Gay Marriages…Why the Hell Not?

[skeleton tree]

I frankly don’t understand what the big deal is. If two people truly love each other then nothing should stop them from getting married whether they are straight or gay. It astounds me how many people in this day and age, in a time where things are constantly changing, to be opposed to gay marriages. I guess in some sense I understand where all those Christians are coming from. In fact, I believe in God myself, but that doesn’t stop me from believing that all people, no matter who they are, deserve rights and deserve to be respected. Yes, it is true that the bible condemns homosexuality, but the bible was written a really long time ago, in a time when even women did not have rights themselves, and look at where we are now. If God is against homosexuality then why does He create homosexuals? Being gay is not a choice, those who are, are born that way. Gay men and women are not asking all you straight folks who are against homosexuality to be gay with them, so why is it your concern? Why can’t love just be love?

[sledheavy]

There are a lot of people that hold their reasons to light, and honestly, you're probably going to be told a lot of the same reasons over, and over, and over again, just with more emotion.

in saying that the bible was merely written a long time ago....lol, it's opening a lot of worms. People hold their religious doctrines over the choices dictated by men.
There is already a whole section on this we've been discussing. But you're right.

People like me hope for a younger generation that's just going to say, 'is it really that important that we take the time to argue over it?', 'can't this topic just be layed to rest,' etc. It's because no argument is going to be decided on one way or another, people will still have their religious doctrines to decide their moral principles, and that won't side with common social goal.

I'll go as far as to say that's going to be a major change, even a silent social revolution to some. Topics will be forced to die out, and people will just be assumed to lose interest. It's boring, buts it's productive and nonforceful. There has to exist a real, ideal common knowledge before we base it on religious orientation.

[twobitsmedia]

I frankly don’t understand what the big deal is. If two people truly love each other then nothing should stop them from getting married whether they are straight or gay.

Maybe. But opening up same-sex marriage will contribute to the tax and insurance burden.

It astounds me how many people in this day and age, in a time where things are constantly changing, to be opposed to gay marriages. I guess in some sense I understand where all those Christians are coming from. In fact, I believe in God myself, but that doesn’t stop me from believing that all people, no matter who they are, deserve rights and deserve to be respected.

Except for Fred Phelps from Topeka, I haven't heard of many "religious" people who don't think everybody deserves rights and respect. Phelps doesn't speak for anyone but himself and his clan, though, as far as I know.

Yes, it is true that the bible condemns homosexuality, but the bible was written a really long time ago, in a time when even women did not have rights themselves, and look at where we are now.

The Bible doesn't condemn womens rights. "The suffragette" movement of the early part of the last century wasn't a move against the Bible, though, it was a move against the US Constitution and attempts to amend it. ERA is a political action, not Biblical.

If God is against homosexuality then why does He create homosexuals? Being gay is not a choice, those who are, are born that way.

That has never been proven, but it has been proposed in theory to advance the "gay rights" movement.

Gay men and women are not asking all you straight folks who are against homosexuality to be gay with them, so why is it your concern? Why can’t love just be love?

Initially the movement wanted equal rights, now they seem to want special rights. A gay person in America already has constitutional protection equal with everyone else. Then suddenly they started seeking special protections and state amendments. When I lived in Colorado an amendment that had a public vote was voted down against special rights. However, an activist judge ruled the vote was not legal because gays cannot be discriminated that way. There would have been no ruling and the vote would have been binding had it gone the other way. This was applauded by gay-rights organizations. Why? Because they have elevated their cause to a civil rights cause. Now they are pushing the idea that they are a race. It's not just same sex sex. It is propaganda at its finest. ...and it is working. If you tell a lie often enough it will become believable.

[McCulloch]

Maybe. But opening up same-sex marriage will contribute to the tax and insurance burden.

And opening up { geriatric | under-30 | handicapped persons | poor people } marriage will also contribute to tax and insurance burden.

The Bible doesn't condemn womens rights. "The suffragette" movement of the early part of the last century wasn't a move against the Bible, though, it was a move against the US Constitution and attempts to amend it. ERA is a political action, not Biblical.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, some of the pioneers of the woman's suffrage movement in the USA, would disagree with you.

Initially the movement wanted equal rights, now they seem to want special rights.

As far as I can tell, that's what they still want, and what the religious right is still opposed to. What special rights are they asking for?

If you tell a lie often enough it will become believable.

A good reason to keep repeating the assertion that the gays want special rights or that legal recognition of same sex marriage will somehow damage hetero marriages.

[twobitsmedia]

Maybe. But opening up same-sex marriage will contribute to the tax and insurance burden.

And opening up { geriatric | under-30 | handicapped persons | poor people } marriage will also contribute to tax and insurance burden.

