I think your ignorant and disrespectful. People are entitled to believe what they want and in this case 62% of the country is not down with gay marriage. Damn those ignorant people will morals, they'll be the death of us all!

I do appologize if you find me offensive. I am in no way trying to attack or belittle anyone personally. I just am passionate about my freedoms and find that most who argue to take freedoms away go to such amazing extremes to prove how they are right it boggles my mind.

Allowing gay marriage is not going to end the world. Nor is it going to open the floodgates to beastiality or pedophilia. That's just warping the whole argument.

It's all about CONSENTING ADULTS. Doing kids and animals is not about love it is about a sick attempt of power over another living being.

As for polygamy, don't you think that should be left up to the individuals? If my wife came to me and said she wanted to stay married but also wanted to marry some other guy, I'd get a divorce, but that's my attitude some maybe ok with that and that is thier business not mine.

MoJo,

I am not saying that ALL PEOPLE who disagree with same sex marriage are ignorant and stupid. There are many who can and do argue with respectable points on morality that don't have to take it to the extreme of Beastiality/family/pedophilia.

It is when an argument has to take on those extremes when I laugh at the people who choose those extremes because they make no sense to the original argument. The argument is about CONSENTING LEGAL AGED ADULTS nothing else.

First it is "You're " ignorant...or you are.
Second, If he is amongst the other 48%, does he get to have an opinion also? Or is he too ignorant?

So what if we had two types of marriage? One "under god" and one "under law", with the same rights. In this way the christians can still feel superior, and every citizen of this country can gain entitlement to the rights the deserve as humans in a society.

I imagine this is how the other threads on this topic died out. Let's keep it a little calmer. This is a good topic for DISCUSSION, not flaming.

I challenge someone to give me a reason, not tied to the slippery slope, that marriage and all rights thereof, should not be extended to homosexual couples.

Is your only reason religious views? This country was founded on the basis of NOT being ruled by religion. Beyond the ceremony of marriage is just a lot of legal bindings. That's really it.
Why deny that to a subset of america?

There was a time that interracial marriage was illegal, Hell it still is in some countries (*And Bob Jones University)

Ok......... my final point

Say I am gay have lived with the same man for 25 years.

First, in pretty much any religion from the time I was a kid I would have been told I was going to hell for my feelings and for my actions. EVEN THOUGH I HURT NOONE.

Secondly, in most cases the gay person's family (parents, brothers, sisters etc.) disown them or treat them as a shameful burden and won't accept them. My family is pretty liberal but I'm sure they would have problems, so I have to live with that guilt.

Thirdly, I have society that can get away with bashing me. Go to a gay bar where goons have beaten gays up, 99% of the time the police do NOTHING to the offenders. Plus, I have to live stereotyped as a weak infeminated person, jokes and abuse come at me pretty much from everywhere.

NOW, a society wants to add to these problems and say I am not entitled to the same rights with this man I lived with for 25 years that a woman would be entitled to? THAT'S MORAL?????? THAT'S BEING CARING??????

Nobody chooses to be gay. We all fall in love with a person who we find attractive and attractiveness is not just based on sex to most people. It's based on values, interests, goals, etc shared. Just because someone is of the same sex does not mean you cannot fall in love with that person.

Ya all realize if we had socialized medicine this wouldn't even be a problem.

It is you're. Btw its 38%* not 48%. Let the people decide through a vote, I don't think its fair that it comes down to a 4-3 ruling in the courts.

Ya know what? 38% wins!

To get a constitutional amendment you need 2/3 of both houses of congress.

This is a Republic not a democracy. We protect the minority's rights here.

I agree with you. I'd still rather see it decided through the would be democratic/republic process of vote through amendment, even if it does fail.

Though I know it will fail, especially how it is worded. It is a sorry fact that a majority of americans are in favor of denying some type of rights to americans, and that a majority of legislators are in favor of denying all legal rights to homosexual couples.
It makes me feel ashamed.
I think what is going on with gay rights now is going to be our Civil Rights Act period. We are going to have a whole generation of legislators who will have voting to supress a part of the american population as part of their legacy.

