Well I follow the protestant faith; and now based on what i learn in this forum, I will suit the catholic church for denying me the right to be married in a catholic temple, becasue they based on that I do not follow their creed!
Totally no sence!
Catholic wont mary Protestant believer. Neither people who had not baptize with them, or people that do not summit to their rules.
C'mon we're talking about sexual preference not creeds.
C'mon we're talking about sexual preference not creeds.
Its sexual orientation, not sexual preference. And it doesn't matter if it is creed or orientation. The church has its rules, and if someone wants to get married there it can follow them.
haven't you read the bible? Sexual behavior are part of christian church creeds.
I guess religion just really contradicts itself to me. But I understand what you're saying. However my point was that I was not baptized, I am not any particular religion. There are a lot of people like me. Some may want to be married in a church, so they do what the church tells them to be able to do so. Are there any mass cases of these people suing churches?
I'm sure there are more of these people then there are gay couples wanting to be married in a church that doesn't accept them.
So Sneako, you're going to deny thousands of couples the right to marry because a very small percent may want to get married in a church that doesn't accept them and that throws off your whole balance of morals?
There are churches with gay services, if it was made legal they would probably hold marriage ceremonies. That is their option. I don't see the problem.
I'm for adoption by gay couples as well. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. Do you guys not have any gay friends?
Well my favorite uncle died of AIDS and my sister is gay. I have gay customers and buisness relations with gay suppliers we joke about it alot but we know the line and we respect it.
How can you not want these things for them? Marriage and a family. Having someone you love and just wanting them to be happy. I don't understand.
They chose their lifestyle as I chose mine. They knew the road blocks and they felt it was worth it now they want to change the rules. Thats not how things work you make a decision and you live with your choice good or bad. I am for a civil union not marriage it's the best I could support.
And after all of that. Losing your favorite uncle, having both him and your sister go through struggles in their life. You still believe homosexuality is a choice? That someone would choose the harder path in life.
I dont even argue that point about choice with anyone anymore. What difference does it make anyway to the people that hate me? It's my choice, and I live with it, and I love myself, and I love God for what he made me. He did't make a mistake here.
But, I totally disagree with Gay people that want to force Churches to marry them. I respect peoples religious beliefs and I dont want to intrude on their lives anymore than I want them or would let them intrude on my life and beliefs. I want to be able to legally join with a man, in a Civil Union, down at City Hall. Then I want to have the same benefits and tax breaks a straight couple would get when they go to City Hall to register their Union. I dont want nothing more in the terms of rights. I dont want any special rights, and I should not have to settle for something less.
Now you're my kind of Homo!(sorry I lost control of myself)
So do I...but do they really exist? Seems like a straw man to me.
Here's an observation marriage is not a right, but a privilege much like driving, that is left up to the states to decide, and many are about to do that, and formally recognize the unions, will this lead to the downfall of humanity or the destruction of our government. I seriously doubt it. Will it even effect your life if you're heterosexual, once again I really doubt it.
No I hadn't Cole because it's more complicated than that as life usually is. My uncle married my aunt and they were married for quite awhile and had a child. My uncle was very promiscuis and had his share of affairs he talked and seemed like he loved sex so much he just couldn't get enough. As best I remember it thats what caused the break-up and it was during the bath-house disco craze and he came out. Knowing my uncle the way I did I wasn't really surprised when I heard he had AIDS. I couldn't believe he turned his back on his family for sex and he was never about monogamy.
My sister abandoned her husband and their two boys to find herself and she found out she is gay. She left her boys they were in grade school her husband got child support from her but thats not the same. She doesn't talk to us any more it's been about 11yrs now.
My life with my church is my rock and I love the people there and I know they love me. I don't know what I would do if someone ruined it for me and my family.
That horror story is repeated a million times over because people fear the hate and disgust and even violence they will face if they come out. So they do the RIGHT thing. Get married, have Children and try to be happy. Sometimes it catches up with some of us. Most of the time Gay people raise their families, grow old and die without ever being able to tell anyone the truth. I'm sorry about your family.
First and foremost: equality advocates are not trying to destroy churches. They dislike the fearmongering and perpetuation of myths that many evangelical churches seem intent on continuing, and want that to stop, but that's a different thing than forcing churches to change their internal policies. I think it's unnecessary & redundant to do so (and a red herring to make a focal point of the discussion), but I fully support adding something in to marriage equality legislation that allows churches to continue to decide who they'll marry.
Second: stories of gay people being so afraid of harrassment and even violence that they pretended to be straight used to be very common, and is still common in less accepting parts of the country. As your story makes clear, when people aren't free to lead their lives as they see fit and are instead forced into roles by a society, then often they make irresponsible choices. For the life of me, I can't understand why conservatives would rather gay people be promiscuous and single than part of a stable, mutually-dependent relationship with each other. (Well, I guess I know why for the likes of Larry Craig & Ted Haggard: married gays means fewer trolling public bathrooms with them!)
There are many gay couples who lead shockingly boringly conventional lives (which is why there really is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle"; like colebabie said, it's an orientation, but there are all sorts of gay lifestyles as there are straight lifestyles). And as acceptance grows, there are fewer and fewer gay people who lead depressing, lonely and unhealthy lives.
Thank you for sharing the story of your family. Because they are just that... your family. They led unhappy and unhealthy lives because they were denying themselves the truth. The ability to live honestly and have love for yourself and who you truly are is important. I am glad that you have the church, it makes you happy and it fulfills your life in a way that nothing else can. It is a part of who you are. To deny the what you believe leads to to live a difficult life. Just as they led. I asked you because they are your family, and they should have been happy sooner. I commend you for being able to say "it is their business". But still wish that you could find it in your heart to realize that homosexuality is not a choice, and that they deserve to live happy complete lives like anyone else. And often that completion, just like heterosexual couples, involves marriage (not civil unions). I apologize if I opened a wound for you. That was not my intention at all. Thank you again for your story.
I'm sorry to hear about your uncle and your sister Sneakorock. I hope their families are doing better.
Sometimes, people who don't have a faith don't understand that the church is an anchor in people's lives and that trying to destroy the churches would be devastating for many. As with everything in life it's hard to reconcile competing interests but we have to find a way to do so without judging and a lot of acrimony.
Thanks for your compassion and don't get me wrong our families are big and we have some truely amazing people in our family. These are tough chapters and as with every family not every thing comes off like you plan. We are a blessed family and I wish we had them back. And again you prove you're the whole package smart and pretty.
Of course gays and lesbians should have equal rights. They are still people after all! Nobody should be judged on their sexual orientation.
So what's the sin in being gay ??!! Pleassseee !!!! thisguy thetruth, is he serious ?
