Thousands of gays and lesbians and their supporters are marching in Washington against the two institutions where they are still not equal to heterosexuals: the military and marriage.
Obama has pledged to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, although he doesn't personally believe in equal rights for marriage.
They have the same rights everyone else has, they want more than the rest of us. Don't be fooled!
They are Human Beings and Citizens of the U.S.. Therefore they are equal and have rights, and should have them under the law.
What we personaly believe, is out-side of the Law, They are entitled to equal rights and treatment, period.
I think a lot of people totally miss the point when this question is asked. It's not whether the government should allow gays to marry, it's whether the government should be involved in marriage at all, whether it be gay, heterosexual, polygamous or any permutation of consenting adults. Not their business, and the problem is, they DO consider it a business, financially speaking. I believe civil contracts are the only place government should be involved in marriage, and only in the case of a legal dissolution of said contract, through the courts. Otherwise, most marriages are considered a religous sacrament of which the government should have no part. Get out of my house, especially my bedroom, where your only real interest is financial. Taxation, taxation,taxation.
I think he believes in equal rights for gays and lesbians or he wouldn't have said he will abolish don't ask don't tell - I think he has had to try in the past not sound too liberal for fear of driving conservatives crazier than they already are! Kartika
Gay are as human as hetero. Sometimes more human that hetero. LOL. I support same sex marriage and rights.(do not really know why people want to marry anyways but is your right.LOL)
We should reflect on this :
Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Obama is trying to hand out licenses to sin.
There is nothing equal about that, nothing good about that.
Homosexuals should be treated equal in this day and age it's rediculous that a same sex marraige is frowned upon.However, i don't believe they should be allowed to adopt children. Now don't get me wrong im sure some gays and lesbians could be better parents than some hetrosexuals but what example is it setting to the child? i maybe wrong let me know your opinions.
I agree, in that each sex has unique qualities to offer a growing child, and so should have a mother and father of different sexes. Equal rights is a no-brainer.
You are for gay marriage but against them adopting because of the "example" it may set? hand hit my forehead
I think she's talking about the qualities that each sex has to offer a growing child, and that the child would miss out on that if raised by same-sex partners.
I realize that X, but she is for the thing she thinks is a bad example.
So? There are smut mags too. They have the right to exist but that doesn't mean I would buy them for my kids.
And you are for their right to exist? If so then I guess you have a point.
Ok, not such a great example as in I'm not comparing gays to said mags. But under the 1st they have the right to publish - for adults. I believe in equal rights but I'm not convinced that a child is getting all it needs from a same-sex household. If, when a child reached sexual maturity they choose to be gay (or are gay) then that is their right.
My sister is gay, she didn't choose to be different but she has felt different all her life. I would not have a problem with a loving homosexual couple raising a kid, as long as the required background checks are done.
Then we disagree. I think male influence is very necessary to the growth of a child.
Thats a point, but there are millions of kids that do not have any influence in their lives other than what they are learning on the street.
My point is some positive influence is better than none.
Tex, you're not making sense. Are you saying that unless "some" kids live in gay households that their alternative is the street?
Yeah live and let live but in terms of adoption theres a childs needs to take into consideration.
Equal rights....sure ie civil unions
Special Rights, Redefining Marriage, Indoctrinationing children to embrace the gay lifestyle AND giving parents no say, Glamorizing sin, blurring the line between tolerance and acceptance, Blurring the line between man and woman ....NO!
Glamorizing Sin? Blurring the line between man and woman?
I am a man in a mans body that loves other men. Most Gay men and women are like me. Most of the gay people out here with an Identity crisis are Your Creation. They want to be as normal as you want them to be, so tell themselve God made a mistake with them and put them in the wrong body. This way, they dont have to face the fact that they love people of the same gender. They are just people trying to cope with the hate and evil people like you created. This is the world you created for your Children, persecuting good honest decent people that never hurt anyone. The sin is yours and the people like you. Live with what you created with your hate. And stop thinking you can speak for God.
Seriously? Jesus told the truth. Do you recall what he told the Pharisees? You ex “Christians” crake me up.
what did he say and how is it germane to this discussion?
p.s. here's an excellent example of indoctrinating children.
When have you ever been forced to go to a camp? Probably never! When are we forced to go to school. Always! Jesus told the truth and the Pharisees hate Him so much they cruified Him, so mock me. My Father went through more.
oh noes...Fox News....haha
any 'controversial' textbooks or curriculum requires parental approval. while some parents are clueless about what their children are learning, many are fully involved in their children's education and take an active interest in their academic pursuits.
so what did Jesus say to the Pharisees again? was it something about homosexuality?
Wrong, parents were not allowed to opt out, Did you even view the vid?
"What would Jesus do?"
He would do what He did. Tell the truth. No matter how unpopular, that was my point. I'm sure you already knew that.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
yes i watched the video. parents had their opportunity to speak out against this curriculum at board meetings, and it was designed to address bullying. they don't show examples of the curriculum as it pertains to each grade, so their report is incomplete.
as a parent, i believe it is my repsonsibility to teach my child about social issues, not the school's --- but there's some parents out there who don't teach their children anything and they are the ones who go around beating up and even killing people just because they are different (e.g. Matthew Shepard).
but why are you bringing this up? are you using it to enforce your "gays are evil" argument? i'm confused...
bottom line....it's shameful that the question "should gays and lesbians be treated as equal' is even asked in this day and age. we are ALL human...why should one person be more equal than another? that makes no sense to me.
Where/When did I ever say gays are evil? WE ARE ALL SINNERS.
I’m a parent and my oldest kid is in private school. Thank God.
To your last paragraph read my original comment.
It's late, you can keep arguing, I'm off to bed have a good night.
Nope. In fact, he never mentioned homosexuality once. He did condemn divorce in no uncertain terms five times, though. Don't hold your breath to see any of the "pious" trying to ban that--might impede on their freedoms.
Matt. 19:3-5 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Male and Female, How more clear could He be?
For the millionth time, you need another reference because that book you keep quoting is not true. It has some good inspirational stories but it's a complete work of fiction.
Now, can you use other sources of "proof" or are you going to keep referring to the wizard in the sky that you've never seen or heard?
i used to secretly think "cleave unto" was something naughty. i still don't know what cleaving is to this day
Qur'an, Ch 7-The Heights, V 80-84.
80. We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?
81. "For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
82. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"
83. But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.
84. And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!
For your information, Qur'an, is one of the most influential books in the history of literature, recognized as the greatest literary masterpiece in Arabic, the Qur’an is the only book on the face of earth which is unchanged for more than 1430 years, not a single letter has been changed yet, fully intact and unaltered. It’s the only final revelation by God which is for the whole of mankind till the end of time. It's a miracle of miracles and the ultimate final source of peace.
Cosette that was horrifying. That looks like the kind of cult that sets themselve on fire, or drinks poison kool-aid. Where are the parents. You are suppose to protect your kids! Bill Maher's conversation about it was great.
We are all born sinners. I used to be addicted to stealing, but I know I wasn't born a thief. Come on get a clue.
Read about the Story of Lt Col Victor Fehrenbach. Then go get a clue and some decency.
Classic, beacause I believe the bible I must hate you? Great logic. I tolerate gays, but I don't have to accept your sin, I don't even accept my own sin. If I truly hated you I would let you go without telling about Jesus and how Jesus died for your sins and mine and He will heal you inside and out. I've seen it. I live it. Repent and turn away from your sins the Holy Spirit will help you overcome your sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.
<snipped - no link promotion in the Forums>
God Bless You!
Are you gay? I have a strange feeling that you have gay tendencies.
With absolute sincerely I share the gospel with you. You can choose to reject it, but in doing so you are not rejecting me.
I'm not really sure about this so tell if I'm wrong. Didn't God make Adam first? And didn't he make Eve only after Adam got bored doing "Whatever" he was doing? So wouldn't it just make common sense and would it not be Gospel, that there was Adam and Steve long before there was Adam and Eve? I'm not completely sure about this. I think I read it somewhere...Genesis maybe?
Genesis 2 15-24"Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
and so all this makes it ok for YOU or anyone else to discriminate?
I don't get it, I just don't
discriminate? We are all born sinners. I used to be addicted to stealing, but I know I wasn't born a thief. According to your logic If someone told me stealing is wrong I can all them a bigot? Do you see how silly that sounds? I tolerate gays, but I don't have to accept their sin, I don't even accept my own sin. If I truly hated gays I would let them go without telling about Jesus and how Jesus died for your sins and mine and He will heal you inside and out. I've seen it. I live it. Repent and turn away from your sins the Holy Spirit will help you overcome your sin and trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.
<snipped - you've been warned several times to stop promoting links in the Forums>
Dont mean to drag this on, but where did the mother a father come from if God created Adam first? Dont try to answer that. I'm just trying to point out that everything in the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. The Bible was written by men. Imperfect men with their own prejudices and hate and ideas of how the world should be. It is up to you to use your common sense and decency when you read the Bible.
ok i see your point its great i do understand a little. so whos gods father and mother? were do they come from? and seriously why did religion maybe pure genuine belief before but now.... separation, alienation, wars, profit money organizations, its hard enough that we beat our self up and punish our self's for everything we do in life and don't do but to belong to a way of life that's personally hard for me because iam a open minded person at least i want to be. Why restrain my self?