I'll be watching the vote on this carefully. My congressman Todd Platts(r) has indicated that he will vote in favor of this amendment. I will be sure to campaign and contribute against him this time. (I voted for him last round)

Rick Santorum(r) will definetly vote for the amendment. Likewise for him. Arlen Specter(r) I don't know his position on this yet. But all voting "Yea" will have motivated me to not just not vote for them, but work against them.

I had some respect for Santorum. Specter even tho a straight lined partisan should be cool enough to vote no. He is a good senator one of a dying breed.

Hmm... Do you have those two mixed up?
Santorum is the party line republican and Specter regularly crosses over and votes with the Dems.
Specter does that so much that an ultra conservative republican congressman is challenging him for his seat for 2004

Here's the deal, whether or one supports, ignores, or abhors homosexuality is completely immaterial to the conversation. It is as pure a matter of equal protection under the law as one could possibly imagine. If two (or more, for that matter) people want to more or less permanently associate in such a way that the state grants them a status that in some way blurs their legal persons into a whole, then the sex of the people shouldn't matter any more than their race, age, weight, or religion. Unless we're really pushing to go back to the bad old days when miscegenation was a word most people understood, then we need to lay off this whole agrument.

Another thing that I ran across today, in a letter read on NPR, was a good question, "What exactly does the Defense of Marriage ammendment defend marriage against? That is, what damage to marriage could homosexuals do that hasn't already been done by heterosexuals?" That's the other thing that really gets me about this. What harm is there in this? Who's hurt? Where's there an aggrieved party?

Actually, we do. The States grant the right to issue licenses to the clergy as if they were agents of the state, but the license is as valid from the county clerk as it is from the archbishop. So the license is the civil union, and any religious ceremony recognizing the people joined in that union is something else again, and from a legal standpoint, strictly optional. That's another reason why I just don't get what the fuss is about, both about gay marriage, and about calling it a civil union. I hardly thing separate but equal applies here. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, then Cheney and Scalia are just as likely to shoot at it no matter what you call it.

Looks like Cali beat Mass. to the punch.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/12/ga....ap/index.html

Sometimes I hate Cali and some times I love it, this time I love it.

This is America. Every citizen should have equal rights.

Gay Marriage amendment wording
 

There's a gay marriage thread, but I want to talk about the wording of this proposal, and why the president's position on it is dishonest.

President Bush backs this wording for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The story barely mentions the fact that it doesn't do what Bush says it will. It says that the US Constitution, any state constitution, any state law, or any federal law cannot allow the "legal incidents" of marriage. It allows civil unions in name only, and not the substantive common law rights that gay couples want (and that couples which happen to be straight have enjoyed for years). We're talking about things like inheritance and hospital visitation.

So, Bush supports a wording, says it will allow civil unions. Although it allows the state to create a status called a "civil union," it doesn't allow the state to grant any marriage-like rights under that status. Therefore, all it does is prevent the extension of simple rights and marital status by name to gay couples. Therefore, the President's position on the wording is correct only in the most technical sense imaginable.

He offers "civil unions," but doesn't offer us anything we can't put in quotes like that. His bill won't allow Civil Unions, complete with rights and stuff, but it will allow people to enter into a "civil union" in name only.

Thirty eight states have to radify an ammendment before it becomes constitutional law.

I don't think they can get 38. (I don't know that for sure, just my feeling.)

Lurkette, let's make babies?

:icare:

I'm all for the separation of church and state. Marriage should never have been a state-sanctioned or sponsored organization.

Quite frankly, I think whoever made it one in legislation brought this issue upon themselves, since it couldn't have been introduced by a non-religious entity. (I'm making assumptions here -- would like to be corrected if not entirely true.)

I find it funny that the government can say that "marriage is a sacred ritual that has to be protected", yet I'm sure half those who say that went home and watched "Married by America".. Sacred my ass.. If two gay people want to get married and have equal rights, then I feel they should have it. (but then again, Im Canadian *g*)

Because then we'd all be dead. DEAD, I TELL YOU, DEAD!!!!

