"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."
"...The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional..."
here is just one of the points from the article, that I would like to try and focus on...there are others, but one at a time is all I can do because i am still working on this issue as well. Not because I am homosexual, but because it is important for people to sort out.
The definition of equal is what I am focused on now. and I can only speak to what I have learned from conservatives throughout my lifetime. I choose to not call myself conservative or liberal, or label myself as any one thing particularly because i am still working on what is truth of equality.
so, i know at this point in time that there are two levels of equality in general/broad terms and the spectrum between the two.
There is divine equality, the concept, to me, that all souls are ultimately one with the creation and creator, at their divine level of true self.
Then there is human equality, the broad spectrum of variances of humanity's manifestations as compared to the perfection of the divine.
Humanity being all over the board with their degree of perfection, says to me that if a soul is truly seeking the divine state of oneness with the creator and creation, than there is equality between that soul and any other soul.
so i guess it is how one defines the creator and the creation as perfect and how one defines love in the human realms that makes the difference.
so honestly at this point in time, I have to admit that i have a sense that homosexuality is not of the perfection of the creator, as are the many other forms of human imperfections.
because i believe that life is the mandate for humanity's role in creation, because homosexuality cannot produce life (through pro-creation), it is not according to the divine ultimate universal laws...
BUT because all souls are somewhere along the spectrum of their seeking of oneness with the creator and creation, it is no less imperfect than any other human imperfection, but just another example of souls seeking that oneness.
hence heterosexual marriage being the means, the closest divine universal lawful means, to creating life, marriage cannot be redefined to imply that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage...even though, I do believe that the love and relationship aspects of hetero and homo sexualities are all important.
i guess it is just the belief in those ultimate divine universal laws that makes the difference, but it is also the compassion of loving others no matter where they are along the spectrum makes the difference, too.
i think and feel it is wrong to expect the divinely ultimate laws of our constitution to change to redefining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman (naturally born that way)
BUT, that it is humanly lawful to leave others alone in how they want to live their lives' relationships...it needs to be up to the states and the people therein to decide for their local populations as to changing laws...but up to the individual people and groups (businesses and such) to decide whether they want to offer monetary things, ie insurance and hospital rights to see their partner and share their insurance policies, etc...
I honestly am not judging one soul's desires over another's, and I can honestly say to any homosexual soul that they are equal in my eyes to me. We are just at different places on the spectrum, and I could no more expect you to appreciate fully where I am than I can appreciate fully where you are.
but that brings up all other kinds of notions of needing to protect children and their conscience and sexual rights from abuses by adult age homosexuals...and on and on with other issues...
I hope I have said it all in words that expresses my genuine love and belief in human equality
but maybe I am not like some others that can't find that love and vision of human equality as being on the road toward understanding divine equality. I understand my place as being divine, and I understand my place as being humanly imperfect.
and I love everyone
But by that standard, why should we recognize the marriage of two elderly people (if it occurs when the woman is past the childbearing years) or two knowingly infertile people, and entitle them to be recognized as life partners in matters such as health insurance and hospital visitation rights? Why shouldn't hospitals be allowed to make up their own minds about whether the wife in our hypothetical late-life marriage should be allowed to site with her dying husband the way you suggest they should be able to decide the final visitors of a gay man or lesbian woman?
ETA: Aargh, we can't quote anymore? "That standard" refers to your statement that heterosexual and homosexual marriage should not be considered equal because homosexual unions cannot produce children except by artificial means.
You're under the delusion that sodomy and other homosexual activities are "conservative" values.
Or typically, trying to change the definitions of words, as so many liberals do these days.
So gay women should be able to marry each other then? Seeing as they do not sodomize each other.
Well - that is half the battle I suppose.
Good for you. Very well done - I am surprised. Now see if you can help sooner than later work out his issues with fears of gay men.
You must've overlooked the words "other homosexual activities", ....which, actually, aren't all specifically homosexual, but which are of course "made" into a vile act by the fact they're performed by same-sex people on each other.