Of course they should have equal rights...as all human beings should under universal human rights codes. In every sphere. And government and lawmakers should look to the state of Iowa for precedence. Bringing 'the bible' into this 'debate' is pointless.
We should be embarrassed that the question can be asked in all seriousness.
In addition to not giving them rights they must be stopped and the very first step is to guide them about their ill behaviour with beautiful preaching.
Second step, tie em to a fence somewhere right. You takin over for the nut that went to bed? You both should be men for a change and stop using religion as your tool to spread your evil hate. God is nowhere in you. Go to bed or hell or somewhere.
With regard to marriage rights what part of it do you find he doesn't agree?
Gays should have the same treatment as everyone else. If they want
to get married, then they should. I don't see how gay marriage is
a threat to heterosexual marriage. Love is love no matter you slice it.
Also the Dont Ask Dont Tell should have been done away with a long
time ago. Thousands of bright and talented men and women were
denied the great opportunity to serve their country because
they were looked up as deviants. Gays are just as capable if not
more as their heterosexual counterparts in defending this great
country. Have a good day
The United States Constitution makes no distinction between straight or gay or male or female (after the nineteenth amendment). Of course they should expect (not given or granted) the same rights as any other U.S. Citizen.
They have the same rights simply because they are human beings and they pay tax too, same amount as everybody.
Gays and lesbians under the laws of the United States have rights the same as you and me. The law reads, "Freedom of Religion", not Freedom of Christianity. This is not to say that there is a spiritual law that is in place and everyone born into this world is subject to that law weather we like it or not. The law of Christ Jesus states, "the soul that sinneth shall surety die, or be sick, or cursed". If we judge gay and lesbians we are just as wrong as they are by taking away the judgment of God and doing the judging ourselves. Everybody has faults and only God can say its right or wrong.
Well, what ya do in the bedroom is really your own business - do you see any heterosexuals marching around and making a bunch of noise about getting the same repect as gays and lesbians?
I am new to the site. Not sure If I am responding correctly! If not bare with me.
Gays and Lesbians are human. They feel all the joys and all the pains of life that straight people do. Who are we to judge them? How can anyone make sense out of not allowing them in our military or allowing them other rights such as marriage. I respect President Obama for his decision. I especially like that you said that he himself does not personally believe in gay marriage. It's a beautiful thing to me when someone can look past thier own opinions or feelings and understand that we are all different and yet all important at the same time. To me people being gay has been known to all living people our entire lives. The Bible tells us of the existance of these people. I feel like everthing we need to know can be found there. When I speak of gay people and thier rights one thing from the Bible stands out to me. There is only one true judge and that is God. We will all be judged by him. If you judge someone for any reason you will be found guilty of that sin inwhich you placed judgment upon someone else for. Basically If we judge gays and lesbians in our life on Earth we will then be punished for it in the afterlife.
I personally feel that everyone should have the same rights. I have interviewed gay women and men, and they are just like all of us. Realistically, we shouldn't segregate any race, religion, sexuality, etc. We all have the same makeup. We all have a beating heart, feelings, we all have to eat and most of us have the same basic need, to be loved. It shouldn't matter who you fall in love with, should it? We usually fall in love with another human being, but some love animals just as much. Should we consider that another sexuality? Your first thought would be "ABSOLUTELY NOT", that is sick. Well some people think that any other sexuality besides one woman, one man is wrong. That could be considered narrow minded. We should all love each other, live with the one we get along with the most, and if we have to abide by rules, abide with the ones that will not put us in jail. The reason write this, is I have had a marriage of 31 years to one man, I have a daughter who considers herself gay, but has had sex with a man to get pregnant, ran away with my 51 year old best friend (who is gay) and then came back to her first gay love who is 23, she is 22. Some people feel gays were born that way, I believe some were possibly but mostly it is probably due to what happened when they were being formed or growing up. Don't know if this has interested anyone, but I have been fascinated by the relationship between women and women as intriguing as the one between a man and woman.
Today the lesbians and gays are asking for their right. Its right for them. But why god has made men and women. We should not go against the nature. Tomorrow someone will say I want to marry a dog. Another someone will ask to give him right to do sex in road because it is his personal rights. Now do you agree ?
Equal rights are about people when I think about it. The Constitution is written in a way that says we are all equal. Being gay, lesbian or bi-sexual to me is more of a social issue. Society has alway looked down on that type of activity and it was'nt exceptable behavior and it's not now. Gays, lesbians and bi's are just getting bold as if it is exceptable behavior. Some of my long time friend have come out the closet so to speak and I still like them, but i'm not like them. I was raised as a christian and I recall reading stories of how in the past persons got bold with the same sex bit and God distoryed a whole city because of it. I'm just saying that your rights are not based on your sexual prefferences but is tide into what is socialy exceptable.
Can't believe in this day and age that some people have more rights than others. Sexuality should in no way effect the way someone is treated and the fact that it does just goes to show that humanity hasn't progressed half as far as some people would have you believe.
1. Marriage should be reserved as a religious institution and as such the rules apparent to the individual religion should apply to those marriages. i.e. in a Christian marriage it should be clearly understood and agreed by both parties that there can be no divorce, the marriage is for life. The couple (and in the case of Christianity they must be male and female) would agree with the religious principals applicable.
2. Civil Partnerships should be open to anybody who chooses not to marry in a religious ceremony, they should be legally defined in the statues of the jurisdiction that the civil partnership is registered in, and full rights should be applicable to all unions.
The couple (of whatever gender) should have the right to limit their partnership in regard to assets and duration. Possibly a provisional licence could be issued for (say) five years, requiring a renewal (at minimum cost) at that time.
A civil partnership would automatically be dissolved if at any time the couple chose to convert the partnership into a religious marriage within the structures of their religion.
3. Nobody should have the legal right to force any religious organisation to marry them, nor to sue for damages if refused a religious marriage ceremony.
4. In military matters the only criterion should be the ability to perform the task required of the soldier. The same rulebook should apply to all military personnel.
I'm probably one of the more religious hubbers here, but my relationship with God has no bearing on what a secular society wishes to make laws about.
I expect to have the right to believe what I choose to, to live in accordance with my preferences, to not have to compromise my faith, and to be free to engage contact or not with whoever I please.
I have no problem with homosexuals, they are no worse sinners than heterosexual fornicators or paper-clip thieves.
Sin is sin.
It does appear that the God of the Bible does have a severe problem with homosexuality, but NOT homosexuals.
God hates the sin, not the sinner.
BTW I want one other thing.... can we have our word back please?
I read a book from the 1980's the other day and the author used the word gay in it's original context. I don't care what homosexuals do, but what's wrong with simply calling themselves homosexuals?
You are correct on the latter I believe. Obama has been quoted as saying the the gay community should "divorce" themselves from the word marriage.
Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transsexuals are DISGUSTING
Don't ask don't tell, is the most ridiculous theme, of a military, means, embarresed beyond the 10 commandmats, thus the religion of pass, thou shall not hurt another human, at all cost
Yes Gays and Lesbians should have the same rights as hetrosexuals! There is no right and wrong in love, love weather its love of female to female, male to male or male to female, is still love, just as all our blood runs red!
You are not going to get rid of gays. They pop up with every generation. Hitler tried and failed. That settled there comes the question of what to do about them.
Giving them stability such as the ability to marry each other and also more of a stake in the USA seems to me like a way forward. If they want in I say let them into the military. Maybe they might need different accommodation to heterosexual soldiers, etc but I am sure that could be worked out.
He believes that the truth is mutable--that the need for any given truth is relative to each individual person. This is a problem if you ask me.
I'm sorry, but I heard Obama believes that as a Christian, it is his personal feeling that marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, he recognizes this as his held belief, which may not be that of others. There is a difference between what I just said and your verbiage: it encompasses the word 'tolerance.'
I think this thetfin guy will get what I'm saying, Sneako.
Becareful not to over-estimate my comprehensive abilities! It might inflate my ego and endanger everyone!
I have actually argued with you before. May have been under a pseudonym, lol, so I know your comprehensive abilities, and also your stance on gay marriage...at least to some extent.
Obama the lawyer (I'm not completely sure and would have to check) I believe would agree to your legalistic/tax break argument about gay marriage. I still contend that marriage is more than a state mandated institution (cultural, , religious...).
I actually came across someone the other day who believes people with children should be taxed at a higher rate--a procreation tax...in a total upset of your ideas/beliefs.
But the element of marriage that is not state mandated does not require any sort of state legislation in order for change to occur. This is essentially the state poking its nose where it doesn't belong.
As far as this person you met goes, you should ask them who will be entering the job market in twenty, thirty and forty or more years, paying taxes to pay for welfare and social medicine--taxes that your accuaintance will be unable to procure while in the nursing home. Proliferation is good for society. Think of it as an investment; expensive, yes, but fruitful in so many ways.