Or maybe it's that his truth hurts so much, he can't think properly ?
haha! we are not even having a discussion, let alone an 'argument'... you're like all over the map.
you make me laugh. sweet dreams
The homosexual community should look at the marriage issue closely. The rest of us let the government get involved with our personal affairs and look whats happened! Marriage Liscense, Divorce Court, Custody Battles, Tax Penalties....
Its a nightmare! Why would you want any part of this? I often hear the argument of "Estate Planning". Marriage will not garantee you any thing in that respect.
Sorry if that was too harsh. I just get irritated with biblical quotes. You can find one on why it's ok to beat women and enslave people but for some reason it doesn't hold true today.
blah blah blah
All these religious debates about law would be okay if the US was run by a Christian Taliban...which it is not...
Is this seriously a question, Geez! What someone does with THEIR OWN life should not have an impact on your moral beliefs. If you don't agree then don't invite them over for dinner. We are all created Equal regardless who we decide to share our bed with. The religious references are killing me..... "Let those who are without 'sin' cast the first stone" So using 'your' own beliefs you have no right to chastise anyone just make sure 'you're getting into heaven'!!!!
I so agree with dejajolie... it's sad that this is even a question, isn't it?
How about should redheads have equal rights?
Should people with a Q in their name have equal rights?
What business is it of ours who someone chooses to love? And what gives anyone the power to discriminate?
Love is a good thing.
What rights, you have a personal right to emotions. The human right is we are all free citizens to choose a partner of our choice. Rights by law... to all people making a choice for themselves!! love all. Who we choose to love marry divorce use...lust isn't it all part of emotions?
If your child wants to jump off the hill, will you let him to do so as per his/her own rights phenomenon???
Hell I am sick of hearing about Gays, whatever that terminolgy means. They don't just want equal rights, they are now trying to make it mandatory. Boring.
Why should anyone be a second class human being?
In my group of friends there is a gay couple where one is dying of cancer. I have never seen anybody love each other more than these two, his partner takes care of his needs, cleans up the puke, bathes him... and at the end for all his love he has no right to the estate or pension of this man who has shared his life for the last 15 years... and then according to some he deserves to burn in hell afterward.
Are we really so closed minded that we need to legislate who you are allowed to love and who not? religion aside, shouldn't every one at least have the right to choose how he/she wants to live their lives, and with whom?
That is all we want. To live and die with dignity the same way straight couples do. Gay people have their Children taken from them if their partner dies. The only time that was allowed in the history of this country was during slavery. We just asking to be treated as whole human beings. Not 3/5 of human. Just show some decency. Thats all we ask.
Thats what happens when you legislate personal affairs to begin with. The government has absolutely no place in marriage period.
The government tracks birth records, records property deeds, and regulates financial transactions. Thats more than enough information to settle contract disputes and divide property via the courts. Now instead of the majority insisting that they be free of government intrusion, you have a minority demanding that they be intruded upon. Its silly really.
Honestly no one really takes any notice anymore, you could shack up with an elephant, anfd I think people would pretty much accept it.
I just don't get why people start Posts like this one. Sorry about your friends. He would get half out here.
I wonder if you are aware how sick and tired the rest of us are of people like you shoving your ridiculous beliefs in to every conversation?
It is wrong and you know it? Dear oh dear. And you know where you can stick your imaginary friend. ;lol:
If the bible was perfect there would not be so many interpretations of it. Children growing up in a gay environment are not more likely to become gay. Most gay people grew up in classical families.
I am not gay, and I take it neither are you, but for gay folks its as unnatural to think about having a hetero relationship as it is for you to think about being gay. In the past, these people had no other refuse than the church and monasteries... locking yourself up for feeling different is probably not the way god would have intended for anybody to live. Blurring the line between men and women? that is absurd, what about hermaphrodites, should they be killed at birth? the human gene is such a delicate balance, do you really feel qualified to judge people?
Some of y'all need to take this peeing contest over to the religion forum.
it was inevitable that the issue comes up don't you think?
Not inevitable and not necessary. In fact, the insistence by some that it be seen in only such a light is why no real discussion takes place on the topic.
I could not agree more, it is one of the main reasons the issue has never been dealt with properly, politicians don't want to lose the believers vote, so they trod very lightly around the subject.
On the other hand, I feel its not appropriate to leave religious bigotry uncommented.
I hope you feel the same way about anti-religious bigotry.
I feel the same about any kind of bigotry, as long as they are consenting adults, there is no difference between gay and non gay couples.
do we need to state the obvious?
Maybe I worded it badly, as far as human rights are concerned all SHOULD have a right to choose how they live, who they love and who they make a commitment to. There should be no legislation barring them from living a fulfilled life.
Homosexuality was considered a normal part of life and no one even noticed it until the church decided to "make it a sin" during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages, for anyone who is interested, is defined as when the church controlled everything. All writing, all arts, all laws, etc.
Gee, I wonder why it was labeled "The Dark Ages"?
even normal marital sex was regulated... there was even a sheet with a hole in it so that the partners did not actually need to touch...
Those were dark ages but now the situation is worst than that due to the control of Anti religious thoughts like that of Freemasonry, Zionism, Hinduism, Humanism, Liberalism, Socialism, Materialism, Consciousness etc. You people wrongly subtituted the world dominance.
One of the derogatory terms were from the dark ages. The term faggot originally meant a bundle of sticks for burning. A fate many homosexuals suffered in the past. Often at the hands of the secular arm of The Church.
I dont know what you mean when you added Consciousness in with the rest of you isms...Would it have anything to do with the normal human being having a conscious and acting with some decency and humility in their daily life? humm???
The answer is here
I can not repeat these things again.
I have never seen such a ridiculus conversation go on so long. Why in the world didn't someone Cry Uncle?
Can we clear something up with the marriage issue?
The term "marriage" refers to the legal state of being married, recieving the same legal status and having the same tax responsibilities as other married people.
The term "Matrimony" refers to the religious binding of two people under the laws of the church, etc.
Allowing same-sex marriage does not force religious institutions to recognize same-sex matrimony, because it has NOTHING to do with matrimony. Only with marriage under the law of the LAND.
And homosexuals do not want to be a protected class, they just want to have the right to walk down the street and NOT get beaten to a bloody pulp by some wing-nut who likes screaming the word "f*g"
No, they don't. Or at least, the vast majority don't. Please kindly stop telling me what I (and the hundreds of other homosexuals in North America) want.
Everyone in America has that right.
Which right? To be married under the law? (Not true) To not be beaten senseless? Tell that to the thousands of homosexual and transsexual people who are beaten and murdered every year, only for their attackers to either be praised as heroes, or let off with aggravated assault even though they killed someone in cold blood.
"And homosexuals do not want to be a protected class, they just want to have the right to walk down the street and NOT get beaten to a bloody pulp by some wing-nut who likes screaming the word "f*g""
Tens of thousands of people are beaten senseless yearly that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
"or let off with aggravated assault even though they killed someone in cold blood."
