Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?

Jump to Last Post 151-200 of 273 discussions (1311 posts)
  1. Cagsil profile image78
    Cagsilposted 13 years ago

    No thanks.

    1. LiamBean profile image83
      LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What you are saying though smacks of "the one must sacrifice for the all." Very Orwellian.

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image78
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    I'm pretty sure we have as many rights in Canada and gay people can get merried...

    1. LiamBean profile image83
      LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Got any more room in Canada?

      Just asking. I live in Southern California. I'm not sure I could take all that cold.

  3. profile image0
    Star Witnessposted 13 years ago

    You just start another post, ie, smile.  lol  Which understanding somehow seems like a metaphor to your approach to me, but besides the point.

    My figures regarding those married with no children are in fact not conjecture, but I don't feel like searching the net to prove myself at this time.

    You are right in pointing out the reality that other groups are lacking in marriage benefits.  And I agree on that point.  I see proffering the married status to gay people as only a beginning measure towards greater human rights and benefits.  Those that should also eventually be offered to domestic partners...because yes, I see the married state as something more of a natural thing that has been bastardized by legal, governmental and religious involvement. 

    I do believe gays have as much right to that natural state (no matter what tax benefits or benefits have been bestowed) as heterosexuals.  Do you?  I guess that is the question.  If you can point out linguistic marks in LiamBean's sense of the measure of discussions, then so might I.

    1. profile image58
      thetfinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wait a minute... was that a jab? hahaha

      I respectfully decline to take your word for that.

      The mere fact that non-married people are lacking certain benefits does not in and of itself justify the provision of those benefits. There should be good reason behind it. Until these benefits are discussed more in depth, I will not jump on the bandwagon and assume they should be granted to everyone. Also, vying solely for gay marriage rights in a way discriminates against those of us who are not married and are not gay. Where are our rights?

      Does it matter if I believe that they are not able to be married in the natural sense? (they will believe they can no matter what laws I implement) Their inability to be married is not a matter of rights in my mind. Humans either can or can't do something in question. No amount of rights will change the reality of their abilities. Of course people will disagree with me, and I do not have the right to force anyone to agree with me. I do reserve the right to express my beliefs and share them with others, however.

      1. profile image0
        Star Witnessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        It is never bad to hear a cogent argument from a (I assume) conservative here on the forums.  They are usually few an far between.  It makes for good debate and better understanding of positions.  Yes, lol, you have the right to express your views.

  4. Uninvited Writer profile image78
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    "Also, vying solely for gay marriage rights in a way discriminates against those of us who are not married and are not gay. Where are our rights? "

    What! How does people being given the right to marry discriminate against straight single people?

    1. profile image58
      thetfinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Homosexuals don't need Government approval to marry somebody. What they are looking for is Marriage benefits.
      Neither Gays nor singles have these benefits, therefore leaving singles out of the picture is discriminatory.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image78
        Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        But when a couple marry, they get marriage benefits. I am single and I don't expect to get marriage benefits because I am not married.

        1. LiamBean profile image83
          LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Wow, there's a complex concept!

          1. profile image56
            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            This as well as many other issues is what the legal opinions are being based on.  The bottom line is this. Change the hearts and minds in regards to homosexuals in society, American Society and states rights will take over.  California is the only state that I know of that actually put it to a vote of the people. Thats the way to approach this.

            1. LiamBean profile image83
              LiamBeanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              It was a much closer vote than many realize. Fifty-two percent voted for Proposition 8 and forty-eight percent voted no. More people voted on this proposition than on any other measure on that ballot. It was a shock for many because most opinion polls run just prior to the vote showed it going down in defeat.

              Only the L.A. Times got close to the actual results with their poll showing a potential fifty-four percent voting yes and thirty-four percent voting no.

              The Proposition only needed a simple majority to pass, much to the consternation of many at the capitol.

            2. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              I believe 28 states have held such referendums. In every case gay marriage has been voted down.

              1. profile image56
                C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Well there you have it. I guess California gets the most attention because of all the court cases.  My point all along has been this.  You can't change societies mind about something via legislation. And you shouldn't legislate morality.  Look at abortion. 40 years and we still fight like cats and dogs. All rights of marriage can be obtained via another contract vehichle. Why would anyone want to be married is beyond me!

          2. profile image58
            thetfinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            But what about when people start demanding it and accuse you of violating their rights? My point is that giving tax brakes to people because they are in a homosexual relationship is absurd. Why do they deserve tax breaks more than I do as a single person? Need I point out the expensive children factor again?
            As far as adoption goes, why would a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt when I cant? We shouldn't be fighting for the homosexual right to adopt, we should be fighting for the human right to adopt.

            If there are any Gay Rights activists here that have a bone to pick with the denial of benefits that relate to the institutionalization of 'Gay Marriage', please explain to me your beef with them and WHY the exclusion is unfair. Don't just tell me that they are unfair and hope I'll just assume you are right. I think this is the main reason I've had to repeat myself; I have yet to hear a defense for the provision of marriage benefits to homosexual couples that actually discusses the issues of immigration, social security, etc. People are telling me that Homosexual relationships should have the same legal benefits as Heterosexual ones, but haven't bothered to explain why they should be beneficiaries of these things. Many people also don't realize that if homosexuals are entitled to a right that is currently reserved by a single group in society, it is a possibility that other people could be entitled to the right as well.

      2. profile image0
        Star Witnessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Yes.  Which is why I think legal recognition of domestic partnerships all around...and not marriage per se...is in order in the long run.

        Most people definitely would not go in for that...yet.  So my position is rather conservative, actually.

  5. LiamBean profile image83
    LiamBeanposted 13 years ago

    This discussion has gotten so much better. I'm going to take a backseat for a while so I don't spoil it.

    1. profile image0
      Star Witnessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Think so?

      lol  I think it has been hashed over and out.

