Same Sex Marraige

[Dulrough]

Alright Im doing a paper for school and im curious to know what your guys opinions are about gay marraige, please do not let this digrade into a political war, it may be a political issue but leave all canditates out.

In my opinion I belive same sex marraige should be allowed because, as sick as it is, it is another persons life. However, they should never be allowed to have childeren, why? "OMG!!1!! look its Billy he has two HOT lesbo moms, lets go talk to him and see if we can see them gettin it on!!!" or, on the flip side, "HAHAHA all you have is two dads and a chemistry set, frikin creep!!!"

Theres my two cents.

 

[Letters]

Do a search... there was a big thread on it recently.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

I'm cool with it but i think it needs a new name. Marriage should be the word to describe a man and woman getting married.

Something like gayriage should used to describe a man and a man getting gayied.

 

[Letters]

This is the thread: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19004

 

[Dulrough]

doh, looked only on front page srry.

 

[Dan]

I'm fine with it. I mean the question boils down to what is the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage?
Personally, I think the point is to tie people into a family that have responsibility and become productive members of society rather than roaming hippies who move around a lot, have casual sex, and don't pay much tax. It should still work with gay couples.

 

[Deadline]

I'm fine with it. I mean the question boils down to what is the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage?
Personally, I think the point is to tie people into a family that have responsibility and become productive members of society rather than roaming hippies who move around a lot, have casual sex, and don't pay much tax. It should still work with gay couples.

I think its wrong... I think its the queezy feeling I get whenever I see two gay guys kissing or holding hands... I dunno...

No offence to you gay people out there.

 

[craig]

This was discussed to death recently and it became pretty apparent that it was a pointless conversation.

I agree with Bush (never thought i'd hear myself say that). Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, but for financial reasons (or whatever) there should be some union available between them (to a certain extent) I suppose.

I dont agree with homosexuality and any homosexual act as they're clearly un-natural things, but all humans deserve certain rights, it just begs the question where do we stop?

 

[Deadline]

This was discussed to death recently and it became pretty apparent that it was a pointless conversation.

I agree with Bush (never thought i'd hear myself say that). Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, but for financial reasons (or whatever) there should be some union available between them (to a certain extent) I suppose.

I dont agree with homosexuality and any homosexual act as they're clearly un-natural things, but all humans deserve certain rights, it just begs the question where do we stop?

Thats what I was thinking... just could not put it to words thanks

 

[craig]

Thats what I was thinking... just could not put it to words thanks

So do the majority of hetrosexuals I suspect, but it's a pretty politically-incorrect view so many of them will say the opposite.

I'm not called Bush, or Blair, or Kerry though and I'm not here to win votes so I say what I believe regardless of political correctness.

 

[Prince of China]

There is no use making gay/lesbian marriage threads...
People are gonna turn it into some religious debate
People will flame each other...

And mods will close the thread...

 

[craig]

There is no use making gay/lesbian marriage threads...
People are gonna turn it into some religious debate
People will flame each other...

Agreed.

And mods will close the thread...

As they should.

 

[csmighty1]

Well, before they do, I'm sure in retrospect, all this will look silly to future generations. Mark my words and mark them well! Gay marriage will be legalized and the world will continue as normal. Honestly, what's the big deal? let em get married...it doesn't make a god damn difference for me!

 

[Letters]

It seems silly now...

 

[craig]

A better question is where do we draw the line? Everything seems so 'grey' at the moment and over time pretty much anything becomes acceptable, but is there a point where we as a global community need to say 'look, this is just too damn far' and put our foot down.

 

[qckbeam]

A better question is where do we draw the line? Everything seems so 'grey' at the moment and over time pretty much anything becomes acceptable, but is there a point where we as a global community need to say 'look, this is just too damn far' and put our foot down.

All the problem in our world today, and you think gay marriage is the thing society needs to put it's foot down on? Sounds like your priorities are a bit mixed up.

The fate of the gay minority doesn't rest in the hands of the majority. This isn't something that should be left up to the American people, since it has nothing to do with 90% of them.