Now I think your exagerating. If you make a statement like this, you should probably follow up with an example. Charges of Agg Assault are not made when a DA has a corpse!
You clearly know nothing of society if you think people are not killed for being homosexual. There are literally thousands EVERY YEAR. I suggest turning off Fox News Channel and picking up a major newspaper.
As far as Agg Assault charges not being made when there is a corpse? Yes, they are. Also, Involuntary Manslaughter in cases where someone was just killed FOR BEING DIFFERENT. Look up the case of Brandon Teena. His is one of the most widely known cases of a transgender person ebing killed and the murderers being let off with NOTHING. Here are a few more:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q … n14577222/
http://con-stellations.blogspot.com/200 … ender.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bitterswe … 0138859443
http://www.washblade.com/2005/4-22/news … s/5401.cfm
http://www.365gay.com/news/plea-bargain … ans-death/
Do a google search. There are more, but I have an appoinment in a couple hours and I need to get ready.
One a final note, here's a site were you can finds tons of info on transpeople that were murdered. Possibly some news links, too.
If someone can kill me for being homosexual, or kill my wife for being transsexual, does that mean we can go out and kill heterosexual, cisgender people?
I don't own a TV. I do read major news publications.
Wall Street Journal
Again you exagerate. The perps are serving hard time. The sheriff's office lost a civil suit. You can't force people to change opinions via legislation. You can punish actions. That happens to those that commit crimes against homosexuals as it does with anyone else. Also that case happened in Lincoln Nebraska, 1993. Don't you think things have come a long way?
No you can't legislate opinion. But a state can most certainly legislate as crime acting upon that opinion.
Those actions(violence and discrimination) are illegal now. What difference does it make who it was done too? When we say that a crime is worse because it was committed against a particular group its says the opposite of the laws intended purpose...EQUALITY! Again, the marriage issue did not start with homosexuals. It started when we allowed government into our bedroom. In most states Adultery is still illegal. Many states have sodomy laws. Even California, the most progressive state in the Union refuses to acknowlege gay marriage by popular vote. Popular opinion says that marriage is a hetero institution. Popular opinion apparently states that sexuality is primarily for reproduction. Technically the government is in a pickle aren't they? They have gotten themselves into a no win situation. Had they never entered the bedroom to begin with, this would not be an issue. Morality and social norms are community based. It shouldn't be federalized. When you try to do so, you are no different from a Church that tries to push its agenda on all.
The "no win situation" of government is absolutely correct. It's the reason I keep saying the DOA should never have made it to the house and senate.
As to Proposition 8, the California initiative to declare marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, that was a very close race. Very close.
We here did not know the results of that particular proposition for days.
It was not only hard fought, but the fact that donors for or against Prop 8 were a matter of public record meant that many of those who contributed to the campaign suddenly found their businesses boycotted and picketed. Yes on eight generated $43 million dollars. The campaign against it generated $40 million. More money was spend on this proposition than any other ballot initiative.
There was also a schism between gays and some black churches with ministers declaring from the pulpit that gays not only did not have the right to marriage, but that claims of discrimination, though not false, were relatively recent.
Clearly these ministers did not study the history of the church and it's attitude toward homosexuality. In the dark ages homosexuals were hanged, burned at the stake and sawed in half.
That the Mormon church was a primary contributor became a real problem for the church. Picketing of temples began shortly after the outcome was announced. Ironically, some of the protests prevented marriages from taking place at the temples, a side-effect, that the protesters were not aware of, but applauded anyway once those facts came out.
Interestingly, technology played a large role in the protests with the "No on 8" protesters using twitter and facebook to coordinate their efforts.
The California Supreme Court got involved because Prop 8 changed the text of the state constitution. An effect that no previous proposition had. The court ruled that the proposition was valid, but that it did not affect marriages performed before it's passage.
"No on 8" isn't over. There are already propositions in the works to overturn Prop 8. Also, though the governor is Republican, he did not support Prop 8 and even urged citizen to vote "No" on it.
There is a lawsuit "Perry vs Schwarzenegger" which will attempt to overturn the change to the constitution on various grounds. It will be heard in January 2010.
By defining the ceremony or the classification seems to be a real big issue with both the religious and the homosexual parties in this argument. Why is naming it marriage so important and and not calling it a civil union to gain the rights and placate the religious arguments a good compromise?
It would be, if it were also called civil unions for straight people.
So it is the name and the distinction you are opposed to?
Do you remember what happened with seperate but equal when we did it with black people?
What you are talking about are two separate issues. One being the legality of the matter and the other which has never been successfully legislated and that is the societal acceptance. This is too big a chunk to handle at once.
If I were to try and get this through I would at least settle on the legality for the time being and when societies view changes over time I would revisit it then. Pie in the sky wants do not a law make.
Actually, they AREN'T seperate issues. If yolu call it marriage for one group, and civil unions for another, then one group is going to get the bigger slice of the pie, so to speak. If it is legislated that Marriage means you get such-and-such tax benefit, it has to be seperatly legislated for the civil union group for them to get it. At the same time, if it is legislated that the marriage group must pay such-and-such on their property taxes, it must ALSO be seperately legislated for the civil union group. It's the same issues that kept black schools away from vital funding and support way back when.
That is specifically the issue. I did not say that gays should not have all the rights afforded to a hetero couple. That is the issue. As the law states that a man and woman should have these rights is what you should get as any other citizen should. The religoius part of this issue fight against it on a belief basis and not a legal basis.
Concentrate on accepting the term civil union and recieving the priveledges that it entitles you too and not the acceptance you will never get from many segments of the society.
I've made it quite clear, here (hub pages) and other places, that I don't CARE what it is called, as long as everyone is afforded the same rights. Call it marriage, call it civil union, call it eating horse poop, I don't care, just make it the same for EVERYBODY.
And acceptance can kiss my butt. I gave up that quest in, like, middle school. I never once said that I wanted acceptance in this thread, or anywhere else. I just want the law to treat us the same and call it like it is.
We are more on the same page than you think. I have watched this debate for many years and I always see a similarity with the outcome and that is the name and not the rights. Give the religious their due and get on with the meat of the argument is what I say.
I am all for your rights to live as you wish without breaking the law and change the laws that inhibit your freedom to have it.
So you don't just want equal legal status, you demand that society accomodate you in every way you desire?
Just my point! You want to have respect as well as the legal rights. Just as you cannot legislate morals you cannot demand respect.
Who is asking for respect? Gays & lesbians just want equality under the law, all red herrings invented by the right aside.
No, they wouldn't, unless they came with laws mandating at the federal, state, county and municipal level that civil unions are to be treated exactly the same as marriage in every possible instance.
