and leave their hetero relationships to hook up with someone of the same gender?
maybe that's true in THEIR case, but it won't be true for the other 90% of us.
portia v cracks me up, too... marriage is an institution that can now only be entered into legally by consenting adults. that precludes people from marrying either children or pets, as neither is capable of giving informed consent. and NO one is going to force you into or impose upon you such a union.
also, no law can compel any religious institution into performing a religious ritual for any reason whatsoever, so pat robertson is DEAD WRONG when he says ';churches will be sued for not marrying gays!';
a good argument in favor of legally recognizing the cultural compact of marriage between same sex couples would be the stabilization of the relationship legally, financially, and emotionally. this would benefit society in general by discouraging promiscuity and encouraging adults to maintain healthier relationships by granting them a defined set of privileges and imposing a defined set of obligations.
no ';special rights'; would be granted to same sex couples that are not already available to heterosexual couples.
but i'll tell you what... to all those who oppose same sex marriage, i will change my position publicly and embrace yours if you can show me how government recognition of same sex marriage will in any way threaten the cohesion of their relationship with their spouse.
Gay marriage doesn't need any arguments. Basically a very small minority of American citizens have been denied a natural right. Though not in the Constitution, we're supposed to believe that 'All men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights'...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The constitution itself says nothing at all about any kind of marriage. What it does say is that 'enumeration of certain rights ...shall not disparage other rights etc. (9th Amendment). The only argument against gay marriage rests on some religious grounds...grounds that would establish a religious standard for marriage even though marriage is a CIVIL event not connected to any particular religious faith. The only argument I can make is that some citizens are denied equality under the law and the equal protection of the law. Amendment 14. Read the amendments word for word and there's no doubt that this is a totally bogus issue that's only kept alive by the Jesus freak right...another good reason to keep church and state separated to the greatest degree possible.
What a person does in their personal life is no business of the government, religion is not supposed to enter politics, and if they want to marry, then they should be able to. Additionally, it's discrimination when heterosexuals get marriage benefits, insurance, medical visitation, estate benefits, etc., and homosexual couples don't.
There are none. The next step is legalizing homosexual couples the right to adopt children, thus denying a perfectly capable hetero couple the right to adopt a child, who really has no say so in the matter. I wouldn't want a Catholic priest adopting some poor kid anymore than i'd ant an open homo adopting one....degrading.
Look at the stupid people who say gay marriage is an oxymoron. Yeah, to YOUR religion. The government can make what ever they want and call it whatever they want. Why do you people care what the goverment thinks anyway? If you held your religious beliefs as high as you insist, you would not rely on the goverment to feel the same way as you do.
uhm....
Ben and Jerry's Hubby Hubby Ice Cream?
Seriously, I could care less.
Don't see the need for Government action on it though. Find a church that will accept it, then get er done.
Besides, why should we change the definition of a word just to suit a small segment of society.
Civil Unions give the all the legal rights of a marraige, so to me that's enough
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. I don't care if homosexuals want to be together, but stop trying to change the definition of a word. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. Come up with your own word, then we'll talk.
I personally can't think of any good reasons to legalize gay marriage.
What's gonna happen next? Can people marry their pets? Can Polygamy become legal? Imposing your kinky sex life onto a majority who disagrees that it is natural doesn't seem right to me.
I personally think that gays should be allowed to marry if there are some laws passed that restrict them from being able to take legal action against certain churches, synagogues or mosques that might refuse to marry them in order to remain faithful to their beliefs.
More Freedom!
Less Government!
Cons HATE freedom and LOVE big government! Besides, they prefer to cruise men's public toilets for gay sex like Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
It should be legal because it will have absolutely no effect on anyone else whatsoever. The only people who have a problem with it are the religious freaks who like to stick their nose in everyone else's business.
Gay peoples are american citizens , they should have the same rights as all american do in this country .
The fact that there are no good reasons to deny American citizens the same rights as other American citizens (i.e. the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice).
So Democrat Men can marry other Democrat Men.
And can be Happy.