Some of you mention disgust, and cite that as your reason for being against gay marriage. That is a problem having to do with your personality, not gay marriage, and is therefore not a valid arguement. Also, the original poster said that gay couples should not be allowed to have children, due to the fact that the children would be ridiculed by others. Well, thank you for pointing out just how homophobic our society is. How about instead of depriving people of the right to raise children, we work on creating a more accepting society. Sound good?

 

[craig]

All the problem in our world today, and you think gay marriage is the thing society needs to put it's foot down on? Sounds like your priorities are a bit mixed up.

Did I say that? Please dont put words in my mouth. I merley meant that over the last few hundred years thing that were considered acceptable (which could be anything as trivial as women wearing mini-skirts) slowly become acceptable.

It often makes me wonder if when I become a father myself I'll catch my daughter (if I have one) wandering the streets with her left breast hanging out because it's become 'acceptable' by that point.

As for the point of the original poster. I'm sorry qckbeam, but I dont think you gay's should be allowed to adopt children either.

Regardless of whether you're born homosexual or not at some point in your adult life you decided to let people know that you were gay (effectivley abandoning all ties with any hetrosexual life they may have expected you to lead)(even if they were never your ways to begin with) and this in my oppinion removes any rights you have to looking after children. sorry, but thats the way I feel.

 

[qckbeam]

As for the point of the original poster. I'm sorry qckbeam, but I don?t think you gay's should be allowed to adopt children either.

Regardless of whether you're born homosexual or not at some point in your adult life you decided to let people know that you were gay (effectivley abandoning all ties with any hetrosexual life they may have expected you to lead)(even if they were never your ways to begin with) and this in my oppinion removes any rights you have to looking after children. sorry, but thats the way I feel.

Well how wonderful. I'm very happy you feel that way. But like I said, your feelings, and the feelings of the rest of the heterosexual majority, do not matter. You have no say in the matter. It does not concern you guys at all. Gay couples should be allowed to raise children just like straight ones. The choice should be left up to the couple. It isn't your place, nor is it the place of the majority, to decide whether or not I along with my partner can look after children. Send us through the same process as the heterosexual couples. Having two fathers or mothers doesn't hurt the child, it is the ignorant ones who plague (and seemingly make up) most of our society that hurt the child.

 

[craig]

Well how wonderful. I'm very happy you feel that way. But like I said, your feelings, and the feelings of the rest of the heterosexual majority, do not matter. You have no say in the matter. It does not concern you guys at all. Gay couples should be allowed to raise children just like straight ones. The choice should be left up to the couple. It isn't your place, nor is it the place of the majority, to decide whether or not I along with my partner can look after children. Send us through the same process as the heterosexual couples. Having two fathers or mothers doesn't hurt the child, it is the ignorant ones who plague (and seemingly make up) most of our society that hurt the child.

There is no use making gay/lesbian marriage threads...
People are gonna turn it into some religious debate
People will flame each other...

And mods will close the thread...

I wish they would. These debates are pointless.

 

[mchammer75040]

but is there a point where we as a global community need to say 'look, this is just too damn far' and put our foot down.

If we allow discrimination in our constitution when will we put our foot down and say 'that is too damn far'? Who has the autority to say so? Our constitution says no discrimination it doesnt matter if you agree with it or not, if we allow alittle discrimination to come into our constitution what is to keep someone like Pat Robertson from taking it further? Incase you dont know who that is he is the leader of the Christian Coalition(not trying to turn this into a religious argument so dont take it there), here I'll let him explain himself:

"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
--Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"
--Pat Robertson, "The New World Order," page 218


If we discriminate against gays just because some people dont agree with it, who is to keep this guy from bringing his bullshit into the constitution? You think its just gonna stop at gays?

 

[craig]

If we allow discrimination in our constitution when will we put our foot down and say 'that is too damn far'? Who has the autority to say so? Our constitution says no discrimination it doesnt matter if you agree with it or not, if we allow alittle discrimination to come into our constitution what is to keep someone like Pat Robertson from taking it further? Incase you dont know who that is he is the leader of the Christian Coalition(not trying to turn this into a religious argument so dont take it there), here I'll let him explain himself:

"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
--Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"
--Pat Robertson, "The New World Order," page 218


If we discriminate against gays just because some people dont agree with it, who is to keep this guy from bringing his bullshit into the constitution? You think its just gonna stop at gays?