The "religious" do not only have an issue with the term 'marriage'. In Washington State, the religious right is trying to dismantle domestic partnerships, too. They really aren't happy unless gay relationships are completely invalidated.
And as Suiiki makes clear, separate but equal is never equal. There will be countless instances where rights to married couples will not be extended to civil unions until various legislatures get around to making them equal and enforceable.
I don't agree with your take on the religious do not have an issue with the term. I have talked with many religious types that are indeed opposed to the name "marriage" applied to the union of gay couples. So, I would not overlook this in your quest. I agree that there needs to be legislation to give the same rights to civil unions as hetero marriages.
Be careful in your grouping them as they because the same discrimination can be applied to you as you point out to "them".
Generalizing this whole thing leaves it up to too much interpretation and can add hours of debate rather than making it an all encompasing battle of name and legality.
Take a page from the civil rights struggle and carve out an identity for your selves rather than putting the two together.
I believe that people have the same rights regardless of sexuality and the question should not arise.
Homophobia is just ignorance. There is ample proof that sexuality is not a choice, yet many interpret scripture to support their fear.
If they would only read some medical info instead!
Does that matter as regards the issue at hand?
I believe it addresses one of the reasons why people would vote this down.Ignorance of how sexuality works is evident in some replies So yes, I think it is relevant to the discussion.
Do you think that any significant portion of those voting "this" down (not sure what 'this' we are talking about by this point) would change their vote if they were convinced it was not a choice (assuming they don't now think so)?
Most know it is not a choice. They dont care. It aint cool to be a racist anymore. And people gotta climb up to heaven on the backs of somebody. Who's left. Gay people are way to convenient a scapegoat to give up.
1. Homosexuals do not need the government to approve of their relationship in order for them to believe it exists.
2. Homosexuals couples are not prone to reproduce, and therefore do not need the same tax bracket as Heterosexual couples.
3. Any other issues can effectively be solved through other means. Inheritance issues, adoption, transition/sharing of guardianship and anything else that homosexuals do not have can be granted, but do not necessarily require marraige.
For these reasons, the legalization of Gay Marraige is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
there you go, assuming all heterosexual couples have children...
if gay people want to get married, what's the big deal? plenty of straight couples have made a mockery of the institution of marriage, if Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer serve me right
Nope. There are 1,138 rights to marriage. I think that trumps your 3 reasons why the legalization isn't necessary.
True, but meaningless when talking about legalizing same-sex marriage.
There are many heterosexual couples that don't reproduce (either due to biology or choice). Should we not let them get married?
Those that can be dealt with through contract (clearly not all of them) require time and expense that heterosexuals can opt out of by simply getting married. Does that really sound fair to you?
You are missing the point of the United States' definition of liberty if this is your metric.
You are wrong. The government already makes an exception for same sex marriage with the "Defense of Marriage Act." Same sex couples do not have access to each others social security benefits, and a whole host of other "advantages" married couples have in the eyes of the nation.
That's a strawman argument. The tax advantage of married couples is not solely there because they can reproduce. If it were then there'd be an exclusion for couples in their sixties or older who marry.
So, once again, you are wrong.
Marriage makes all of this available with one act. Without the marriage all of these issues must be handled separately and at some expense.
So once again, you are wrong.
The U.S. government making gay marriage "illegal" was a waste of time and money. And it should never have made it to Congress.
1. Are you saying that homosexual couples need Government permission to exist because the participants do not have access to the same benefits as married heterosexual couples? That is absurd. Recieveing benefits and being tolerated are two vastly different things. I was saying that homosexual couples are not prevented from existing by the Government. I don't know what arguement you were trying to refute here.
2. Mine is not a straw man argument. Why do couples deserve a better tax bracket if they have no children or no way of producing children? Children are expensive for couples, but essential for society. New generations are essential for the growth of any economy. Without new generations entering the workforce, who will pay the taxes that support beneficiaries of Medicare and Social Security? That is why we need to give married heterosexual couples a break. I believe that any undeserved exceptions in the tax system should be fixed, and thus your point in no way detracts from the validity of my point. Your argument may point out a flaw in the tax system, but that does not disprove the necessity of making life easier for families.
Money isn’t infinite. The Government can’t afford to go tossing it around to everyone who wants a little more—especially when their claim to it is unsubstantiated.
3. These are issues however that need to be solved for people who are not considered couples. These issues have nothing to do with the orientation of the members involved. Things like adoption should be available to any responsible adult. People shouldn’t have to be in a relationship to have guardianship transferred. Those issues apply to more than just homosexuals, meaning the legalization of gay marriage is not the way to solve them.
4. That is a red herring. I never mentioned that it should be made illegal. My point was that it doesn’t need to be made legal.
There is a national law on the books RIGHT NOW that says same sex couples are NOT and CAN NOT share the same benefits as opposite sex couples. It's called "The Defense of Marriage Act." Look it up.
It is a "strawman" argument. If what you said applies then ANYONE beyond a certain age, say sixty, should not have the same marriage benefits as a couple that can reproduce. There's no argument here. Either the tax benefits are couples who can reproduce, therefore excluding ANYONE who cannot reproduce, or the tax benefit is for marrieds regardless of their ability to reproduce.
That is one of over 100 benefits that marrieds enjoy. Your argument is extremely weak.
It already is illegal from a congressional point of view. Again, look it up!
Here! Since you seem to be incapable of doing your own research read this link;
Pay particular attention to item 2. This law was passed in 1996. It is a national law. Because it is a national law it affects social security benefits, medicaid, medicare, and a whole host of federal programs designed to benefit married couples.
Now, by law, a married couple must be one man and one woman or no federal recognition for them.
LiamBean, I feel like you are using a belligerent tone that is very rude and unnecessary. Rebuttals laced with personal attacks, however minor they may be, will in no way further this discussion. I don’t mean to paint you as trollish, but being so quick to accuse people who disagree with you of being ignorant is not very helpful.
1. I think there is some miscommunication with point #1. There are two parts to this issue; the toleration of the existence of gay couples and the provision of marital benefits. I am saying that gay couples are currently tolerated. Sure, they aren't always respected by others, but they also don't have big brother knocking down their doors. Marital benefits are denied to them, there is no denying that, but marital benefits are not required for a Heterosexual couple to be considered married. If I got married, and the Government ceased to exist, would I not still be considered married? Marriage is between the two people getting married. The extent of Government involvement is recognizing that the marraige exists. So, to clear this up, ‘Gay Marriage’ in itself is not illegal, but the provision of Government benefits to gay couples is.