Vile? What is morally despicable about oral sex exactly? Where are you getting your "conservative values" from? I know plenty of conservatives who like oral and anal sex.
But - now you seem to be saying it is not the acts per se, but the fact that they are performed by same sex people on each other. Did I get that right? Anal sex is OK as long as it is man/woman. Oral sex is OK as long as it is not girl/girl.
Luckily - you are not allowed to judge or have an opinion on other people - are you?
Yes father. Thanks for setting the moral standard for man kind.
My pleasure. Good to see you working out your fears of gay men by the way. Well done.
We are here for you when you want to come out. It is OK.
Fears? I think its agressions. Now you were saying you.. I mean many enjoy anal sex? This isn't one of those "hey I have a friend who enjoys this sort of thing" conversations is it? I feel like it is.
The classic North American phrase "I'm not going to go there" seems in order here
I wasn't actually casting aspersions at Mark; it just sounded humourous the way it was worded (am I living in a parallel universe? The same thing just happened to me on Facebook!)
If you'll look, I said they "aren't ALL specifically homosexual" acts.
And yes, oral sex, and even anal sex, are okay between two MARRIED, STRAIGHT people.....IF they BOTH agree to it willingly.
That's a big IF for many people, especially anal sex of course.
eeek. I think the later puts a mark on the beast. haha. I wouldn't do it.
yeah. Well, it's, by definition, just plain unsanitary and nasty too; that's why I can't imagine very many people actually being happily in agreement with that kinda life.....but oh well.....I don't like to think about it really.
And yet you bring it up constantly. As SJ said, this thread is about gay marriage, not sex. Maybe you can discuss your fixations with gay sex with a psychologist.
But indeed gay "marriage" proponents are promoting a subject that IS about sex.
It most certainly is NOT about love.
Very funny--not. I don't have a fixation about gay sex. I am just tired of it being forced upon this nation, touted as "right", and so sick of the push to legalize it. I guess gay proponents had the happy-but-false notion that if they whine loud enough and long enough, the conservative community would just clam up and never voice our opinions, huh?
You really don't get it at all. Sad.
Hmmm, by *definition*?
What about the millions of heterosexuals who do not have a problem with homosexuality. We are not all homophobes simply because we are not gay!
You gay bashers are sick and ignorant.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Medicine and science knows this, the homophobes are ignorant by choice to support the beliefs of their sky fairy!
You make an excellent case....it'll never happen.
They can be legally together anywhere in the country. They are wasting time arguing over semantics. I think they should worry more about promoting support for a cure for AIDS. Additionally, in CA one of the major issues is that if they are allowed to use the term marriage then this would be one more bit of fluff that would be taught to kids in school. California is in the three lowest states when it comes to education. They need to spend every single minute on the basics and not have to worry about another bit of nonsense being thrown into the curriculum.
That is one concern in CA at any rate. Gays living together in a legal bond have more benefits than straight, single and divorced folks. I'd say it's a low priority issue compared to things like cancer, health care and AIDS.
Some people look upon gay marriage as a preventative measure for AIDS and other VD because it gives gays a sense of belonging and security that forms a reason not to be promiscuous, to settle for one partner only. Sure, heaps of heterosexuals are married but are also promiscuous...Even so, it still might help. It is worth a shot if nothing else.
You have sound arguments. The truth is that no matter what governments do against gays and against gay behavior it will keep on. That taken for granted, in order to stabilize society and give everyone the same sense of belonging and the same sense of stability maybe it is time the experiment of the gay marriage was tried. It could work.
In this country there's suppose to be a separation of church and state. A legal marriage is recognized when a license is issued. Who issues the license? The church or the state? To get any other kind of license, i.e. drivers, business, parade, etc., the state doesn't care if the applicant is gay or not. Why would a marriage license be any different? Like Rosanne once said, "If the idea of people of the same gender having sex bothers you, like any other marriage, give it a couple of months, it'll stop."
Your hub is interesting its positive to see in the last 10 years things are changing and we appear to be moving towards acceptance.
