Why Are Church Marriages Legal, and Gay Marriages Not?

[Popwing]

In a country that was built on the distinction--if not separation--of the sate from the church, why are marriages bestowed by a chucrh held legal, but those that offend a church are not?

When asked, the primary reason that I have been given in opposition to gay marriages is that it is against God's law (or some variation to that same end).

My response is "So?"

We don't operate in this country under God's law, we operate based on a constitution which derives its power from the consent of the people, not from any deity or divine guidance.

I propose that if gay marriages are not legal, then neither should be catholic marriages, or evangelical, baptist, mormon, jewish, etc.

The only marriages that should be legally recognized in the US are civil marriages, and ANYONE of legal age should be allowed to enter into such a marriage, just as they would any other legally binding contract.

And BTW - I am not gay, but I am religious. Also, I am a firm believer in democracy and democratic values. Just so you know where my self-interests lie.

[Labrocca]

I am gonna move this to civil rights as it's lonely in there.

To answer your question...let me just quote George Washington.

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America. Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal."

[Elrathin]

To answer your question...let me just quote George Washington.


That's good and all, but Christianity is not the official religion of the U.S. therefore forcing everyone to follow it is uncontitutional. And yes, that includes denying marriages based on the fact Christianity views it as wrong.

[sbannon]

I find it odd that you would use Washington's words as a reply to this question Labrocca. He doesn't specify one religion over another, which is in keeping with a separation between Church and State.

He also speaks in a general broad sweeping manner which to me, seems more like saying people should seek their individual comforts from their faiths across the land, but he never comes close to saying it should be entwined in government in any way.

I just don't see this as any sort of ringing endorsement by Washington for Church views over non-Church views in civil law. So I have to ask what am I missing there?

[Popwing]

Let me jump back in and clarify this one bit - I realize that marriages performed in a church require a state license, and that the state is the recognizing authority, not the church.

However, in most states--if not all--a member of the clergy in good standing can officiate over the wedding ceremony, and must return the license, signed and dated, to the court for the marriage to be valid.

Why should a clergy member be allowed to perform ANY function that plays upon the legality of an civil arrangement?

We don't let priests preside over court cases, and we don't let them notarize documents, at least not in their sole capacity as a member of a church.

But we do allow them to act in regards to marriages. Why?

Let me ask another question - If the only way two people could get a legal marriage was to go down to the DMV, take a number, sign a paper and have a civil servant stamp their little card, would there even BE a debate in this country over gay marriage?

I mean, we don't care if gay people drive. Do we?

[AlonzoMourning23]

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America. Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal."

I'm pretty sure that's a reagan quote. In fact, it seems like three reagan quotes combined (though 2 of them were made in the same speech).

"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged."- http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganevilempire.htm

"The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America. Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal."-[quote]- http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/Commentary/Slosser_ReaganInsideOut.aspx

[Labrocca]

I got this from a site saying it was a GW quote. Either way...

The point I was making is that God and most religions sanction a form of marriage. It's an institution of humanity..inspired by God or not. Christianity or Judaism...doesn't matter. It's part of the world. It's as simple as a mating ritual. 2 men can't mate...it's just that simple as well. Sex and mating are 2 different things.

If gays want civil unions let them happen. The reason marriage is sanctioned for a man and woman by the state (government) is because it enhances society at large by mating 2 people to make more people. A society is FORMED...what kind of society will we have where 2 men or 2 woman marry? What ADVANTAGE is there?

Why do gays want the label marriage? That's what I want to know.

[Elrathin]

Why do gays want the label marriage?Â*Â*That's what I want to know.


Why label it marriage if there is no church involved? (i.e. Justice of the peace weddings). But we do anyway, so there is your answer.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I got this from a site saying it was a GW quote.Â*Â*Either way...

The point I was making is that God and most religions sanction a form of marriage.Â*Â*It's an institution of humanity..inspired by God or not.Â*Â*Christianity or Judaism...doesn't matter.Â*Â*It's part of the world.Â*Â*It's as simple as a mating ritual.Â*Â*2 men can't mate...it's just that simple as well.Â*Â*Sex and mating are 2 different things.

If gays want civil unions let them happen. The reason marriage is sanctioned for a man and woman by the state (government) is because it enhances society at large by mating 2 people to make more people. A society is FORMED...what kind of society will we have where 2 men or 2 woman marry?Â*Â*What ADVANTAGE is there?Â*Â*

Why do gays want the label marriage?Â*Â*That's what I want to know.


In our society marriage is not just about procreation. We have elderly, infertile etc. couples marry all the time.

Some homosexuals do have children, either through adoption or a previous partner.

But every religion defines marriage differently. And the state does not define marriage by religion. If it did then religions that allowed it would be able to perform it with legal recognition (that's not only the new religions, some older ones, like sikhism, often have no problem with it).

But there are a couple reason why they wan't the term marriage. One, is it is much more easily recognized, a civil union is not. A civil union in vermont will not guarantee the rights of the couple if they move to massachusetts.

Second, it's an equality issue. What would your opinion be of leaving the term marriage as a term for same race marriages only? Civil unions could be granted to interracial couples, but they would not be classified as marriages. Would you accept that?

[false_creeds]

In our society marriage is not just about procreation. We have elderly, infertile etc. couples marry all the time.

Some homosexuals do have children, either through adoption or a previous partner.

But every religion defines marriage differently. And the state does not define marriage by religion. If it did then religions that allowed it would be able to perform it with legal recognition (that's not only the new religions, some older ones, like sikhism, often have no problem with it).

But there are a couple reason why they wan't the term marriage. One, is it is much more easily recognized, a civil union is not. A civil union in vermont will not guarantee the rights of the couple if they move to massachusetts.

Second, it's an equality issue. What would your opinion be of leaving the term marriage as a term for same race marriages only? Civil unions could be granted to interracial couples, but they would not be classified as marriages. Would you accept that?


Take the vast minority of situations won't do your argument justice.

A tradition union between a man and a women is likely to lead to kids. Kids are what keeps the religion going and kids are what keeps a society and therefore a goverment going.

That is why one type of 'marriage' is seen as legit and the other isn't.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Some see it legit, some don't.

But we allow marriage when one partner is dying, infertile, old etc. A plethora of relationships are not only acceptable but celebrated when we know no child will emerge from it. For example, everything thinks its great when two 70 year olds marry. And spouses are often praised for sticking with their partner when they learn they can't have children.

But, you are still denying rights to homosexual families with children. And there are plenty of them like that.

Make it legal and the issue slowly dies. That's happening in both MA and canada. One of the biggest tools used by MassEquality to get state congressman on their side was simply to bring in same sex couples for them to meet. It converted multiple people. They're currently trying to get a marriage amendment to a public vote, but they need 25% of the state congressman to agree. They're struggling to do that.

This isn't an issue where people look back and say "that was a horrible decision". It's one where people look back and wonder why they wasted so much time fighting it.

[underdawg]

Lots and lots of gays are already living in committed monogamous relationships. They bought the house, the furniture, the dog, and some have been living together for many many years. Some even have children. The only they thing missing is the legality of it and the rights that come with the arrangement. It really doesn't have anything to do with whether they can produce children or not. Christians just plain don't like the idea of gays being labeled as married.

It is really naive to think that anything noticeable would happen it they did have a legal marriage. People are already living together as couples. They are already your neighbors. If people are worried that their child will see gay people as married and would want to do that himself, they already see them living together. If you are worried about that ole slippery slope, well those things are already happening. If someone wants to have sex with a sheep, a dead person or have more than one wife, well I am sure you can see examples of it happening already.

I think the only fear that Christians have is that if gay marriage becomes legal, it will be recognized by the government and they just can't stand the idea of it. They are one of the last groups that they feel free to be biased against. They can't be biased against blacks , or interracial marriage anymore, so the only thing they have left is the gays to kick around.

The church needs an enemy to focus on. If somehow gays are seen by the majority of people as normal, they will have to come up with some other group to keep down and label as evil. I think the church likes to play on people's prejudices. They like to focus on the difference between the us vs them. If gays are seem more and more as normal, it will be harder to convince the congregation that they are different and "evil".

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Church marriages are not legal, only civil marriage is legal (otherwise gays could get a church marriage and be legal).

Hope that clears it up for you!

[Labrocca]

I could care less what the state or anyone calls my marriage/union. If I was gay I would be happy that Civil Unions allowing all rights that marriage allow. And you can't tell me the term Civil Union isn't on the tongues of millions already. It was just take another popular gay TV show to bring it home.

In the end I think conservatives are gonna lose this battle. So I really don't put great effort into it.

[underdawg]

I wouldn't care what they call it either. A name is just a name as long as the rights are the same.

[AlonzoMourning23]

But civil unions present difficulties when you move from one place to another. Again, a couple who got a civil union in Vermont would not have the same rights in MA as a couple who got married in Ontario. A couple with a vermont civil union may get married in MA, but the civil union itself will not entitle them to marriage style benefits in MA.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

A name is just a name as long as the rights are the same.


Gays have the same rights as everyone else already.

[underdawg]

That is not exactly true. Some places it is still legal to discriminate as far as jobs and , housing. They should have the same rights, but in reality they don't yet.

[askates]

Yea here in Ohio you can still be discriminated against in your place of employment,
so since i live here , and that has happened,I definately dont have the same rights as you.

