I don’t think constitutionally restricting the rights of gays is enough.
In order to truely protect marriage, the government must ammend the constitution to BAN divorce. Since divorce destroys over 50% of heterosexual marriages, it must be abolished. Divorce harms far more heterosexual marriages than gay marriage does (zero to date). Once we do this, I will support the constitutional ban on gay marriage.
We allow too many freedom’s in this country, it’s time to start limiting them constitionally. We’ll start with the gays, then women, blacks, jews, the elderly, the obese and then you.
I think that getting “legally” married to show you love each other is completely ridiculous anyway. For straights or for gays. If you love each other, then just let it be, if its real love then you shouldn’t need a piece of paper to show it.
Of course there’s like the tax benefits and whatever…I think that should be changed somehow. But I really don’t know the details of what all that is about, so I can’t argue this point.
I think a lot of people get married just because its practically required by society. And it makes life easier with the tax thing, I guess. People shouldn’t get married if they meet someone they can live with, they should get married if they meet someone they cannot live without.
That’s how I see it.
In addition to tax benefits, there are insurance benefits. I think money is mostly what this is really about. As much as I am morally opposed to homosexual sexuality, I don’t know that there is any reason for the government to ban “marriage” for homosexuals. To please the most people, I think the government could change the wording to “civil union” and leave “marriage” to religious institutions. But then again, changing terminology would require a lot of money and a large effort by every organization that fears related litigation.
And there’s the political power behind it. Undoubtedly the Republican party garners a lot of votes simply because of moral stances like this. As far as I’m concerned, there are much greater political issues at the national level than whether or not two homosexuals are allowed to legally form a civil union.
It really isn’t about money. I think people get married because they WANT to get married. Few do it for tax benifits.
I’d be perfectly fine if “civil union” was legal for all, and “marriage” was left to the churches and had no legal standing, but that just won’t happen.
As far as being “morally opposed”, I strongly suspect that is because of that book you follow, and I feel very strongly that laws and constitutional amendments should not be based on religion. Freedom of religion also applies to freedom FROM religion.
It just reminds me of what primitive times we live in that the president of our great nation wants to constitionally LIMIT the rights of human beings based on his faith. It makes me positively angry.
…and if God didn’t want gay people on this planet, then why did he put them here!!! (rhetorical question from an athiest who knows of scientific evidence that sexuality is not a choice). As far as I’m concerned, discrimination based on sexual orientation is every bit as wrong as discrimination based on race or gender.
Well then what is stopping them from declaring their love for each other? Certainly, around here in California, I believe people are quite tolerant regardless of what the laws say.
I think medical insurance benefits are greater than tax benefits. Adding a partner into an employer’s group insurance policy is definitely cheaper than paying two separate insurance bills.
I agree, to some extent. Laws have to come from somewhere, and they shouldn’t be changed willy nilly. So, we shouldn’t discard a law just because it may have originally came from religion. Yet, I certainly believe in keeping politics and religion separate. I don’t know of any example in history where mixing the two has been good.
I don’t buy the “it isn’t a choice” claim, but following that line would probably dissolve into the science and philosophy discussion we seem to often find ourselves in.
Nonetheless, I’m all for “equal” treatment in society at large (as equal as unique individuals can be treated).
Well then what is stopping them from declaring their love for each other? Certainly, around here in California, I believe people are quite tolerant regardless of what the laws say.
With that said, adding a partner into an employer’s group insurance policy is definitely cheaper than paying two separate insurance bills.
I agree, to some extent. Laws have to come from somewhere, and they shouldn’t be changed willy nilly. So, we shouldn’t discard a law just because it may have originally came from religion. Yet, I certainly believe in keeping politics and religion separate. I don’t know of any example in history where mixing the two has been good.
I don’t buy the “it isn’t a choice” claim, but following that line would probably dissolve into the science and philosophy discussion we seem to often find ourselves in.
Nonetheless, I’m all for “equal” treatment in society at large (as equal as unique individuals can be treated).