As a divorce solicitor in Australia it is very clearly apparent to me that there are significant problems in heterosexual marriages, differences in ideals, differences in basic instinctive masculine and feminine needs and desires (which appear to be taking longer to adapt to changes in society), horrific violence and mental abuse, and often the matching, although procreation can exist within the matching of males and females, is incredibly destructive. Often children of this mismatching suffer horrendous abuse.
Why did we ever need to create ideals or impose standards/certifications and judgements on how two people love each other. Is it as a result of societal ideals that many people run aground because they are not given the opportunity to explore their own uniqueness? Often people suffer depression because they can't live to impossible ideals they have inherited from their elders.
Why should Gay marriage be restricted if hetersexual marriage is condoned?
Can the love between two people exist irregardless of marriage? Why do we need marriage? Why is it important?
I aplaud livelonger for his/her well-reasoned and enlightened perspective. I wish other conservatives agreed. Marriage equality is a civil right deserved by all citizens. No one has the right to disciminate against gays, especially not on 'moral' grounds.
I would agree. I can understand religiously if people are against, but then from a Christian perspective, as from my hub, I don't subscribe to the knee jerk, negative response to gay unions/marriage. Civicly, they should have the same rights as anyone else, including adoption.
The whole issue is a non issue.
You either support the definition of Marriage as defined by our forefathers or you do not.
It's just that simple.
If you want to change the definition you do it under a consensus of the people.
When and if that consensus comes then it will change.
The current definition is based on a definition between two people that can biologically procreate.
One must be careful when they choose to defy or change the accepted wisdom that they do not open up a new can of worms.
What is to stop a movement to define marriage as that between any number of individuals?
Why not 2 men and a woman, or 2 woman and a man?
Polygamy was very common historically, including among the Biblical patriarchs, who often had both multiple wives and multiple concubines, and it is still practiced in a number of cultures today, most famously Islam and the FLDS.
It's not something I'd be interested in personally, but I don't see any logical reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal, as long as it occurs between consenting adults. In fact, legalizing it might make it easier to monitor groups like the FLDS who use the secrecy currently surrounding the practice to hide marriages to girls as young as 11 or 12.
Our forefathers were hardly infallible. They said all men were created equal except for slaves and women. Also, interracial marriages, aka "miscegenation," were illegal. Nobody is proposing marriages between two men and a woman or marriages between humans and animals so far as I know.
And who's definition of marriage is correct and why?
In my opinion marriage is an institution, build on a social contract and as such could involve mature individual of any sex, including SAME SEX
If procreation is your only "justification" for marriage, than women older than 42 should never get married. Right?
i believe the thread is about gay marriage...not sex
Ah, but the reality is that it really IS all about the sex. Christians who believe it is a choice are all bent out of shape about the sex, right? A person can feel love toward another person of the same sex and that's okay, but as soon as they act on it sexually, they're a sinner.
Isn't that what good Christians believe?
not being a "good christian" ( in some people's book) I wouldn't know...are you?
i know that is the literal line the Catholics draw
And honestly, that's something I don't wanna know about, when it comes to whether a married couple engages in oral or anal sex!
That's private and should stay private, especially if they're at ease with their sex life.
FINALLY you are getting the point! (eek)
At the risk sounding redundant. They already have the same rights as all others.
no, that is very true. I think they are at a point where they want everyone to agree with everything. While I would not hinder anybody from the same rights I expect, I will never agree. That is the strange part. The intolerance is on the other side.
I agree. They even teach it to our children as, "normal", behaviour in schools. Yes they are trying to make all accept their veiw only.
Yes, and I suppose those interracial couples who wanted to get married didn't respect the bigots' right to think their marriage was disgusting and undeserving of equal legal status, right?
I mean, why did interracial marriage have to be legalized - black and white people could already get married (to members of the same race, naturally, as God or Jesus or someone else probably commanded it somewhere in the Bible)
Planet Zarkon - AS, I like it.
In a normal world, this would be a knockout blow
There is no comparison of homosexuality to Race. that is absurd to even suggest.
