I totally agree TJ. I don't see a problem if private businesses choose to allow benefits for same-sex unions, but for the govt to force widespread acceptance of a lifestyle (by legitimizing via this false gay "marriage" idea) that a large proportion of the population considers deviant is not right. To me, it's no different than laws against sodomy. Either way, the govt. should stay out of that issue.
Hear Hear!!! Bush has stayed far too quiet for far too long regarding several key issues that activist judges are targeting. This country was founded on a multitude of fundamental principles that should held steadfast. If your lifestyle does not agree to all of them, you are not necessarily entitled to change these principles.
Ugh. Some of you make me wish that some ironic things would happen to you. I fail to see how gay marriage negatively affects any of us more than divorce or never getting married does.
never thought of that. So what if a guy and a girl who were just friends got "married" for green card benefits. man, we better outlaw that, right now!!!!!
The natural marriage structure that the entire civilized world has always supported is one whose roots grounded in values that run much deeper than tax penalties and green cards.
So, since the entire civilized world has never allowed same-sex marriages, we shouldn't? Is that your argument? Didn't sway me. Try again.
OK fine. Then don't call it "marriage." Whatever you belief is about marriage running deeper than laws, marriage remains a legal term. I'm willing to bet that it *is* mostly an issue with taxes and benefits to the gay couples who want the designation. If govt simply allowed you to name a single person as your significant other with all the benefits that a "married" spouse receives, then this would likely become a non issue, and we could move on and fight for actually calling it a "marriage" which would just become a semantic one of little legal import. so padgett...even though "values" run deeper than tax penalties and green card...this legal issue *remains* pretty much all about the taxes and benefits.
Why does there need to be gay marriage? According to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is considered a union between a man and a woman. Can't they be happy with just living together and getting benefits from their work? It's all about making their lifestyle mainstream, because they were "born" that way. By approving gay marriage, we accept that wrong-headed viewpoint. Gays are not born that way, they develop into it. There has never been any evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not saying that we should go out and harass them, but should we openly condone it through the government? I think not.
I don't see how they came to be gay has any relevance on this subject. I wasn't born programmed to be attracted to J-Lo booties or to girls with green eyes, but I'm allowed to marry them if I wish. By allowing gay marriage, all you are doing is saying that you believe that two people who love each other, being through natural disposition or a learned behavior, can have their relationship recognized by the state. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that proposing laws based on religion might be in violation of separation of church and state. If you're going to argue morals, you need to make adultery and divorce illegal as well. Oh well, let me add you to the list.
The feeling I get is that a general longing for respect & equal protection is much more the desire than marginal financial benefits.
Agreed. I fail to see how homosexuals can do any more damage to "the institution of marriage" than us heteros have done all by our selves. And the whole "marriage is primarily for procreation" argument has been thoroughly debunked as well, so keep trying, guys.
Since the beginning of time, male and female species have united to reproduce, whether you consider a golden retriever or a human. The basic family unit in all living animal species has always consisted of a male and a female. The purpose of a marriage is to establish a stable and loving environment, and more often than not an evironment in which children are conceived, born and raised. Seeing as that neither couples of men-men or couples of women-women can produce children, there is not much of an argument to analogize heterosexual and homosexual partnerships. Be happy that such deviant sexual behavior has become as accepted as it has. You are free to do whatever makes you feel good behind your closed door. But billions of years of evolution, of religion, and of historical tradition are flying in the face of any ridiculous argument you make.
So, you're good with making adultery and divorce illegal? Also, are you in favor of barring heterosexual marriages in which the couple has no desire to have children? What if they aren't physically able to have children?
Criminalizing adultery and codifying into law gay marriage are two very different things. I don't see how they are comparable.
So, do you believe that men and women are born to be attracted to the other sex. If so, then there is clear evidence that sexual orientation is set by genes. Look, man. There are plenty of hermaphrodites born every year, who doctors are incapable of designating as one sex or the other. The parents simply are told to choose the legal designation and the doctors perform the necessary operation. That is the extreme case of legal sex designation being arbitrary to sexual orientation, but where extreme cases exist, intermediate cases tend to always exist, too. You would have to agree that a hermaphrodite's sexual orientation was set at birth (since you already said gays merely develop into changing their orientation, later in life). While I agree that many gays probably just develop into it, there is a lot of evidence that some "girls" and "boys" were born the other way in sexual orientation, beginning with hermaphrodites getting defined wrongly as boy or girl. So, where the hermaphrodite line starts and the clear hetero line ends is sketchy. Do gays fall in that sketchy area?
There are plenty of immoral activities in which any adult in this country can legally partake (gay sex, adultery, masturbation), but none of them necessarily entitle that person to the "equal protection" of those who behave morally.
If we're saying that gay marriages shouldn't be allowed for moral reasons, you have to say that adultery and divorce shouldn't be allowed for moral reasons. We could make a huge list of things that shouldn't be allowed for moral reasons if we want to take that step. Let's please wait until I get back from Vegas next Wednesday though.