[sbannon]

I could care less what the state or anyone calls my marriage/union. If I was gay I would be happy that Civil Unions allowing all rights that marriage allow. And you can't tell me the term Civil Union isn't on the tongues of millions already. It was just take another popular gay TV show to bring it home.

In the end I think conservatives are gonna lose this battle. So I really don't put great effort into it.

It seems to me that true Conservatives aren't even fighting this battle in D.C., because it should be a State's Right to decide. This fight goes way too far into individual's personal matters for true Conservatives to accept it as something the federal government should be involved with.

Then again, there aren't many true Conservatives left in America these days.

[sbannon]

A name is just a name as long as the rights are the same.


Gays have the same rights as everyone else already.

Really, can your gay partner make medical decisions for you? How about handle your estate if you pass on? The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the point.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Really, can your gay partner make medical decisions for you? How about handle your estate if you pass on? The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the point.


What point? A straight "partner" has the same rights under any given set of circumstances as a gay "partner".

Partnership rights have no exception for sexual preference.

[Popwing]

Really, can your gay partner make medical decisions for you? How about handle your estate if you pass on? The list goes on and on, but I'm sure you get the point.


What point? A straight "partner" has the same rights under any given set of circumstances as a gay "partner".

Partnership rights have no exception for sexual preference.


But gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states. Hetero Partners have that choice. If they chose not to take that step, then they accept the consequences. Gays do not have that choice. Their future is forced upon them by others.

How is that fair, and how does that equate to equal rights under the law?

[wonder cow]

why are marriages bestowed by a chucrh held legal

No ceremony is necessary for a marriage to be legal, in most states.

What makes people married is issuance of a marriage license.

This is really not a separation of church and state issue.

[askates]

The fact that gay marriage is illegal, alone suggests that there is no seperation between church and state, I mean homosexuality is a matter of ethics. Ethics are a byproduct of religion.

[Popwing]

why are marriages bestowed by a chucrh held legal

No ceremony is necessary for a marriage to be legal, in most states.

What makes people married is issuance of a marriage license.

This is really not a separation of church and state issue.


Not true.

Marriage licenses expire, usually within 30 or 60 days, if not signed by a civil authority and returned to the state. That authority could be a judge, justice, court clerk, retired supreme court judge, etc. Or it colud be a clergy member.

Why do we allow the clergy to officiate as civil authorities? Its a !st amendment issue, Clearly.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

But gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states.


Of course they do, the state marriage laws apply equally to gays and straights.

In fact my neighbor when I was in High School was married (divorced actually), had two daughters, and was gay.

[Labrocca]

The fact that gay marriage is illegal, alone suggests that there is no seperation between church and state, I mean homosexuality is a matter of ethics. Ethics are a byproduct of religion.



Now a statement like this...really ticks me off. Ethics are a byproduct of religion? Are you serious? So basically you are telling us anyone without religion doesn't need or have ethics. Let's assume you are right...ethics are a byproduct of religion....and ethics are bad HOW?

I am personally appalled at your statement. If it wasn't for religion then killing, stealing, and raping would all be ok...is that what you are saying?

ethics:
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.

I see no mention of religion inside that definition. Ethics may have some base in religion but that's what seperates us from animals. Don't you get that? I am amazed at times when people don't see how religion has helped humanity...and that every culture in every society has adapted a religion...from the egyptions to the mayans...to the chinese. All of them created a religion...one has to wonder about that. Religion is a societies moral compass that guides them on their morals and ethics. You use the word religion and ethics in a negative tone that truly has me questioning your ethics.

[maartena]

That's good and all, but Christianity is not the official religion of the U.S.


This is true. However.....

- The President is sworn in on the bible with the words "So help me God".
- Every speech a President makes ends with "God bless America".
- The Pledge of Allegiance contains the words "One Nation, Under God".
- Our money says "In God We Trust".
- Anyone who wants to become a Citizen of the United States has to swear an oath to the flag of the United States, which includes the words "so help me God".
- Pretty much any official position that needs to be sworn in, such as a Supreme Court Judge, has to do this with the words "So help me God".

Now, there are some that will defend this by saying: "God" can be anyones God, and anyones religion. And it is true that a Jewish or Islamic politician can choose to replace the bible with a Tora or a Koran. And in theory an atheist President can be sworn in on the Guinness World Book of Records if he chooses to.

The point I am trying to make here however, is that God should not be in any form of politics or official government texts whatsoever. It shouldn't be on our money, it shouldn't be said in pledges, and it shouldn't be used in swearing in ceremonies.

A President or other politician should be sworn in with his hand not on a bible, but with his hand on the constitution!

And I believe this should translate down to marriages. Pretty much the only defense against marriages between people of the same sex is that it is not approved by the bible. Well, the bible also approves of the death penalty for adultery. And with that, the bible becomes a "book of convenience", which is used to make an argument on one case, but when no longer convenient is not used to make an argument on another case.

The bible should have no play in determining what is right and what is wrong. Of course many basic laws are based on the bible, such as "thy shalt not kill" or "thy shalt not steal", but it doesn't make it supreme law or truth. "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me" is the very first commandment, yet Jews and Islams are allowed their gods. "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy" is another, yet we allow work on Sunday.

And so the bible is only used when it is convenient. We can't close shops on Sunday anymore, and we can't forbid anyone to believe in another religion. We also cannot kill Bill Clinton because he committed adultery in office.

But the bible is the main book with which people wave when gay rights and gay marriage comes to the table. Why should the bible have any say in it? Is our constitution which guarantees equal rights for everyone not enough? For some states, it is. In Massachusetts the supreme court ruled that gay marriages cannot be forbidden based on the constitution.

In some states it has been forbidden by the supreme court of that state, and technically it can be challenged by taking it to the Federal supreme court. No one has the guts to do this however, fearing that the Federal supreme court will rule against gay marriage, effectively making it Federal law.

What I believe? I believe that 2 people that love each other should have the same right as any other 2 people that love each other, and what sex either of em are should not even be a question. And if it can't be done with marriage, at least allow a civil union so that gay couples can enjoy simple rights that married couples enjoy.... such as being able to use your spouses medical insurance, or the right to days of to grief if your partner dies. Most gay people I know could really care less what it is called. Marriage. Civil Union. Bond. Pact. Whatever. All they care about is getting the same rights as a married couple, and THAT is what this is all about.

[maartena]

What point? A straight "partner" has the same rights under any given set of circumstances as a gay "partner".

Partnership rights have no exception for sexual preference.


What do you think an insurance company is going to say if you call them up and say "I want to add my gay partner as a dependent on my health insurance".

It works when you change the "gay partner" thing with "wife". Why should life long gay couples not enjoy that same right as married couples do?

Gay friends of mine pay about $500 for one of the partners each month for health insurance. If he was added on to the insurance of the one working partner, it would have cost the working partner about a $150 deduction of his paycheck before taxes. So they are paying $350 more a month then a married couple would have to, simple because the law states that a health insurance dependent can only be your legally married spouse or your children.

And yes, they have been together for over 15 years. I don't care how you call it, but he should have that same right as any other couple has.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

What do you think an insurance company is going to say if you call them up and say "I want to add my gay partner as a dependent on my health insurance".


With the company I work for they allow same sex partners to be added to family insurance, but they won't allow a hetrosexual to add a girlfriend or mistress.

Doesn't seem fair that girlfriends and mistresses are disadvantaged that way, does it? Why is the world so biased against girlfriends and mistresses! Oh, the inhumanity!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The point I am trying to make here however, is that God should not be in any form of politics or official government texts whatsoever.


Why?

[Elrathin]

Why?



Because we are a nation that doesn't recognize ONE religion over another nor do we have an established NATIONAL religion. So in Wicca, it is not illegal for 2 gays to marry. Why shouldn't they be if THEIR religion allows it?

[Popwing]

But gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states.


Of course they do, the state marriage laws apply equally to gays and straights.

In fact my neighbor when I was in High School was married (divorced actually), had two daughters, and was gay.


Gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states-To each other!

You sir, are a goofball!

[maartena]

What do you think an insurance company is going to say if you call them up and say "I want to add my gay partner as a dependent on my health insurance".


With the company I work for they allow same sex partners to be added to family insurance, but they won't allow a hetrosexual to add a girlfriend or mistress.

Doesn't seem fair that girlfriends and mistresses are disadvantaged that way, does it? Why is the world so biased against girlfriends and mistresses! Oh, the inhumanity!


In your case it is the company who decided to give equal rights to gay partners for medical insurance. Your company is also in a very small minority of companies doing that.

And how ironic this is: The solution for your girlfriend.... is simply to marry her. As far as mistresses go, I think we can all agree that dependents should be limited to ONE other person (and any legal children), so if you want to add your mistress, ditch the wife and marry her instead.

Point is, with a girlfriend or mistress you have a legal choice. You can marry the woman, and immediately add her as a dependent. A gay couple has no such choice, except hoping that they work for a company that may provide an option, such as the one you work for.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states-To each other!



Of course they can, a male gay is free to marry a female gay if there are no other impediments (meaning they are both of age, both single, etc...)

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Point is, with a girlfriend or mistress you have a legal choice. You can marry the woman


What if she is already married to someone else, or I am? Or both!

It just isn't fair!