I wouldn't know how things work on Planet Zarkon. Everything seems to run completely opposite to the way things work here.
Yes I am sure it does. But here on Earth we don't mis-understand the differences between race and sexuality.
Nope, you're on Zarkon. You may think it's Earth, but it's Zarkon.
Features of Zarkon:
- heterosexuals are an embattled minority, being persecuted by evil homosexual heterophobes
- homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals
- Christians are a tiny persecuted minority
- homosexuality is so appealing for all the extra rights and social status that it affords you, that many heterosexuals choose a homosexual lifestyle
- heterosexual relationships are only about love, while homosexual relationships are only about sex
Yep, you're on Zarkon, my friend.
At the risk of sounding intelligent: No they don't. Or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Spot on. Take a look at all the rights denied them!
Yes. They do.
They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. Same as all others.
Complete rubbish. Gays are denied all sorts of legal and human rights. Do some reading outside your bible!
They can have a civil union and be happy.
Not my problem. I can marry. lololol
Exactly. It's not your problem. So why do you care. Live and let live (for God's sake)
OKaaaay. and you care about this issue, because... (given, after all, it is not your problem)...
... and would deny others their rights based on their sexuality.
Not enough to spell it correctly, though.
How do you feel about divorce, then?
Marriage is already screwed...Better to care about actual people. Let the gay people get married, they might have better chances of staying together
Now that is SCARY!
Don't worry. Not in Australia
Thank dog for that!
Don't you mean Dingo (sorry; relying on British stereotypes of Australia.....)
How can they be happy with a bunch of laws that prevent it.
I would find it more sensible if people who are heartless and gutless about this were not allowed to marry!
Mental illness should not be allowed in marriage!
It doesn't freakin' MATTER if it is genetic or not. I thought America was the Land of the Free. Apparently not. Free means free to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others to be free. A lot of the people on this thread are crapping all over the American ideal without even realizing it... and I'm not even American!
Wikipedia is as good a starting point as any:
"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an … rientation
I don't see why the biology angle matters. I am not biologically gay. I really don't think a gay experience would 'do it' for me. Yet I should have the right to *have* a gay experience. And I should have the *right* to marry a man if I wanted to. The State has no right to know whether or not I am doing it for love, for sex, or because I am just a weirdo. The State has no right to come into my bedroom. Period.
yeah! Chuck and Larry were straight and they did it!
Since religion and law are *supposed* to have nothing to do with one another, there should be no question as to whether or not gay people should marry.
There is no such thing as a secular reason two people should not enter into civil union. The people who want to keep them from it are usually over-zealous hate-mongers.
We are not talking about happiness, or love.
We are talking about Marraige.
being that the thread is about marriage, it seems logical to look at it democratically and constitutionally, and not get all caught up in the desires and wishes of the sides
That looks like a husky to me.
Homosexuality is a choice, not genetic. No science shows it to be otherwise.
E. You do not have a. "Right", to be gay, straight or otherwise. You are a man, or a woman. You choose to be gay, or straight, mesochestic or missionary.
Get the point?
The point is that in "The Land of the Free" you should be "free" to have the "choice." Exactly
You are "free" to be with whoever you want.
And you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like me.
As I stated. I have no problem with equal rights under law, in a Civil Union.
You keep saying this. Do you not realize that civil unions are only allowed in some states, not all?
Yes I do. I vote in my state, not theirs. They can choose as they want.
But what I don't understand is what business it is of the state who marries whom... in other words, marriage, including for straight people, should be a private matter. What business is it of Government?
I know what you mean. And I don't dis-agree. But the discussion was about gay marriage.
But it is a related point. If marriage did not have to be sanctioned by the state, then anyone could have a ceremony, and become married, whether straight or gay, and then this whole debate would go away. (OK, wishful thinking, but I do wonder about this)
and so we come back round to the purpose of the thread, (I think?) which was why can't gay marriages occur so that gay people can have the same monetary privileges straight married people have...(was that the purpose of the thread livelonger?)