Yeah. That's why I support civil unions in the long run all the way around. However, and this is actually a moderate standpoint, we are not there philosophically yet. Marriage as an institution is still a mish-mash of mixed beliefs and very much still involves the state. Hence, allowing gay people to marry is about civil rights/human rights.
And I believe the person I'm talking about believes we are only TOO fruitful. He called it a 'procreation' tax. Think of it metaphorically: An overabundance of anything, actually, that grows exponentially and unchecked causes rot...sometimes cancer. The true answer is in sustainable development and investment.
There's noway you're from Omaha! People who live around large quantities of methane never think that much! It was in a book so it has to be true!
Sneako, ma dear, the stockyards are on the SOUTH side of Omaha. I rarely went there, . I lived in Midtown and Downtown. That's how it happened!
And here I thought you wanted to hear about Omaha, .
Warren Buffet lives in Midtown, too, , hahaha.
Is it the government's duty to entertain their delusions at the expense of the American taxpayer? I do not believe so. And, to be clear, when I say delusion I mean the belief that a Homosexual Union is equatable to a Heterosexual Marraige. It is clear that the two are composed of distinctly different parts and yield different outcomes. Religion has little to do with the matter, if you ask me.
I see little more in this person's opinion than a thinly veiled contempt for human life. Having scores of children is very expenive, meaning that taxing these families heavily(or at all really) will lead to extreme poverty, starvation, and death. It is for these reasons that I assume your accuaintance does not take this stance seriously. Their idea would affect real people in an extremely negative fashion.
And I disagree wholeheartedly with the intent behind your first paragraph. The word "delusions" says much. We have actually argued this point previously, so I don't see a need to repeat it.
I would also wager a guess you are not married (or in a ltr)...and definitely male. Semantically...too much base of an argument on tax relief does not a well-rounded argument on (or understanding of) marriage make.
And no, the opposite is perhaps true of BD. Given the belief that the world is already over populated, taxing procreation carries with it a very serious reverence for human life - just perhaps a little more far-seeing (China has already understood this, just has gone about it the wrong way). And of course, with conservatives, I suppose, sigh, it always matters WHO is having the children.
You do state your case well, however, and as before, I enjoyed the debate.
The reason I put so much focus on the tax issue is because it's main issue I have with the whole 'gay marriage' thing. If you feel my focus on the financial side of things is heartless, let's consider a little scenario.
Let's just hypothesize, ability to create offspring aside, that the relationship dynamics of a homosexual 'marraige' are the same as those of a heterosexual one. If it is true that this is the case, why is legalization necessary? Just what would legalization change? Why do homosexual couples need the Government to validate the existance of their relationship. The only reason I can think of is that they are looking for the legal benefits that come with marriage. My point is that some of these benefits are unjustified for homosexual couples, and that certain other benefits should be given to people in general if they are to be granted to homosexual couples.
Yes. Single hetero people living in domestic partnerships are basically in the same boat as gay couples. Check that. And I agree completely that married people have some benefits that should be given to all (frankly, I'm not too keen on what marriage represents in the legalistic sense...or even in a religious sense at all, personally).
However, this is not about what I personally believe. Neither is this about government engineered 'family'-making for the benefit of the state based on tax benefits or relief. The institution of marriage has a long cultural history, involving property rights, romantic notions, religious beliefs, etc. Who am I to say that if two consenting adults--who perhaps just so happen to be of the same sex--believe in these notions and the traditional trappings that go along with it (AND the legal benefits that are acquired) shouldn't live in a state that they believe will make them happy...? And by the way, the changing nature of the contents of a successful 'marriage' includes a component of personal happiness (a state that is referenced in our Declaration of Independence).
Legal benefits to married partners (that I myself do not have in my unmarried relationship of 5 years, ie) include inheritance rights, medical rights, personal tax benefits, benefits to partners of foreign nationals...and the list goes on. To spell it out in anecdotal terms: there is a woman here on Hubpages whose partner (male) is sick. She has had to go through real craziness at the hospital where he has been admitted because she is not officially 'family,' as they are not married.
Now, there are reasons (some legal, some ideological) some of us choose not to be married--and that is our choice also. The point is: free, consenting adults--I would say at this point in history--SHOULD have that choice, regardless of sexual orientation.
And yes. I'd say the nature of a gay long term relationship is probably remarkably similar to that of a heterosexual one. After all, we are all human beings--and human beings first--that 'human' thing is what supposedly separates us from other animals, who also come in both male and female sexes and who also mate and produce offspring. The nod to the dignity of this 'humanity' should come first--and herein could even be the seed of a religious argument in favor of gay marriage, too...as well as a pro-humanist one.
How about this for an irony: the one area where I think Muslims need a good slap is exactly this one -- their refusal to acknowledge the validity of *commonlaw* heterosexual relationships, homosexuality, and the right to sleep around, or frankly, sleep with a horse, if you want to; oh yes, that and the tendency to mix government and religion (in a couple of countries, at least), all things evangelicals have gripes with (or, in the last case, like)... I am sure there is a God, because you need a superhuman intelligence to derive THIS much irony from life...
There is no "dignity" in that scenario. Nor any good seed for a religious argument, since it goes against everything the Bible speaks of.
And while there is no real dignity for humans, since we're all sinful creatures, at the very least the concept of shame should take root somewhere, thereby disallowing any blatant attempt to legalize perversion.
Whoa, now there is an interesting avenue to walk down; we shouldn't uphold human dignity? Now I am pretty sure that *this* goes counter to the whole spirit of the American project, justice, freedom, equality, opportunity, for all -- I mean, if you don't believe in dignity for humans...
....Don't get me wrong, if a person does something wrong, they should feel shame, in some sense: but this is *part* of having dignity. To me (though I am probably not a Christian by your definition...), the message of Jesus' coming is to *lift* people *up* *into* dignity. (And frankly, I can't see whether they are gay or not has anything to do with it -- Jesus barely, if ever, mentions sexual conduct -- and I'd have thought that *he* is the best authority, isn't he)
Not all theists are fundamentalists, nor adherents of the Christian belief system, nor read the bible in such a way...if at all.
And this is precisely why the reading that prevails concerning separation of church and state in the US constitution IS necessary, Thetfin.
*interesting username, thetfin, btw. What does it stand for?
Standing against 'Gay Marraige' only makes you intolerant of legalized absurdity. I'm not even trying to say that it is wrong solely on religious grounds. It simply does not make sense that 1. same sex couples should share the same tax bracket as heterosexual couples when there is no contingency for those expensive little loved ones called children, and 2. some of the other rights being lobbied for should be granted to people irrespective of their marriage status.
Creating a pointless institution, when there other more inclusive means of solving societal problems, is the wrong way to go about things, if you ask me.
The real question should be: Why don't they?
Most Americans are waking up this morning worried about paying their bills, and mortgages.
Very few are worried if you get to put a ring on your lover.
I'm sure the Elitists have plenty of time to think about this.
Yea after all I would like to know who they are hurting, its there choice.
why wouldn't gays and lesbians have the same rights than hetero's?
In my country gay people are even allowed to marry and adopt kids
so, what's wrong with that?
They are people too, they have right too don't they???
many people are such a hypocritics on that mather, a lot of guy's like to look at lesbian adult movies, but oohh a lesbian, she's gay, she doesn't deserve any rights.
People come on, this is 2009
Of course they should have rights they are not any different then we are as a heterosexual couple. The only thing different is that the person laying next to them is of the same sex. Who cares what they do in there bedroom don't we have more concerns within our country besides worrying about if a same sex couple should have the same rights?
My friend do you read the Bible? God has anything to say?
Well for anybody that's interested: A Priest from the Archdioces of Brooklyn, NY declared a Crusade against Gay people that want to get married. He said Gay marriage would destroy marriage as the world now knows it. And he said people should write their Senators in Albany, NY and tell them you are against gay marriage. His statements are going to cause the attacks on gay people to rise ten fold. He knew better! The station that aired his comments knew better. Every gay person beaten and killed is the responsibility of this PRIEST! How can people like this call themselves men of God?
I think the military and the marriage questions are quite different.
Ok the military i can kinda relate to, although when i was in the military, there where 3 girls in my platoon wo are lesbians, golly, the army is filled with lesbian girls (at least here in Belgium). never seen any gay men tough.
But marriage, why not, what's the differene between living together and being married????
It's a legal question as well as religious. From a legal standpoint a married couple have access to each other's social security benefits upon the death of the other. I'm not sure, but this may also extend to Medicaid and Medicare.
Upon death the surviving spouse can determine funeral arrangements and, without a will, inherit all of the property of the deceased spouse. Spouses have special privileges in regard to hospital visitation and consultation. I many states the spouse has the right to determine medical procedures or care of the other if that other is so incapacitated as to not be able to make decisions.