I do not acknowledge your constitution as a legal document, therefore it has no bearing on me whatsoever. Besides, as qckbeam did above you're taking that statement totally out of context.

 

[mchammer75040]

I do not acknowledge your constitution as a legal document, therefore it has no bearing on me whatsoever. Besides, as qckbeam did above you're taking that statement totally out of context.

Opps sorry I tend to think we are talkin about gay marriage in the states . How did I take the statement out of context? I dont see how I did, I simply proved a point. When do we set our foot down and say ok no more discrimination? Why discrimnate against them (er should say us, since Im bi ) but not others?

 

[ductonius]

I tend to think that marriage is neither about religion nor about love, but about the recognition that 1) the "one male, one female" combo is the most healthy environment in which to raise a child and 2) one male and one female alone, to the exclution of technology and all others, have the ability to prepetuate civilization.

Now, disregarding marrigal outliers* (old people and infertile people getting married) this means that marriage is for one male and one female.


*disregarding outliers in a data-set is an enterly valid practice when attempting to draw a conclution from said data-set.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

i dont see why people are against it... seems kinda silly... relgiously protected? whatever...... its mainly a legal issue anyway... go gay marriages i guess! :bounce: :farmer: :thumbs:

 

[OCybrManO]

For the record, I am not gay.

this in my oppinion removes any rights you have to looking after children

My opinion (not really, but it is along the same lines as your statement) is that if you admit to following a religion you should give up your political rights, like voting, since the church is supposed to be separated from the state.

What about the many children who would otherwise have no parents? Is it better for them to grow up thinking no one cares about them or to be raised by a nice gay couple? The gay people I know would be much better parents than 90% of the straight people I know. I think you should have to have a psychologist monitor you for a few weeks to a month to determine whether or not you will be able to raise a child. It should be based entirely upon the type of person you are and not the sex of the person you are attracted to.

This part is directed to US citizens:

This country was founded by people that left England (or were kicked out) mostly because they did not believe in the ideas of the church of England. They were outcasts, much as gay people are now. They formed their own country as a safe haven for the "refuse" that did not belong in any other country. They said that every man is created equal, not "every man that likes women is created equal to every other man that likes women." The whole idea of denying gay people the right to get married goes against the Constitution. Why do you think they have to try to amend the Constitution to pass the laws? I find it amusing that the man that calls anyone that disagrees with him a "terrorist" and those that agree with him "patriots" is the person that is breaking the fundamental idea that this country was formed around: Acceptance.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

We should remove that from the Statue of Liberty since it no longer applies to the United States of America, we should dissolve our government because the Constitution no longer guides it, and we should merge back with England because our Declaration of Independence was based on ideas that we now apparently do not believe in...

We look back on racists and slave owners and say "What were they thinking?" while, at the same time, we are doing the same things to gay people. I don't mind homophobic people as long as they don't try to take the rights away from good people. As soon as someone says "they shouldn't be allowed to do [insert activity here] because they are gay [read as: they don't share my beliefs]" it disgusts me probably as much as gay people disgust you.

Now, disregarding marrigal outliers* (old people and infertile people getting married) this means that marriage is for one male and one female.

*disregarding outliers in a data-set is an enterly valid practice when attempting to draw a conclution from said data-set.

You don't disregard outliers when you make possibly discriminatory legislature... you are still required to protect the rights of the minority unless their freedom would undeniably infringe upon the freedoms of others (as is the case with murder, theft, racism, etc). Therefore, that is not a valid practice in politics. Also, there are many fertile heterosexual couples that do not give birth to children and instead opt to adopt a child. How do you assume that having two fathers or mothers is an unhealthy environment for a child to grow up in? I would say that having a mother and a father that fight or get divorced is a much worse environment for a child than two loving same-sex partners. No one is saying that two women or two men are able to give birth to a child without any assistance, so why did you bring that up and how do you use it to argue that two same-sex partners are any less able to raise a child? Sexual preference has nothing to do with teaching a child proper behavior... in fact, I would think that it might help if anything. It would teach the child to respect people no matter what their differences are.