      It all comes down to the belief, after all (and I sense this is indeed the underlying issue) that a gay person is not 'sick' and has the same rights as a straight person.  One can argue about saving tax payers money (And how much? THAT is hearsay unless proof is attached, plus it is but one factoring influence) until they are blue in the face...it all still seems rather negligible, obtuse and non legitimate...unless an agenda is attached.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        That view is gaining ground every day. Nearly every educated informed person I know agrees with your viewpoint. This includes most mainstream Christians so far as I can tell.

      2. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think it comes down to that.

    2. Tackle This profile image60
      Tackle Thisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are too funny...der moderator...Please remember that I have not concluded that gay folk are less kind than heterosexuals...:-)

      I do believe that the fact that homosexuals have to resort to impregnation by other than standard means speaks volumes and that would really be my only reason for not allowing them to adopt children.

      1. Friendlyword profile image60
        Friendlywordposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        And, because you have HOW MANY adoptive children?

  6. kmackey32 profile image61
    kmackey32posted 13 years ago

    Its really not my business if someone chooses to be gay.

  7. topgunjager profile image60
    topgunjagerposted 13 years ago

    It's sick why this is even an issue. They are who they are, why would your opinion about gay people be made a law? In my opinion ugly people should stay inside their homes, why don't you make that a law? Their way of living doesn't affect me in anyway. I'll be like "look at those gay dudes holding hands" and then what? It's not like you can teach people to be gay, if you're gay, then you're gay, like Milk Harvey said, "how exactly do you teach someone to be gay? is it like teaching french?" these are real people responding to their real emotions, I can't even imagine how hard it would be to come out of the closet with the thought of being embarrased and hated by the people around you but they did, that takes a lot of courage. I have gay friends and their probably one of the best people around right now because they don't discriminate and they are real because they don't care what people think about them, they just want to be who they are, maybe we can actually learn something from them=)

  8. Bentley Life profile image60
    Bentley Lifeposted 13 years ago

    Marry each other because of love You don't need the papers for that. gay rights is not an issue. Humans incapable of love are poisoned and their laws and scripture guides mean nothing. They are empty. So you can marry who ever you want just by commuting your souls to each other.

    And everybody knows that obama is gay anyways.
    check the fox  article

  9. aguasilver profile image67
    aguasilverposted 13 years ago

    Of course homosexuals should have equal rights, everyone should have equal rights, but they should NOT have special rights, and that's something they seem to want to push for.

    God hates the sin, not the sinner, and homosexuality is in intensity no greater than many other sins.

    God has stated that to Him homosexuality is an ABOMINATION - which is strong condemnation indeed, He does NOT say that homosexuals are an abomination, it's the sin that is an abomination.

    I suggest that He views is as such because homosexuality is against His creative design... He created us to....create, and homosexuals cannot procreate AS GOD decreed it should be done, man with woman in a married state.

    So lay off homosexuals, but never be afraid to point out Gods opinion on homosexuality, even if they have managed to have Gods word described as a 'hate' crime in many countries.

  10. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago

    Equal means equal!

    One red car = one red car
    One person = one person
    opposite sex marriage = opposite sex marriage
    Opposite sex marraige X gay marraige
    No gay Marraige = No gay Marraige
    The same rights for one = The same rights for one

    Equal does mean equal!

    This Post is another charitible offering from,'The National Coalition For Common Sense.'

  11. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 13 years ago

    marriage = marriage

    Why are you adding additional modifiers? What's your point?

    40 years ago, you could see arguments like:
    same-race marriage = same-race marriage
    opposite-race marriage X same-race marriage
    everyone has the right to marry...someone of the same race.

    It was a bunch of b.s. then, as it is a bunch of b.s. now.

  12. Lifes Joke profile image60
    Lifes Jokeposted 13 years ago

    I believe that gay/lesbians should have the rights of everyone else....military wise even tho it's banned that don't stop gay/lesbians from joining...they serve their country well what difference does it make on their sexual preference....I could give a damn about marriage but i really don't see why a person shouldn't be allowed to marry who they love because of same sex...

  13. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago

    Lets review!

    If it's ok to marry a person of the opposite sex for all then we consider that equal for all.

    If it's not ok to marry a person of the same sex for all then we consider that equal for all.

    Isn't this fun now here comes the tricky part.

    Equal is Equal. As I suggested in my hub discussing the topic, if this is about love there's a way around this that would meet the requirement. Since this is about love and not deviate sex practices, then if one has a gender reassignment then the couple would meet the requirement. Then again, Equal would be equal, and love would win the day!

    Let's face it, even a magnet knows opposites attract!

  14. livelonger profile image89
    livelongerposted 13 years ago

    You have a terrific sense of humor, Sneako.

    Good luck with that gender reassignment surgery - please let us know if you prefer us to use a new name afterwards.

  15. topgunjager profile image60
    topgunjagerposted 13 years ago

    Why do they even call it gay rights? it should be classified as basic human right. last time i checked they are all human=)

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How close are you checking them?

  16. profile image48
    HealthTipposted 13 years ago

    This shouldn't even be a question, equal rights should apply to everyone.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They do and they currently exist.

  17. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 13 years ago

    We are not even talking about 'rights.'

    1. profile image48
      HealthTipposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?"

      Scroll to the top !

  18. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 13 years ago

    We've been talking about marriage and military service. Neither of those are constitutionally protected rights.

    1. profile image48
      HealthTipposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You can talk about whatever you want, I was replying to the relevant question which was asked, thanks for your concern.

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Fantastic. In that case, what rights are being referred to?

        1. profile image48
          HealthTipposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          "Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?"

          You will find the topic headings at the beginning of the post, should you get stuck there is a Help section, enjoy your day.

          http://hubpages.com/faq/

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, that's great. What rights are being referred to?

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You're wasting your time with the <snipped personal attack>

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Thats right! He's not an *Enlightened Progressive*, Ding!

    2. kerryg profile image85
      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The US Supreme Court would appear to disagree on the marriage issue. In Loving vs Virginia it said "marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," and held that anti-miscegenation laws (laws prohibiting people of different races from marrying) were in violation of the 14th Amendment.