In most cases the spouse becomes the primary family member, supplanting the influence or decision-making abilities the birth-family can have upon an individual.
hahahha - you are one of the funniest! social rights are religious questions? which religion decides? free country, supposedly
If you do not know the answer to your question, please post the question and I will be glad to respond. How ever, are you that sure you understand the fight going on in the first place?
If two men or women marry; they will not get same tax cuts and benifits a Male and female couple would get. But the tax they pay would be the same. Totally unfair, unAmerican and unjustified. Nobody wants to invade somebody's church and force them to marry us. We want what every other American Citizen has. Equal Justice under the LAW. The Founders of this Country knew what they were doing when they talked about the seperation of Church and State. I should not be denied my rights as an American Citizen because of someone's religious belief. It is so wrong, so unjustified. How you feel about me and who I CHOOSE to love should be your problem not mine.
ok, i don't want to go into that, but it's a fact that the catholic church is against homosexuality and living togheter or mariage is out of the question
but, my girlfriend and i have been living together now for 9 years, we have a 6 year old daugher, but aren't married, simply because we don't see the point of it
Then I guess you won't complain about not being able to be married in a Catholic church.
The Catholic Church isn't against homosexuals. The Catholic Church is against adultery, be it homosexual or heterosexual.
No amount of illegalization can effectively or ethically stop homosexual relationships; effectively making the homosexual cries of persecution unfounded.
Gay couples also do not need their relationships to be recognized by the Government to legitimatize them. Either you believe that you are in a legitimate relationship or you do not.
Homosexual couples do not need a better tax bracket; Heterosexual couples need one because they are so prone to reproduce.
There is no denial that homosexuals are often persecuted when they should be shown love like any other human. That being said, I find 'gay marraige' to be a non-issue as their current position in society does not effectively hinder their desired lifestyle. Gay rights activists have essentially portrayed a non-issue as an issue. I suggest we stop wasting Government time with this nonsense.
Surely the title of this forum makes it plain.
I would be embarassed to ask that question with a straight face in public.
Whatever happened to 'all men are created equal'?
Should not the biggots be campaigning to amend that to "unless of course they are gay"?
You don't need to be afraid of gay people America, they won't bite.
If someone wants to be openly gay in the military, why not? It is someone's business if they expose their sexual orientation or not. The issue of marriage isn't religious either. Yes, gays/lesbians should be afforded equal rights, period.
Do you consider such issues as exactly the same in the military as in civil society?
Issues are issues and will come up in the military and in civil society, there are differences of course. That is why it is up to the individual. Who they tell, when they tell them, or if they tell at all. Could you imagine working with men for months and have them not know something about you that makes you you?
If I was in the military and was a lesbian, I would want to talk about my girlfriend in the same way the other women talked about missing and loving their hubands. Everyone needs support, and its difficult when you have to hide who you are.
Is individual choice of the same importance in the military as in civil society?
I was in the military as well, and at first I didn't feel that it was appropriate that men and women, straight or gay, talk about their sexual preferences. However, when you alluded to being able to talk about your lover or missing them it reminded me of what it was like being in the service and how talking about home made passing the time a little bit easier.
This is not an easy issue, but absolutely appreciate your point of view on the topic.
One of the most famous British WWI heroes was called "Mad Jack" In the London papers. He earned the name after the death of his brother at Galipoli. He began doing one man trench raids on the German line. He was known to attack a section of trench with grenades killing all German soldiers in the vicinity. He'd then return to his lines and sleep.
He was also a well-known poet both before and after the war. With at least five books published all of which went into extended printing.
He was gay.
Interesting story! Haven't heard about it. I'll do some research. Cheers !
that would make a good movie. i can totally see Robert Downey Jr. in that role...
His name was Siegfried L. Sassoon.
Be sure to go beyond the first page. The next three pages are his poetry and some paintings from the war that work with the poem.
Warning: for poetry this stuff is brutal, often describing, vividly, death and destruction. My favorite though is "Aftermath."
oh noes...i left right away...my security software flagged it as "site unsafe". sorree....
I'm not sure why it would do that. It's geocities, which will be closed soon, there are ads that pop up on the right, but that can't be helped. Like hubpages, geocities is attempting to make money by embedding adwords ads.
They are "wrapped" around the code that makes up that page and so can't be turned off.
But there's no malicious code; it is safe.
People do not understand the incredible cruelty of the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy (which is supposed to implement the provisions of 10 U.S.C. sec. 654), which is supposed to allow gay people the right to serve in the armed forces alongside heterosexuals. This policy is unbelievably barbaric and cruel. If a person is suspected of being gay, that person's hard drive can be seized from that person's home and searched for "evidence" of that person's sexual orientation (e.g. love letters, gay porno, etc.). That person's mail can be opened, without their knowledge, and read by "investigators" seeking "incriminating" information. That person's own mother can be forced (under penalty of contempt of process) to testify, under oath, before a military tribunal as to her son's (or daughter's) sexual orientation. That person's friends can be forced (under penalty of contempt of process) to give evidence as to the most intimate secrets shared between friends. That person's telephone can be tapped, and that person's calling details can be examined for clues as to that person's sexual orientation (in this way, the telephone number of a boyfriend or girlfriend can be derived, following which that boyfriend or girlfriend can be forced to testify as to their relationship with the gay servicemember).
Under the terms of the DADT policy, a servicemember is deemed to have violated the policy if he tells his own parents about his sexual orientation. A servicemember is deemed to have violated the policy if she tells her minister of religion or her priest about her sexual orientation. The gay servicemember cannot tell ANYBODY about his or her sexual orientation, even if there is absolutely no nexus whatsoever between the identity of the person who receives that information and the objectives and methods of the armed forces.
Quite simply stated, the gay servicemember is required to renounce every aspect of his or her sexual orientation, and is expected to tell a pack of lies when asked, by colleagues, about his or her personal life. Anybody who has ever served in the armed forces of any nation knows that questions of this nature are inevitable, and will always be asked by fellow servicemembers. The gay servicemember is expected to lie or to keep absolutely silent; as a matter of course, remaining silent in the face of such questions will inevitably result in speculation and additional, less friendly questioning. For this reason, the policy has been renamed "Lie and Hide" by many of those who are forced to abide by its terms...
The Army is still throwing out experienced Arab translators who have been deemed to have "told" about their sexual orientation, despite the fact that there is a dire shortage of such translators.
This policy is a constitutional abomination -- but with the exception of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, every single US Court of Appeals which has examined the constitutionality of this policy (and the underlying legislation at 10 U.S.C. sec. 654) has deemed it necessary to abstain from examining the constitutionality of this policy, on the grounds of "deference" to the military. Deference is all well and good -- but when the federal appellate courts disregard serious flaws of constitutional magnitude in their zeal to "defer" to the wisdom of the armed forces, one has to ask just what it is that is being defended in this manner.
(Note that although the appellate courts have cited "deference" to the military as their basis for upholding the policy from constitutional attack, many of these courts have done so whilst holding their noses. Furthermore, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in Witt v. Department of the Air Force (2008), that the armed forces must now justify each discharge by demonstrating that each discharge is substantially related to the furtherance of an important governmental objective (the requirements of "quasi-strict scrutiny"). Furthermore, the three-judge panel's decision survived an en banc call, leading to three bitter dissents from three of the more conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit; this decision therefore reflects the official position of the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.)
As Americans, we should literally be ashamed of an official government policy that permits for the hard drives of law-abiding citizens, who wish only to serve their country, to be searched and scrutinized, merely because those citizens are thought to be gay; that permits for mothers to be cross-questioned about the sexual orientation of their sons and daughters; and that permits for investigations to destroy lives and careers -- purportedly to ensure "unit cohesion" and "combat readiness". Every other western society has managed to integrate gay men and women into its armed forces -- is the US truly so morally backwards and obtuse as to be incapable of doing what the rest of the civilized world has done?
Recently, a 10-year old boy living in Arkansas refused to stand during the daily citation of the Pledge of Allegiance, stating as his rationale the fact that gay Americans do not enjoy equal rights (specifically referring to the inability of gay Americans to marry in all but five states, and specifically referring to the so-called DADT military policy) (see http://www.webtvhub.com/10-year-old-ref … ay-rights/ for more information about this courageous act). He could not have chosen a more poignant display of guts and integrity than this -- in his words, gay Americans do not enjoy "...justice for all" -- and he will not stand and pretend that the country in which he lives abides by such principles when it is clear to any thinking human being that it most certainly does not.
Conservative radio talk show hosts have been playing a tape of the 10 year old over and over and making very unkind remarks about him and his father. There are some incredibly mean spirited people out there.
The fact that anybody could attack a 10-year old boy for standing up to what he perceives to be manifest injustice just shows how ugly, self-serving, and unbelievably arrogant these so-called "conservative" talk show hosts really are. Instead of addressing the substance of this brave boy's comments, they instead attack the boy himself. How incredibly sporting -- beating up on a 10-year old boy for standing up for principles of equality and fairness!
this is incredibly cruel and amazing to read.
Yes i know what it is about, it is about the fact that the question is if gay people should have the same rights than hetero sexual people.