For thousands of years marriage has existed as an instituion in which children can be raised. It has always implied a relationship between a man and a woman. (Although often more than one woman per man.) The idea that people get married in order to be able visit each other in the hospital or receive health benefits or as a public demonstration of their committment is bogus. It is an argument that gays use to try to make my heart bleed with compassion. If people want to be in same-sex relationships let them do it like it has always been done-hidden from the mainstream. Lets not legitimize the deviency of a SMALL minority of our population. In short two people of the same-sex cannot marry because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's commonsense.

LSD

Guess I have none, then, because I really don't understand how anyone, other than die-hard religious nuts, can say that with a straight face in this day and age.

Marriage is a man-made institution of Christian origin that to me is a union of two people who love each other. I married my wife because I love her, and marriage to many means commitment, it means a promise. I see no reason to deny this from any two people that love each other.

While I would not agree with opinions to the contrary based on any arguments that I have heard so far, I would respect them. However I find it difficult to respect an opinion such as yours that is based on ignorance and prejudice.

w00t!

Prince is wise.

I think that if the defense of marriage act was really about defending the sanctity of marriage it would expressly outlaw divorce. Really, what is a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the easy access to divorce? I would also offer that anyone who truly claims to support the sanctity of marriage in the heterosexual, traditional, promise-before-god sense who doesn't support the prohibition of divorce is full of shit.

Don't you think they know that and that they are trying to outlaw it as well?

AFAIK, people of other cultures, ie non-christians, also gets married. Is it really a Christian tradition?

Yeah that really was a stupid comment, seeing how marriage predates the christian institution.

Sacred ritual? Sacred ritual? Sounds kinda pagan to me. I don't see the government stepping up to protect any of my sacred rituals.

Correct, my insightful friend. Who the hell am I, or any one of you, for that matter, to prevent two people, that truly love one another, from bonding in marriage. Does it affect my life in the least? No, it does not. It does not because I do not feel threatened by it.

For crying out loud, it hasn't been all that long ago that interacial marriages were looked upon as some sort of unholy abhoration. I'm talking not long ago as in within my memory. I'm "only" 41 folks. Most of you here are a heck of a lot younger than I am, that's no secret. But if someone of my "advanced years" can keep an open mind about this, then can't some of you at least try?

Hold the phone!!! Are you actually admitting that if you take the Christianity part out of it...something makes more sense?!? You heard it here first, folks!! Straight from the horses mouth. ;)

No, I'm not admitting that. All I said was that marriage predated Chrisitianity. However in context of the arguement Christianity does play a big role in marriage, especially here in this country.

As does homosexuality.

Nevertheless, I was referring to marriage as this society understands and upholds it, in general. Our understanding of what marriage is about and the values related to it are closer to the Christian view of it than, say, those of some African tribes.

My wife and I were not married in a church or with anyone of religious affiliation in attendance. We didn't sign any license from the government that says we are married.

We had a simple ceremony where we stood infront of our friends and family and (to keep the story short) announced that we were married.

We've been married for going on 11 years now. Under the law we are considered common law spouses. We have two kids and a nice house in an nice neighbourhood...

Yet, if my wife shared the same gender as me, we would not have the same legal rights. That just doesn't make sense. At all.

123dsa points out that marriage has been what it is (man and woman) for thousands of years. Yep... no denying that. I've said it before though, things change. You may not like it but they do change over time.

In our society there is an increasing number of people of the same sex that want the same rights as hetero couples. They aren't saying that the church (take you pick of religions) needs to change only that secular law needs to change.

Does changing this law in anyway effect the lives of those who disagree with same sex marriage? Perhaps it is an affront to their belief but does it force them to change their belief in any way? No. They can continue to believe it is wrong just as they believe that it is wrong to take prayer out school.

Time to move on. This battle was over before it began.

Up with secular government!

By the way... I can't believe that no one has commented on the fact that the original message came from something called, "Ernie's House of Whoopass."

That's just too comical...