      If the government doesn't have the right to prevent two consenting adults of different races from marrying because marriage is a "basic civil right" and it is unconstitutional to deny people "equal protection of the laws" according to the 14th Amendment, why on earth should it have the right to prevent two consenting adults of different sexes from doing the same?

      As for the military service argument, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits all federal civilian employees from being fired due to sexual orientation or gender identity. Again, it is not a particularly long or difficult jump from that to the argument that military employees should also be protected from such discrimination, especially given the support among military personnel for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military, and the even stronger support among the American people in general.

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        At last a very good post on the topic! Well done.

        1. Bovine Currency profile image60
          Bovine Currencyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe it could have something to do with what marriage is according to the law.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  That is marriage as defined by US Federal law.

  19. profile image48
    HealthTipposted 13 years ago

    I have told you 5 times, check the help link it should help you, I know when I first joined I found things hard to understand, good luck.

  20. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 13 years ago

    So, you can't answer. Got it.

    1. profile image48
      HealthTipposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have given my answer to the topic question now do you intend to reply to me all day, are you having a personal attack on me TK ?

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Ok, so what rights are being referred to?

        1. profile image48
          HealthTipposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Keep asking, I will continue cutting and pasting.

          " Should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights? "

          My reply is still Yes !

  21. prettydarkhorse profile image56
    prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago

    The constitution allows marriage of two person, and lesbians/gays are person too, so they should have equal rights, that is very simple...definition of a person is one with the proper minds to marry at that time, not due to sexual orientation or political inclination,  (consenting of course)and of age as defined

  22. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    Editorial NY Times
    Six Tests for Equality and Fairness

       
    Published: November 1, 2009

    Political battles this fall in six different parts of the country could have a profound impact on whether the United States will extend the promise of equal rights to those who are not allowed to marry simply because they are the same sex as their partner.

        Three jurisdictions — New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia — seem tantalizingly close to securing legislative approval for measures ending the hurtful and unjustifiable exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. But in Maine, Washington State and Kalamazoo, Mich., voters are being asked on Tuesday to strip away vital rights and protections.

    The dominant Election Day battleground is Maine. Last fall, forces of the religious right backed a successful ballot measure that overruled California’s top court by banning same-sex marriage. Now those forces are trying for another mean-spirited victory with Maine’s Question 1, which, if approved, would block the legalization of same-sex marriage passed by the State Legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May. With the outcome likely to be close, a heavy turnout by voters committed to tolerance and justice is crucial.

    Washington State has yet to approve same-sex marriage. But it took a positive step last May when Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill that granted gay and lesbian couples the state-provided benefits that married heterosexual couples have, like the right to use sick leave to care for a partner. Voters should affirm this progress by voting yes on Referendum 71.

    A third initiative, in Kalamazoo, has the potential to overturn a measure unanimously approved by the City Commission barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, employment and public accommodations. Fair-minded voters should respond by voting yes to uphold the antidiscrimination law.

    Following the election, attention will shift to New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia, which stand a realistic chance of joining the jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are allowed.

    The New York situation is particularly frustrating. Gov. David Paterson strongly supports granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry, and the State Assembly has twice passed a bill to do so. But the overdue measure has been in limbo because the Democrats who control the State Senate’s calendar keep dawdling over scheduling a recorded vote on the floor.

    We do not have a precise head count. But we suspect that once the bill got to the floor, a majority of the Senate’s 62 members would recognize that same-sex marriage is a fundamental civil right. Continuing to delay a vote shows disrespect for New York citizens injured by the status quo. The time for a vote is right now.

    In New Jersey, support has been building for a measure allowing same-sex marriages. Legislators should pass it during the upcoming lame-duck session. Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign the law.

    In the District of Columbia, the City Council seems ready to approve a local law legalizing same-sex marriage in the shadow of the Capitol dome. That might prompt a Congressional attempt to tamper with home rule. But the fact that Congress has let stand a recent D.C. law recognizing same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere gives hope that such meddling can be avoided.

  23. profile image58
    thetfinposted 13 years ago

    I am seriously underwhelmed by the arguements put forth by fellow opponents of R71. People focus too much on religion and protecting the family unit because those are blanket statements that are easy to make without much justification.
    All the more frustrating when it is so logical to me that homosexual couples do not need tax benefits that heterosexual couples do.
    As a single heterosexual, why can't I vistit a dying friend? Why can't I use sick leave to care for someone? why can't I recieve unpaid wages when a friend dies? Why can't share the rights and responsibilities related to adoption, child custody, and child support with another person?
    R71 is not in the spirit of fairness if you ask me.

  24. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years ago

    You should get involved, I know they want you.

  25. profile image51
    (l-l)2iStOpl-le)2posted 13 years ago

    thankfully i live in a country where gay marriages are legal, and gays are allowed to serve in the milletry, good old brittania

    However saying this i do think that america should have the same policy, and that gay rights should be that of a global scale human rights issue and not that of a state or any such ruling, and i really do that obama does end the defence of marriage act, as i personally am with an american guy and he cant move here so we can be together because he has a small child who lives with his mom, and i for a start would never want to break up him from his son, and would never ask of it, but because im gay i cant marry him and stay there so it puts alot of strain on our relationship but we are holding in there for the day that stupid act is over turned so we can be together like we want to be

  26. mistywild profile image61
    mistywildposted 13 years ago

    yes, they should. and no they don't have them.

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yes they do!

  27. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 13 years ago

    The veneer of our civilization is pretty thin. In another vein I wonder why President Obama hasn't joined 35 other "advanced" countries and signed the anti-cluster bomb treaty. Seems to me that would be a no-brainer, much easier than dealing with the prisoners at Guantanamo.

  28. TMMason profile image61
    TMMasonposted 13 years ago

    They already are given equal rights.

    They have the right to marry another person of the oppossite sex. Just like all others have the right to marry another of the oppossite gender.

    And the military is don't ask, don't tell, to all, about all.