[piratemonkey]

Since homosexuality is a congenital trait of mammals:

That's equivalent to saying that black people have equal rights because they are free to marry black people... just not white people.

[Popwing]

Gays don't have the choice to become legally married in all states-To each other!



Of course they can, a male gay is free to marry a female gay if there are no other impediments (meaning they are both of age, both single, etc...)


Oh just stop, this is silly. And I don't mean silly in the polite sense. You're purposefully acting the clown, which is fine if you're having fun, but I get no sense of fun on this thread from you - only a sense of you trying to bring the debate down in order to hide your lack of ability to defend the indefensible.

Just stop.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Oh just stop, this is silly.


Why is it silly to point out that the same marriage laws apply to everyone? The young and old, the rich or poor, gay and straight, pedophile and granny grabber.

Heck, the necropheliacs have it real bad!

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Since homosexuality is a congenital trait of mammals



That has no bearing on anything. Animals can be seen committing murder, rape, incest, etc...

Doesn't mean we should allow them.

[Labrocca]

What point? A straight "partner" has the same rights under any given set of circumstances as a gay "partner".

Partnership rights have no exception for sexual preference.


What do you think an insurance company is going to say if you call them up and say "I want to add my gay partner as a dependent on my health insurance".

It works when you change the "gay partner" thing with "wife". Why should life long gay couples not enjoy that same right as married couples do?

Gay friends of mine pay about $500 for one of the partners each month for health insurance. If he was added on to the insurance of the one working partner, it would have cost the working partner about a $150 deduction of his paycheck before taxes. So they are paying $350 more a month then a married couple would have to, simple because the law states that a health insurance dependent can only be your legally married spouse or your children.

And yes, they have been together for over 15 years. I don't care how you call it, but he should have that same right as any other couple has.


Gay couples don't function as normal families in the traditional sense. They normally don't have children...hence they can BOTH work. Why should one gay partner sit at home doing nothing if they are able to work? Why should a company pay for the insurance of a loafer? Yes I understand gay couples do certain things to have kids...but is that the norm? My wifes insurance covers me because I have to stay home and take care of 4 children. How many gay couples have the same issue?

There now you have a logical reason why companies shouldn't be FORCED to provide insurance to a gay couple. IMHO it would be taken advantage of by gays....they would get married to recieve benefits and divorce when they break up. Since children are not involved there isn't a big deal. Honestly I don't even see why gays want marriage...next you will see alimony and other suits if this becomes law and gays may rethink wtf they did.

[Elrathin]

There now you have a logical reason why companies shouldn't be FORCED to provide insurance to a gay couple.Â*

Not really, how is that any different than a man and wife where both don't want to have children and the wife stays home. There is NO DIFFERENCE.

And as for gays having chilldren, many ADOPT.

[maartena]

Why?


Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

A free nation such as the U.S. should either respect the beliefs of ALL religions, or respect the beliefs of none, and base its laws on common sense and knowledge. It should also not favor one religion over the other.

I believe that the law of the land should not be based on the Bible, the Tora, the Koran or any other religious book, and it should certainly not be used in political debate about subject such as abortion, euthanasia, intelligent design and gay marriage.

The biggest problem I have with religion and politics is that politicians seem to use the bible to make a certain point, but conveniently forget about that same book when it comes to other laws. Some people that are pro-death penalty argue that the bible allows for the death penalty. Yet that same bible also says that the death penalty is a acceptable punishment for adultery. On Immigration issues, the bible actually states that we should welcome any stranger that knocks on our door and needs our help. Obviously its not that simple anymore as there are more illegal Mexicans in this country then there were in the entire world in the days of the bible.

Point is, the bible should not be used or abused at convenience of the lawmaker. It should have no place in forming law, and should have no place in arguing for or against it.

Religion is something personal. And if you personally believe that gay marriage is something that should not be allowed, then so be it. You have the right to believe that in this country. Its a free country. But there is a big difference between belief and enforcement. Of course that argument works both ways, but I don't think anyone would be harmed one way or another by allowing gay marriage. And that should be an argument, not the fact that "the bible says so".

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"


What's the rest of it say?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And as for gays having chilldren, many ADOPT.


So you are saying gays should be prevented from adopting, and that will fix it?

[maartena]

Gay couples don't function as normal families in the traditional sense. They normally don't have children...hence they can BOTH work. Why should one gay partner sit at home doing nothing if they are able to work? Why should a company pay for the insurance of a loafer? Yes I understand gay couples do certain things to have kids...but is that the norm? My wifes insurance covers me because I have to stay home and take care of 4 children. How many gay couples have the same issue?


You are forgetting however that not all employers OFFER health insurance. My wife for instance has her own small business and makes maybe $500 a month tops doing stuff she loves to do. The insurance that is available for business owners is a lot more expensive then the insurance I have through my employer. And besides owning your own business, there are many employers that offer shitty health insurance or none at all. A gay couple where one is an accountant with a good health benefit package, and the other is a UPS driver with lousy coverage will obviously choose the package of the accountant. (UPS was just an example btw, I don't know their plans)

Also, there are MANY, MANY married couples where both spouses work and still are signed up with only one of the two empoyers health plan. My colleague here for instance opted not to take the firm health plan, because the health plan of his wife's company was much better and covered more. A married couple has that choice when there are two people working.

Another thing: A Gay couple indeed generally do not have kids together, but there are MANY Gay men and women who came out after they already had a child at younger age.

You are automatically assuming here that the gay partner that would be using the healthinsurance of the partner that works is automatically a loafer. You are forgetting however that the person in question could have a job that doesn't offer a health plan, offers a health plan that doesn't cover a lot, or is running his/her own business.

And these days there are actually many people who work 2 jobs. The wife of a friend of mine for instance works 2 days a week for a call center, and 2 days a week for a non-profit organization as a paid employee. She has NO children (and no plans) and NO coverage for both jobs. Is she a "loafer" because she takes her husband's health coverage? I think not.

Explain to me why a gay partner should not have that same right? Because the chance of children is less? That just doesn't seem fair to me.....

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Explain to me why a gay partner should not have that same right?



Because health insurance is not a right.

[maartena]

What's the rest of it say?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


There is a big difference between voicing your opinion or beliefs to others and actually writing the law of the land with it. Everyone can say and/or belief whatever they want. It does not automatically mean however we should take a book like the bible and transfer it into law because the bible says something is right or something is wrong. Politicians use the bible all too often to write the law of the land.

Quoting the bible is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. And the same goes for Gay rights groups of course. The arguments against Gay Marriage are mostly based on religious beliefs, and I belief those religious beliefs should not be a factor in creating such a law.

The bible is just used when convenient. But not when it comes to controversial subjects as slavery, incest, and women who need to be subjects of their men with less rights. Slavery is allowed in the bible. Incest is the only way Adam and Eve's children would be able to reproduce (and there are some convicted sex offenders who used that as their excuse), and according to the bible women should be subject to their husbands and always obey them.

In other words, there are many things in the bible which are hopelessly outdated. And quite frankly, so is the biblical definition of a marriage. Stop using the bible as an argument against Gay marriage, and argue the case without religion. Thats just my opinion. ;)

[maartena]

Because health insurance is not a right.


You are evading the question. Of course health insurance is not a right (although it actually should be, but thats another issue). It does not mean that when the possibility for health insurance exists, that a gay partner should be discriminated against and a spouse not.

And again: Most gay people actually care less on whether its called a "marriage" or not. Most of them are quite content with a civil union that would at least grant them the same rights as a spouse would have, such as not being able to be forced to testify against your spouse, or something such as health insurance dependency.

[askates]

The fact that gay marriage is illegal, alone suggests that there is no seperation between church and state, I mean homosexuality is a matter of ethics. Ethics are a byproduct of religion.



Now a statement like this...really ticks me off.Â*Â*Ethics are a byproduct of religion?Â*Â*Are you serious?Â*Â*So basically you are telling us anyone without religion doesn't need or have ethics. Let's assume you are right...ethics are a byproduct of religion....and ethics are bad HOW?

I am personally appalled at your statement.Â*Â*If it wasn't for religion then killing, stealing, and raping would all be ok...is that what you are saying?Â*Â*

ethics:
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerning duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics.

I see no mention of religion inside that definition.Â*Â*Ethics may have some base in religion but that's what seperates us from animals.Â*Â*Don't you get that?Â*Â*I am amazed at times when people don't see how religion has helped humanity...and that every culture in every society has adapted a religion...from the egyptions to the mayans...to the chinese.Â*Â*All of them created a religion...one has to wonder about that.Â*Â*Religion is a societies moral compass that guides them on their morals and ethics.Â*Â*You use the word religion and ethics in a negative tone that truly has me questioning your ethics.

[sbannon]

What point? A straight "partner" has the same rights under any given set of circumstances as a gay "partner".

Partnership rights have no exception for sexual preference.


What do you think an insurance company is going to say if you call them up and say "I want to add my gay partner as a dependent on my health insurance".

It works when you change the "gay partner" thing with "wife". Why should life long gay couples not enjoy that same right as married couples do?

Gay friends of mine pay about $500 for one of the partners each month for health insurance. If he was added on to the insurance of the one working partner, it would have cost the working partner about a $150 deduction of his paycheck before taxes. So they are paying $350 more a month then a married couple would have to, simple because the law states that a health insurance dependent can only be your legally married spouse or your children.