None of the arguments against gay people's rights are valid, because their decision to be legally united does not affect anyone but themselves. Though, if they choose to adopt a child I agree that they should teach the child that heterosexuality is normal and explain why they are different (if it was a conscious choice and why they chose to be gay/bi or if it was just who they are and they had no choice)... but, even then, it's not my right to force them to do so.

 

[ductonius]

You don't disregard outliers when you make possibly discriminatory legislature...

If your arguing that an imperfect law might be passed or remain in the books, your too late. The law does not make allowances for all possibilities, which is why the courts occassionally have to deal with special cases.

On many occasions the requests of those specail cases are turned down becuae if allowances are made in the law for every special case, then eventually every case would end up being special.

This is to say that the law regualrly and systematically ignores outliers in favor of a general solution to the problem. This is a neccisary evil since laws that take into account too many special cases end up being complicated and full of loopholes, in which case the law might as well not be there at all.

you are still required to protect the rights of the minority unless their freedom would undeniably infringe upon the freedoms of others (as is the case with murder, theft, racism, etc).

Therefore, that is not a valid practice in politics.

Unfortuantly it doesnt work out like that. Outlier cases and populations are regualry ignored in the interests of actually getting something done. Major and obvious exceptons are made for very large and general groups, but no law makes specific exeptions for left-handed west-coast immigrant bagpipe technitians.

Also, there are many fertile heterosexual couples that do not give birth to children and instead opt to adopt a child.

Again, such people are outliers and if one wishes to form consistant law or even a consistant opinion, at some point you must stop concidering them to one degree or another.

This is summed up in the english saying "The exception proves the rule." If you can find an exception, there is obviously a rule involved.

How do you assume that having two fathers or mothers is an unhealthy environment for a child to grow up in?

I did not say this. What I said was that having one father and one mother is the MOST healthy envrionment to be raised in.

Now, concidering we are discussing a persons life - the child - I dont think its any small matter to demand that the law, to the greatest extent it can, encourages them to be raised in the MOST healthy environment possible.

In addition I do not assume this. In the studies I undertook for my Psych degree I encountered numerous studies that found there is no other environment that can approach the stability and healthy nature of a one-male-one-female household.

I would say that having a mother and a father that fight or get divorced is a much worse environment for a child than two loving same-sex partners.

Again, this is not so much a relivant factor since many divoce cases do not involve children. Also, it seems that you are assuming that same sex relationships cannot have the same problems that male-female relationships can have.

I am sure you do not want to make such a statement becuae it is obviously false.

No one is saying that two women or two men are able to give birth to a child without any assistance, so why did you bring that up and how do you use it to argue that two same-sex partners are any less able to raise a child?

My argument is that marriage is about recognizing that a male and a female alone, to the exclution of technology and all other persons can propogate our civilization. In addition, marriage recognizes that the one-male-one-female houehold is the most stable place to raise a child.

Sexual preference has nothing to do with teaching a child proper behavior... in fact, I would think that it might help if anything. It would teach the child to respect people no matter what their differences are.

You are correct, anyone can explicitly teach a child proper behavior, but there is more than that to raising a child.

Household stability is a major contributing factor to a person general mental health.

Since the typical male-female household has been shown to be the most stable enviornment, I dont see how its possible to argue that children should be placed in anything but male-female households.

The best environment is the only acceptalbe environment in which to place a person who does not have the ability to choose for themselves. (in the case of adoption or natural birth. Couples shoudl be encourages to have children in the male-female sort of relationship)

None of the arguments against gay people's rights are valid, because their decision to be legally united does not affect anyone but themselves.

It is not about affecting anyone, it is about recognizing that a male and female alone, to the exclution of technology and all other person can propgate our civilization and provide the most stable conditions for raising a child.

That is what marriage is about. Not rights. Not love. Not religion. Not what you may or may not be doing to anyone else. But purely the recognition that a male and female create a special set of circumstances that cannot be matched by any other type of relationship.