And i say, YES they should have the same rights.
That's also why i stated that in my country they can marry and have kids, i don't have anything against that.
We are all people, we all have desires and feelings, so why should they be different???
not into that, and don't support it, if you want to spread your wings, be single
marrying several woman may be ok in the middle east, but to me that goes a bit to far.
<snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>
I guess we need to take the right approach about this.
Now, I know I am about to get a lot of people very angry. And, the anger will not be justified, because of the perspective view.
(1) being "gay" or "lesbian" by definition: gay/lesbian is a person who has sex with a person of the same sex.
With that said- either "gay" or "lesbian" you are first and foremost already afforded rights as a human being and a citizen of the United States. You have civil liberties. Those rights are weighed against what is best for society.
With that said: you CANNOT be afforded any more rights than you've already receive. It's lunacy!
Before you can address the other problem- such as Marriage Rights?
You must understand- the policy of America's Way of Life is to protect and ensure the survival of America, before all else.
To ensure that America survives, logic based rules were implemented, so as to follow the natural reproductive cycle of human beings. It makes sense and guarantees that as long as American citizen exist - so will America.
You do not get MORE rights, because you are gay/lesbian. Your SEXUAL PREFERENCE or who you choose to sleep with....does NOT dictate what is concidered as a right.
That would open the door to such lunacy, as far as rights?
Example: if a person is bi-sexual, does that mean he or she can have TWO husbands/wives, since they have the right to be bi-sexual?
You cannot be married to more than one person. Are we to now change that law too?
Let me say this again: YOUR SEXUAL PREFERENCE has nothing to do with your rights as a person.
Well some rules and right were made having just considered heterosexual orientation, because homo was a taboo . MAybe we are ready to stop being ignorant and start making laws knowing the realities in which we leave.
Is interesting that the people against homosexual orientation are the same people that supported slavery, woman inferiority and many other things. what a coincidence!
First of all, I am not truly aware of any law that only provides the right to marriage to only a man and a woman. Maybe I have just missed it, but when referring to a law, one has to realize a law has to be voted into existence. Like I said, I am not aware of a "law", stating such. Therefore, most people who believe it is wrong to marry someone of the same sex, is speaking from a religious standpoint.
With that said, there doesn't have to be laws set into place that allows a man or woman to have more than one spouse. Those are two different subjects in itself, that are totally unrelated.
ok i can relate to that, but let us not forget that the world is bigger than the U.S alone
in every westen country, people have the same rights by nature,
that's also true
but what is wrong with 2 people of the same sex marrying each other?
if they love each other, what can one have against that?
If they are only in 'Western' countries then they are not given by nature.
What can one have against that? How about it's mentally inept to think that one human being could soundly live a non-reproductive life, because by creating family is how growth of generation after generation comes to pass.
If you had a world of nothing but "gay" or "lesbian" people, you would have a species that would become extinct. That is not the purpose of humanity and defies all rational pure thought.
THERE ARE BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET. AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO LET THE WORDS HUMANITY AND RATIONAL THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH? THIS WORLD WILL BE FINE WITHOUT ME AND MY PARTNER PRODUCING CHILDREN! Every Day! Every Single Day in this country alone, hundreds of healthy white male newborns are wrapped in newspaper or a plastic bags and thrown in the garbage alive!
Concentrate your sick,twisted,evil, religious beliefs on those people that are actually hurting other human beings. Leave us alone.
Do you have proof of that or are we just supposed to accept that as a fact because you said it?
First off, you need to back up and think about what you are saying? It seems to be the same garbage every other person remains clueless about. It is nice that YOU can deflect/change the topic you are talking about, by bring up what happens to other children. You say, "Concentrate your sick, twisted, evil, religious beliefs on those people that are actually hurting other human beings. Leave us alone.", tells me that you're homosexual and seem offended by rational thought, because your refuse to believe there is anything wrong with you, because you've been told that there isn't anything wrong with you?
FACT: Humans are meant to reproduce.
If you don't grasp the concept behind life and want to waste your life going against your own evolution. That is your choice, but don't think that you are afforded rights, because you sleep with someone of the same sex. It's absurd to think that you do. Not to mention, outrageous to think so.
You are a MAN or a WOMAN, first and foremost. WHO you bed is your business, but as for the survival of a Nation- it makes the subject BIGGER than your individual right.
Therefore, your rights are afforded to you on the basis of what's best society and it's survival. To go against your own survival has to be a birth defect of some kind. To deny that is to deny what LIFE actual means and it's importance.
You keep thinking that there is nothing wrong in your life. You keep believing that and your life will end more quickly than the average person.
And, for those of you who are gay/lesbian, do realize that there must be a correlation between AIDS and those who fight against their own evolution. Granted, it has not been confirmed, how ever, to view that there isn't a link is naive, to say the least.
And, the only reason for heterosexuals are permitted to marry and receive benefits, accordingly, is because American Government knows that reproducing continues life and the other is opposite, which doesn't produce positive results.
So, you keep thinking you're alright. Because, the truth is that you're not.
Base on what you said: Let's illegalizes condoms, contraceptive methods, etc. We all should reproduce all the time 'cause life is about that, and those products goes against nature itself.
Sex is not for fun! Enough said! LOL
Sex is a sin when you do it for pleasure, but when you do it for reproduction, it is bless by God.
If God didn't want us to enjoy sex, He wouldn't have made it feel so good!, Sex is God's gift to mankind a balance to all the pain and suffering we must bear in a lifetime and a reason to treasure life!
Try to keep up. I never claimed to be alright I'm a human being. I never said you should <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums> start liking me. I've lived over half a century without the likes of you. I'm not that kind of gay person. I dont justify myself to you or anyone else on this planet. God Loves me, My family loves me, I dont know you or care what you think. What I care about is the Government that takes my money and does not give me equal representation. That is my only concern. You, and what you think of me, can spin the drain. Let's forget about your creppy little manifesto for a minute and let's get back to the issue of EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Regardless of what you think of me, this government sees fit to take the same amount of taxes from me they take from you. Then they give me the 3/5 treatment when it comes to tax cuts and benefits that a married man and woman gets. You said they were justified to do it...Ok, I will kindly ask you to address that issue with your RATIONAL PURE THOUGHT!!!
I will, you have the same right as any other American! You do not deserve more rights because of your sexual identity! Thats pure logic, but I'm sure you will have an emotion filled response.
Why do you say a gay couple having the same rights as a straight couple, gives the gay couple more rights? I'm not emotional anymore, I dont want to get banned just yet. But I'm really confused as to why I keep hearing people say we want extra rights or more rights than straight people.
You have the exact same rights to marry that I do!
No, you can get married to a person that you love. Gays and lesbians can not.
And slavery should have continued in the South, right? (Black people could have just moved north, right?)
You have a hard time staying on topic, don't you? What does slavery have to do with the rights of homosexuals to marry? You asked for an explanation and you got one, sorry if you don't like it.
I'm completely staying on topic. I'm sorry you didn't understand the analogy. Let me explain again.
You're saying that if some (or most) states don't treat you like an equal citizen, you can move to a state that does treat you like an equal citizen. This is still untrue because even in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Maine, gay and lesbian married couples are not treated as equal under the law when it comes to federal matters.
This is akin to telling enslaved black people - who were also not treated as full citizens - to move north of the Mason-Dixon line because, at least at the state level, they could enjoy the status as a full citizen there.
Then we go back to the FACT that homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry as I do!
Do you enjoy talking in circles?
Gays/lesbians can NOT get married to the person they love in all 50 states and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Heterosexuals living in any of the 50 states or DC can.
They have the same rights we all have, you're argueing for more rights.
That's patently untrue. What do you mean by "more rights"?
No taxation without representation!
History repeating again.
Well would be a good idea for the gay people to say: " if the gay people are not considered in society by the government, then they should pay no taxes.
I just read your op-ed and now I understand why you maintain the positions you do.
if they want to, well let them
if that makes them happy, let them do it
i don't have to be ok with that, i don't need to give them my approval.
It is just a persons believe on that subject, the same as with the gay, some people agree, some disagree
this is just a neverending discussion that leads to nowhere.
did i say that? maybe why not, i don't know
it is legal in the middle east, if they make it legal in the west, should that harm you in any way?
if a guy wants 5 woman, i say good luck buddy.
That's his choise, wether i like it or not.
Under no circumstances should gays/lesbians been given any additional rights, on top of the rights already afforded, as man or woman.
The reason hetero's can marry in the first place, is because they can give a family the structure and sound environment, which cannot be achieved in a house with same-sex partners.
The structure a real father(by definition: planet seed and sticks around afterward) and real mother, can be there to help them grow, as in any normal family.
The fact that people walk around open, sharing their sexual preferences, is ludicris, because the act itself is for closed door moments to be best left unsaid.
No one cares who or what you sleep with? As long as it doesn't interfer with their life. Up to that point, most don't really care what other people do, but when it hits close to home.....oh....watch out.