And yes, they have been together for over 15 years. I don't care how you call it, but he should have that same right as any other couple has.


Gay couples don't function as normal families in the traditional sense. They normally don't have children...hence they can BOTH work. Why should one gay partner sit at home doing nothing if they are able to work? Why should a company pay for the insurance of a loafer? Yes I understand gay couples do certain things to have kids...but is that the norm? My wifes insurance covers me because I have to stay home and take care of 4 children. How many gay couples have the same issue?

There now you have a logical reason why companies shouldn't be FORCED to provide insurance to a gay couple. IMHO it would be taken advantage of by gays....they would get married to recieve benefits and divorce when they break up. Since children are not involved there isn't a big deal. Honestly I don't even see why gays want marriage...next you will see alimony and other suits if this becomes law and gays may rethink wtf they did.
Labrocca, it's not about being forced to provide insurance to a gay couple, it's about being made to provide equal treatment and benefits to each American worker they employ who are of the same job level/specification. In other words, it's about stopping companies from legally discriminating against a select few.

Bringing the children aspect up seems a bit selfish. Because you and your wife have 4 children you're already provided with "special" class citizenship over most of the country. Not just homosexuals, but every single heterosexual as well.

You get more tax breaks even though your family uses a higher level of services than a single person does; and your wife is more likely to receive preferential treatment over her single/childless coworkers by her employer too.

Parent: Hey boss, my little angel is in the school play today, may I leave early?

Boss: Oh sure, go ahead.

vs.

Single Guy: Hey boss, my little angel is waiting at home in the Jacuzzi for me, may I leave early?

Boss: You're fired.

And now in addition to the already special status you hold, you want the fact that you have kids to trump homosexual's rights to equal treatment in employment benefits too? Don't you think that's a little narcissistic?

[askates]

I see no mention of religion inside that definition.Â*Â*Ethics may have some base in religion but that's what seperates us from animals.Â*Â*Don't you get that?Â*Â*I am amazed at times when people don't see how religion has helped humanity...and that every culture in every society has adapted a religion...from the egyptions to the mayans...to the chinese.Â*Â*All of them created a religion...one has to wonder about that.Â*Â*Religion is a societies moral compass that guides them on their morals and ethics.Â*Â*You use the word religion and ethics in a negative tone that truly has me questioning your ethics.


for one i was referring to the ethical reasons that homosexual marriage is illegal-based on religion,Â*Â*Not ethics and the definition, question my ethics all you want,I'm not hating on religion, I think religion is a detrimental key to the success of alot of individuals, I attribute my good nature to life experience and social interaction- not religion. And what seperates us from animals is the inability to be satisfyed, and that we worry about things we can not smell or see.

[BoogyMan]

Yea here in Ohio you can still be discriminated against in your place of employment,
so since i live here , and that has happened,I definately dont have the same rights as you.


How so?

[askates]

In your place of employment, gays have no protection under civil rights, in ohio
For a list of states where gay sex is actually still illegal
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/sodomy.html

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Of course health insurance is not a right


Then please stop calling it one.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Good, so you agree that even goverment workers, teachers, etc... should be free to exercise their religion. Even swearing in on a Bible if it suits them I take it?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

In your place of employment, gays have no protection under civil rights


They have the same protection straights do, right?

[BoogyMan]

In your place of employment, gays have no protection under civil rights, in ohio
For a list of states where gay sex is actually still illegal
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/sodomy.html


Excuse my being a bit slow here, but how does that relate to your place of employment?

[Elrathin]

So you are saying gays should be prevented from adopting, and that will fix it?


No I am saying that is a lame excuse to keep gays from being on insurance because they don't have children.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No I am saying that is a lame excuse to keep gays from being on insurance because they don't have children.



Insurance isn't a right, is it? It's a private deal between you and your employer. No one is stopping gays from being on insurance.

[Elrathin]

Insurance isn't a right, is it?

Just try giving insurance to whites only and not blacks.

It is the equivalent of saying we won't give insurance to your partner because they are a different race than you and we don't approve of that. AFterall a black can marry a black and a white can marry a white so what's the difference?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Just try giving insurance to whites only and not blacks.

It is the equivalent of saying we won't give insurance to your partner because they are a different race than you


No it isn't. It's not the same at all.

[Elrathin]

No it isn't. It's not the same at all.


Why not. Can't blacks marry other blacks? Yes or no?

[false_creeds]

I've known many blacks that are insulted as can be when their struggle is compared as equal to that of gays.

I feel they are right. It is a pale comparison.

[Elrathin]

I've known many blacks that are insulted as can be when their struggle is compared as equal to that of gays.

I feel they are right. It is a pale comparison.


I don't really care if they are insulted by the comparison. Discrimination is discrimination.

Would you be ok if a insurance company didn't give out insurance to partners of different religions? Afterall a Christian can marry a Christian right?

The only difference is you seem to be ok with discrimination of gays.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I don't really care if they are insulted by the comparison. Discrimination is discrimination.


LOL, so you think a black man getting lynched by an angry mob of democrats for looking at a white woman the wrong way and a gay man not being able to get his boyfriend health insurance without changing jobs are the same thing?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No it isn't. It's not the same at all.


Why not. Can't blacks marry other blacks? Yes or no?


Not in most cases, no.

[underdawg]

Gay men get beaten and lynched for much the same reason as blacks did.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Gay men get beaten and lynched for much the same reason as blacks did.


No they don't, but I was beaten by a roving band of gay terrorists when I was a teen boy, just for being straight!

[underdawg]

The reason they both got beaten was because of prejudice.

[sbannon]

I don't really care if they are insulted by the comparison. Discrimination is discrimination.


LOL, so you think a black man getting lynched by an angry mob of democrats for looking at a white woman the wrong way and a gay man not being able to get his boyfriend health insurance without changing jobs are the same thing?

Are you suggesting there's been no gay-bashing over the years? No gays brutally attacked and murdered just for being gay?

Discrimination and prejudices are ugly, and they're sinful. Side-tracking this discussion into a who's been treated worse or had it bad longer is missing the point. Just like twisting it into a "right to insurance" claim, it's not.

It's about equality for all Americans. The notion our nation was founded on. Of-course, it was only white males at that time, but we've since--after only 144 years--accepted that white women were also equals and gave non-whites equal standings as well 44 years after that. Now, just how long should gays and lesbians have to wait?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And? Giving the gays a psudo-marriage is going to stop prejudice?

[wonder cow]

Allowing clergy to validate a marriage certificate is clearly a church-state issue

That's not enough to make it a first amendment issue. Allowing clergy to sign a marriage license is just a matter of convenience.

If only a clergy could sign, or if only certain clergy could sign, then that would be a separation of church and state issue.

[askates]

Excuse my being a bit slow here, but how does that relate to your place of employment?
[/quote]

It doesn't, but it does relate to the fact that we do not have the same rights, and regardless the arguement of marriage, sodomy between homosexuals is still illegal in some states, which is destructive to the psyche.

[firefox]

Let's get government out of marriage all together? This would solve the problem immediately for both sides. On the one hand, EVERYONE can get married if they can find a supportive religious institution, and those who oppose gay marriage won't have to support this practice legally or financially. It's a win win situation!

[underdawg]

I suppose one of the problems amoung others, if we got the government out of all marriages, parents could claim to be the next of kin if of one of the married couples should die and the surviving spouse might not get anything.

[Labrocca]

You people without kids ain't got your mind straight (no pun intended).

My 4 kids will grow up to be taxpayers and I am preping my sons to join the service.Â*Â*I would be proud if at least one them served as my father and my grandfather did (I sadly didn't but sure wish I had).

What does a gay couple offer back to society in order to recieve any special priviledges?Â*Â*Maybe I am just too old fashioned about what a family is.Â*Â*I know America has a LOT of different families but once we accept gay families I am not sure where the next line will be drawn and that scares the heck outta me...and trust me...a new line in the sand will be drawn.

Ahh..F it...sure ...let all the gays marry....jeez I am tired of this topic.Â*Â*I think it's wrong but sheet...wtf do I care what 2 other guys want to do.Â*Â*I am not an intolerant person which is why maybe I am bit different than most Republicans...half the time I don't give a shit.


One other thing I really want to say. The difference between blacks and gays is HUGE...you don't know someone is gay unless they tell you or do something explicit in public. If your black...well...everyone knows. If you go for a job interview and your gay...they don't know. If you are black...well...they freaking know! Gays getting marriage as a right is just so damn silly I can't even stand it. WHY WHY WHY! It doesn't make ANY sense to me. If anything gay marriage will bring about MORE discrimination against gays. I think there is a gay agenda and that certain activist just want to push buttons. What's the purpose?

[wonder cow]

Maybe I am just too old fashioned about what a family is.

Nothing wrong with being old fashion. And, in regards to the entirety of your post, I feel your pain.

I have three sons myself.

On the one hand, the little bit of libertarian in me does not want to dictate to people what contractual relationships they can enter in to.

But then, the reactionary/social conservative in me (surprise, surprise) is like, WTF? (If reactionary/social conservatives say 'WTF')

Isn't it ok to have some freaking values here? I mean, good grief, two dudes getting married?

And the thing that is sad, is that opposing same sex marriage is considered conservative. It should be just considered normal.

Far be it from me to tell people what they can do in the privacy of their own home, but there needs to be standards and norms in regards to the institution of marriage.