 

[Crusader]

It makes me wonder quite why Gay people who are pretty much persecuted by Christianity want to enter into the sacrament in the first place. I think civil unions under a name other than marriage are the way to go, marriage should remain a special case between man and woman, since that is its definition.

 

[Zakat]

Ugh, another of these threads? When're people gonna learn, if only Badger wasn't on his vacation right now, then this thread'd be closed by now.-.-

Personally, I'm again marriage all in all, if two people love eachother they don't need to get married imo, but then again, I'm not christian

I'm bisexual as some of you know(wrote it in the other thread) and I don't see a good reason to NOT letting gays get married.

Do you know what it says in the bible? "Love your fellow man".

 

[Zakat]

*Closed*

 

[Crusader]

hehe, not in that way matey

 

[OCybrManO]

I'm talking about how it is supposed to be done... not how it is done. Laws that do not protect the rights of all citizens are unconstitutional and are usually overturned or amended after it is seen that the laws harm a group of people. Making those laws is often the fault of politicians with their own agendas, corruption, and religion getting too involved in the government. It is technically illegal to make them, but when the people that make the laws are corrupted there is nothing that can really be done about it.

The main reason that gay couples might cause problems is because of the stigmas involved with being gay. The children raised by religious extremists to hate gay people would be the ones that cause the problems for the children raised by gay people. That does not mean that they are not able to raise a child. Just because black people were hated by racists doesn't mean that they were inferior. It was the misguided efforts of the racists that caused the problems. It is the same thing now but with "homophobes" instead of racists. It is hard to raise a child in any environment where discrimination is involved... but that is not their fault.

Since the typical male-female household has been shown to be the most stable enviornment, I dont see how its possible to argue that children should be placed in anything but male-female households.

Try to avoid stating something like that with no evidence to support your claims. Please, inform us of the scientific studies that have proven gay people to be less able to raise a child properly.

I am sure you do not want to make such a statement becuae it is obviously false.

I did not say gay couples would not get divorced... but with the current divorce rate higher than 50% it is hard to call marriage between a man and a woman "stable."

Anyway, marriage is not all about raising children and propagating the human race. That is one subset of the rights granted to married couples. The law gives a married couple the rights that families have. When a husband dies all of his belongings go to his wife. When a "life partner" dies his/her assets go to his/her family (if at least one of them is still alive)... if there are no living family members the assets are returned to the state and the "life parnter" can be left homeless, jobless, etc. Married couples are taken care of by the government. Disallowing gay marriage keeps loving gay couples from having the same benefits as a man and a woman that get married for financial reasons... and that is discrimination if you ask me.

Marriage, as recognized by the government of the United States of America, is not a religious union. It is a legal union (like a corporation) that joins two people as one legal entity and can be undone through an annulment or a divorce... unlike the religious version which usually has much more strict policies regarding getting out of a marriage (in some religions there is no way of getting divorced).

 

[Brian Damage]

Well, I'm fine with it, as I've always considered marriage as a symbol of the bond between two people who love each other in a non-platonic way, not as anything religious.

 

[Dan]

I dont agree with homosexuality and any homosexual act as they're clearly un-natural things, but all humans deserve certain rights, it just begs the question where do we stop?

How can you be so sure that it's unnatural? It's historically been around for thousands of years. Scientifically, if homosexuality was so bad or "unnatural" it should have disappeared simply based on darwinian evolution. Couples that can't reproduce would seem to be doomed, yet this trait keeps showing up throughout history. There are theories about reasons for this. Some say removing a small portion of the population (generally males) from the competition for females gives a better chance to the remaining men.

 

[PvtRyan]

I dont agree with homosexuality and any homosexual act as they're clearly un-natural things, but all humans deserve certain rights, it just begs the question where do we stop?

Homosexuality is un-natural even though it's very common in nature itself? Odd... :dozey:

 

[Bad^Hat]

Before I go into the marriage thing I feel like a good flame, so I'll just say this. To everyone who's said they don't agree with homosexuality because they think it 'feels unnatural', put a cork in it. It's much more likely you're afraid of homosexually than it is you actually feel it's wrong. Sexual tension, much?