So couples who cannot conceive should not be allowed to marry?
Who defines the "family structure" you? My friend was raised by her grandparents, so she wasn't in a "normal family"?
Sexual orientation is the terminology, not preference. And homosexuals do not "walk around open sharing their preferences".
Close to home? Who's home? Yours?
I believe that gay people should be permitted to join the military. As for 'marriage', I think maybe civil union is more acceptable; because of the religious links. But then Im an athiest, so thats just me not wanting to offend certain belief systems.
If the military in America is really that homophobic (more like insecure about their sexualities!) then surely they could just set up the 'Rainbow Regiment' or something..... the homophobic Taliban would run a mile
They need to quit and go back to being normal(heterosexuals). Then the issue's over and we can save the minnows, thats much more important.
^^^ Secretly sneaks off to play with willies at the weekend ^^^
At this stage in my life I would play with anything. Either my wife hits harder or I'm getting older.
ARE you serious? I'd really like to know. cause you're scaring me.
Absurd! They need to seriously consider the problem what the problem is.....a mental defect.
No they shouldn't....they should decide that for themselves....if we try to keep doing the things that we are doing by dividing people into sections rather than a worldwide community, then the world will not get any better and we won't last long on this planet that's for sure!
Maybe all marriage should be banned, along with all military. Who needs marriage? It is of the heart anyway. We can stop policing the world and just let the gun owners protect our borders with the police, etc. The gays are just as capable of parenting and fighting as the straights. We will never have peace with these sorts of divisions. Ban the church too. Morals are for the wealthy and well fed anyway. Now, shoot me.
No, they can't get married in most states and they can't be openly gay in the military. That is not the same rights as everyone.
I can't marry a man either! And I can't be the Queen of the barracks either! A gay man can marry a woman the same as me and as long as he doesn't go around broadcasting hes gay he can serve in the military the same as me. Whats not equal? Oh you want them to have more rights than me.
i don't see what the big deal is. this is 2009....not the dark ages. so someone is gay...and a soldier...and a wife and a mother and a husband and a father...this is the USA and i believe it is the land of the free and the home of the brave and EVERY CITIZEN should be on equal footing as everyone else. is anyone in the military really going to have a heart attack if the guy or girl in the next bunker is gay???
my brother is gay and he and his partner are wonderful people although they never had children, and they have plenty of money and live extremely well. they would have been better parents than my straight brother who turned his back on his children and first wife to run off with his girlfriend!
It is laughable that you consider having to lie about who you are in order to have equal rights is having equal rights.
UW you're a good fighter! I do respect your opinion. Goodnight!
marriage is a flawed and broken institution its a manmade construct attempting to deny the natural processes of nature.based on the current state of morals at the time .for me i think all marriage should be band. but the importance of letting others conduct their lives in a peaceful manner how they wish .always stands before my personal opinions on any matter . the reason for that being this.i hold certain truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.and that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that aint mine by the way . its the declaration of independence. on this subject it needs to be adhered
Im straight, but I believe we fall in love with whomever we fall in love with, man or woman and vice versa..
Love is freedom, so yes, they should have the same rights as I do.
Peace and Blessed Be
Tex, I'm guessing you are referring to the statement about abandoning babies?
"The Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 30,905 babies were abandoned nationwide in 1998."
I'm looking for an updated stat right now. It is obviously a problem as each state has its own laws and programs regarding the issue. I think Texas was actually the first state to develop a law of that kind.
Here's the study from 2003: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl … id=1595144
Are these abandoned in the trash or taken to hospitals,fire stations,etc?
Both. But his statement said that hundreds were put in the trash. Out of 30,905 babies, I'm sure more than hundreds were.
EDIT: "The babies, however, must be surrendered to emergency services personnel at fire stations or hospitals. Mothers who follow the common practice of leaving them in alleys and other places -- 50 of the estimated 800 newborns abandoned in Texas last year were tossed into trash bins -- are not protected by the law."- Cook Children's Hospital
In answer to the topic, I say live and let live. I'm straight, but I have gay friends and relatives. All of them are great people! It's not for me to judge. That's "above my pay scale," as the POTUS would say.
White males are more likely to be abandoned. That was a part of the last article. 100s a day, probably not. Definitely more than hundreds per year however. I understand the point he was trying to make. That should be pretty clear. Off on his stats is all. So why not just ask him directly about it, rather than dispute his whole argument. Because it was valid.
My problem with people saying things that are untrue, somebody will read that and pass it along as truth.
The odds would be in favor of white babies being abandoned, there are more whites.
And you have every right to question the validity of someone's information. I just wouldn't discredit his argument is all.
Thats why I asked, if he has the proof then its all good.
Thank you for the defense Colebabie. But did you say 800 babies a year in the United States of just Texas? I may not be to far off that mark of 100 a day considering most are not even found. But it is not my intention to spread lies Tex.
Oh Please! That's all he can do. Tex has no response to my statement. Thats way he changed the subject. People start owning your own hate. Dont try to explain it away with the economy or the Church, OR THE SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY. Be adults and own your own hate. Dont try to justify it or switch the subject. By the way! Before you start rounding up gay people and throwing them into mental institutions; check your history. That didn't work out so well the first time this country tried that. Also remember; Gay couple are adopting some those babies that make it to a hospital or some other doorstep. And my point is that a white male child is the first to be adopted, and it's insane to throw them in a garbage can. But Tex, you just keep on concentrating on those numbers!
Why not? Are they not Humanbeings? Fundamental rights should be the same for everyone.
I disagree with marriage as a state institution and think that it should be altered to where it goes back to its origin: a religious institution.
Grant civil unions in place of the marriage licenses one must get to be in a union in America, and let marriage be a holy consecration between a couple and their deity(ies). This way, the church can discriminate but it does not deny basic rights for anyone, and this way everyone gets to be on the same playing field.
As for the military, yes obviously Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be revoked. The LGBT community is just as capable of military service (because, surprise, we are just as human). Why should it be an issue: handle harassment cases the same way, and just treat everyone the same. Sure, some may find it to be against their religion and have issues with it, but then again some people also have issues with racial diversity.
The don't ask don't tell policy was instituted by Clinton and by all accounts has been successful. Personally, I couldn't care less about some one's sexual preferences, nor do I see a reason to openly flout those preferences or to make a law granting "rights" to a set of people that share a preference. What's next, a law grating equal rights to people that wave sex with animals or BDSM 3 somes or those with a latex fetish? Where does it end?
This too is the argument against gay "marriage". Like I said, I don't care what your sexual preference is, and I believe consenting adults should live however they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. I think gay couples should have all the advantages (and disadvantages) and rights allowed by the state of hetero couples, in other words gays should be allowed to commit to each other in justice of the peace ceremonies commonly known as marriage but in my eyes is actually a "civil union".
The wording is important as is restraining from writing a law specifically to address the gay community as this will open the door to all kinds of unions which society might not find as acceptable.
It was a compromise that Clinton agreed to:
"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 and approved by then President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military, a departure from the then complete ban on those who are not heterosexual. The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and was maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush."
I still dont understand why some people have difficulties with with gays/lesbians having equal rights...
If a person wants to serve their country in the military, and is willing to die doing so, what is the harm? I'm sure that if someone was in dire straights, and the person who is able to help them happens to be gay, does anyone think that the person in trouble would care then?
"but, my girlfriend and i have been living together now for 9 years, we have a 6 year old daugher, but aren't married, simply because we don't see the point of it"
The point of marriage is to protect your children. Since you're not married only their birthmother has the right to raise your child. Normally a non-issue because you're probably living together and raising the child together.
Trouble arises when for instance the birthmother would die. I've witnessed a case where the birthmother died of cancer and second mommy had to give up her children to stepfamily who never accepted her as a partner and had up untill that point refused to even visit the children. The children lost both their mothers overnight and were sent to live with grandparents they had never met, because the law didn't recognize the right of the other mom.
Equal rights are necessary.
Wow. Sad history. That is an example where: Law and Justice are totally opposed. People that made the laws sometimes do not defend justice, but the interest of a specific group. The laws should be for the "common good". Common good implies not been exclusive, but inclusive.
Gay and lesbian are part of our society weather we like it or not. We just need a little dose of humanity.
You have the same rights everyone else has, you want more than equal rights.
Gay people are not arguing against heterosexuality. Much like biologically infertile people, they are not going to reproduce on their own, but mankind clearly has enough heterosexual and fertile people to handle all of our species' reproductive needs. The fact that a small segment of people can not or do not want to reproduce will have minimal impact on the survival of our species.
If you are arguing that our drive to reproduce trumps all others, maybe you should be arguing also that heterosexuals who can't or don't want to reproduce should also be denied the right to marry - maybe only parents should have the right to get married.
I realize that engaging with you might be a completely futile exercise - based on your comment about AIDS alone - but I'll give it a shot.
Before you consider bantering back forth, you assume too much.
I'll tell you what I've learned and you can accept it or not. The choice is yours. You believe what you believe and there is most likely not going to change. I'm okay with that, but only now you cannot say, " I didn't know? I was never told?" excuse for your death.