There is a biological, natural reason for a man and a woman to marry, and from this the societal norm originates.

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor can it ever be. And that is not to say that I consider myself superior to homosexuals or that I judge them as people or that they should not be treated with respect.

The problem here is that many would like homosexuality to be a norm, the same as hetro. One of the tests for ethical behavior is the following: "If everyone did it, what would be the result". And if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would vanish.

So therefore, homosexuality should not be considered the norm, but neither should homosexuals be treated poorly.

To surmise all that, don’t de mean to gay people, but don’t condone gay marriage or accept homosexuality as a norm.

[AlonzoMourning23]

One other thing I really want to say. The difference between blacks and gays is HUGE...you don't know someone is gay unless they tell you or do something explicit in public.Â*Â*If your black...well...everyone knows.Â*Â*If you go for a job interview and your gay...they don't know. If you are black...well...they freaking know!Â*Â*Gays getting marriage as a right is just so damn silly I can't even stand it.Â*Â*WHY WHY WHY! It doesn't make ANY sense to me.Â*Â*If anything gay marriage will bring about MORE discrimination against gays.Â*Â*I think there is a gay agenda and that certain activist just want to push buttons.Â*Â*What's the purpose?


That's not how it's played out in MA and canada. Legalization of same sex marriage it has made it more normal and less of an issue, since people are forced to confront it.

But, if a same sex couple has children (either through adoption or previous spouses), then should they be able to marry in your mind? The child is already in the family, and the same sex couple forms, what seems to be in your mind, the most important part of a family when that occurs.

[Elrathin]

What does a gay couple offer back to society in order to recieve any special priviledges?

It's called adoption. Look it up. I know 3 gay couples right now that have kids. The first couple kid they adopted graduated high school last year and he is doing fine. IN a heterosexual relationship and plans to get married after a 2 year engagement. He has more moral values that I have seen then some kids growing up in heteroseuxal households.

The other couples kids are doing fine as well.


Ahh..F it...sure ...let all the gays marry....jeez I am tired of this topic. I think it's wrong but sheet...wtf do I care what 2 other guys want to do. I am not an intolerant person which is why maybe I am bit different than most Republicans...half the time I don't give a shit.

That's the problem, it seems people want it illegal just because they don't like it. They have no real reasons, just they don't like it.


Gays getting marriage as a right is just so damn silly I can't even stand it. WHY WHY WHY! It doesn't make ANY sense to me.


Yes, I can understand that. Two people that love each other and want to commit to each other, as well as have the same rights of marriage as everyone else is silly. :rolleyes:

Again, the reasons I hear from most gay opponents now is that it is immoral cause the bible tells them so, or they say they just don't like it.

Well if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't. It's that simple. Noone is forcing you to marry someone from the opposite sex.

[Elrathin]

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor can it ever be. And that is not to say that I consider myself superior to homosexuals or that I judge them as people or that they should not be treated with respect.

Of course it isn't the norm. But that isn't the point. The point is that it doesn't mean you are bad because you are not the norm.


The problem here is that many would like homosexuality to be a norm, the same as hetro. One of the tests for ethical behavior is the following: "If everyone did it, what would be the result". And if everyone was a homosexual, the human race would vanish.

I don't know ONE gay person that would want everyone to be gay as well. They just don't want to be treated poorly because of it.


So therefore, homosexuality should not be considered the norm, but neither should homosexuals be treated poorly.

That is the point.


To surmise all that, don’t de mean to gay people, but don’t condone gay marriage or accept homosexuality as a norm.


Sorry, but just because someone isn't accepted as a norm, does not mean it should be illegal. There are a lot of kinky things some couples do on a regular basis, however, that is not illegal.

Not being the norm, does not equate to being illegal. I know of people TODAY that think white people should not intermingle and marry someone of another race. They think of it as immoral. However, interracial marriage is NOT illegal now.

Noone is saying you have to like it, only accept it LEGALLY. You are not forced to accept it morally.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

That's not how it's played out in MA and canada. Legalization of same sex marriage it has made it more normal and less of an issue, since people are forced to confront it.


That is incorrect. Of course when you legalize gay marriage the gays move to the next special rights issue which may not be as contintious, but to say they are forcing people to confront it is wrong, it's less confrontational if the gays get their way.

In fact, forcing gay marriage on a population that does not wish it doesn't end the issue. States will sometimes amend their constitution to reverse a bad court for instance.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Of course it isn't the norm. But that isn't the point. The point is that it doesn't mean you are bad because you are not the norm.


It doesn't mean you are good either.

If the majority of people see the folly of preventing gay marriage, gays don't have to like it, they just have to accept it.

[piratemonkey]

That is incorrect. Of course when you legalize gay marriage the gays move to the next special rights issue which may not be as contintious, but to say they are forcing people to confront it is wrong, it's less confrontational if the gays get their way.


Explain how having the right to marry the person you love is a "special right" that every other American doesn't have.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Explain how having the right to marry the person you love


I can marry the dallas cowboys cheerleader squad? Do they know?


"special right"



You don't think marriage is special?

[Elrathin]

If the majority of people see the folly of preventing gay marriage, gays don't have to like it, they just have to accept it.


So if the majority of the people see the folly in preventing interracial marriages, those that want to marry another race don't have to like it, they just have to accept it right?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So if the majority of the people see the folly in preventing interracial marriages, those that want to marry another race don't have to like it, they just have to accept it right?


Yes, and vica versa.

Of course gays who try to play off their choice to be gay as the same as being born a disadvantaged race come off looking pretty silly, and hurt their cause.

[Elrathin]

Yes, and vica versa.



Sorry, but no, that's unconstitutional. That is why interracial marriage bans went away.

[piratemonkey]

Explain how having the right to marry the person you love

I can marry the dallas cowboys cheerleader squad? Do they know?

"special right"

You don't think marriage is special?


I didn't think you had a response. Thanks for confirming.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I didn't think you had a response. Thanks for confirming.


I have a response, I gave it.

What part didn't you understand?

[piratemonkey]

This was a serious response?



Explain how having the right to marry the person you love


I can marry the dallas cowboys cheerleader squad? Do they know?


"special right"

You don't think marriage is special?


I assumed that whole response was a joke. Sorry.

So, in response...
A "special right" isn't a "special right" because it's "special."

It's a "special right" because it's exclusive to that group. You asserted that gay's marrying is a "special right." You haven't explained how that right is exclusive to gays.

In fact, it isn't.

[Labrocca]

That's the problem, it seems people want it illegal just because they don't like it.Â*Â*They have no real reasons, just they don't like it.

Oh I gave you reasons more than simply I don't like it...you just don't listen to any of them.

Two people that love each other and want to commit to each other, as well as have the same rights of marriage as everyone else is silly

Marriage is when a man and woman love each other and want to commit and start a FAMILY.Â*Â*Yeah I know a gay couple with 2 kids (lesbians) and our friend gave birth to both of the kids (from a gay guy friend donor no less).Â*Â*So if you want to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage into 2 people...why not just let ANYONE marry ANYONE.Â*Â*How about I marry my son when he turns 18?Â*Â*Hey...why don't I marry 6 women and 4 men and 3 of my own kids?Â*Â*We all love each other and want to commit.Â*Â*Where the F is the line?

Redefining something can easily destroy it. Remember the new Coke formula...oh that went over well didn't it. Nearly destroyed the brand of 100 years into oblivion. Marriage is a special commitment that is slowly being eroded away. How is this gay marriage going to help that? It's a mockery at best.

I keep giving you reasons...you just ain't listening.

Here is your logic..."let's give everyone the right to do as they please"...bullshit.

[Elrathin]

So if you want to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage into 2 people...why not just let ANYONE marry ANYONE.Â*Â*How about I marry my son when he turns 18?Â*Â*

Is being gay illegal?
Is gays adopting illegal?
Is being gay in public illegal?
Is having sex with a gay partner illegal?

The answer to that is no. Now ask the same questions in regards to marrying a son. Slippery slope arguments like that have already been refuted over and over again. Yet conservatives love bringing them up like they found the "GOTCHA" reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.


Hey...why don't I marry 6 women and 4 men and 3 of my own kids?Â*Â*We all love each other and want to commit.Â*Â*Where the F is the line?

Take away the family members, and the problem for me becomes administrative (i.e. handling property, divorces, etc), and not a moral issue. Soon as that is figured out, I say go ahead with polygamy.

Why someone would want more than one spouse is beyond me, I have trouble with just the one let alone multiple. But hey if they figure a way for it to work, I'll vote yes for it.


Redefining something can easily destroy it. Remember the new Coke formula...

Comparing a SODA to marraige!?!?! Can you get ANYMORE RICIDULOUS of a comparison? Here's a hint, gays are not going to go away. They are in society and will stay. It's not illegal.


I keep giving you reasons...you just ain't listening.

Sorry, I should say give LEGITIMATE reasons, not tinfoil hat slippery slope reasons. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry the same sex yourself, but please the slippery slopes are getting tiresome and they have already been refuted.


Here is your logic..."let's give everyone the right to do as they please"...bullshit.


No it isn't and you don't have the knowledge of my position obviously to make such an absurd claim.

You use slippery slopes and "what ifs" to justify your reasoning, which it doesn't. For the record:

Being gay is NOT illegal
Having a gay relationship is NOT illegal.
Gays adopting children is not illegal.
Gays Having and raising children is NOT illegal.