Alright so some of you may have a genuine feeling of unease about such a thing, which only begs the question, what did gays ever do to you? It's discrimination, pure and simple, and what's worse is you're hiding behind religion to justify it.

That said I really don't know if I agree with same-sex marriage. Up until this point I've been for it all the way, but marriage by definition is a union of two people under god, who apparently has a thing about gays. Personally I think marriage is silly, and kind of fickle. I noticed some people in the other thread chose to think of homosexuals as 'attention seekers'. So, why do people get married again?

Marriage might have been a holy union back then, but nowadays it's just a legal binding. Since divorce became so popular it doesn't really mean much to alot of people anyway.

Anyway better wrap it up before I'm banned or something.

 

[ductonius]

I'm talking about how it is supposed to be done... not how it is done. Laws that do not protect the rights of all citizens are unconstitutional and are usually overturned or amended after it is seen that the laws harm a group of people. Making those laws is often the fault of politicians with their own agendas, corruption, and religion getting too involved in the government. It is technically illegal to make them, but when the people that make the laws are corrupted there is nothing that can really be done about it.

#1: Aruging in principal is all well and good, however, principal does not work when it comes to real life.

#2: Obviously, I do believe in equal rights for all people

#3: Marriage is not a rights issue.

The main reason that gay couples might cause problems is because of the stigmas involved with being gay. The children raised by religious extremists to hate gay people would be the ones that cause the problems for the children raised by gay people. That does not mean that they are not able to raise a child. Just because black people were hated by racists doesn't mean that they were inferior. It was the misguided efforts of the racists that caused the problems. It is the same thing now but with "homophobes" instead of racists. It is hard to raise a child in any environment where discrimination is involved... but that is not their fault.

Try to avoid stating something like that with no evidence to support your claims. Please, inform us of the scientific studies that have proven gay people to be less able to raise a child properly.

#1: Since you have yet to provide evidence to disprove my claims, arguing that I should not be making them is equally as invalid as you seem to THINK my claim are.

#2: Yet again you put words in my mouth. I have never said that gay parents are less capable of riasing a child. I have stated repeatedly that the "traditional" one-male-one-female household has been proven to be the MOST stable and therefore the MOST healthy situation in which to raise a child.

If you need to know that the evidence I speak of exists you must simply look for it.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...+stable+relationship"+marriage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Here is the first artical I found when searching google. It is not as complex and does not take into account homosexual relationships (though many I have seen do) but shows clearly that the male-femal married relationship is the most stalbe.

Take it as preliminarly evidence if nothing else.

Since most of the papers I have read are available only in scientific journals through the EBSCO online source I cant really get many of the better ones sitting at my home computer.

I did not say gay couples would not get divorced... but with the current divorce rate higher than 50% it is hard to call marriage between a man and a woman "stable."

#1: The current divoce rate is not anywhere near 50%. It peaked in the 1970's and has been decilining since then. The statistic you are refreing to is one where a statistician looked at the current number of marriages and the current number of divorces and found that there were twice as many marriages as divorces.

The major problems with this is that the people getting married are different than the people getting divorced. Those who got married in that year did so at a different point in history than those who got divorced in that year.

#2: The one-male-one female relationship is the MOST stable. Other relationships break down at a far greater rate than marriage. The artical I provided earlier shows this.

Anyway, marriage is not all about raising children and propagating the human race. That is one subset of the rights granted to married couples. The law gives a married couple the rights that families have. When a husband dies all of his belongings go to his wife. When a "life partner" dies his/her assets go to his/her family (if at least one of them is still alive)... if there are no living family members the assets are returned to the state and the "life parnter" can be left homeless, jobless, etc. Married couples are taken care of by the government. Disallowing gay marriage keeps loving gay couples from having the same benefits as a man and a woman that get married for financial reasons... and that is discrimination if you ask me.

The problem you llisted with inheireitance can be solved by a will. You do not need to be married to leave all your belongings to another person, its simply automatic in a marriage.

The fact that two people in a certain situation have to actvly will thier belongings to each other and two people in another situation do not is not an argument that the first set of people should be allowed to enter the situation of the second two.