Maybe, and we cannot afford the burden we have now. Some of those cases, though, can be clearly defined. Two guys or girls living together can be passed off as gay to get insurance and tax breaks. I am also opposed to some of the forced requirements the government places on businesses for handicap accessibility. These unfunded government mandates place a terrible strain on businesses.

The Bible doesn't condemn womens rights. "The suffragette" movement of the early part of the last century wasn't a move against the Bible, though, it was a move against the US Constitution and attempts to amend it. ERA is a political action, not Biblical. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, some of the pioneers of the woman's suffrage movement in the USA, would disagree with you.

This speech she made before the Supreme court kind of epitomizes Anthony's fight. If you can see it as Biblical I would appreciate you pointing it out. :



In 1873, Susan B. Anthony recited a now famous speech before court, in defense of women's suffrage. The following is a summary of her remarks:
Susan B. Anthony
Susan B. Anthony

"Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.

The preamble of the Federal Constitution says: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.

For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity. To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office. The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes."

Initially the movement wanted equal rights, now they seem to want special rights. As far as I can tell, that's what they still want, and what the religious right is still opposed to. What special rights are they asking for?

Any American citizen has equal protection under the constitution. So why is the gay rights movement going through each state asking for amendments to get them especially noted? And we are not talking about a ethnic group. We are talking about people who have sex with each other.

If you tell a lie often enough it will become believable.
A good reason to keep repeating the assertion that the gays want special rights or that legal recognition of same sex marriage will somehow damage hetero marriages.

That's politics and both sides make that assertion. Which is fine, because it forces the focus of the debate to go elsewhere for relevance. I have never heard that same sex marriages will damage hetero marriages.

[McCulloch]

Two guys or girls living together can be passed off as gay to get insurance and tax breaks.

A guy and a girl living together can be passed off as marriage to get insurance and tax breaks. Is that a good reason to deny marriage licenses?

I am also opposed to some of the forced requirements the government places on businesses for handicap accessibility. These unfunded government mandates place a terrible strain on businesses.

I can just feel your love and compassion.

"The suffragette" movement of the early part of the last century wasn't a move against the Bible.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, some of the pioneers of the woman's suffrage movement in the USA, would disagree with you.

Stanton and to a lesser degree Anthony, rightly blamed the resistance to allowing women to vote on the religious misogyny inspired by the Bible. Thus the movement for women's votes was pitted against the forces of adherence to Biblical values.

Any American citizen has equal protection under the constitution. So why is the gay rights movement going through each state asking for amendments to get them especially noted? And we are not talking about a ethnic group. We are talking about people who have sex with each other.

So if they already have protection under the constitution, why oppose making it explicit? Is there some good reason to allow, for instance, employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

I have never heard that same sex marriages will damage hetero marriages.

Undermining traditional marriage threatens not only the family and social stability, but civil freedom. [...]
“Marriage is a public social good,” writes Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage. “The health of American families — built upon marriage — affects us all.”
[...]
While most Americans are instinctively uneasy about gay marriage, it is not obvious precisely how it will weaken conventional marriage. [...]
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that, politically speaking, the most important function of marriage is to create paternity. Other benefits are rightly claimed for marriage by its advocates. But in the end, the central one is this, to establish fatherhood.[19] Once this is understood, everything else about the current problems of marriage and the family falls into place. And once this is understood, the vitiating problem with same-sex marriage becomes clear. [...]
Once marriage becomes detached from procreation, therefore, the entire system of domestic and social stability that marriage exists to foster unravels. [...]
same-sex marriage may be the most stark example of how redefining marriage undermines the social function marriage serves, [...]

[twobitsmedia]

Two guys or girls living together can be passed off as gay to get insurance and tax breaks.

A guy and a girl living together can be passed off as marriage to get insurance and tax breaks. Is that a good reason to deny marriage licenses?

I believe the guy and girl situation is why many states opted for "common law marriages." But I don't think, in your example, they could pass themselves that easy. Gay/lesbian relationships, as a rule, do not have a successful track record of longevity. It will open so many problems that will have to be dealt with later.

I am also opposed to some of the forced requirements the government places on businesses for handicap accessibility. These unfunded government mandates place a terrible strain on businessesI can just feel your love and compassion.

If i made my decisions based on how I make you feel, I would apologize.

"The suffragette" movement of the early part of the last century wasn't a move against the Bible.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, some of the pioneers of the woman's suffrage movement in the USA, would disagree with you. Stanton and to a lesser degree Anthony, rightly blamed the resistance to allowing women to vote on the religious misogyny inspired by the Bible. Thus the movement for women's votes was pitted against the forces of adherence to Biblical values.

It was traditional America, and actually not just America, as it was prevalent in Europe, also. If you wish to blame the Bible that is fine. It may have played a part, but there were other factors involved.