When your slippery slopes can answer all those with a yes, let me know. Until them continue to cower in fear over the gay marriage :rolleyes:

[sbannon]

Labrocca, where to draw the line is easy to answer, and in-fact has technically already been answered. When the procreation of the couple would likely produce genetic mutations and burden offspring with disabilities. In other words, close family members are a no-no. Beyond that point--which is based on science and medicine rather than mythology--why should anyone free of that scenario be denied equal rights?

Since we've established that you're a parent and I am not already, would you welcome or accept stern and unsolicited parenting advice from me on your children? Of course you wouldn't, so why should you, I or anyone else be telling a select group in our society how they should or can live their lives when it has absolutely no effect what so ever on us? That's the whole issue here to me (and I don't even have a horse in this race), telling others what to do and not do based on our personal feelings rather than respecting their individual and equal rights as fellow Americans.

[Elrathin]

Remember the new Coke formula...oh that went over well didn't it. Nearly destroyed the brand of 100 years into oblivion.Â*Â*

And to futher add on this comment, one of the main ingredients (Cocaine) was removed from Coke in the past, yet it has remained. so it has also gone through changes and survived :)

[Labrocca]

Slippery slope arguments like that have already been refuted over and over again.

Odd...I don't see you refuting anything. Again you just ignore my reasoning and place it to the side.

When the procreation of the couple would likely produce genetic mutations and burden offspring with disabilities. In other words, close family members are a no-no.

Odd...isn't the whole gay argument that having kids shouldn't be a prerequisite for marriage? Hmm...interesting you bring up kids when it suits your purposes. Why can't my close family members adopt the same as a gay couple?

And what's the psychiological damage done by a kid having parents of the same sex? IMHO kids are often dysfunctional from single parent families...what studies has there been done about the effects of a same sex partners raising children.

More reasoning from me...and I am sure Elrathin will just ignore it.

[Elrathin]

Odd...I don't see you refuting anything.Â*Â*Again you just ignore my reasoning and place it to the side.

You used marrying relatives as a slippery slope argument. That's already been refuted for medical reasons and for parent child type relationships proven to be bad.

Hence why it is illegal. I showed you other gay activities that are NOT illegal, so if relationships for gays is not illegal, why should marrying.

You keep ignoring the obvious and trying to move to slippery slopes to defend your point. Because you don't like it and you think it would be a slippery slope to marrying relatives, just isn't a legitimate reason.


And what's the psychiological damage done by a kid having parents of the same sex?Â*Â*IMHO kids are often dysfunctional from single parent families...what studies has there been done about the effects of a same sex partners raising children.

More reasoning from me...and I am sure Elrathin will just ignore it.


Not reasoning, just fear mongering. Gays (whether married or not), can STILL raise children. What's marrying gonna change that doesn't already exists?

[piratemonkey]

Assuming psychological damage when you have no evidence to support such an idea shows default discriminatory reactionism.

I agree.Â*Â*That isn't reasoning.

[sbannon]

When the procreation of the couple would likely produce genetic mutations and burden offspring with disabilities. In other words, close family members are a no-no.

Odd...isn't the whole gay argument that having kids shouldn't be a prerequisite for marriage? Hmm...interesting you bring up kids when it suits your purposes. Why can't my close family members adopt the same as a gay couple?

And what's the psychiological damage done by a kid having parents of the same sex? IMHO kids are often dysfunctional from single parent families...what studies has there been done about the effects of a same sex partners raising children.

More reasoning from me...and I am sure Elrathin will just ignore it.

Labrocca, just to be clear I didn't propose the familiar line as the place I personally would want to draw the line or not, I said it had already been made there so we have an easy solution if we want it to the question of where is the line.

The point you made can be argued that siblings could just adopt so why prevent them from marrying. Personally, I don't care if they do--it's not something I would consider but I really am for personal liberties and letting folks cut their own paths in this world. I believe in freedom over oppression with personal accountability in every case.

However, I can also see where there's a risk there that doesn't exist with gay couples in that with siblings or close family relationships there's not an absolute in place to prevent them from reproducing together and leading to medical hardships on innocent children; even if they promise not to. That risk simply doesn't exist with gay couples.

As for the psychological damage concerns on children, the American Psychological Association has done research in this area (some from as early as 1957) and printed a Research Summary which states:
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children is still very new and relatively scarce. Less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers. Little is known about development of the offspring of gay or lesbian parents during adolescence or adulthood. Sources of heterogeneity have yet to be systematically investigated. Longitudinal studies that follow lesbian and gay families over time are badly needed.

Link (http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html)

I'm not saying this Summary is the end-all be-all, but lacking any conclusive contradictory evidence I'd say it supports the idea that gay couples make just as good parents as heterosexual couples do.

[maartena]

Marriage is when a man and woman love each other and want to commit and start a FAMILY. Yeah I know a gay couple with 2 kids (lesbians) and our friend gave birth to both of the kids (from a gay guy friend donor no less). So if you want to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage into 2 people...why not just let ANYONE marry ANYONE. How about I marry my son when he turns 18? Hey...why don't I marry 6 women and 4 men and 3 of my own kids? We all love each other and want to commit. Where the F is the line?

The line is defined by defining that a marriage is a union between one person and one other person. I do not know what the current laws are for marriage in your own family, but I believe that is already prohibited by law.

A definition that a marriage is a union between one person and one other person will not open the floodgates to people wanting to marry more then one person, people wanting to marry under age, people wanting to marry children etc. The argument that if we would allow gay marriage, "why not allow this or why not allow that" is invalid and dumb.

The only thing that will legally change is that a marriage is no longer defined as "a union between a man and a woman" but as "a union between one person and one other person". Basically all that is done is taking sex out of the definition of marriage. There are already laws against marrying underage, marrying more then one person, marrying animals, marrying within your direct family, etc.... nothing has to be changed there, nothing at all.

There is one state in the Union (2 as of today with New Jersey) that allows gay marriage, which is Massachusetts. There is no loophole in their law that allows "anyone" to marry "anyone". The only thing done there was taking the sex out of the definition of marriage, nothing more, nothing less. And thats the way it has been done in Canada, several EU countries, Australia, New Zealand, and perhaps some other countries.

By the way, it wasn't that long ago when the definition of marriage included something along the lines of "of the same race" to prevent black people from marrying white people.

[maartena]

And what's the psychiological damage done by a kid having parents of the same sex? IMHO kids are often dysfunctional from single parent families...what studies has there been done about the effects of a same sex partners raising children.


http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml

Also read this PDF: http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Numbers2_04.pdf

Its an interesting PDF which shows the benefit of marriage (such as joint-filing of taxes, the protection of your house against creditors so that your family will always keep a place to live, inheritance issues should 1 (or both) spouse(s) die, health insurance for children that aren't of the working spouse, and a number of other issues.

Also not un-important: Only a married spouse can file a lawsuit against another party in the un-lawful death of the spouse. "Just a partner" can not. And then there is the fact that spouses can not be forced to testify against each other.

And quite frankly, the children issue is secondary to the marriage issue. Many gay couples are already raising children right now, and that is not going to stop either way. A Marriage will only enforce the rights of these children when it comes to issues involving health insurance, inheritance, and legal issues such as mentioned above.

Also, most states have laws which states that should a spouse become terminally ill, he/she has the right to stay at his/her bedside for like 3 weeks or so without losing employment. (Whether thats paid or unpaid is up to the company). A gay partner has no such right and could be fired for simple wanting to be there when the other partner passes away.

There is much more to marriage then what the bible tells us. Legal issues and complications that can arise from not being married can be quite problematic.

I have a different last name then my wife, because she decided to keep her own name. As of late, she has actually been considering to change her name to mine simply because there are so many companies who won't let you change accounts, plans, payments, etc, etc if you aren't s spouse and if you have a different last name it is suspicious. I know gay couples where one person wasn't even able to add HBO to their cable subscription because he wasn't the name on the account, and when the other guy called them to add him, he was told they could not add a "roommate" to the cable subscription, only a "spouse". Apperently this was policy because they had so many problems with roommates not paying their share of the bill, and they wanted just one person as the responsible contact.

Allowing gays to marry would resolve a book full of problems that arise when two people of the same sex live together as lovers. And I don't understand what people are so afraid of? The world hasn't ended in Canada or the United Kingdom or The Netherlands? Why should it be so bad for the U.S. to legalize gay marriages?

[Labrocca]

I am already very aware that I have lost and will lose this argument along with the conservatives. Gay marriage will happen...it's almost guaranteed. Why...because rights trump morals in America...that's fine...so be it.

I also guarantee you this...if we redefine marriage it will be redefined again in 20-50 years.

As a person in an interracial marriage I feel I have some unique insight. It's brought up often enough that interracial marriages were banned some years ago. Now let's say those laws never were changed...would I be in an interracial relationship today? Most likely NOT. The law was changed...I never even questioned IF I could be with my wife. This makes me wonder...will my children decide to be in a gay marriage simply because it's so accepted and normal?

Now the right or wrong of homosexuality or interracial marriage is another matter but one has to wonder what direction society is heading...because it certainly seems to be moving at a very fast pace. I think this gets at the heart of why I am a conservative. I like SLOW changes...not these sweeping new policies that alter our society with the writ of a pen.