Does anyone else see that compared to our dying schools, our crumbling infrastructure and the fact that 1000's upon 1000's of good paying jobs are being lost and replaced by 100's of minimum wage temp jobs this marriage thing is a pimple?

The powers that be and the press prefer us fighting over this minutia because it takes our eyes off the more serious problems that are not getting solved but are being made worse.

Personally, if you truly hold marriage that sacredly and deem anything other than man-woman as sick. Fine. But ask yourself if you are truly willing to give up more rights.

If we took the energy we used defending positions on this ONE topic of little consequence and used that energy to constructively work together trying to figure out how to revive the schools or the jobs it would be a much better nation.

I think it's sad that over 60% of the country wants to deny basic rights to other citizens based on prejudice. And while I usually respect the will of the people sometimes the people are wrong. The people have been wrong before and they have been over ruled by the government for the sake of the common good before -- the most obvious example of this is school desegregation during the civil rights movement -- the large majority of the national population was against this -- i think we can look back and say that the majority was wrong and thank our constitution for correcting them. Similarly the majority of the population in the south would love to stop teaching evolution in public schools. For years the majority of people didn't support allowing minorities or women to vote or own land. Part of the reason why our government is not a straight democracy is that often the will of the people is out of line with the will of the constitution.

I heard a pretty decent argument regarding the 62% majority this morning- in past history, we've had a majority of citizens who believed slavery was okay (it was not), segregation was necessary (It was not), and interracial marriage should be illegal (It shouldn't be).

This country has always thrived on being forward-thinking. There will always come a time when ACTUAL morality wins out over racist/sexist/homophobic morality. Why delay this by 10, 20, 50 years? Get over your self-righteousness now.

In this country, it's legal to CHEAT on your spouse. It's legal for a woman to become pregnant by another man while married to her husband. It's legal for a couple to swap partners for the weekend and engage in hardcore BDSM while shuffling their kids off to grandma's house. Are any of these actions morally correct? Would 62% of Americans say so?

There are many valid arguments that show exactly how hypocritical folks can be when it comes to same-sex relationships. Amending our constitution to support prejudice is simply asinine.

You ever take part in municipal planning? I have. Many municipalities across america, like in Pennsylvania, where we have the commonwealth system) have very specific rules regarding things like screens.
A screen is a row, or several rows of trees to block a development such as a factory, warehouse, or housing development from the people across from it.

The "proper" planting trees can actually spark discussion. Developers don't care. Trees are relatively cheap. But the developers and their lawyers make a big deal out of the planting of screens. Some municipalities will require 5 rows of screen. The developer says "Well, We only want to plant two rows. And they will only be 5% coniferous, 22% maple instead of 15% coniferous and 7% maples etc...." Well the munic and the residents of course don't like the developers skirting the rules so they start to argue. And arguments about Screens can last HOURS.
In the end the developer always gives in and promises to do the required screening. By then everyone is tired and the plan gets passed just so everyone can go home. In the meantime, becasuse of a lengthy debate that sapps everyones energy and just doesn't leave time for it, the stormwater retention basin may be just a little bit too small or the building setbacks may be a few feet too close to the property boundary. Or the developer is putting 350 subdivisions on X acres when the subdivision/land development ordinance for the municip clearly states only 275 subdivisions on X acres are allowed.
But by then, after it is passed and someone remembers what the real concerns were, it's too late, there isn't anything you can do about it now.
I see this in different forms every week or so, but most often the bait is screening. And it almost always works.

Now I think allowing gays to get benefits is an important issue. But we all know that this amendment has no chance of passing, and I am sure the backers of the amendment know that as well.
And we are missing the bigger picture of the state of the nation. unemployment, jobs leaving america forever, crushing debt, 2/3 of our military entangled in an unnecessary war leaving us unprepared for a real emergency....
Bush is trying to divide the nation and get them to vote on the single issue of gay marriage.

The Gay movement isn't going anywhere. Even if they get awarded the right to marry under the state, it still won't be recognized in 39 states or the federal government.

I believe it is the equal protection clause of the Constitution that will force the other 39 states to recognize Californias lesbian couples.

I do believe Defense of Marriage Act deals with that.