And considering how many people in the world die as a result of preventable hunger and disease on a daily basis, I hope that the sheer pettiness of this institutionalized homophobia weighs in hard and heavy on the Christian judgement day.
So when do you think the choice is made? Upon one’s 18th birthday? “Good morning, <yawn>. I think I’ll be gay today…”
No.
So you are either born that way or the “choice” is made in childhood. Probably early childhood. Either way, you end up with gay children. A child who is a sinner of the worst kind. I don’t think the church likes to think about that.
I was flipping through the radio stations on a long drive the other day, and I came upon a religious program discussing this constitutional amendment. They talked about the survival of the church. Traditional families teach traditional values to their children. Traditional church-going families raise church-going children. The church does not want their numbers to dwindle. They seemed very threatened by gay marriage.
They did NOT discuss WHY gay marriage is bad. It was assumed to be true (either based on the audience or based on previous discussion that I missed).
Also, they did not expect to pass this amendment. But they want more votes than last time. They simply hope to make progress and send a positive message. If they don’t get sufficient votes, they feel that they will NEVER have another chance in the future to for such an amendment to be brought to vote.
Well then, why do they need a legal document saying they love each other? The government can not stop two people from showing their true feelings to one another, no matter how hard they try. They can stop people from getting a piece of paper signed, making them “legally” married.
That would be cool with me too, but once again, what good is a civil union if this marriage is just out of love? You don’t need a piece of paper to be married!
Galileo said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God that gave us sense, intellect, and reasoning has intended us to forego their use.” So, follow the Bible if you like, but don’t do it blindly. Have an actual reason for everything you do.
As for being “morally opposed,” the more I hear about divorce and wife beating, the more I’m getting opposed to marriage in general. Don’t get married because you find someone you can live with, get married because you find someone you cannot live without.
I agree with you there…George Bush is doing this because of his Christian beliefs, no arguing that. And you can’t entirely blame him…he does what he thinks is best for the nation as a whole. He clearly doesn’t know best, though.
I believe God gave people freedom of choice…and I don’t believe that being gay is a choice, nor do I think it is inherent. But I wrote more about this below.
I don’t think its a choice, nor is it inherent.
Well, sometimes it is a choice…Kurt Cobain once said, “I’m not gay, but I wish I was, just to piss off all the homophobes.” And I think some people do exactly that.
But when it isn’t a choice, I believe it is simply influenced by modern culture and society. It is assumed that if men care about what they wear and how their hair looks, it must mean they are gay. That is completely ridiculous. Also, marriage is meaning less and less. Something like 50% of all marriages end in divorce. People nowadays are treating marriage like meaningless high school relationships…it doesn’t matter, have as many as you want, just get a divorce if you don’t like it.
Oh, I realize that. But getting married to someone you really don’t need to get married to can make some men (or women, I guess) frustrated with the relationship, they’ll get tired of it, get tired of life, turn to alcohol, which makes them violent…it is not at all uncommon.
I think breaking up is probably easier for an unmarried couple, since they haven’t made any long-term commitments, and it won’t be hard on the kids or family or anything like that. Well, that’s not necessarily true…maybe they have made long-term commitments, just without getting “legally” married. But I find that the kind of people who get married without getting “legally” married are less serious about it, don’t worry as much, and have no reason to get mad at each other or anything. It’s a generalization, so I can’t say its true all the time…but more often than not.
I still like the “Children shouldn’t be raised without a mother or father.” Damn straight.
So let’s have the state take custody of all the children that are born to unwed mothers. Also the ones where the father or mother abandoned the family. Oh yeah, mom or dad die in a tragic accident or from cancer or something? Take the kids. Right? Right?
Ok, so maybe not.
Ok, how about the argument that marriage is for people who want to have kids. Then we just have to ban the infertile, the elderly, and those morally opposed to the birthing of children (such as myself) from getting married.
That won’t work either? Damn. Ok, then lets just let everyone get married. I mean, if straight people can have the joy of being newlyweds, followed by a decline to bitter divorce, why not let homosexuals enjoy the ride as well?