One last thing...it's false to say that close relatives can't have children without defects. Medicine nowadays is VERY advanced and they can detect defects early enough to abort. I am against abortion but let's assume those for gay marriage are liberal enough to say abortion is OK as well. So brother and sister can certainly have normal children if they wish. As a matter of fact in 20-50 years medicine may allow some very fancy DNA fixes. So if brother and sister can have normal children because of medicine should they be allowed to marry?

You can't give me this crap about slippery slopes..I ain't skiing. It's proper for one to take a step then look up at the next step.

Now let me repeat my first paragraph.

I am already very aware that I have lost and will lose this argument along with the conservatives. Gay marriage will happen...it's almost guaranteed. Why...because rights trump morals in America...that's fine...so be it.

[AlonzoMourning23]

That's not how it's played out in MA and canada. Legalization of same sex marriage it has made it more normal and less of an issue, since people are forced to confront it.


That is incorrect.

So you have any evidence of increase opposition to same sex marriage after it was legalized?

Of course when you legalize gay marriage the gays move to the next special rights issue

Ya, they oppose special rights for heterosexuals. How silly of them.

but to say they are forcing people to confront it is wrong, it's less confrontational if the gays get their way.

When it's legalized people had to live with same sex marriage, they got to see same sex families. So yes, many were forced to confront it.

In fact, forcing gay marriage on a population that does not wish it doesn't end the issue. States will sometimes amend their constitution to reverse a bad court for instance.


It doesn't end the issue, I never said it did. But, the longer it is legal the less opposition there is to it, at least that's what has happened when it has been legalized. The fears are unfounded, when homosexuals can marry and the world doesn't end people begin to see that.

Now let's say those laws never were changed...would I be in an interracial relationship today? Most likely NOT.Â*Â*The law was changed...I never even questioned IF I could be with my wife.Â*Â*This makes me wonder...will my children decide to be in a gay marriage simply because it's so accepted and normal?Â*Â*

Quick question, do you think you'd be attracted to your wife 50 years ago? Not would she be a potential lover, but on a purely physical level, would you be attracted to her?

That's really the issue. Most people are not attracted to members of the same sex. The potential for that to change is not realistic.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So you have any evidence of increase opposition to same sex marriage after it was legalized?


Yes, I do.



When it's legalized people had to live with same sex marriage, they got to see same sex families. So yes, many were forced to confront it.



Wrong. Legalizing gay marriage does not suddenly expose people to more gays, coupled or single.

[AlonzoMourning23]

So you have any evidence of increase opposition to same sex marriage after it was legalized?


Yes, I do.

This is where you present it.



When it's legalized people had to live with same sex marriage, they got to see same sex families. So yes, many were forced to confront it.



Wrong. Legalizing gay marriage does not suddenly expose people to more gays, coupled or single.


It makes same sex couples more visible because there is intense fear from many, so the results of legalization are observed for signs of their fears coming true. But they don't. And it makes them more visible since it increases their ability to participate in the community as a family.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

This is where you present it.


Nope, you made the original claim with no proof, you don't get to do that then demand proof of others.


It makes same sex couples more visible because there is intense fear from many, so the results of legalization are observed for signs of their fears coming true. But they don't. And it makes them more visible since it increases their ability to participate in the community as a family.


Both assertations are completely off base. Your first one makes zero sense, even if the disgust people feel over the gay agenda was fear, that wouldn't make people more likely to pay attention to gays, but of course it isn't fear that causes people to ignore the gay agenda.

Secondly, it doesn'yt make gays more visible publicly.

You are grasping at straws.

[AlonzoMourning23]

This is where you present it.


Nope, you made the original claim with no proof, you don't get to do that then demand proof of others.

Fine: The most recent poll in massachusetts (may 2005) found 62% in favor of same sex marriage. In 2003 and 2004 that figure hovered between 40 and 50%. Also, in 2005, 82% agreed that same sex marriage has resulted in either no change or a benefit for the state.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/RecentStateMay2005.pdf

Canada nationwide 2006- 59% agreed with same sex marriage in principle, 32% disagreed.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12288

In 2005 (pre national recognition of same sex marriage) 44% supported it, 52% opposed:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html

Where's yours?


It makes same sex couples more visible because there is intense fear from many, so the results of legalization are observed for signs of their fears coming true. But they don't. And it makes them more visible since it increases their ability to participate in the community as a family.


Both assertations are completely off base. Your first one makes zero sense, even if the disgust people feel over the gay agenda was fear, that wouldn't make people more likely to pay attention to gays, but of course it isn't fear that causes people to ignore the gay agenda.

Secondly, it doesn'yt make gays more visible publicly.

You are grasping at straws.


I think this may be one of the things you need to live near to see. As far as I know, there are no studies documenting visibility of homosexuals. I can't think of how to demonstrate a groups visibility online.

[askates]

Both assertations are completely off base. Your first one makes zero sense, even if the disgust people feel over the gay agenda was fear, that wouldn't make people more likely to pay attention to gays, but of course it isn't fear that causes people to ignore the gay agenda.
[/quote]

You know what, I think heterosexual sex is disgusting
And its not definetly not fear that drives that disgust, it's experience. Lucky for you, I am what you consider not-normal. Because if my sexual interests were the norm in this country, then you and your wife would be walking side by side bearly acknowleging the existence of each other in public, sneaking kisses when no one is around, you would be disguising your straightness at work for fear of losing your job,respect, advancement oportunities, you would be having your children lie about their parents to their friends at school , for their best interest, avoiding harrassment, violence, embarrassment, and their advancement oportunites, you would lay in bed and hold her and know, that regardless of how distgusting everyone thought it was, that you loved her more than even the title 'marriage" could define...
oh but i guess then you would "choose" to be gay

Living in a country that defines a human being normal on basis of their sexual orientation is disgusting. All you elitist assh#les can only think of your own selfish agendas, how about sometime thinking about all of the children, without parents or even anyone, in the adoption system that are just sitting their waiting for someone to love them. And they will sit there, as all you heterosexuals continue to reprocriate, an not adopt, and sign laws to make it harder to adopt, and then you'll birth out some more babies, and say how disgusting it is that gay people want to adopt children.
How about from now on, we base the normality of a human being, on their success as a functioning human being,not their sex lives, because right now you guys would rather place a child with some straight abusive crackheads, then a gay partnership

[piratemonkey]

I love this... a progressive asks a conservative for evidence and he refuses.

The same conservative asks the same progressive for evidence and we get numerous citations.

I see a pattern...

askates,
Good point.
Labrocca claims that being pro-gay marriage is an "immoral" position and damages children, giving no evidence, while thousands of orphaned children have no homes.

Remind me, which is the moral position again?

[Elrathin]

Why...because rights trump morals in America...that's fine...so be it.


As it should be. Morality is subjective and changes over time. That is the PRIME REASON laws shouldn't be based on morality but on evidence, not feelings.

If we made everything illegal that we didn't like based on morals, I would imagine everyone would just stay indoors and not go out for fear of offending someone and being arrested.

[askates]

I love when people say "those are my morals" like any of those morals were gained through life experience. People should say "those are my morals that were told to me when I was too young to analyze but still accepted them as truths regardless of their insensitivity and inaccuracy."

[piratemonkey]

I love when people say "those are my morals"Â*Â*like any of those morals were gained through life experience.Â*Â*People should say "those are my morals that were told to me when I was too young to analyze but still accepted them as truths regardless of their insensitivity and inaccuracy."


Wow... I like you, askates. This comment is accurate, to the point and well said.

Cheers.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I love when people say "those are my morals" like any of those morals were gained through life experience. People should say "those are my morals that were told to me when I was too young to analyze but still accepted them as truths regardless of their insensitivity and inaccuracy."


LOL, so basically anyone who morals don't agree with what you want them to be is simply brainwashed?

That sounds a little desperate on your part.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Fine: The most recent poll in massachusetts (may 2005)


Polls are good when you have nothing else, but they are hardly proof, especially when they are presented by a third party biased group and compare different polling group results, as you do here.

You compare an earlier newpaper poll with a later poll done by Massequality, a pro gay marriage group.

That doesn't make you go hmmmmm? :)



Now, back to the real world, did you notice that huge increase in DOMA being both put on ballots and passed since courts started OKing gay marriage.

If you were correct, then when a court OK'd gay marriage, everyoe would accept it, however what generally happens is a substantal and growing group of people start getting politically involved to stop gays from using the court to bypass the will of the people.

I think that pretty much proves what same sex marriage brings, and it isn't acceptance. Look at california, where same sex marriage was allowed for a time, what happened there? Acceptance?

[Elrathin]

I think the fact you conservatives can't get a contitutional ban to pass pretty much proves the country is not behind you.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I think the fact you conservatives can't get a contitutional ban to pass pretty much proves the country is not behind you.


20 states have approved state constitutional amendments aimed at limiting marriage to a man and a woman, eight more are being voted on this election, including in my state where it is expected to pass easily.

This is a direct result of gays pushing for gay marriage, they are creating a backlash.

[piratemonkey]

I love when people say "those are my morals"Â*Â*like any of those morals were gained through life experience.Â*Â*People should say "those are my morals that were told to me when I was too young to analyze but still accepted them as truths regardless of their insensitivity and inaccuracy."