Tomservo: dude i think we were channelling each other -- good to know we have ESP on our side.

Constitution trumps the DOMA after one state (California) starts marrying people.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination.

But I do believe what they are doing in California is not legal. I see what you are saying though, thanks for enlightening me.

See? The amendment is gonna fail. States on both coasts are about to start marrying homosexuals, Equal protection is set to gear that up to nationwide acceptance whether the majority likes it or not.

Might as well just go with the flow. :)

{edit} just saw your message above mine. Why do you think the marriages are not legal?

The majority of the people don't agree with allowing same-sex marriages, but the Democrats (pretty much) are saying that the majority is wrong and the laws need to be changed.

At the end of the Bush/Gore election, the Democrats were saying that the "majority" of the people voted for Gore, and that the minority was wrong and the laws need to be changed.

So which is it? Are we to have majority or minority rule?

The best way to explain what this country is, is through an analogy I read somewhere. I believe it may have been here. I repeated it here once before as well.

"In a democracy two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.
In a republic two wolves, and a sheep with an assault rifle vote on what's for dinner."

Majority rule, minority protection.

Don't laws in place in California define marriage as between a man and woman? I realize it doesn't restrict homosexual marriage.

I don't know, and I also don't know how exactly this marriage was done. We will see how it pans out.

Mass is actually going to have to restructure their laws to allow for homosexual marriage, so even if Cali doesn't work out it will still happen.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Constitution, so forgive my ignorance, but can someone with the knowledge tell me this... I've heard that if two people get married in one state, and that marriage is legal in that particular state, then all states are supposed to recognize it? Is this true?

That's the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states.

Even gay marriages?

Legal Hetero marriages. I still don't know if the 14th affords protection to homosexual marriage. Here the wording in the bill of DOMA...

Now its really confusing, and I think what I'm seeing is that states don't have to recognize. I could be wrong though. Here is an article on the bill from when it was passed in 1996
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/

Note:

is it even possible for a state to pass a law that essentially disavows part of the consitution? wouldn't this be by definition illegal?

It won't work though. A state can hold nothing legally binding if it runs counter to the US Constitution.

We can't exclude groups of people from the Civil Rights act. That is unconstitutional. And inclusion of everyones equal rights under the law was the intent of the Civil Rights Act. So yes the 14th amendment does cover homosexual rights.

DOMA isn't worth the paper it was written on once it runs counter to the 14th amendment. There will be a small fight but when a simple act runs up agaisnt a constitutional amendment in a court of law, the act gets trashed.

Without a new Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting homosexual marriage, the DOMA was conceived as and will be discarded as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW The only reason it lasted so long is that no state had yet enacted a homosexual marriage so the DOMA had not yet taken effect.

No, it is not possible.

But ultimately the Supreme Court decides if a state law is unconstitutional (if it gets that far).

Not until and unless it's challenged in court, to be specific. That's why absurd laws are discovered each year that aren't enforced ("No whistling while you're walking down the street on a Sabbath" kind of thing)

Um, sorry. A courts primary guideline is the constitution. The constitution can only be altered by the legislature unless the constitution is contradicting itself, which it has to this point never done.
Those stupid laws you cite like no whistling while you're walking down the street on a sabbath are not constitutional laws. No court in the country will or is even able to strike down the CONSTITUTION.
Only a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress plus the presidentials favor will ever change the constitution.
And the homophobes don't have the 2/3 majority.

I think the point meembo was making is that a law isn't unconstitutional until it is challenged in court and declared so by that court and up held by a higher court.

This is technically true.

Ooh, I guess I misunderstood him.

Well the DOMA has just been activated yesterday for the first time. It was a dormant law that was intended to lurch forward when one state started marrying people. Now it has. And now it comes to loggerheads with Equal protection. And now we get to see DOMA die.

It will get challenged in federal courts over the next several months. Federal justices will have no choice but to strike it down.

Ill get right to it..

the mandatory "In Sweden"-answer:
http://www.google.se/search?q=cache:...hl=sv&ie=UTF-8

An article about Sweden and gay marriages/rights for gaycouples from the Baltimore Sun.