I am pretty sure that where I live even commonlaw spouses have the same rights as married people
You chose to be straight? Really?
I don't ever remember looking at someone and making a conscious decision to be sexually attracted to them. It just happens.
But either way, that's not the point. If someone believes in individual liberty, then that means they believe that all people *could* choose to be gay, or straight, or whatever, but that it is *their* *individual* choice. (though I agree, who chooses what gender they are attracted to...??? that's nuts)
Actually I think I have a slightly different question. Why does the government insist on intervening in marriage at ALL?
In other words, isn't this gross government interventionism?
Why do I as a straight person have to get permission from the State to marry someone? What business is it of theirs!
*jumps up and down for joy* It looks SO fun to get spit on, beat up, and killed for what I do in my bedroom...Yeah! I think I'll do that!
ETA: Yeah...I can imagine that happening.
And those who did that would go to prison for murder. What does that have to do with this discussion.
It means that given the current state of hatred, there is no really good motivation for *choosing* to be gay. It doesn't make sense.
There is evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, there is also evidence that conditions in the womb have an effect on it. You're a big boy, if you're interested in the truth, do the research yourself. I've done mine. In reality though, the origin of homosexuality and the question of whether or not acting on one's inherent homosexuality is sinful is irrelevant to this thread--which is secular in nature. Laws about marriage (which, on earth, can only amount to civil union anyway) should have no basis in such questions in the United States.
And as to sending the perps to jail: It doesn't really help the victims after the fact, does it? Best to teach people to be tolerant of one another.
There is no Science to support it. Isn't there.
And there is no rabid hatred of Homosexuals either. Mostly wer're just sick of their bitchin and whining, and want them to shut up and grow up.
It isn't hatred.
They have just given us a national headache.
Like petulant spoiled children. Playing with their mothers wardrobe and make-up, and screaming and hissying like their at a flaming lips concert.
Man. We have enough real issues to deal with in this country. They need to get over themselves already and go to disneyland.
It isn't hatred? What do you call it when high school students beat one of their own to death for something they *suspect*? What do you call it when everyone's favorite thing to say when they don't like something is "That's so gay". Perhaps you need to learn what love and hate are.
I'm not sure if you would accept decent science if it bit you on the butt; I am inclined to believe that you would not. The fact is that the truth could be staring you in the face, and you would refuse to see it.
If freedom in America isn't a real issue, I don't know what is.
I agree with your last sentence.
If it isn't an assault against straight people's freedom when we can't even say "that's so gay" about people who take PRIDE in BEING gay, without being accused, I don't know what is.
You're welcome to say it...and as some famous person said, I would defend your right to say it...but don't fool yourself about what it is: an indicator of culturally acceptable hatred--and don't expect me to believe it's anything other than that.
Hehehee. You have a point about the thought police being out there to get you these days if you say the wrong thing, but you know as well as anyone else reading this, that "That's so gay" means "That's not up to par, that's lame" etc.
But I am sure gay people would have no problem if you were permitted the right to say what you want on any topic (freedom of speech after all), but still accepted that the State has no right to EXCLUDE them from all the rights everyone else has.
52%? Are you talking about in one state? There has been no national referandum on it yet. But every state to vote it so far, says no. Even California.
lololol That speaks volumes.
Like I said Civil union is fine with me. Now go convince everyone else. I'll be right here.
So you'd be fine if the state stopped recognizing all marriages (this will never happen, but I mean, in theory)
If they don't recognize it, you don't get the benifits with it.
Well, as I say, I think that where I live commonlaw relationships have all the same benefits as marriages. You have to show you have a commonlaw relationship (occasionally) but there is no document for this. You might (rarely) have to show a home lease, for example, but otherwise...
Since when do gay guys or girls go to Flaming Lips concerts?
You lost me with that one!
In other countries conservative opinion saw and followed the argument made by the poster, just as they accepted female emancipation and incorporated it into conservative thinking (as the USA's conservatives also did, generally).
Much more than other industrialised countries- Germany, the UK, France- the US is affected by religion and the bigotries and prejudices that stem from it.