LOL, so basically anyone who morals don't agree with what you want them to be is simply brainwashed?

That sounds a little desperate on your part.


Are you claiming that you didn't learn relgiously-based morals as a child?

If you did, everything Askates wrote was accurate.

If not, you're one of the lucky ones.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you did, everything Askates wrote was accurate.



Hardly. I can only surmise that you didn't actually read what Asketes wrote.

[piratemonkey]

So your religiously-based morals weren't told to you when you were too young to analyze but still accepted them as truths?

Your parents waited until you were older? 16? 18? That's great! I wish all Americans learned their morals that way.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

So your religiously-based morals weren't told to you when you were too young to analyze


What age is that, exactly? You can't even understand language without the power to analyze.

Also, that is not everything Askates wrote, is it?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Fine: The most recent poll in massachusetts (may 2005)


Polls are good when you have nothing else, but they are hardly proof, especially when they are presented by a third party biased group and compare different polling group results, as you do here.Â*Â*

You compare an earlier newpaper poll with a later poll done by Massequality, a pro gay marriage group.

That doesn't make you go hmmmmm? :)

Not done by massequality, it was done by this group: http://www.decisionr.com/home.htm



Now, back to the real world, did you notice that huge increase in DOMA being both put on ballots and passed since courts started OKing gay marriage.

Did you notice the lack of such bills being passed in MA and canada? And the lack of momentum for such bills a year or two later?

If you were correct, then when a court OK'd gay marriage, everyoe would accept it, however what generally happens is a substantal and growing group of people start getting politically involved to stop gays from using the court to bypass the will of the people.

States that didn't legalize it aren't examples of your point. The point is if it is legalized then opposition to it drops over time, not that opposition to it drops it places where it's legal. While opposition to it is dropping gradually, it's not due to legalization.

I think that pretty much proves what same sex marriage brings, and it isn't acceptance. Look at california, where same sex marriage was allowed for a time, what happened there? Acceptance?


It was never actually legal, and it was allowed for a very short time. Between 2004 and 2006 it remained relatively stable, going up 4% points but that's within the margin of error.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Did you notice the lack of such bills being passed in MA and canada? And the lack of momentum for such bills a year or two later?



And did you notice the lack of bills prior to that? So you can't say it increased or decreased opposition prior to this.

You can cherry pick and obscucate all you want, but the facts speak for themselves, the more gay marriage becomes in the public eye, the more opposition to it grows.

By Nov 8th it is probable that fully 50% of the states will have DOMA, up from none before this hubbub started. That makes it irrefutable that exposure to gay marriage increases opposition to it rather than decreases it.

[piratemonkey]

So your religiously-based morals weren't told to you when you were too young to analyze

What age is that, exactly? You can't even understand language without the power to analyze.


Your premise is absurd.

You are suggesting that a 5 year old (who has language skills) can objectively analyze the potential existance of mythological, omnipotent, omniscient being to the same degree that adults can... and ignore the emotional warnings from adults around her about going to hell if she doesn't believe.

That's plausible.:rolleyes:

Also, that is not everything Askates wrote, is it?

I picked a place to start.Â*Â*I thought you'd at least agree with me on that point.

Since you seem to think a 5 year old is the mental equivalent of an adult, I guess we aren't going to get much farther in this conversation.

I guess we should allow 12 year olds to have non-parentally approved abortions, since their analytical ability is so profound.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You are suggesting that a 5 year old (who has language skills) can objectively analyze the potential existance of mythological, omnipotent, omniscient being to the same degree that adults can...



That isn't my premise at all.

Not only did you not read what Askates wrote, you didn't read what I wrote either.

Why don't you read the posts and try again.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And did you notice the lack of bills prior to that? So you can't say it increased or decreased opposition prior to this.

You can cherry pick and obscucate all you want, but the facts speak for themselves, the more gay marriage becomes in the public eye, the more opposition to it grows.

By Nov 8th it is probable that fully 50% of the states will have DOMA, up from none before this hubbub started. That makes it irrefutable that exposure to gay marriage increases opposition to it rather than decreases it.


Opposition rallies, that was not the issue. You're avoiding the point. The point is that within states and countries that legalize, opposition decreases over time. The immediate aftermatch is not evidence against that, what Alabama does in response to MA has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Any society that has legalized same sex marriage, you do not find increased opposition to it 1, 2 or 3 years down the road. Again, as I've repeatedly state, within that society.

[askates]

LOL, so basically anyone who morals don't agree with what you want them to be is simply brainwashed?

If you do not understand , and or can not fully explain the ethical reasons why or where you gained your morals, i'd say yes. oh and if you gained them by reading(or more likely someone reading to you) the bible, or any other fictional adventure mini-series, I would seriously examine the functionality and rellevance of modeling your life after the traditions of ancient civilizations.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

LOL, so basically anyone who morals don't agree with what you want them to be is simply brainwashed?


If you do not understand , and or can not fully explain the ethical reasons why or where you gained your morals, i'd say yes.


I would say that you excluded your own point with that one, since religious morals can be based on and explained by religious ideas being ethical ideas.


oh and if you gained them by reading(or more likely someone reading to you) the bible, or any other fictional adventure mini-series, I would seriously examine the functionality and rellevance of modeling your life after the traditions of ancient civilizations.


Seeing as ethics in ancient civilizations don't have an experation date I fail to see the justification for your statement here. In fact it seems ethically suspect for you to imply that fiction or historical documentation (as much of the bible is) cannot represent an ethical lesson.

It seems to me you simply dislike religion and the morals that come with it, and are baseing an opinion on that personal dislike rather than any moral basis.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You're avoiding the point.


No I am not.

Even in Canada the polls over the past six years have been basically the same result. You can cherry pick the data to go either way, but overall it was close to 50/50 then, and it is close to 50/50 now (with opposition to gay marriage being the norm), the exception being a recent poll that was financed by Canadians for Equal Marriage, a pro gay marriage group. Since the pro gay marriage group poll disagrees strongly with a poll taken just four months earlier by a news orginaization and all other existing poll data from neutrally funded sources it's pretty obvious that a biased result was sought and achieved so the claim could be made that teh debate was over.

In Spain, likewise the legal gay marriage doesn't seem to be enjoying broad support, with constitutional challanges against it.

This idea you put forth that allowing gay marriage causes acceptance of gay marriage does not seem to hold water.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Even in Canada the polls over the past six years have been basically the same result. You can cherry pick the data to go either way, but overall it was close to 50/50 then, and it is close to 50/50 now (with opposition to gay marriage being the norm), the exception being a recent poll that was financed by Canadians for Equal Marriage, a pro gay marriage group.[/quote]

Which was conducted by http://erg.environics.net/

There wazs a 5% jump in that pole from the pole they conducted the previous year: The most recent public opinion poll on same-sex marriages became available on June 19th, 2006. The poll, conducted by Environics Research, showed that support for the law increased, as Canadians accept gay marriage by a 59-33 majority. An Environics poll taken in January of 2005, showed the majority favoured the law, but by a tighter margin: 54-43. The poll also asked respondents if they favoured reopening the issue, as Stephen Harper has promised to do in the fall. 62% responded that the issue is settled, 27% felt the issue should be reopened. An Environics poll taken in January, 2006, showed a margin of 66-30 against reopening the debate. Thus, although opposition to reopening the debate fell by 4 points, support for raising it again fell by 3. Finally, only a slim majority of conservative voters felt the issue should be reopened. Strong opponents have fallen from 46% per cent to 35%.

http://www.answers.com/topic/same-sex-marriage-in-canada

Environs have conducted the most recent poll. A poll on this issue was funded by groups who had interest in it, not designed by those groups.

In Spain, likewise the legal gay marriage doesn't seem to be enjoying broad support, with constitutional challanges against it.

Every poll I'm looking at places support in the 60+ percent region. What are you looking at?

[MAP2010.wireless]

In a country that was built on the distinction--if not separation--of the sate from the church, why are marriages bestowed by a chucrh held legal, but those that offend a church are not?

When asked, the primary reason that I have been given in opposition to gay marriages is that it is against God's law (or some variation to that same end).

My response is "So?"

We don't operate in this country under God's law, we operate based on a constitution which derives its power from the consent of the people, not from any deity or divine guidance.

I propose that if gay marriages are not legal, then neither should be catholic marriages, or evangelical, baptist, mormon, jewish, etc.

The only marriages that should be legally recognized in the US are civil marriages, and ANYONE of legal age should be allowed to enter into such a marriage, just as they would any other legally binding contract.

And BTW - I am not gay, but I am religious. Also, I am a firm believer in democracy and democratic values. Just so you know where my self-interests lie.


Christian Marriages are blessed by God and anying thats not Blessed by God (to me) has no meaning at all. I don't care that its back by the State. If the State said we don't want you to get married if its Blessed by God. I would still only Care if i felt it was Blessed by God.

[Elrathin]

Christian Marriages are blessed by God and anying thats not Blessed by God (to me) has no meaning at all. I don't care that its back by the State. If the State said we don't want you to get married if its Blessed by God. I would still only Care if i felt it was Blessed by God.



Well then since gays wouldn't be married by Christian Churches and only by the state, what is your problem with it then since you just said if it isn't blessed by god you don't care.

Well it wouldn't be blessed by god (according to you) so you shouldn't care. So please make up your mind.