2. Did you not read the part where I said “I believe that any undeserved exceptions in the tax system should be fixed, and thus your point in no way detracts from the validity of my point.”? You are the one making the strawman here because I never said that people who are unable to have children should have the same tax relief as those who are able. My point is that children are expensive and should be a reason why heterosexual couples who have the potential for children deserve tax relief. If you don’t have children and can’t produce children, you don’t need tax relief. The existence of children or the potential to create children are the crux for this, not sexual orientation. For example: A straight couple in their thirties who have no children and a pair of homosexuals who have adopted children both deserve tax relief. I don’t see what is unfair about that.
3. Your response does not really refute what I said. I said that everyone deserves these benefits, married or not, and in response you made the statement that there are 100 more cases of exclusive benefits without bothering to mention what they are. And if you are right and there are more, why should homosexual couples be the only group added to the list of beneficiaries? Why not others who would like to benefit as well? Of course, I can’t really make such a sweeping assumption. I’m sure many issues aren’t relevant to non-couples. But still, I think my point stands that homosexuals aren’t the only people being denied certain freedoms who deserve to partake in some of them.
4. The Government might not recognize homosexual marriages and provide the associated benefits, but that does not mean it prevents them from happening. As I have said before, I don’t see why homosexuals are the only ones who should be benefiting from revised social security, Medicaid and Medicare policies.
Well argued; good points. Yes, the same rights should be afforded to all in domestic partnerships, in my opinion.
I support gay marriage as a step in the right direction in recognizing their rights, given the fact that marriage is a legal/cultural/religious institution.
So, to get back on topic. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a direct act of discrimination against a segment of U.S. citizens.
Everyone should have equal rights. We all come into this world the same way, so we should live with the same rights, and die with those rights. We are all human, and whatever your sexual preference, we are the same, flesh and blood.
Well said Helen!
Thanks Earnestshub. Will jump down from my soapbox now.
It is nice to see people who care about rights, makes me happy!
You mean to say that in a 100 meter race male and female runners must run together and there must not be any separation and also you want to say that men can start wearing bikinis because they also have tits. Further you want to say that there is no difference between the one who worships Satan and the one who worships God. Everyone should have equal rights that's the reason Bush was allowed to kill and butcher around the world because he had the rights.
Previously homosexuality was considered as a sin and crime but today it's not. It clearly reveals that today child abuse is considered as a sin and crime but later on in the near future, you will even allow this and demand rights for that.
I knew a man who had a dollar and lent it. That does not make him an International Banker! Your examples are stupid and do not apply.
That is absurd, ever hear of consenting adults? besides the point of this particular thread is not whether its a sin or not, you are not on a religious forum, read the title.
i used both words "sin and crime"
read it again
O sorry, sin AND crime, that still does not make your statement and more sensible. Of course child abuse is a crime, but how can it be a crime for adults to live the way they please? In some countries women are treated like property by their husbands, in my mind this is much more a sin and a crime.
In other countries, women are treated as sex symbols and society butterflies. That's the reason those sick males wear a complete formal suit whereas force women to show off their legs and thighs.
In Europe women basically have the right to wear whatever they please, most choose to look good on their own, the only contribution men have to how they look is telling them they don't look fat in those pants.
Your arguments are ridiculous.
Are you sure? NAMBLA....
What does NAMBLA have to do with my comment on video's ridiculous reasoning? What does NAMBLA have to do with gay and lesbian rights?
The guys point was that every one wants to be special these days.
Thats what I got out of it, anyway.
That is whats at the root of the argument. Is it equality or the creation of a special class? You said his arguments were rediculous. I only offered an example of a group who believes that child abuse is not a sin or a crime.
Gays, Lesbians can not legaly be discriminated against in the United States of America.
Not allowing homosexuals to obtain a marriage liscence does not preclude them distributing their estate as they wish. It doesn't preclude them from buying a house together. They can even get family insurance plans.
I'm not against equal rights for all. I'm against creating laws that are based on special classes. Its devisive. I'm also for limited government. I don't want the government in my house.
The Religous Right is afraid of this because they believe marriage is a religous institution. Historically speaking thats true. The GOVERNMENT is who muddied the water here. The Religious Right is also afraid that if homosexuals are allowed traditional marriage all clergy will be forced into sanctioning and performing homosexual marriages. Is that true? Who knows. I'm just stating what I learn by listening to all sides.
The homosexual community are aleging descrimination but have yet to prove it in court(when it comes to the marriage issue).
Here is whats happening in America today. We used the Courts to create new law when the legislature will not. We use the legislature to creat new laws that ride on existing laws to change the courts interpretation of the law. It is deceptive and abusive. That Mr Deeds is rediculous!
Please read the Defense of Marriage Act. Gays ARE legally discriminated against by the Federal Government.
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. They did so to prevent the chaos that would ensue between the states. The Act prevented homosexuals from obtaining a traditional marriage liscense. They did not prevent them from any of the precieved legal benifits of marriage. In truth their are no legal benifits to marriage. Only legal complications. In discrimination cases you have to prove harm. They have not. In the case of the Act's Constitutionality they have to prove that the congress over reached. They have not proven that.
You really should read the link Ralph Deeds posted. And the Defense of Marriage Act. Because of that act gay marrieds are NOT allowed social security benefits as a surviving spouse. This is just one of many Federal benefits heterosexual marrieds enjoy that same sex marrieds do not. There's also the tax benefit heterosexual marrieds enjoy that same sex marries are now barred from. No matter what, if the couple is of the same gender they MUST file individual tax returns.
And it most certainly is discrimination in that a segment of the population is legally treated differently than another segment of the population. That, in and of itself, is both discriminatory and harmful. And the harm is not just to same sex couples.
The harm extends to all Americans by making a life-style choice the basis for law.
"There's also the tax benefit heterosexual marrieds enjoy that same sex marries are now barred from. No matter what, if the couple is of the same gender they MUST file individual tax returns. "
There is NO heterosexual tax benefit. There is a Marriage penalty. It was suspended, but not repealed. When a homosexual couple files their taxes are actually lower. Married couples can't file separately with out reporting the others income.
As far as Social Security, I think it should be abolished. But as with taxes, married couples recieve less in social security benefits than a homosexual couple do. You are correct in stating that the benefits are not transferable. However that accounts for very little money. In short, I beleive that homosexuals do better by not getting envolved with "Marriage". However if you want their tax dollars I guess you should support gay marriage.
Whether you feel Social Security should be abolished or not is irrelevant to this argument. It has not been abolished and it still has an effect.
It is clear from your response that you've read neither the Defense of Marriage Act nor the study by the New York Times.
Too bad. Because all your assertions have been firmly and completely dismissed by both of these documents.
Too bad you didn't read how the NY Times skewed the results. Its a hypothetical, not literal. They took imaginary couples and based their results on assumptions, not facts. All done in order to arive at a predetermined conclusion. It also clearly states that Homosexual couples will pay less in income taxes.
"Our analysis is not exact science. Not every couple would get married if they could, and others would not want to have children. We also made a number of assumptions based on average costs, life spans, state of residence and gender."
"Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage.
One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not."
Here they make an incomplete explanation/justification of their assumption. What cost as large as biological child rearing do homosexual couples incur that heterosexual couples don't?
Do you honestly believe that MOST homosexual couples have two children?
You are trying to draw facts out of an OP-ED peace. I know, I know they printed it in the "Money" section.
It is not an Op Ed piece.
It is based on research with the assistance of tax, health-care and legal professionals.
Same sex couples cannot procreate without outside assistance. That's what the article is talking about. If the same sex couple is female then there will be costs in aquiring sperm and a donor.
If the same sex couple is male then the costs are considerably more since a surrogate would have to be found and paid for the nine months of pregnancy, doctors visits, complications, etc.
Since one of the reasons stated for denying same sex marriage is the inability of the couple to procreate this is a valid point. One, it blows that reason out the window, and two, it is well within the realm of possibility that a same sex couple would want to raise children.
It's not hypothetical in the sense that some same sex couples fall into exactly the parameters The Times used for the article. This is why it is NOT an Op Ed piece.
Of course the authors had to make SOME assumptions. The ones they chose are well within the realm of possibility.
Continuing to say something, without bothering to back up your claims, does not make it true. But you will obviously continue to deny what has actually happened no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.
I've done as much of YOUR research as I care to. Your arguments continue to be weak or outright flawed beyond any chance of recovery.
Good luck with that. I'm not buying.
I don't want to pay for anything freaky that includes abortions on demand.
What on earth do abortions on demand have to do with gay marriage?!?!?!
Jeebus. Can you folks stay on topic?
I consider that all liberal poop and I don't want to pay for it!
Wanting every citizen in the country to have the same exact rights is liberal poop? Amazing!
Equality in America is myth.
We ALL live in a double-standard country.
Even justice is depensed at an unfair level.
True enough. But it shouldn't be.
True enough. But it shouldn't be.
Now the question you should ask yourself is this. Do I help perpetuate the inequality or do I work to end it?
Well, to end it....would pose a monumental task? But, if it were to be attempted- I would help end inequality.
WOW, so we disagree and now you get mad. What a shame. You see, I have done the research. The court cases are clear. While you are making a moral argument, I'm makiing a legal one. No harm has ever been proven. DOMA has not been struck down as unconstitutional. Thats the KEY. The rest is moot. We have gotten the Government involved in our bedrooms and now we don't like the results. Thanks for playing. Now pay your taxes knowing that it supports tons of crap you don't agree with.
I don't totally disagree with your points. I do think that all people should be able to marry. My point is this, we NEVER needed the government involved in that to begin with. Why expand their controll. You mention that Social security is not going to change. Well President Obama ran on the idea that we needed to Fundementally change America. That sounds like any and all ideas should be on the table, not just ones from a particular political persuasion.
American government has the right to impose limitations on same sex marriage. It's one of the ways for degrading and stoping this unnatural none sense.
Thank you for finally dropping that goddess and light charade and acting as though you had god anywhere within you. Doesn't it feel good to speak out as a honest man that owns his hate, instead of lying to us about how God want things to be. Welcome to the discussion.
Child abuse was not always considered a sin or a crime, remember the saying "spare the rod and spoil the child?" It used to be considered to be bad form to discuss what when on in a family.
And equating homosexuality with that is completely ridiculous.
Very true. Human morality has progressed (but not yet perfected) since the cave men and women.
Funny you should mention that, where I grew up it was the order of the day to beat children, especially in school, if a child had a bad grade he was obviously too lazy to learn had had to get six lashes. The also tried beating the gay out of a few kids, did not help much on their case... 3 suicides out of 5 kids.
Assault, Agg Assault, Man Slaughter, Murder have allways been a crime. Yes, popular opinion has changed regarding domestic issues. However, all the people had to do was elect DA's and Judges that would enforce the law equally and fairly. What happened was that new laws were created that clogged up the court systems and tied the hands of Judges and DA's.
Equality before the law in Texas. Popular opinion among the Texas police hasn't changed much
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publi … _11499.php
Maybe, no doubt this will end up in court. Officers will be charged and or sued. Chances are the department and the city will experience fall out as well.
Don't bet on it. And we're talking about popular opinion of police officers in Texas.
How would you know what popular opinion is of Officers in Texas?
Yes Ralph, I know what I said are you going to answer my question?
Simple, by what I read about the atrocities they commit, by the increasing number of people imprisoned and executed and by quite a few visits to your fair state. Also, by virtue of a longtime friendship with a former Texas Ranger who became chief of security for General Motors.
We execute those guilty of Capital crimes, I'm not sure how visiting Texas plugs you into the mind of most officers. And one former Texas Ranger has a direct pipeline into Cops minds? Good job Ralph!
You also execute a few who aren't guilty of capital crimes.
Things happen, but you still haven't been able to tell me what skill you possess that gives you insight to how most cops in Texas think!
Ralph Deeds type of people can not face the reality, it bits them always so they just turn their backs away.
The chief of 'sedurity' for General Motors?
Excellent point. Without making a personal attack. Very well done. Spelling mistakes should be hunted down and ridiculed.
Nice one TK.
In Argentina Gay couples can have a civil marriage, with all proper laws as for work,medicine, inheritance, etc.- the only thing they can't do at the moment is adopting children. But they're fighting for it.
I saw a really good movie with Sean Penn, called "Milk". It was about gays in San Francisco, and Harvey Milk, who ran for office and succeeded, all the way to the state legislature. He was assasinated. It was a really good movie for opening minds to the harmlessness of gay people. Most of the bad press gays get is child molestation--and it is unearned: 97% of child molesters are predominately heterosexually oriented.
So sure, why not? Gays are just like ordinary people, only their sexual orientation is in the minority.
Additional costs for gay couples are significant:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your- … amp;st=cse
The Right Direction on Gay Rights--Detroit Free Press Editorial
http://www.freep.com/article/20091013/O … gay-rights
With two wars, health care and the economy crowding his plate, you'd think President Barack Obama would have no room for another entrée-sized issue. But in his Saturday speech to the Human Rights Campaign, the president added gay rights initiatives to his near-term agenda.
If nothing else, the president's attention reminds everyone that there's still much work to do on this front. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996) remains a serious obstacle to equal rights for gay couples. The military policy of "don't ask, don't tell" has probably run the course of its usefulness and needs to be eradicated. And states are still all over the map regarding same-sex marriage.
If Obama can make headway on DOMA and military policy, as he pledged in his speech, it could represent real change in the lives of many gay Americans. And it might get the president a little closer to earning that Nobel Prize he picked up last week.