Are you sure Bush said he would allow civil unions? I thought he was against that as well...

I do believe shrub said he was in favor of "some form of civil union".

Actually, it's the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. It's the same rule that, when applied, says that if you have a driver's license in California you get to drive in Vermont, too.

FYI, as I noted above, it's the full faith and credit clause that is implicated by this, not the 14th amendment. well maybe the 14th, too, but that's a different argument and you need to get through a ton of legal hurdles before getting 14th amendment coverage.

Also FYI, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, so it could repeal it if it wanted to.

The argument that DOMA isn't unconstitutional (double negative!), as I understand it, is that the Constitution says that "the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Which arguably suggests that it has some say in the what states have to recognize and what they don't (though I don't buy it).


*EDIT* By the way, lest there be some misunderstanding, I support gay marriage as a civil concept. (I support it as a religious concept too, but the government can't force that....pesky 1st amendment)

Personally, I think I should be able to marry a 9 year old. Who can really judge if a child can consent to something like a marriage? What about an animal? My pets sleep in my bed everynight, I feed and water them, play with them, etc. When I let them outside, they are free to run away, but they always come back. Sounds like a marriage to me.

We should just let anybody do whatever they want. We're already destroying the basic building blocks of civilization. Who gives a brown turd what homosexuals will do if they are married? They may actually help speed up the downfall of civilization, so we can start the rebuilding a lot sooner.

This country is going down the shitter at a record pace. Just turn on the damn TV and tell me that you would let your kids watch it. But most of you probably wouldn't see a problem with your 5 year old knowing what a "rim job" is.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real problem lies.

As I said, he allows people to be in "civil unions," but he favors an amendment that prevents such people from getting any additional rights from that designation.

In a sense, he does oppose what civil unions are supposed to be.

umm
children are still protected under law. sorry

as for everything else, umm...dude, people hve been saying "This generation is bringing about the downfall of society" since socrates...seriously...society changes, sorry. happens. as for what you say will happen...probably not what you think.

relax

Well, i think if "the defenders of marriage" came out and actually said, "Oh yeah, and we're going to outlaw divorce too," they would find that they had a lot fewer than 60% of the people at their backs.

I have heard a great many homophobic comments rationalized in religious terms. Fortunately, most religious arguments against homosexuality don't really hold any water (unless you're allowed to pick and choose which verses are god's word and which aren't important.) This whole "We've got to save marriage" sentiment i think amounts to nothing more than rationalized bigotry, since i think most people aren't really concerned with the sanctity of marriage. People just don't want "the gays" to be able to get married.
Does anybody not see the incredible irony required for the hetero community to exclude homosexual marriages under the pretense that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage? Over half of all marriages end in divorce. How could gay marriage possible make marriage any worse off than it already is?

Nice balderdash. You're right, full faith and credit clause is much more direct and specific to this issue.
Both are applicable I believe, but the one that will be used to actually move this nonsense along will be full faith and credit.

Its not that small a minority as you may think. When a group is oppressed there are a percentage who remain hidden. Anyway, however small you cannot deny them the same human rights as the rest of the population. There are other smaller minority groups who aren't treated like second class citizens.

I'd also like to add that things like legal issues such as inheritance and access to hospitals are not 'bogus' but can be very important to all people at some stage in their lives.

The important issue is equality and you fail to address that.

For those that argue "Majority agrees no same sex marriage" where were you when a MAJORITY elected Bill Clinton to do a job and the GOP pretty much bogged him down in bullshit scandals?

Where were you majority listeners when Al Gore was elected by a majority yet JUDGES determined who the president would be?

OOOO you say those weren't true majorities.... I see.

Where are you when a majority say the war is too expensive and did not need to happpen?

What? Oooooooooooo I see you say POLLS can can biased and misleading. But the poll in this circumstance is 100% accurate and unbiased. Because it just is.

I see. Yes you have won me over I want to be part of the majority. You show me a poll and I will blindly follow whatever it says.