    Nothing unequal about that either.

    So it seems a moot question to me. We all have the same rights now in regards to marriage.

    Homosexuals just want special rights. Not equal rights.

    Now. I have no opossition to Civil Unions between two individuals. But that is new territory, and all new traditions in a society take time to impliment and be accepted by a mass of people.

  29. Uninvited Writer profile image78
    Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

    "Now. I have no opossition to Civil Unions between two individuals. But that is new territory, and all new traditions in a society take time to impliment and be accepted by a mass of people."

    Hardly, my parents were married in a civil union in 1946.

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Where? And was it a civil union the way we are referring here? Or do you just mean they were married by a JOP and not in a church?

    2. TMMason profile image61
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Not same sex Civil Union they were not.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image78
        Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Well...you didn't say that...

        1. TMMason profile image61
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You know what the question was in regards to. It was not in regards to heterosexual unions.

  30. K Keller profile image59
    K Kellerposted 13 years ago

    Why can't they just be happy that they live in a country that allows them the freedom to live their lives...marriage is a commitment between a man and woman...not same sex...

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image78
      Uninvited Writerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Marriage is a commitment between people who love one another...

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        How come you get to change the definition?

      2. K Keller profile image59
        K Kellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Not in God's eyes...

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Sarah Palin

  31. profile image0
    thetruthhurts2009posted 13 years ago

    I agree with aquasilver, I want the rainbow back too!

  32. fishtiger58 profile image69
    fishtiger58posted 13 years ago

    Yes they should. After all they are just humans like the rest of us. I don't think just straight people should have all the rights and nothing for everyone else.

    1. TMMason profile image61
      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They have the exact same rights as all others now. So why should they be afforded specail rights?

      Also if they can marry, why can I not marry multiple wives? Or my dog? Or one of each? Or all?

      Where do we stop?

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        We don't, until an aggrieved Pomeranian can successfully sue you for alimony (and has the right to vote).

      2. caravalhophoto profile image60
        caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunely, gays/lesbians do not have the same rights as heterosexuals.  They can have a "Civil Union", whch in the United States, unmarried straight couples can enter into...basically to show community property.  In a Civil Union however, gays/lesbians can have that Union for 30 years, when one partner passes away, they do not get to collect pensions, reirements or insurance, that is usually passed onto a "married" spouse.  HUGE DIFFERENCE
        I believe that yes, they should be able to marry...what happens in their bedroom and behind their door has nothing to do with me and they should enjoy the same rights as I.
        Also...marrying your dog is just an obserd comment and having multiple "wives"...not legal, but hey if you want to live that way, more power to you and her and her and her...again, it isn't going to effect me unless you become a deadbeat dad having to support the multiple kids that are brought into the world with that kind of relationship.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          They have exactly the same rights as everyone else.

          1. caravalhophoto profile image60
            caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No they do not...not in California or many other States...the people here unfortunetly changed the constitution to take away their "same" rights.  It is not a "legal union".

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Perhaps THAT is where all the energy and effort should be focused, rather than on attempting to force society to accept a definition of 'marriage' that the great majority do not hold. This is all similar to the whole 'health care' mess in that certain parties are trying to force the country to look at a deer and call it a horse instead of focusing on the smaller battles they could reasonably expect to win.

        3. TMMason profile image61
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Hypotheticals lose you huh?

          The fact is they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like me and you and anyone else.

          thats is a fact.

          As far as civil unions go. I did not say they were equal to a marriage. I said they could go get one, and it wouldn't bother me.

          Apearently. I was not clear enough.

          So where are we?...

          We all have the right to marry another of the opposite sex. Everyone equally. That is just a FACT of this debate. Gay and lesbians have the same rights as us in regards to marraige.

          1. caravalhophoto profile image60
            caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            We all have the right to marry the opposite sex, that is not the issue...the issue is, should they have the right to marry the same sex, that is what gay/lesbian unions are...same sex marriage and they do not have the right.  If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

            I hope I made my point clear enough.

    2. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      How many everyone elses are there?

  33. caravalhophoto profile image60
    caravalhophotoposted 13 years ago

    Seriously...I think everyone has the right to be miserable!

    1. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Cara you seem nice so I'll say this again:

      straightman + straightman= no
      gayman + gayman = no
      gayman + straightman = no
      straightman + gayman = no
      gayman + woman = yes
      straightman + woman = yes

      Whats not equal?

      1. caravalhophoto profile image60
        caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Not quite understanding your question...but I guess what you are saying is marriage should be between a man and a woman...
        I'm saying, "marriage" is the right of all humans...straight or gay/lesbian...a "Civil" Union is not a "legal Marriage", they are not given the same rights...how is that equal?

        NO ON PROP 8 or as known here Prop H8!

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          The point is they have exactly the same rights. Gay marraige will never fly if I have a say.

          1. rhamson profile image73
            rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What are your reasons for this position?  Is it legal, religious or social that you take this stnce?

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Mostly religious/social but I don't want marraige to be ruined and the role of the traditional family damaged. Rights I'm ok with but attacking marraige and religion, not so much.

              1. rhamson profile image73
                rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I don't see a problem with marriage rights for the gays but don't you agree that there are currently some rights reserved for heterosexuals only by the use of the word marriage?

          2. caravalhophoto profile image60
            caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You are contridicting yourself..."they have exactly the same rights" then you say "gay marriage will never fly if you have your say"

            Nothing equal about that...and really, how does anyone else's relationship, outside of you and your wife's, effect you?  It doesn't!  That is my point!

            People are people, regardless of sex, race, religion or sexual preference...it will be a long uphill battle for gays/lesbians to have the same rights, just like it was for black/whites/oriental mixed races to marry... way back before my time. 

            Point is Sneako, rights have been stripped from them here in Calif. one of the most liberal States, I believe because of the way the Prop. was written...the laws have changed and they Do Not have the right to marry. No equality there...nada!