Even those who oppose gay marriage should be willing to concede, on an intellectual level, that a law excluding gay couples not only from marriage but also from federal benefits available to other citizens goes too far. It's overkill, and an embarrassment to a nation that considers itself a defender of equality. The immediately lukewarm response from other Democrats (including Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow) to Obama's suggested repeal of DOMA is equally embarrassing.
Obama may have an easier time moving the country past "don't ask, don't tell," which was a workable compromise during the Clinton administration's first term but now seems antiquated and a little silly. It's OK to be gay in the military, so long as you don't say so? There have been more than enough examples to show that allowing service men and women to be honest (while maintaining the same discipline that heterosexual soldiers are expected to uphold) is a better policy. The key will be getting military buy-in (much of which is already present) to prevent a backlash. That buy-in could also prevent opportunistic demagogues from hijacking what is, and should remain, primarily a military issue.
The president attached no timetables to his objectives. But speaking up for gay rights was and is the right thing to do, and if Obama can follow through, it will go a long way toward forging the presidency he aspires to pursue.
Being a gay or lesbian is one of the craziest madness I have ever seen.
It is as it is whether you like it or not.
Don't think God is in support of same sex marriage
God does not make the laws in the US
It's true, God don't make laws in US but one thing is certain, God will certainly judge our hearts
If he exists, yet he will. It is not for anyone else to say if it's right or wrong.
We'll never know about that, will we? You're entitled to your opinion for whatever it's worth. Not much in my opinion.
Someone's sexual orientation is your business because?
It would help explain what the hell he's babbaling about. Try to get some bearings and whats it to you?
Actually, God does make the laws in the US. Or at least, he is part of the process. I'm assuming you're all not familiar with Jaweh (I), the Junior Senator from Oregon?
I said this once before and I will say it again.
The PERSPECTIVE is blowning in the wrong direction!
Every person has equal rights, both MAN and WOMAN!
You DO NOT get more rights, because of your sexual preference!
Never in this lifetime or the next.
Who you SLEEP with or what GENDER they are is completely irrelevant, when speaking about constitutionality of rights of individuals.
You have a right to get married. Man or Woman!
If you choose to go against the grain of life, then so be it, but don't think your special or should receive special treatment.
Your individual sexual partner, regardless, doesn't give you any more rights than you have a citizen.
Right or Wrong? The U.S. Government has a right to what is in the best interests of the citizenry, by preventing "gays/lesbians" from creating marriage which are unproductive to the rest of society.
Remember, your individual rights as a person is weighed against what is in the best interest society......And SOCIETY always wins.
Considering I don't know who that is? Would that be a compliment? Or not?
Not. George Orwell wrote a novel called "1984" where everyone in society had their lives mapped out from beginning to end by a world government. The government determined who could have children, who had to remain single, who got good food or passable food, etc. Every aspect of life life, from the time someone got up in the morning to the time they had to go to bed was controlled.
The Defense of Marriage act is an attempt to control who can marry.
George Orwell would be proud.
I don't think he would be "proud" of a world that embodied 1984's philosophies...
Thought We'd Dealt with This
Josh Marshall | October 15, 2009, 5:34PM
Louisiana Judge denies marriage license to interracial couple.
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," said Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell of Tangipahoa Parish.
So sad. So my boyfriend and I won't be asking him to perform our ceremony.
DAM, this is embarrassing! The state of my birth! Well, let me tell you Tangipahoa and its neighboring Parish, Livingston are about as redneck and racist as it gets! I still can't believe a statement like that fell out of a Justice of the Peace's mouth this day and age though.....WOW
There is not upside to gays/lesbians marrying to begin with.
The problem isn't being addressed, as it should be. Instead, it is posed in a wrong perspective(which has seem to gone mad now), because the Medical Association refuses to come clean with the true thought behind "being gay" or "being lesbian", which is that it is a mental problem.
Just for the pure fact that the actions do not make for good results, nor productive- either in breeding or parenting.
So, now what?
Of for Cripes Sake, not the mental condition canard again! That has been completely discounted too. Even Phil McGraw admits that it's not a "mental condition" or a "life choice."
Two people who love and support each other do not make for good results? Do tell!
Now what is wing-nuts like yourself continuing to spread flawed and paid for "research" to further your agenda.
What's the agenda? Marginalize a segment of the American citizenry because they frighten you.
It's not a matter of fear? DUH!
It's a matter of survival!
Survival? How on earth do gays threaten your survival?
Okay, if you cannot see that yourself.
Then, it's no use taking this any further, because regardless of what I say...you cannot seem to wrap your mind the "bigger" picture for the Human Race.
Cagisil think about what you just said. Really think. Maybe even do some research. Then get back to me.
I don't need research, to understand life's basic understanding.
If you do, then I would suggest you get a refreshers course on LIFE in and of itself.
Do you know the purpose of life?
I might have a clearer understanding than you might think, because there is a good chance you haven't learned what I have.
Thus, this would make you think that your correct, when in fact you're actually wrong.
If I offended, I apologize. But, I believe in speaking my mind and typing the words that come to mind, just as if I was saying it.
And, yes, if you and I were standing, having this conversation, you would get the exact same response. And, your response is already expected and known, which is why I've explained as much as I have in this post.
But, I do welcome your response and I do await.
Again, there is knowledge you don't know, because it has not been given to you, which is what I have. That's why I started on Hubpages was to get people to understand their life.
If I can help you to learn what's been hidden...your life only gets better and not worse.
Try not to be mad. It's not my fault. I only present what I've learned.
Oh great. Another Born Again!
This is not a religious topic. The area of the forums in you are in is called "Political & Social Issues." THIS is a political/social issue.
If you want to get up on the pulpit and proclaim something I strongly suggest you do it in the right venue.
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT VENUE.
That judge needs to be to have his butt handed to and stripped of his position.
That's messed up.
Cagsil, please don't tell me the purpose of life is to have babies.
Boy! I've helped raise one. I'm almost sixty. I think I'm done with that. I hope I'm done with that.
Also, I got married in July. My wife cannot have children yet we ARE married. *Gasp*
Just got my new motto from Grey's Anatomy..."you can't pray away the gay"
Survival? What do you think the human race will become extinct because everyone is going to be gay? You're funny.
You the king of personal attacks asking that question?
I said the statement was idiotic not the person who made it.
Do you need a remedial reading for comprehension course?
So you respond with even more personal attacks? Wonderful.
That's not a personal attack. Clearly you did not read what I wrote or you did not understand it. Thus the observation that you might want to consider a course in reading for comprehension.
I do notice that this happens quite a bit with quite a few of the typical responders to threads like this.
There you go again. You should stop this and get back to the topic.
So should you.
You see, there's a difference between stating that something someone said is idiotic. We say idiotic things from time to time. I certainly have.
It is entirely another to call someone an idiot for saying something idiotic. THAT is a personal attack.