The conservatives in the USA are not pragmatic, nor moral but moralistic.
This will one day be their downfall, because they will be unable to adapt to inevitable social changes, one of those being the general acceptance of homosexuality as natural and harmless.
This was not an argument 20 years ago. The thought of homosexuals and lesbians marrying in a church or in front of a judge was asinine.
What we should do next is allow first cousins to marry. Afterall, no matter how sick it sounds or is, we should just allow anything as long as it does not hurt anyone.
Gay marriage is an abomination to God and the Bible. Yet I understand that Gay Christians and Gay Republicans exist.
Marriage is not marriage anymore. I sometimes wonder what else society will lose, no matter how absurd it is.
Which side are you on?
WoW, you can feel the hostilty in some of the replies from the turn the other cheek, love thine enemy christians..
So it's an abomination to god or whatever ...why does it have to be an enforceable law? That should be between god and the gays & lesbians not the general public. This is a moral issue, some in favor some not and should not be regulated by laws or politicians...Why should you care if they want to marry, it's not your life or your place to choose for them...Ralph's photos sum it up pretty well...Many religious folks seem to be the most hateful and judgemental of us all. GOD HATES FAGS....I'm sure he is very proud of those with the signs also!
Regardless of what the "law of the world" states....the Law Of God will prevail.....in His Word He states that a man lying with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong.....End of Story....What God states is the Law. This is what is wrong with the "world and all it's laws" they do not line up with the Word of God....
It will not matter soon what the "world" thinks, for because of it's rebellion against the Word, soon it will find itself in utter destruction....gee, can't you see it yet???? But you believe what you want to believe, Me and My house, we follow the Lord....find one place in the Bible which states that men are to be married to men and women to women.....It is not there....So why don't you just get it????
"What God states is the Law."
Fortunately, that's not true in the U.S. Sounds more like Afghanistan to me.
There really are several issues involved here.
The spiritual and religious concepts of marriage
And the legal, financial and practical concepts of marriage
and the emotional and ethical concepts of marriage
It is not equal or fair to force an employer to pay for certain benefits for a same sex couple, nor is it equal or fair to not give a same sex partner the legal/medical ability to make decisions for his/her spouse or not allow them to visit in a hospital, if that was their decision to want it.
it is not equal or fair for homosexuals to try and change the traditions of and definition of marriage as per anyones's religious and spiritual beliefs...they need to use a whole diffent word entirely to "own their own state of beleifs" and not try to take something away from someone else's...
it should not be about depriving/usurping anyone of their beliefs, homosexuals or heterosexuals...each need to have their own, and feel good about common values and not be concerned about the others morals...but that also means not force feeding one's agenda on the other as well...
the legal stuff should be the easiest to solve...the Constitution and Bill of Rights said nothing about marriage directly and distinctly, did they?
and if it did, what?
Not all Christians are hateful therefore should not be placed in the same category, one of my sister's are Lesbian and she is happily married to her partner so saying all if us run around with signs politically incorrect.
by Tom Cornett 12 years ago
Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.Which means...there will be far less progressive liberals in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to give...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by ga anderson 2 years ago
I have long had a problem with the extrapolation, from the principles of Conservatism, that the Conservative position resists all change and longs for the days of the past.I recently came across an essay that introduced, what I think is, a more accurate distinction—the Nostalgist. By definition,...
by Dan Harmon 9 years ago
Madelynn Taylor, of Boise Idaho, recently asked the veterans cemetery there to bury the ashes of her beloved with her in the cemetery when she passes. She was turned down because they were not married, could never have been married in the tolerant state of Idaho and thus cannot have those...
by secularist10 11 years ago
According to Gallup, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage:http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First … riage.aspxThe increase in Democrats' and Independents' support pushed it over the 50% mark.Other interesting points:This issue is highly divisive between left and...
by herrypaul 6 years ago
I just want to know: Do you agree with same-sex marriage or gay marriage?Marriage is sacred, God created Men and Women to be one flesh.If you agree, why? If not, why?
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.|