            I am not a lesbian, friends-yes, family-yes and their relationships have lasted longer than my two marriages combined.  What does that say?  Maybe because I have the right to marry, I take it for granted...possibly.  Again, my marriages or divorices did not effect you...so what is the real concern?  God does not approve?...again, I will not be judged on others choices, and as long as God is being taken out of our Courts, Classrooms and many people find not going to Church no big deal, God should not be an excuse for a decision that does not effect you!

            Thanks for the debate. wink

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Then you have to support polygamy, incestuous marriages, etc.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No he doesn't!
            Supporting legalization of gay marriage implies nothing about polygamy, incest, pedophilia or bestiality. Support for gay marriage is perfectly consistent with opposition to them.

            1. TMMason profile image61
              TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              He is also basing his response on some comments earlier. If we allow gay marriage. Than why not poligamy?

              It is just as valid of an argument, and in some peoples opinions poligamy is less an issue than homosexual marriage.

              So if it is alright for homosexuals, then why not all others who want to marry anyone, or any amount of a variety of people?

            2. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Yes he does.

              1. caravalhophoto profile image60
                caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                No she doesn't...I'm not an idiot, I am not into giving rights to people who prefer animals or children over two consenting adults...please do not put words in my mouth and you need to stick to the forum question instead of coming up with these ridiculous scenerios that have nothing to do with the question.  Children, animals polygamy, beastiality have nothing to do with gay/lesbian marriage.

                1. dejajolie profile image60
                  dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  @ Cara I'm with you some people can't see the forest for the trees, or in this case another view because they haven't washed their own window in a while..... TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, meaning a legal relationship is in no way shape or form the same as beastiality, and pedophilia which are ILLEGAL thus the main difference!

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes they do.

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Please explain. There have been no proposals to legalize any of these deviant behaviors, nor are there likely to be. There is widespread support for equal rights for gays and lesbians, either by legalizing their marriage or providing for equal rights through civil union.

              2. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                People who would do such things are not human? He specifically said that ""marriage" is the right of all humans."

                1. TMMason profile image61
                  TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  And if that "human" wants to marry an animal? It is his Right,... right?

                  Or what about child brides? Are they going to be lagalized also?

                  It is a very slippery slope to tread.

    2. TMMason profile image61
      TMMasonposted 13 years ago

      "We all have the right to marry the opposite sex, that is not the issue...the issue is, should they have the right to marry the same sex, that is what gay/lesbian unions are...same sex marriage and they do not have the right.  If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

      I hope I made my point clear enough."

      Unfortunatly. That is the issue. Whether or not a class of people should have a specail right. Over and above all other rights. NO they should not.

      They have the same right to marry as us. And then what about after they can marry. What if some want to marry a man and a woman? Is that alright? Again where does it stop.

      Specail rights should not be alloted to any group based on any difference of sexual orientation, religion, non religion, skin color, etc.

      And really... "that is what gay/lesbian unions are...same sex marriage" You don't say.

      Exactly my point. No one, has the right to marry someone of the same sex.

      We all have the same right in regards to marraige. Don't try to turn this into an albatross of a debate. The point is equality under the Law, and they have it.

      1. caravalhophoto profile image60
        caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        The question in the forum is should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?...that is the debate...and yes they should and they do not have the right to marry into a "same sex marriage"

        I understand your opinion and your hypotheticals...they really did not lose me...your opinion is "same sex marriage" is a no...I'm saying it really is no one's business, it is not affecting you or your marriage, nor is it affecting me...so why the big deal.  Family tradition...man/woman...again every household makes their own family and traditions, you mold your children to know what is right and wrong, you teach your children morals and values, you teach or don't your children about God...that is family tradition and your traditions do not agree with others...that is a your choice, supporting other peoples views and their choice in their lifestyle shows an open mind.  Gays/Lesbians are not asking for "special rights", they are asking to be married and have the same rights as other married couples...that they do not have.  And again, in Ca...the constitution was changed to exclude their rights.  That is what Prop.8 is about.

        1. TMMason profile image61
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          "The question in the forum is should gays/lesbians be afforded equal rights?...that is the debate...and yes they should and they do not have the right to marry into a "same sex marriage"

          1- Marriage for one is not a "RIGHT".

          And I know you will all hit the roof about that. But all our Arguments are flawed. A right is inherant, a liberty is endowed.

          So?... We are all off to begin with.

          Now...

          I have the RIGHT to be with anyone I want, be they man, woman or other. But! I do not under the law, have the ability to marry anyone I want. And that is the same for all of us. We all have to marry the opposite gender. It is the law. And the carrying out of it, and implimentaion of said law, is equally applied throughout the stratus of society.

          No one has the liberty, (Right), to marry same sex. Exactly the point you keep ignoring and saying isn't right. No one. As in all of us cannot do that. So that is equal in its implimentation.


          Also. There is a danger in alotting a place of normality and acceptance to an abhorrant life style. I do not condone bad choices because someone else says it okay they don't care.

          And I happen to believe a "Traditional family" is the best enviroment for raising children. Not. In an atmosphere of acceptance practice, and normalization of an abhorrant behaviour.

          I don't like people giving kids heroin either. but because a junky says, "it is okay I do it, so it is normal". Then that makes it okay?

          That is absurd.

          We accept behaviours, and disallow other behaviours all the time in life, and this is no different. We do this because they do affect upon society as a whole. And in that affect, they do affect on us all.

          You don't create an establishment of sanctity, and socail acceptance and condonement for such behaviours as that. if you want to do something the greater majority of society does not accept, fine. But that doesn't mean anyone has the right to validate said behaviours and push them into society as normal.

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          You can't say it's no one's business when it is in fact a public contract. It is by definition the business of the state. Living together, sleeping with whomever may be no one's business, but marriage is a matter larger than the people directly involved.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That's true. Marriage and civil unions involve a variety of important legal issues such as divorce, alimony, child custody, taxation, inheritance and so forth.