If you would like a little bit more enlightenment, I've recently posted a new hub to talk about it. It might help you.
I think this should now be moved to the religious forum...so I can start ignoring it...
Lets not get out of focus. I was been sarcastic. I apologize, but I could not resist the momentum.
I say equal rights for everyone and special treatment for no one...
Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. If gay people do not are happy by living a hetero life, it is illogical to say that they have the same rights, since they are denied they pursuit of happiness. Do not be so simplistic. If you do not have the right to choose how to live your life, then you do not have the same right as the hetero.
"What's next, a law grating equal rights to people that wave sex with animals or BDSM 3 somes or those with a latex fetish? Where does it end."
Who Said this? Why is it ok to say that gay people are the same as someone that wants to have sex with animals?
I dont think Blacks should have been allowed to marry White people. Now white people are marrying Gorrillas, Babboons, all other kinds of Apes. It's just gone completely out of control.
LOL. Does the word "mutual consent" tells you something?
The difference is quite obvious. When two adult people agree to be together, they should have that right.
Animals do not show any sign of mutual consent. That argument is kind of infantile.
Is the title of this post serious?
Every human should receive equal rights.
What I find hilarious is all the african americans marching against equal rights for gays/lesbians.
Weren't they fighting for the same thing just 30 years ago??
As a Gay Black Man I find it Obscene. Maynard Fergerson was a Gay Black Man that help Martin Luther King Organize the March on Washington. He went to jail, he faced the fire hoses, and the dogs, and the billy clubs. To shame his memory and Dr Kings in this way is such and insult to those men. I have to fight racism from whites and homophobia from my own people. People are desparate to show they are just regular folks. Just like the blacks that lived in the big house back on the plantations. Just like Jewish people that help round up other Jewish People for extermination. People want to redirect hate away from them. It's just the way of the world.
every human life gets equal rights of God Jesus the holy spirit unto all humanity. This damnation of gays of any religions is lies. Of God Jesus the holy spirit eqaul rights for all people
New world birth right human life of God Jesus the holy spirit its your holy human birth right of God no one can take God
Making the case against gay marriage based on religious grounds is hilarious since no one gets married cause of religious regions anymore.
Plus, 60% of all marriages end in divorce. I would really like to see the divorce rate of gays. For some reason, I think it would be a lot lower than their straight counterparts.
The meaning of "marriage" has been lost in today's culture. There is no turning back.
Most of you are miserable in your marriages and will stay married for the "sake of the kids" or "religion."
Let gays get married. Who cares!
I don't know why people need a contract, which is what marriage is, to feel like they are committed and love each other.
Marriage has NOTHING to do with love. It's a contract in writing. That's it.
Apparently the elderly and ultra-religious.
And the people who likes to control the others life!!!
Fair enough! If one law suit results against an established church because they won't marry a gay couple then gay marraige should be banned for ever. Theres a compromise, would you agree?
Why should all gay people who want to enjoy equal rights have their status as citizens subject to such a capricious requirement?
How about straight people should not get married if one heterosexual sues any church because that church refuses to marry them? Fair?
You know its true and you know what I mean.
You're sugesting a church step over morality or If the ACLU gets involved you be shoving their morality down their throats.
Us church people see it as a sin, like it or not. If we were forced to accept it in our church we either have to commit a sin in the house of the Lord or we will be forced to commit a sin or possibly lose our church.
I understand that this is a fear popular among evangelical Christians. It's just not true. Fearmongering is common when it comes to politics. God gave you a brain for a reason; you should be able to sort out reasonable arguments from the nonsense ones or you are doing a disservice to your own God-given powers of reason.
Again, refer to the divorced people getting married in the Catholic Church example.
Sneako I don't understand your logic. Please explain, how are homosexuals asking for "more" rights? Aren't they just asking for the same rights as heterosexuals?
They have exactly the same rights heteros have. The reason I even chime in is the marraige issue, civil union I can live with. If marraige is allowed the lawsuits against churches will start flying because they won't marry gay couples.
Nonsense (you bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker). Churches already refuse to marry people they don't want to that are allowed to by law. That won't change. (Eg. The Catholic Church will not marry divorced people because that isn't allowed under Christianity.)
Thats not true. If you wanted to marry a man you should be able to. But you can't. The lawsuit isn't true either. If I wanted to be married in a Catholic church I couldn't, but you don't see me suing. And I have been to a church that has a gay service.
What happens when a gay couple wants to be sealed in a Mormon temple do you honestly think the ACLU will stay out of it?
I'll bring up what I said again. Most people do not want to be married in a church that doesn't accept them. Me included. This will rarely be an issue. If a couple so chooses to be married in a church that does not accept them, then they may make a case for it. Although I find this to be extremely rare. And if it does happen, why does it concern you? What impact does it have on your life?
I don't want it in my church, just like on the healthcare issue I don't want to pay for abortions, because to me their murder. Cole look This is my life and I chose this path a long time ago for many reasons as you will choose yours. It's not my right to tell you whats fair and whats not and it's the same for liberals to me. If my church is violated I will no longer attend services there and there are many who feel the same. We don't order anyone to attend and we don't want to be ordered to accept sin. Sorry.
Don't know and don't care. You act as if the ACLU has some enormous power to change laws. They can only sue; the judges (not the ACLU) decides if a practice or law are in concordance with legal precedence and/or the Constitution(s).
Or does the ACLU have a 100% success record?
Are you sugesting that would be ok if it happened?
I personally would not support the law mandating that a church be forced to marry people. Since they are currently not required to, I don't see the panic when it comes to gays. Why haven't divorcees been successful if forcing the Catholic church to marry them?
Just because something is a precedent doesn't mean it is right. People now think its crazy that 42 years ago interracial marriage was illegal. People now think its crazy that segregation was legal until 1954. People now think its crazy that women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. People now think its crazy that Native Americans weren't granted full US citizenship until 1924. People now think its crazy that the American's with Disabilities Act wasn't until 1990. And the list goes on and on...
We're all arguing over something that people are making too personal. When it merely comes down to the rights of homosexuals, to be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I hope that soon people will think it is crazy that the US did not legalize homosexual marriages sooner.
I personally don't care if they are allowed marry, my responses are to the question of the topic, and the answer is they have the same rights I do!
Very well said.
There are all sorts of traditions that have needed amendment over the years as values have changed (stoning people, marrying off your daughters to the highest bidders, etc.). This is no different. Doing what's right is important, not pledging fealty to tradition over all.
Agree. The problem is that those things are written in history books. And people do not read books. The watch the fox channel.
We all know the ACLU is just chomping at the bit, so all you that want gay marraige are either in on it or you're being played.
I think that's true. I think the OP is disingenuous. Marriage right now is defined as between a man and woman. I think gay activists want to re-define it to include between two people of same genders. This makes the definition of marriage less clear.
No Tex. You're both missing the same right. The right to marry a member of the same sex if you so chose to do so. Heterosexuals also have a different right. The right to marry the one they love.
No you are missing the point,I don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex either, what is so hard to understand? No rights are being withheld from homosexuals,none,zero,zilch!
Edit Since when does love have anything to do with marriage? People are married everyday that don't love each other.
The right to marry the one you love. That is a right. I have it, my best friend doesn't. Yes she is withheld a right. I don't know why you can't see that.
The right does not exist!!! Can't withhold something that does not exist! Are you beginning to understand? Change the laws in every state if you want, but at this time no rights are being withheld!
I understand what you're saying. But realize that the right to marriage is that a man and woman may marry. I love a man, so I have that right. The right should be that the right to marriage is that a man and woman, a man and man, or a woman and woman may marry.
Sneako, that is seriously your only argument regarding homosexual marriage? You're worried that churches will be sued when gay couples they don't accept want to get married in them?
May I suggest: Either be ok with it. Or find another argument.
All I'm asking for is some insurance we won't be persecuted by gays or the ACLU.
Everyone can sue for practically anything in the US. Why do you care so much about this? I wasn't baptized, can I get married in your church?
No. You would have to join our church.
Then I'm going to sue you.
See, it doesn't make any sense. Who would want to be married in a church that doesn't accept them?
I would love for you to join! Our doors are allways open and we have counseling for those who are lost.
Oh hell no! You did not just tell me I was lost?!? Close those doors, I'm good thanks.
I meant for the sexually challenged. Joining my church isn't easy we have rules.
Yeah I'm not so good with rules. But don't worry I'm not interested.
May I suggest you change "sexually challenged" to "happy and honest with oneself"?
I'm happy with they are seriously confused that way it seems more like a mental health issue rather than a sin.
Being happy and honest is a mental health issue? Hmm thats a new one.
Not noing who to mate with is a problem because what we are talking about is mating, isn't it?
If it's just marraige then they can find a partner that meets the laws requirements.
Law's requirements? Well isn't that romantic. Oh wait, its not.
The law used to be that interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Which means that I wouldn't have been able to marry my boyfriend. Should I just go find someone else? No. Just because its a law doesn't meant its right.