Of course they won't do that, anymore than the folks who want to ban "assault weapons" will tell Joe American "and by the way, we really want to ban all guns".

They go after the emotionally charged issues first, because those are the one's easiest to get support for.

Well..If I were gay and I wanted to get married. I'll just do it, i'm breaking the law. Lets see those fucks put me in jail or fine me. IF they dare...

There's something really subtle that nobody's bothered to bring up. If you want to define marriage as between a "male" and a "female", well, you'd have to then define what it is to be "male" or "female".
Pause for a moment.
I'm supposedly male, right? Well, what happens if I cut my genitalia, and take some hormones to grow breasts. What sex am I then, and who can I marry? Am I previously male, and therefore able to marry men in my now female apparence? Am I female, and then unable to marry women in my now female apparence?
I think you understand the complexity of this. It's not just transexuals, it's intersexuals. "Hermaphrodites." Some doctors would just assume cut them up at birth, "assigning" them genders at birth, but I believe they should be allowed to live out their lives however they see fit. Seriously, who can a hermaphrodite marry? Both? Neither? We're all human. I think we should all be able to agree that we should be able to marry other sentient beings. (I'm somehow reminded of Star Trek.) I don't see why what we have between our legs should dictate what type of human we are allowed to marry.

It doesn't have anything to do with what we have between our legs. It has only to do with prejudice, fear of something different, "abnormal", different from ourselves.

Throwing sex changes and hormone treatments in people's faces won't really help. Then they'll say, let's decide the sex based on chromosomes... If it has two X chromosomes, it's a girl. If one X and one Y, it's a boy. Okay... What about cases of aneuploidy, like Turner's or Klinefelter's syndrome? What defines the sex then?

There's always a counter-opinion to each opinion, a counter-thought to each thought. I don't believe we can argue this point with logic, because the opposition's opinion is based on fear, and fear is not necessarily logical, or at least may not provide people the means to assess things logically.

I look forward to the day when gay marriage is a natural to all people

Within the same arena of having equal rights for people falls the right of any capable couple to adopt children. Not discounting love, or capable financial abilities; or even the fact that there are children from heterosexual parents get abused physically and mentally by their parents- is there any inherent problems that can arise?

This poll was done a few months ago- so far the majority are in favor of gay couples having the right to adopt.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...+couples+adopt

Gay couples should have at least an equal right to adopt, possibly a preference.

It is really very shocking to me that there are people who oppose gay marriage. Most of the time I enjoy the fact that my opinions are challenged often on this board, but it is very hard to see people arguing against what self evidentlty seems to me to be very basic human rights.

I can only agree with Nancy's post.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman who will raise children to carry on the human species. Marriage provides a legal structure for ensuring stability in our civilization. The children in a marriage get their values and beliefs largely from whoever raises them, as kids are very impressionable and can be shaped in any number of ways.

Most children have walked in on their parents having sex or seen their mom and dad exchanging affection in different ways. Children realize that it is natural for a man and a woman to do these things and in turn eventually do these same things, producing children of their own.

Homosexuals do not produce children. Nature has decided that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, but we think we know better. Imagine what would happen if children didn't realize that they're supposed to marry someone of the opposite sex. We'd eventually face an extinction as a species, because guys can probably get a lot more sex from each other than from girls, and girls can get a lot more emotional support from other girls.

Did you ever wonder why the Greeks and Romans are no longer a dominant force in the world and faced a collapse of their entire civilization? It's the same thing, history repeating itself and all that.

You assume that homosexuality is a choice, and that I could, if I wanted to, "choose" to be gay. It isn't so. Sexual preference is determined by something in the hypothalamus.

Acceptance of homosexuality does not mean suddenly we'll all be gay. Besides, there's enough people on the earth as it is. We could use a lot more homosexuals to bring down the net population. It's better than war or disease.