          2. caravalhophoto profile image60
            caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Please elaborate...I don't know you or your life...your marriage is none of my business as mine is not yours.  You didn't have to help pay to raise my kids, I did that.  You didn't pay my mortgage or put food on my table, nor did you put clothes on my back or that of my children...how is that different from a gay/lesbians marriage?  Because their sexual preference is different than yours, you think you will need to support them somehow...they are beyond making a family and home for themselves.  Because they are gay/lesbian they are less responsible...I find those thoughts to be very close minded and just plain ridiculous.  It may be a public contract...but the public isn't involved directly in my daily life as I'm sure not in yours

            1. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Yes we are! And you're scaring us!

            2. profile image0
              sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Yes we are and your scaring us!

            3. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              Of course they are. They are both matters relating to our same government.

              1. caravalhophoto profile image60
                caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I do everything possible to keep big brother out of my home, kind of like minding my own business.  Government just has a record I am married, it is not an open door to camp on my couch...it is a piece of paper...period!

                1. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Wrong. It is a contract that is validated and enforced by the power of the government that represents both of us.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Sarah Palin

    3. prettydarkhorse profile image56
      prettydarkhorseposted 13 years ago

      yes yes and yes

    4. Flightkeeper profile image64
      Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

      That's what I was thinking in some other thread TK.  Once the government is in the business of civil unions, there will be all sorts of alternative arrangements that will want to be recognized and I'm wondering how they will handle it.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Not unless supported by a majority which is unlikely.

    5. Uninvited Writer profile image78
      Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

      We are talking about two consenting adults marrying. It has nothing to do with polygamy, child brides or animals. Bringing up such arguments is ridiculous. There are separate laws against those practices, homosexuality is legal.

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, we also have sodomy laws or at least we did.

        1. profile image0
          pgrundyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Repealed, even in Indiana--My birthplace, and the only southern state north of the Mason Dixon line. smile

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Im sorry Pam and with all due respect, what!?

      2. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        There is no law against one man living with several women (or vice versa).

        1. caravalhophoto profile image60
          caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Your right on that one...many women can live with one man an vice versa...but there is law that 1 man can not marry more than 1 wife...polygamy and bigamy are illegal...again has nothing to do with the question on hand.

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            And in every state where the people have been allowed to vote on the matter they have expressed their will to have laws against homosexual marriage.

            Seems kinda similar.

      3. dejajolie profile image60
        dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        EXACTLY!

    6. glendoncaba profile image76
      glendoncabaposted 13 years ago

      I tried to wade through all the pages but too much.  Did someone try to look at the source of ethics.  Despite the predominant secular culture Westerners view Christian Bible (read God) as the source of family ethics.

      And I'm not seeing enough of a strong ethical argument.  The standard for marriage is the Bible, as taught by the Creation story.

    7. tjmatel3 profile image61
      tjmatel3posted 13 years ago

      I will begin by saying that gays and lesbians should be loved and respected for how they choose to live. None of us has a right to judge them for who they are or what they do in the privacy of their homes.

      On the other hand, my personal belief is that the main purpose of copulation is for reproduction. Gay intercourse does not reproduce seeds and therefore I believe it goes against nature. Consequently, if some people wish to indulge in gay/lesbian behavior, that's their business.  However, I do not believe we should change some things to accommodate that lifestyle of choice. Hence, marriage should remain man and woman. Also, since gay intercourse cannot produce children, I do not believe that children should be placed with gay couples.

      These are my humble opinions to which I am entitled - I might add.  For the question of natural v unnatural, the Bible answers that in Romans 1, reading from about verse 15.

    8. Uninvited Writer profile image78
      Uninvited Writerposted 13 years ago

      So, how do straight couples who can't, or don't want to, have children fit into this then?

      I shouldn't get into these threads, they always end the same. What the Bible says should have absolutely no say in the laws of a country.

      And like others say, just because they can get married too does not take anything away from others who are married. Do you think just because you are in a marriage between a man and a woman that you are superior?

      1. caravalhophoto profile image60
        caravalhophotoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with the first part of your question.

        The second part however, our laws were built on the word of the Bible and it saddens me that God has been taken out of our courts and classrooms, that is why I believe God should not be brought back into our laws and used as a convenience, this marriage debate.  Either put him back in our court rooms ie: swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help you God.  Keep God in our National Anthem and on our money...but using God at will is just plain sad.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Wow! Our first double Sarah Palin.

      2. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Theres a right and wrong, it's like you don't hammer with a set pliers because it's wrong. You can if you want to but it's still wrong. If you pound that nail in with those pliers their still pliers even if you call them a hammer. "You can put kittens in the oven but that don't make them biscuits!"

        1. Colebabie profile image59
          Colebabieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          So even though I may not be able to have children. Even though my ovaries don't work properly, I shouldn't even try?

          1. TMMason profile image61
            TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Your ovaries, are still ovaries, you are still a woman. That is the point. A gay man is not a woman. No matter how much he wants to be, or claims he is. And the same for a woman who wants to be a man.

            That is the point.

            1. Colebabie profile image59
              Colebabieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              There is no point there.

              1. TMMason profile image61
                TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                You talk about him ignoring issues and questions.

                That is the issue. Wanting to be something doesn't make it so. or acceptable.

                1. Colebabie profile image59
                  Colebabieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I really want to have a family. Doesn't make my ovaries work any better. And what is acceptable is obviously different to you than to me.

            2. dejajolie profile image60
              dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              so all Gay men want to be women, Get a clue!

              1. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I didn't know that! Where did you read it?

              2. TMMason profile image61
                TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Don't twist what I say to your confabullated logic.

                No where in my posts do I say all gay men or woman want to be the other. Read right, or dont bother reading at all.

                1. dejajolie profile image60
                  dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  "A Gay man is not a woman. No matter how much he wants to be" Translation-Gay men want to be women-INCORRECT

                  Just because you use big words doesn't make you smart, or make your opinion stronger.......Wow, if only closed minds came with closed mouths!

                  1. profile image0
                    sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Are you open to civil unions without marraige?