Thus, my questioning your reading for comprehension abilities.
Do you insist on continuing your personal attacks or can we get back to the topic of the thread?
Your saying a thing does not make it true. Nor does repeating something endlessly make it true.
However, you are now trolling; attempting to start a fight. As you suggested to me, perhaps you should get back to the topic at hand...and admit that gays should be allowed the same rights as any other American.
I certainly believe that what happened to Matthew Shepherd was EVIL. My wife enjoys watching all the real life murder mysteries on cable television. Something that frightens me is how often men are simply jailed when compared to women that are given the death penalty. It seems more than a little lop-sided.
Having said that, I will try and stay on point -- in terms of the original question.
I don't believe that it would be in the best interest of any child to be placed within a home where same sex relations are considered the norm. I believe it's one thing to peaceably pray and or even attempt to draw homosexuals out of their lifestyle.
I do believe it would be wrong to force anyone to change; and along with that, would include having treated anyone horribly or with disdain. I can tell I'm getting tired -- my English is beginning to suffer.
Offer them the same rights; probably but never allow for them to adopt. Even if God did totally take out Sodom and Gomorrah we should leave that up to him. Personally, you wouldn't catch me living in any city that was largely gay though; imagine the ramifications, if God decided to throw down the torch again.
I'd rather not smolder, let alone be turned into a pillar of salt.
Is homosexuality an abomination to the Lord? He says it is.
Does that mean it's our job as Christians to begin stoning them? Absolutely not.
Do I think that our current prez could have been making a faster decision about Afghanistan rather than posing for cameras? Absolutely.
I do have an interesting point to bring up. Homosexuality is often referred to as a natural alternative which begs the question: natural alternative to what, that which is natural?
Do I think it's wrong for people in public, in general, to be tonguing one another? Yes, and it should apply to both sides. Save your sex for your home.
WHAT A PIECE OF WORK!!!
"I believe it's one thing to peaceably pray and or even attempt to draw homosexuals out of their lifestyle."
"Is homosexuality an abomination to the Lord? He says it is."
"I do have an interesting point to bring up. Homosexuality is often referred to as a natural alternative which begs the question: natural alternative to what, that which is natural?"
Let address each lie or outrageous statement made here, in the order it was given.
1.That was tried 50 years ago. Mental institutions in this country were filled with homosexual people that needed to be fixed. This evil internment of innocent people ended when Science proved homosexuality is not a mental illness. But I'm sure facts dont matter to you. Why dont you send us all to your little summer camp.
Better yet, fix yourself!!!
2.Stop lying on God. God didn't say that or anything else like that. It was Writen in the Bible by a homophobic scizophrenic. Human beings wrote the Bible. People with the same kind of hate, prejudice, likes and dislikes we all have. The thought of a women coming on to me angers and disgust me. IT'S AN ABOMINATION!!! See.
3.Homosexuality is not an Alternative to Anything.Homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexual sex. Homosexual sex occurs throughout nature. All types of Animals, Birds, and insects have Homosexual sex. If the birds and bee do it, how could it be anything but natural?
How dare you mention Mathew Sheppards name. The "Stoning" of gay people still occurs everyday thanks to people like you, passing on your hate generation after generation. And if Gay people do not adopt the gay children and teenagers in this country; who will protect, love, and guide them? You?
Does asking you to stop repeatedly attacking me constitute trolling now? There is no fight regardless of how earnestly you seem to be pushing for one.
They have the same rights. Why do you allways imply their missing some. It's hoekey liberal poop!
If you or your wife dies; will the government take your kids from the one that survives. I had to watch two people I love suffer and die a terrible death, someone I love was screaming in pain for months before he died. If you had any idea how INSULTING your comments about your marriage were to me, you would stick to your usual silly comments and not try to speak on real life subjects again. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Was that a personal attack? Talk to tksensi about that as he appears to be an expert.
They do not have the same rights. By law, passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, they do not have the same rights. The Defense of Marriage Act ENSURES that they do not have the same rights...on a national level.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!They have exactly the same rights you and me have.
Look you are hypersensitive about a heavy debate, you constatly accuse people of reading comprehesive issues but, cry foul if someone gives you a dose of your own medicine. What I said was not a personal attack it was a statement of general liberal position on gay rights. Now this is a statement of fact that you might take as a personal attack, <snipped personal attack>.
You are reading way more into my responses than they rate. And yes, if someone doesn't know the difference between saying a statement is idiotic and an individual is an idiot they DO have reading for comprehension problems.
Calling me a pansy is a personal attack.
And since you insist that gays have the same rights, and they don't, by law, you too clearly have a reading for comprehension problem. The Defense of Marriage Act clearly curtails rights to gays. There IS no other way to interpret that act.
So, are we to expect a personal attack in every post you make?
we should love marry who ever we want as free choice people. Rights to all people ill sign this all day. love koma. mariage is not so much a right but a celebration of love people forgot about that i personally can throw my papers in the garbage because i dont care about this law at all. the law is made to secure the money situation and family stuff. the real celebration is all you not papers that lay in the house with no purpose. but thats me. that is everyones right to get married papers or no papers. you need the government to aprove gay marriage i dont care if they remove my papers you can have them.
No more than 10% of the population will be gay so saying if everyone was gay the human race would die out is a moot point...it'll never happen.
Where is your PROOF?
If it's possible....then it has a possibility of happening.
So, are you going to turn gay overnight?
Yes it wouldn't now would it.
But, it does have it's possibilities, like everything else. Just not likely to happen anytime soon.
I have control of my mind.
Yeah! More than I am sure than you are who you claim to be.
How do I know you're of sound mind?
By what we've said to each other, and all the bantering...I'm not sure about you.
But, I am positive I'm fine.
What the hell does that mean?
I don't. I rely on my friends. They indicate that I'm not only of sound mind but a force to be reckoned with. I am intensely logical. I don't argue points unless I have a LOT of research to back them up.
Well. that's a good thing...for both of us.
The reason I had to respond with "Are you Sure?" is it was such an odd thing to say "I have control of my mind." in this setting.
Yes it is, you seem to think it's possible that everyone on earth will become gay....
What is the point. UW is correct. The possibility that gays will take over is quite literally impossible.
by Kharisma1980 5 years ago
What is your opinion on the issue of gay/lesbian relationships and gay marriage?
by Andrew Spacey 6 years ago
Same sex marriage - Equality or Not for gay people?Ireland recently voted 68% to 32% by referendum to allow same sex marriage, the first country in the world to do so. Is this true democracy at work? How do you view the decision - is it good for a whole country to be given the chance to vote on...
by WORD ADDICT 6 years ago
Don't you agree that gay and lesbian union should be called something else other than marriage?
by WayneAnsell 7 years ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by Texasbeta 11 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 Holle Abee 10 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?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|