There are none. Homosexuals do not rate what normal people are.
the only one i can think of is ugh , I cant think of one as civil unions take care of it
My argument is that these are states rights, not federal rights.
God made Adam and Eve
not Adam and Steve
Because They are in love, and wish to marry....
extinction
None.
There are none
Fighting the gay marriage ban in California is expected to cost taxpayers $25mil?
Should that money be spent this way, or should we use it to fund our already underfunded public schools, or some other community item that benefits us all?Fighting the gay marriage ban in California is expected to cost taxpayers $25mil?
Wow. You asked it wrong and look at all the answers you got. I am for gay marriage, love is too hard to find to limit yourself, especially when it's your natural inclination.Fighting the gay marriage ban in California is expected to cost taxpayers $25mil?
Is that all? I think it will cost more in the long term.
Who ever controls the banker/treasury/accouts then they do what they like with that money. It's not all democratically chosen.
Education should really start at home with parents getting involved from an early age in a childs educational life.
The money that goes to schools end up replacing chairs, desk, carpets, computers, air-conditioning etc and does not end up giving a better education to a child.
Excellent point, especially since bans against same sex marriage are based strictly on ignorance, bigotry and fear. Those things can be overcome through personal introspection without spending a ton of taxpayer dollars.
Unfortuanately, the hate machine that passes as conservative Christianity will go to any length to subject the minority to the whims of the majority. They haven't yet figured out that denying the same rights and liberties to one group of people that another group already has is nothing more than pure evil.
Who will speak for them when someone comes along and tries to deny them their rights?
nope, gay marriage is wrong and it should be fought at all expenses! Someone else being gay is totally my business and I have every right to tell them how to live their lives! I don't care how many kids education we could better or homeless people we could give shelter or medical aide, stop the gays!
%26lt;/scarsasm%26gt;
is no one's right to make that choice but the people that are going to get marry. Get over the fact that people like their same sex, theirs nothing wrong with it. it doesnt hurt anyone in anyway. it wont change anyones life, they dont effect u so move on, let them do watever they want to do with their bodies and everybody just worry about themselfs and stop judging people because that gets u nowere. Yes money should be spend in something else then a stupid law like that, maybe to inform ignorant people how to stop hating others and worry about themself.
The California Supreme Court just overturned the gay marriage ban.... no need to fight it anymore.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.se鈥?/a>
Are you referring to people who want to put the gay marriage ban back on the ballot? Maybe they should pay the expenses for that.
What I find disturbing the most is that the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA voted the ban in, and the CA courts overturned it. Like the courts are saying, ';the people are stupid, so we made their decision for them';. That is the scary part!
I agree. The fact is that Prop 22 was unconstitutional and they god damn well knew it. Fighting it is an effort in futility, the money should go to education reform instead.
It is just ridiculous to spend any money but,that amount is just nuts!There are waaaaay to many other ';important'; issues to spend time and money on.
Just let gay people get married. They're not hurting anyone.
';platters,'; blaming it on 'conservative Christians' is bigotry as well.
Cheap at twice the price. Get rid of the illegals and that will free up funds for education.
We should use it on the schools and or the infrastructure of the country. Unfortunately there are a lot of homophobes out there who have never heard the passage in the bible ';Judge not, Lest ye be judged';. They are so afraid that the Gay people in our country will get equal rights even though they are entitled to them. They would rather drag it out in court when clearly, this is a states issue and has noting to do with federal government.
These people love to quote the Bible yet they do not even bother following the ';Big 10';
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/05/鈥?/a>
http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/storyl.ht鈥?/a>
I always find it is humorous that the people who yell the loudest against homosexuals turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves. They focused the hatred of themselves on hatred of what they are. Sad that someone is so lost that they need to do this because they hate themselves.
Gay men and women are Americans too. The are entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. At the very least we should offer civil unions with equal benefits for non-traditional couples. However, many gay people are extremely religious and they deserve to be married by the church if they so chose.
People just need to get over it. Gay people will not harm you or your children any more than any other person will. A parent should always teach their children to be aware as to what is right and what is wrong no matter who the person. Many molesters turn out to be family members or trusted family friends.