                    1. TMMason profile image61
                      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes.

                      It, you, are incorrect. Go back to the posts the topic started on. You will see I was speaking about a metaphore used by another.

                      If you took it as, "all". I am sorry for the confusion. But you should not read half of a discussion and speak on it without understanding the begginings of it.

                      And I have yet to use any, "really", big words. So attacking me personally, and my intellience, shows your true motives here.

                      And that would be: Just to start an argument.

                      And yes. Also. On your question. I am open for civil unions. I have stated that all throughout my posts. You may want to go back and read them.

                      Bye now.

                    2. dejajolie profile image60
                      dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Hey Sneako-I am open to either, I just don't think it affects me or my quality of life in any way, silly me. I'm neither Gay (have Gay friends) or Married (have married straight friends, lol) and when/if I do get married I still don't think Gay couples getting married/civil union will affect me. I DO however understand it is the "marriage" term that really upsets those against it so "civil union" it is. I just don't see why they shouldn't be allowed the same rights that a married straight couple has (benefits, ownership rights, parental rights, etc.) I have bigger fish to fry in my life than this

    9. Ms.Lavae profile image60
      Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years ago

      Of course they should i don't see why not.
      I feel as though in life everyone has choices and preferences. If one's preference is diffenrn't then yours who are you to judge.
      In all actuallity if you don't like the idea of being with the same sex then good for you no one's asking you to be gay but not everyone is like that.

      Everyone should def have the same rights no matter who there married to .


      And the thing about the military, it's so dumb because how can someone's partner define how they will perform. If people really beleive that this makes a differnce in how someone can give back to their country then they are straight up and down idiotic.

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Do you really think that's all there is to it?

        1. TMMason profile image61
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes they do.

          It is all about over simplification. They say, "but it is only about this. The veneer, the glossy top. But they don't want to dig and dredge out the consequences of these things.

          It is all so simple and easy, we should just do it.

          yeah right!

        2. Ms.Lavae profile image60
          Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Yes i do if being gay doesn't effect how you perform then get over it. It's not that serious and it's sad that their's people who don't feel the same.

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hmmm...so, do you think that serving effectively in the armed services is just about how well one person is physically capable of performing?

            1. Ms.Lavae profile image60
              Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              no what im saying is ones partner doesn't define there capabilities in the army point blank.


              For ex: There's ppl that are secretky gay in the service and they fufill there duties the same or better then others. So what does there sexual preference have to do with anything
              ?

              1. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                And if they were not 'secretly' gay, what might change?

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Nothing would change other than they would not be constantly in fear of being outed. Homosexuals serve openly in the military in many if not most other countries. And of course they are in every occupation in the civilian work force. The notion that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would disrupt the mission is false. The same false arguments were made against Truman's decision to integrate the military service long ago.

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Have you asked anyone serving in the military about that? If you can't, just try thinking about it practically instead of ideologically for a minute. Whatever the conclusion, it's not the simple matter some would make it out to be in order to promote their political agenda.

                    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                      Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Doing the right thing is never simple.......

                      Wait, actually it is.

                    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes, I have. I served 8 years in the military. How about you? And my arguments are both practical and "ideological." Why don't you elucidate what you think the "practical" arguments are?

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Nothing, obviously.

            2. Ms.Lavae profile image60
              Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              When your in the military the goal is to serve your country point blank. So what does being gay have to do with that. Nothing, it's no different then a straight person. And for anyone who thinks it's anymore then that is crazy.

              Again if your homophobic that's your problem, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean the other side shouldn't be treated equally. Everyone should be treated equal. And should just agree to disagree.

              1. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                *sigh*

                Again, this is all ideology and NO practicality.

              2. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                No, we shouldn't agree to disagree on important issues. We should discuss them in a reasonable, logical, dispassionate manner and we shouldn't fall back on 'code words' meant to preclude any such discussion.

                1. topgunjager profile image60
                  topgunjagerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  that's really funny coming from you, you using logic, wow, total mind blow, why don't you scroll up and back and read everything you said=)

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    Ok, I did. And?

                    1. topgunjager profile image60
                      topgunjagerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>

                2. Ms.Lavae profile image60
                  Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Again this is not important. If you think this is really that important then you have to much time on your hands, to worry about who someone other person is having sex with.

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                    The effectiveness of our armed forces is not important? Perhaps THE most essential social structure is not important? People may have differences of opinion about it, but it surely is important.

                    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                      Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Obviously the effectiveness is important, and it has been damaged by the moronic and unfair policy of  forcing many talented people with scarce skills, e.g. Arabic language, out of the military.

    10. dejajolie profile image60
      dejajolieposted 13 years ago

      All men are created Equal, I think we are forgetting that, it doesn't say "All Straight Men are created Equal". Equal Rights Period, there is no Gray Area!

      1. TMMason profile image61
        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        It all has to do with the normalization of immoral behaviours.

        Deviant acts will become less and less deviant. The more we normalize deviancy.

        It is simple math.

        Muslims can marry 9 year old girls in some Islamic countries. As exemplified in the actions of Mohhammud. ( His favored wife Aisha, she was married to Mohhammud at 6 and he consumatted the marraige with her when she was nine.) So? If it is their "Right" under their religion. Then why shouldn't it be accepted here.

        ANSWER; Because we find it to be deviant and immoral.

        So we don't allow it. If we allow immorallity to pass as normality. Then why not all sexual behaviours. Has the left ever stopped at what they claim to want? NO! they haven't.

        That is why this immoral behaviour is taught as normal and natural to our children in schools across this nation.

        What about the poor Hookers also? Shouldn't they be allowed to sell thier bodies. It is their choice. Correct? Two adults, whats the harm?

        The moral decay of society, is what the harm is.

        And it is a valid concern for all.

        It is more than just they have a suppossed, "Right", to behave that way, and normalize it through an institution such as marriage.

        It is about Morals and valid behaviours that we should reenforce, and immoral behaviour that should not be reenforced in society.