Marriage, as recognized by the government of the United States of America, is not a religious union. It is a legal union (like a corporation) that joins two people as one legal entity and can be undone through an annulment or a divorce... unlike the religious version which usually has much more strict policies regarding getting out of a marriage (in some religions there is no way of getting divorced).

I dont see the relivance of this. I have never stated that marriage is a matter of religion, in fact, I have stated it is most definitly NOT a religous issue.

 

[Lordblackadder]

Look I'm all for tolerance, but how about tolerance for the majority of us who just want to be left alone?

 

[OCybrManO]

If you are going to not let people that live in anything but the absolute most healthy environment you are only going to allow two or three children to be born.

Obviously, I do believe in equal rights for all people

If that was true you would probably believe in dealing with couples, in terms of allowing or disallowing them to adopt a child, on an individual (one couple, not one person) basis but from the rest of your statements it doesn't sound like that is what you want. What you are doing is called "generalization"... but usually that specific kind of generalizing is referred to as "stereotyping". Heterosexual or not, there are couples that would make good parents and there are couples that would make bad parents. Whether or not a gay couple can adopt a child should come down to the same procedure that a straight couple has to go through to adopt a child. If they display the characteristics of good parents, have a loving relationship, are financially stable, have a safe place in which to live, etc they should be able to raise a child just like any other couple that meets the same criteria.

Marriage is not a rights issue.

If it is not a religious issue (and it is not, because that would violate the separation of church and state... which G.W. Bush doesn't seem to recall, or else he wouldn't have brought religion into the speach) then what is it?

It is a rights issue. The government is trying to discriminate against a group of people that didn't choose to be the way they are (most gay people start to exhibit homosexual tendencies before they even know about sexuality) by not allowing them to enter the same legal contracts as "normal" people. Denying two consenting adults the ability to be legally joined as a couple and denying them the same protection, rights, and benefits that "normal" couples get is a rights issue if you ask me.

Since you have yet to provide evidence to disprove my claims, arguing that I should not be making them is equally as invalid as you seem to THINK my claim are.

Since I haven't come across recent (if any) gay marriage & divorce statistics from the United States I can't conclude that gay married people would be more stable than straight married people or vice versa... but I don't claim that one is more stable than the other, unlike you. Unless you have some gay divorce stats (and not just stats of gay couples that were dating and broke up... because tons of straight couples break up after less than a week), don't use gay divorce rates to argue against gay marriage. If you do have them, give us some hard information... not just a conclusion that you might have reached from them.

The artical I provided earlier shows this.

Again, please post some information related to the argument at hand...

Considering that the article you linked to doesn't even mention homosexuality I find it hard to see how it proves that a man-woman relationship is more stable. Normally when one attempts to prove something is better or more stable than something else they compare statistics of both sides. All that article says is that people that live together (or cohabit) are more likely to be together a year after they have a baby. Gay people can live together, too.

The current divoce rate is not anywhere near 50%

As of 1996:
Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce: ~50%
Percentage of remarriages that end in divorce: ~60%
The US has the 12th highest divorce percentage in the world... the highest being Belarus at 68%.
The US has the highest divorce rate (out of a sampling of 1000 random people, 5 people would get divorced every year) in the world. That is more than five times as fast as China even though their population is much larger than ours.
As of 1997 (only one year later) the divorce rate went up to almost 9 people per 1000 per year.

Every one of the first 10-15 (when I got tired of looking for conflicting evidence without finding any) web site I have looked at give the same results +/- a few percent.

Yes, that is the epitome of stability (sarcasm)... a 1 in 2 chance (more in some cases) of having your marriage fall apart.

Look I'm all for tolerance, but how about tolerance for the majority of us who just want to be left alone?

LBA, what do you mean by that statement? Do you mean that if the majority are intolerant of gay couples that they should not be allowed or that we shouldn't be discussing this in a public forum for fear that it might disturb people (or is there another way to interpret it)?

 

[Foxtrot]

I thought homosexuality was more like a mental illness or a dysfunction then a prefrence.

 

[Murray_H]

I thought homosexuality was more like a mental illness or a dysfunction then a prefrence.

Please tell me you are messing about........