I have worked with many Gay people in my life and have found them to be no different then any other people. They tend to be more accepting of others and their views mainly because they know what it is like to be discriminated against.
People just need to keep their religious views to their family and their church. It has no place in the political forum.
Wow. You asked it wrong and look at all the answers you got. I am for gay marriage, love is too hard to find to limit yourself, especially when it's your natural inclination.Fighting the gay marriage ban in California is expected to cost taxpayers $25mil?
Is that all? I think it will cost more in the long term.
Who ever controls the banker/treasury/accouts then they do what they like with that money. It's not all democratically chosen.
Education should really start at home with parents getting involved from an early age in a childs educational life.
The money that goes to schools end up replacing chairs, desk, carpets, computers, air-conditioning etc and does not end up giving a better education to a child.
Excellent point, especially since bans against same sex marriage are based strictly on ignorance, bigotry and fear. Those things can be overcome through personal introspection without spending a ton of taxpayer dollars.
Unfortuanately, the hate machine that passes as conservative Christianity will go to any length to subject the minority to the whims of the majority. They haven't yet figured out that denying the same rights and liberties to one group of people that another group already has is nothing more than pure evil.
Who will speak for them when someone comes along and tries to deny them their rights?
nope, gay marriage is wrong and it should be fought at all expenses! Someone else being gay is totally my business and I have every right to tell them how to live their lives! I don't care how many kids education we could better or homeless people we could give shelter or medical aide, stop the gays!
%26lt;/scarsasm%26gt;
is no one's right to make that choice but the people that are going to get marry. Get over the fact that people like their same sex, theirs nothing wrong with it. it doesnt hurt anyone in anyway. it wont change anyones life, they dont effect u so move on, let them do watever they want to do with their bodies and everybody just worry about themselfs and stop judging people because that gets u nowere. Yes money should be spend in something else then a stupid law like that, maybe to inform ignorant people how to stop hating others and worry about themself.
The California Supreme Court just overturned the gay marriage ban.... no need to fight it anymore.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.se鈥?/a>
Are you referring to people who want to put the gay marriage ban back on the ballot? Maybe they should pay the expenses for that.
What I find disturbing the most is that the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA voted the ban in, and the CA courts overturned it. Like the courts are saying, ';the people are stupid, so we made their decision for them';. That is the scary part!
I agree. The fact is that Prop 22 was unconstitutional and they god damn well knew it. Fighting it is an effort in futility, the money should go to education reform instead.
It is just ridiculous to spend any money but,that amount is just nuts!There are waaaaay to many other ';important'; issues to spend time and money on.
Just let gay people get married. They're not hurting anyone.
';platters,'; blaming it on 'conservative Christians' is bigotry as well.
Cheap at twice the price. Get rid of the illegals and that will free up funds for education.
We should use it on the schools and or the infrastructure of the country. Unfortunately there are a lot of homophobes out there who have never heard the passage in the bible ';Judge not, Lest ye be judged';. They are so afraid that the Gay people in our country will get equal rights even though they are entitled to them. They would rather drag it out in court when clearly, this is a states issue and has noting to do with federal government.
These people love to quote the Bible yet they do not even bother following the ';Big 10';
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/05/鈥?/a>
http://www.proudofwhoweare.org/storyl.ht鈥?/a>
I always find it is humorous that the people who yell the loudest against homosexuals turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves. They focused the hatred of themselves on hatred of what they are. Sad that someone is so lost that they need to do this because they hate themselves.
Gay men and women are Americans too. The are entitled to all the same rights as everyone else. At the very least we should offer civil unions with equal benefits for non-traditional couples. However, many gay people are extremely religious and they deserve to be married by the church if they so chose.
People just need to get over it. Gay people will not harm you or your children any more than any other person will. A parent should always teach their children to be aware as to what is right and what is wrong no matter who the person. Many molesters turn out to be family members or trusted family friends.
I have worked with many Gay people in my life and have found them to be no different then any other people. They tend to be more accepting of others and their views mainly because they know what it is like to be discriminated against.
People just need to keep their religious views to their family and their church. It has no place in the political forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)