        We cannot dumb the question down to a matter of the legalization of marriage between two people of the same sex. It is a much larger issue than that.

        We are talking about the curruption of our children's moral selves. The N.E.A., the A.C.L.U., and other leftist orgs. Have tried for years to strip parents of their rights to raise their children with the morals they see fit. Decades of teaching immorallity as normal, and acceptable behaviour has gone on.

        And this is where it has all got us too. Debating it, "Homosexuality", ands same sex marraige, as if it is actually a, "Normal" thing.

        -(and actually the left is winning. We dont even debate the morallity of Homosexuality now. We skip right to same sex marraige, as if all the rest has been settled.)-

        My country is lost to leftist immorlalltiy and Dionysian Humanism.

        Nietzsche. Would be laughing his ass off at us.

        And before all the Leftists hit the roof about conservatives. I have been a registered Independent since I enlisted in the Military at 17.

        And I vote for the person. Not the party.

      2. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Yes there is.

        1. dejajolie profile image60
          dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Says who? "The White Knights".............Need I say more, don't hide behind your hood!

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I don't have a hood.

    11. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 13 years ago

      It seems relatively clear from reading these comments that younger people, no matter what political affiliation, seem to favor equal rights, while the elderly, likewise regardless of political party, are against equal rights.

      As they say, the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.

      1. TMMason profile image61
        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Again. We all have equal Rights. This discussion, or question, is about specail, or additional, "Rights", for individuals.

        And I agree with you on your, younger Vs older remark. And we can thank the N.E.A. for demolishing the rights of parents to raise their children with the morality they define as correct.

        Religous freedom still exists. Believe it or not.

        Also.

        As I have stated, and others have said. We, the American people, have voted in numorous states in regards to this matter. And have stated in those votes. That we do not accept it.

        And I hate to say this. but all individual's thoughts in regards to differing matters, change as they grow older.

        Many of us see things differently now then when we were 16, 21, 28, 35.

        It is just a fact of life.

        I believe with age and experience comes a more knowledgable understanding of the reasons things are as they are.

        We have morals for a reason.

        Whether or not your religous. Most people have a moral bearing in life, and that changes, or re-affirms with the years. For most I have seen, it changes. And becomes more in line with the biblical morals presented in the bible.

    12. Colebabie profile image59
      Colebabieposted 13 years ago

      Denying yourself, and who you are may lead to "deviant acts". Knowing who you are and being happy does not.
      Throughout history there have been times when society believes an act is "deviant" now we look upon them and think it is ridiculous. Because it wasn't the person being deviant, it was society being judgmental.

    13. Ms.Lavae profile image60
      Ms.Lavaeposted 13 years ago

      It's basic common sense anyway you put it if being gay doesn't apply move aside and move on with your life. This shouldn't even be an issue.



      It's just like choosing what your going to eat. if you don't like hamburger then eat chicken. How can anyone tell you what's right to eat and what's not.

      People in this world get so hung up on things that are not important. and has nothing to do with them.

      Equal rights for all no matter what.

      1. TMMason profile image61
        TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        All our rights are equal now.

        No Specail rights for anyone. That is the way it should be. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

        We are all equal now.

        And your another who doesn't look at the big picture.

        Immorality is in itself destructive to society. That is a fact you cannot dismiss. Everyone needs to stop simplifying this issue. It is larger that same sex relations and marraige.

        It is normalizing abhorant behaviour as acceptable.

        That is unacceptable. And a majority of the American People agree.

      2. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Except for people who shorter than 5'2" their too little to be real people.

    14. profile image56
      songsterposted 13 years ago

      unions are the only way to defeat the man the boss the head honcho the corporate dictators, together we stand divided we fall. civil or uncivil its all the same blue collar meat in the corporate sandwich! stand up and be counted!

      you are way off son, i said way off!

      i'm going for a Mcnugget sandwich in McAmerican BigMac murder mall.

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Are you ok?

    15. profile image56
      songsterposted 13 years ago

      ya

    16. profile image0
      reeltaulkposted 13 years ago

      Of course--Everyone should have equal rights......and because equal right doesn't fairly exist, there's racism,  amongst a whole heap of other disasters.  The system is just set up that way and some of us deal with it while others can't.

      1. dejajolie profile image60
        dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

        Hi reeltaulk, for your own sanity, don't even bother you'll come to find out in these forums those with the loudest voices come from the school of....

        "If it aint White it aint right"
        "If it aint' Straight I must debate"
        "If they're not Republic they must be dealt with"

        *Trudging off to read your Hubs now, certainly must be more entertaining/educational than this* Good Luck

        1. TMMason profile image61
          TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          There is a perfect example of how no ones opinion can be right except yours. And the red herrings thrown into arguments to belittle the other's opnions. Not all white who oppose AA and same sex marraige are racists. Or republicans, which I am not.

          Talk about closed minded.

          So grow up.

          And I am moving on. I won't sit around till this degrades into a name calling match. Have a good day hubbies. Ahhh no pun intended.

          1. dejajolie profile image60
            dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Didn't put anyone into "one category" you did and you got upset, AHHHH some truth in it.... a little?

            1. TMMason profile image61
              TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

              "those with the loudest voices come from the school of....

              "If it aint White it aint right"
              "If it aint' Straight I must debate"
              "If they're not Republic they must be dealt with"

              What do you call that above. Duh!

              And I happen to have recognized my error, as was pointed out by cole, and apologized to the only person on here that deserves to be.

              Ohh. there I go generalizing again. Sorry Cole.

              1. dejajolie profile image60
                dejajolieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Exactly that's three categories, not one.....and there's more where that comes from.... Try writing more Hubs since you have so much time on your hands

                1. TMMason profile image61
                  TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Your too funny,....hahahaha. You have a good nite now.

    17. profile image56
      songsterposted 13 years ago

      i read that statistically according to the polls most of americans are way to the left of both parties.

    18. profile image56
      songsterposted 13 years ago

      ya, everyone cheer up and chill out.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)