[/quote] Why waste the time and money producing elections to protect ideals that are already protected? That, of course, is an American politics gone-wrong issue in which they cannot enforce what they have, so they make more laws. It is never ending. And there is such an imbalance in the system when the money is wasted on the election and the only ones that get judicially acted on are the ones where the "gay rights" go down in flames.

Is there some good reason to allow, for instance, employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

No. But the protection is already there.

I have never heard that same sex marriages will damage hetero marriages.

Undermining traditional marriage threatens not only the family and social stability, but civil freedom. [...]
“Marriage is a public social good,” writes Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage. “The health of American families — built upon marriage — affects us all.”
[...]
While most Americans are instinctively uneasy about gay marriage, it is not obvious precisely how it will weaken conventional marriage. [...]
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that, politically speaking, the most important function of marriage is to create paternity. Other benefits are rightly claimed for marriage by its advocates. But in the end, the central one is this, to establish fatherhood.[19] Once this is understood, everything else about the current problems of marriage and the family falls into place. And once this is understood, the vitiating problem with same-sex marriage becomes clear. [...]
Once marriage becomes detached from procreation, therefore, the entire system of domestic and social stability that marriage exists to foster unravels. [...]
same-sex marriage may be the most stark example of how redefining marriage undermines the social function marriage serves, [...]

I hadn't though of it in those terms, but he may be right. I will have to think about it more.

[Cephus]

I believe the guy and girl situation is why many states opted for "common law marriages." But I don't think, in your example, they could pass themselves that easy. Gay/lesbian relationships, as a rule, do not have a successful track record of longevity. It will open so many problems that will have to be dealt with later.

Sheesh, generalize much? Besides, the majority of heterosexual marriages result in divorce, I don't think you have any room to talk about successful track records of longevity. Of course, I can think of quite a few gay couples I know who have been together for decades, without the benefit of legal marriage, so you're all wet, as usual.

[agnosis]

Undermining traditional marriage threatens not only the family and social stability, but civil freedom. [...]
“Marriage is a public social good,” writes Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage. “The health of American families — built upon marriage — affects us all.”
[...]
While most Americans are instinctively uneasy about gay marriage, it is not obvious precisely how it will weaken conventional marriage. [...]
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that, politically speaking, the most important function of marriage is to create paternity. Other benefits are rightly claimed for marriage by its advocates. But in the end, the central one is this, to establish fatherhood.[19] Once this is understood, everything else about the current problems of marriage and the family falls into place. And once this is understood, the vitiating problem with same-sex marriage becomes clear. [...]
Once marriage becomes detached from procreation, therefore, the entire system of domestic and social stability that marriage exists to foster unravels. [...]
same-sex marriage may be the most stark example of how redefining marriage undermines the social function marriage serves, [...]

Umm. Where to begin? I wouldn't dispute that marriage is socially beneficial, and that it is preferable that children be brought up in families where the parents are married. "Establishing fatherhood" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? Does the author honestly expect us to believe that a ring on a woman's finger is an automatic concrete guarantee that her husband is the father of her children? I know it sounds horrible and cynical, but adultery does happen in the real world.

Connecting marriage to procreation is only useful to a certain extent. Yes, most marriage do produce children, and yes, as I said before, such a situation is preferable to single-parenthood or, dare I say it, parenthood outside marriage, simply because legal bonds are in place to ensure that that child will be cared and provided for should the union fail. However, I think the language used here is excessively emotive - social stability is not going to collapse just because consenting adults are allowed to marry members of the same sex.

While you may not agree that a homosexual household is the right place to raise a child, there just is not any shred of evidence anywhere that will stand up to scrutiny that suggests that children adopted by homosexual parents are any less loved, cared for, or in any way disadvantaged by the gender of their parents. Lots of children grow up to be complete messes despite having lived with both of their natural parents.

The social function that marriage serves? A legal bond, visible for all the world to see, in which two people promise themselves to each other in a spirit of love and respect, fully intending to honour it until the day they die? How does gender have any impact on that whatsoever?

[twobitsmedia]

I believe the guy and girl situation is why many states opted for "common law marriages." But I don't think, in your example, they could pass themselves that easy. Gay/lesbian relationships, as a rule, do not have a successful track record of longevity. It will open so many problems that will have to be dealt with later.

Sheesh, generalize much? Besides, the majority of heterosexual marriages result in divorce, I don't think you have any room to talk about successful track records of longevity. Of course, I can think of quite a few gay couples I know who have been together for decades, without the benefit of legal marriage, so you're all wet, as usual.

I wouldn't call a few a good track record. ....And I was not defending hetero marriages, as they have problems of their own, the OP issue was gay marrriages.