You are trivializing something that is important to some churches. Churches do see homosexuality as a sin and if marriage were redefined to include between same genders that would in effect make some churches illegal.
No because you don't have to get married in a church. No one in my family did. And I don't think anyone would want to be married in a church that didn't accept them. There are a lot of things churches find important, and they have their rules, doesn't make churches illegal.
It's true, you don't have to be married in church. But you can't see that gay activists might want to force the issue with a conservative church and say that since marriage now includes same genders that they have to hold the ceremony in their conservative church if a gay couple wants to, just to prove the point.
Heterosexual divorced people can remarry under the law. They can't in the Catholic Church since Christianity says that's a sin. There hasn't been one successful suit to force a church to marry people whom they don't want to.
Why the panic now? Or have the anti-equality folks simply run out of arguments?
Heterosexual catholic people who have divorced know they can't get remarried in the church and wouldn't dream of trying to go against the church in that way, and they know already that they can't take communion. The same can't be said of gay activists.
You're advocating the social acceptance of a lifestyle without offering provisions that allow those who disapprove to continue their lives without disruption.
No. I'm advocating equality under the law. I don't care what any particular religion or person believes is right or wrong; that's a matter between them and whatever they pray to.
What does this "continuing their lives without disruption" business mean?
We don't want to be forced to get our hands dirty so you can realize your version of equality.
And as for the dirty business, in the Catholics' eyes your church is already doing that by marrying divorced people against Jesus's commandments. I'd imagine you're still able to sleep at night.
We departed from the catholic church in constantinople hundreds of years ago. You're argument is weak and I'm are bound to not speak against any other religion.
I don't hate anybody and gays should be pleased you're such a strong advocate for their rights. This is one issue I feel is going down the wrong path and I would gladly support civil unions for all the reasons I've stated but as we can see it's not about compromise. It's about wanting something so bad you don't care who you hurt, it's very sad.
Who is it hurting if gays and lesbians are allowed the same rights under the law as heterosexuals?
Don't get me wrong - they are an improvement over the status quo. But it is a "separate but equal" definition, and what we've learned through our nation's history is that separate is never equal...again, under the law. It is one of our country's traditions that we extend equal rights and protections under the law to all its citizens; when we haven't done that, we've eventually come to regret it.
I know the laws will pass, whether I like it or not and I will be embarassed and ashamed of my country for violating something I hold sacred. Hey, but I'm nobody so it won't matter anyway.
There were people who were upset and ashamed when the U.S. made interracial marriage legal as well.
But my understanding was that miscegenation laws had nothing to do with the churches.
Sorry, I thought we were still talking about marriage and churches.
Why think that sneako - you're opinion counts as much as anyone else's.
Actually, it isn't separate but equal. A civil union for heteros is exactly the same as for gays. It's only when you bring religion into it that it is different.
But I think what many people have against the idea of same-sex "marriage" is that the word marriage has a definite meaning to them - as one man and one woman. So they see the redefinition of that as unravelling of our societal infrastructure.
(Civil) marriage is a legal right for heterosexuals everywhere, civil unions are a right for some gay couples at the state level. Are civil unions being recognized at the national level, and is there any talk of them being allowed for heterosexual couples, too?
Yes, I understand that. But they need to realize that civil marriage is a legal issue and is separate from religious marriage. Their misunderstanding should not hold up the right to equality under the law for millions of other Americans.
Then stand for a provision that protects churches instead of talking.
Of course it could. what church if it was part of their doctrine that homosexuality is a sin and that church doesn't want to marry gay people, wouldn't the church be forced to under the redefinition of marriage be not what they want to be and in effect have to change and in their eyes can't exist?
No. Churches are not required to perform marriages they don't want to recognize. You seem to be unaware that that's the case now.
That is the case now but it may change if marriage is redefined.
Why? The current legal definition is already in conflict with the Catholic Church's religious definition.
Well it's not only the Catholic Church but conservative protestant churches we're talking about. If marriage is redefined to include same gender and it has the force and backing of civil law a case can be made that the Catholic church and the conservative churches are being prejudiced and they may be made to make changes in their ritual to include marrying gays. That's an example of an issue that can come up and can pit the church against civil law.
Marriage doesn't have to be redefined in the law at all to be in conflict with the Catholic Church's definition of marriage. The current legal definition of marriage is already considered a sin by the Catholic Church, and they will NOT marry divorced people, even though divorced people can remarry under the law.
I'm struggling to understand why you can't grasp this.
Livelonger, there is no legal definition of marriage. The traditional definition of marriage is the union between man and woman which is usually done under a church ritual. The government accepts that marriage and just recognizes it as a legal lawful contract. The government records the union under a civil ceremony. Currently a union between two same genders is not defined as marriage. It's seen as a civil union with all the rights etc as a marriage. That is what you don't get. If the government were the ones to define marriage to include same gender, then the Catholic churches and the conservative churches will have a huge problem if it is forced to comply by accepting same gender unions by admitting them to their church and performing the rituals. The government never had a say in what constitutes a marriage, it was traditionally the churches that defined marriage. Do you understand now?
Oh Bravo! A marriage is a religious status, a civil union is a government one. This is one area in which the govt needs to butt out. Unless we all are ok with the mixing of church and state. After all, we can't have it both ways.
Absolutely not true.
The government does have a legal definition of marriage, both state governments and the federal government. That's why a marriage between two women is not recognized as a marriage in Arizona (for example), and why a legal marriage between two women in Massachusetts is not recognized as a marriage in the eyes of the federal government. There are hundreds of rights that are denied gay/lesbian couples because their marriage is not recognized under state and/or federal law.
You do not have to have a religious marriage at all to be married in the eyes of the law; my own brother got married in a civil ceremony only (at City Hall) and never had his marriage consecrated by a single church. He does not care.
If it's not religious it is a civil union, not a marriage, even though it may be called that by the govt. A govt marriage is about tax status. So to pass laws for same-sex "marriage" would be to grant those in that state the same tax status as heteros in that state.
The federal government doesn't have anything to do with marriage why do you think there are different laws in different states otherwise the law would be the same in all states. It is not until recently that a few individual states have decided to define marriage to include same gender prior to that there were no state laws that defined marriage.
States have always had their definitions of marriage and procedures required for recognition. Until the 90s (DOMA), all states had to respect the specific laws/definitions of other states, and the federal government had to as well.
With DOMA that changed, and the states and federal government were both not only not obligated to respect the marriage laws of other states, but the federal government adopted a strict definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only.
That's not true. Prior to DOMA there were no legal definitions of marriage and marriage was understood to be a union between man and woman. Why do you think DOMA was fast-tracked, Hawaii was getting ready to pass a law defining marriage to include same sex union. If marriage was understood to include same sex then why pass a law recognizing it?
Flightkeeper: think about it. If marriages were just "done" between man and woman, why did Hawaii need to pass a law enabling a same-sex couple to marry? Why not just make a memo to all the city halls across the state to process civil marriages for gay couples as they would for straight couples? (Just an addendum to their SOP)
livelonger when was it understood in the US that same genders could marry? That's why Hawaii passed the law in the first place to recognize same sex because it wasn't considered normal, that's why there was no memo. I don't understand why you don't understand this. Is it that inconceivable for you that being gay was not normal for most of the history of the US, why do you think there were no same sex unions before?
I understand that the law reflected majority opinion for a long time. But when it was challenged (by a gay couple trying to get married), officials could point to the legal definition in the state's laws instead of just saying, "go home."
At any rate, what you seem to be arguing is that a legal definition of marriage didn't exist before DOMA. Are you arguing that DOMA should be done away with, then?
Well, why didn't the official point to the definition if they could have done that?
You mean the definition that never existed before DOMA?
Livelonger, I'm asking you what legal definitions that the officials could point to when the gay couple tried to get married.
The definition before or after DOMA is not really the point. It's about the redefinition of a societal structure that the official would have caught hell for. This is definitely one area that was "above his pay grade".
I could not care one iota whether churches view homosexuality as a "sin" -- thankfully, we do NOT live in a theocracy! In case you missed it, we live in a diverse, pluralistic democracy in which religion may not be the basis for the formulation of law and public policy. It is for this reason that we have a First Amendment and a written constitution.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It says nothing about religion, and it does not permit religious persons to exempt themselves from laws of general application.
When the Constitution's promises of due process and equal protection have been realized, then I will accept the notion that I have equal rights!
by WayneAnsell18 months ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by silverstararrow17 months ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
Is he for it, or against it? In 2008, he said he was against it. Now Axelrod says the POTUS is for it. I'm really curious. Have his views evolved?
by mohamedhmm7 years ago
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next...
by Texasbeta5 years ago
Yesterday, the celebrations began...NY has approved gay marriage. The latest polls tend to show the most Americans support the right...what about on here?
by Susan Reid4 years ago
This morning seems to be full of good news for the more tolerant among us.Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California, has been overturned by a federal appeals panel. Next stop (perhaps) SCOTUS.For...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.