I dont think the government has a right to tell you who you can and can not sleep with or marry. I think its discuting that they concern themselves with something that is none of their business. The goverment talks about the freedom that you have by being a citizen well thats BS considering that gays and lesbians are citizens and they dont have the freedom. Or is it for only the "straight" americans that have the freedom.
Religious groups are falling back on the words of the bible saying this is wrong shouldnt be allowed well depending on what theory of evolution you believe in which would depend on religion as well look at Adam and Eve. Eve was created by the rib of Adam. They were told by god to populate the world well if everyone came from Adam and Eve thats just nothing but total incest if you ask me. Personally I think Incest is a lot more discusting then 2 people of the same sex being together.
I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as any straight couple. In Blacks42 post he quoted "And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would". Heres another view on that. A man and woman get married. Man finds out that hes got a medical problem that doesnt allow him to produce sperm. The man cant inpregnate his wife so they talk about insimintation. They go through all the steps so they use her eggs and doner sperm. Well hubby has no ties to that child other then its going to be carrying his last name. The mother dies and all of a sudden the "father" has is a single parent. Its not his kid but in the goverments eyes it is, why wouldnt they take it away from him? Doesnt make sense at all.
It just seems like there is a whole new set of rules for same sex couples wanting to be together and I personally think its unfair.

1, I dont believe gay marriage was especially popular in ancient Rome or ancient Greece

2, they failed for the same reason that every empire fails - in their power they became corrupt and weak. No empire has ever survived indefinitely, regardless of how virulently heterosexual its citizens are.

Do child molesters choose to be so? Serial killers? Necrophiliacs?

We all have natural urges that we do not choose, but which we must control. I have the urge to bash in the heads of stupid people who piss me off everyday, but should I do it? Would society be a better place if I acted on my impulses?

If we are in favor of giving people the freedom to do whatever strikes their fancy, no matter the cost to our civilization, I want to be included.

And where do homosexuals come from anyway? If there was a gene for homosexuality, it wouldn't have survived the first generation.

You're assuming that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is an urge we should purge, that this urge is somehow "bad".



Honestly, I have no idea. But I do know that there are a number of species of animals that are pretty gay. We're just one of them.

That's the first time I heard the fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the gays... heh.

Seriously though, if you have any knowledge about the rise and fall of the Roman empire, you would be laughing at your own comments right now.

Kids are also quite apt to learn intolerance from their parents too. That being said, i think you'll have a difficult time finding any solid evidence that having gay parents damages the morality of a child.

I guess you're implying that a child with homosexual parents will never be able to realize that reproduction requires sperm and an egg because said child will walk in on daddies or mommies having sex. Stunning. I never walked in on my parents, yet i think i know where babies come from. Maybe i just lack your expertise when it comes to childhood development and sexuality.

Homosexuals do produce children. I am aware of many people with gay daddies. I am also aware of sperm banks and fertility doctors. Both are as natural as a birds nest, so don't try to claim that it isn't natural. Nature decided that it takes sperm and an egg to produce children. It cares not about a man and a women.

Are you really attempting to imply that the broad acceptance of homosexual marriage will result in our extinction as a species? Because children won't realize how to reproduce?

I suppose the aztecs were a bunch of homos too. Atlantis? It was really a giant gay resort that was sunk by some kind of gayness.

Yeah, and World War 2 was started cause Hitler thought Jews were "really gay." Whateva.

The chinese emperorers were homos as well, that's why the fell to the commies.

Same thing with Irans Shah.

And Italy is just rampant with gays. Their government has fallen about 40 times in the last century.

Rome didn't fall until Christianity became an accepted part of Roman society.

In the words of Peter Griffin, taken out of context, "UH OH!"

well, when the barbarians invaded and sacked rome, all the flaming gay romans wanted to do was offer some tea and allow themselves to be "sacked."

You know Victor Emmanuel III, Gieseppi and Couvour were so having a gay three way, the redshirt thing was the first "queer eye for the straight guy" in modern history.

*obscure history reference for the day*

Pu Yi was gay?? I watched that movie about the last emperor of china and no where did they mention that Pu Yi was gay. U sure about this? I watch a lot of chinese "dysnastic movies" (the one with swords and heroes with big ass fancy robes) and they didn't seem to mention anything about gay emperors...odd....

Can you tell me where u find this? I'm interested to know :)