Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marriage is an institution designed to foster families - something which homosexual people cannot naturally do.
Yes they can... at least as naturally as a family with step-children/parents, single parents, adoptive parents, IVF/surrogate children, and married adults with no children at all. Families come in many forms, and marriage has never been dependent on "man + woman + sex = babies." At least not in the modern world. Many gay couples are raising children, with or without the state's recognition of their relationship, so there's no reason to believe marriage is connected to this.
Society thinks otherwise. Society, the people, are the ones who make the laws, and those are marriage laws the people have decided shall be written, and enforced.
Laws are often changed, otherwise women & people of color still wouldn't have the right to vote... we'd also consider women the property of their husbands, spousal & animal abuse would be legal, alcohol would be illegal, and so forth. Oh yeah, and Congress makes the laws - the people only get to vote on certain issues, and never get the final say.
I'm a conservative who supports gay rights, gay marriage and even gay adoption. There's no reason why we as a people should look down on anyone with a minor mental disorder who otherwise function fine in life. Gay people should be treated equally, it's just that simple.
We are either all drinking from the same water fountain, or we or not. It's that simple.
They should just legalize it and get it over with. I am sick of this being the top issue people are focusing on (on both sides) when there are so many other problems in this country. For 95+% of Americans nothing will change in their lives if its legalized. But its not going to happen, everybody, liberals and conservatives are going to continue to fight over this while the country goes to hell in a hand basket.
Come to think of it, it might actually cut down on the promiscuity in the gay community if gay marriage were to be legalized.
Conservatives and traditionalists - there are times to fight and times to concede, and this is one of those times. The recent US supreme court ruling assures churches that believe its sin cannot be prosecuted for refusing to marry gay couples, so for most, life will go on as it always has.
then why have we written laws differently for gay people vs. Straight people? In recent history, we had laws that allowed sex between straight people, but made sex between gay people illegal. We had laws that allowed straight people to serve in the military but banned gay people from serving. We had laws that allowed straight people to have jobs in the government, but banned gay people from working for the government. We even had laws that allowed gay people to be involuntarily committed to mental institutions, and if you go back far enough (to about 1850), executed for being gay - we didn't have such laws for straight people.
Currently, most states have different marriage laws for gay couples than they do for straight couples. Namely, the laws allow straight couples to get married and access some 300 state-offered rights whereas the laws forbid gay couples from getting married and deny them those rights. We also have a federal law - doma - that sets different rules for different groups of people. It says that straight couples married in any state get an additional 1100 federal rights, but that no gay couple anywhere - no matter if legally married in a state that allows it, in a civil union, etc - can have those rights.
See: Different laws treating gay people differently. It's the codification of prejudice and invidious discrimination within our laws.
No, it's not "just too bad." when a law unconstitutionally discriminates, the people who are being unjustly treated make a case, and then receive judicial relief. That's currently happening. Many lower courts have ruled doma unconstitutional as well as several state bans on gay marriage - see iowa and california. It's just a matter of time before the injustice is corrected nationwide.
Only by social taboos, quite honestly. The negative effects of incestual coupling are far overstated and for the severe stuff to honestly happen, you'll have to have generations upon generations of incestual coupling.
I'm just tired of society being governed by outdated taboos.
The main problem with the idea of incest 'coupling' for me is that the vast majority of incest has always been abusive. ie father/daughter, father/son, older brother/younger sister, uncle/niece etc.
The majority of children who are sexually abused, are abused by someone in their own family. aka "incest".
I find it interesting that the Bible's Leviticus chap 18's list of taboo sexual 'couplings' has no mention of father/daughter sex.
I guess it didn't confuse the bloodline? And as a daughter was the property of the father, there was no problem with the father using the property of another man.
No, but perhaps you're starting to see the absurdity of the position that "current marriage law does not discriminate."
Again: How come miscegenation laws were considered discriminatory and unconstitutional, when the law technically "applied to everyone equally" on its face?
You sidestepped the question earlier, saying it's about race and not sexuality... but why does it matter? ADDRESS the question.
If you can explain how miscegenation laws are "equal rights", then you may actually get somewhere promoting your idea that "gays have equal rights."
It was religious conservatives who put up the biggest opposition to interracial marriage. They used pretty much the same arguments as they are now doing about same-sex marriage.
"It's against God's plan. It's unnatural. Soon people will be marrying their dogs etc etc."
It was religious conservatives who put up the biggest opposition to interracial marriage. They used pretty much the same arguments as they are now doing about same-sex marriage.
"It's against God's plan. It's unnatural. Soon people will be marrying their dogs etc etc."
They also love their polygamy argument, even though polygamy was practiced by Mormons who are/were more Conservative.
Marriage is an institution designed to foster families - something which homosexual people cannot naturally do.
When two men, or two women become able to procreate a child on their own, I'll change my mind. For now, I know of none that can.
According to the 2000 census data:
45.6 percent of married heterosexual partners are raising children
43.1 percent of unmarried heterosexual partners are raising children
34.3 percent of lesbian couples are raising children
22.3 percent of male gay couples are raising children
By your criteria, you are also saying that heterosexual infertile couples or heterosexual couples who have step-children, or heterosexual couples who adopt children, or heterosexual couples who don't want children ..... should not be allowed to get married.
Why are gay and lesbian couples with children discriminated against but not those couples listed above who also don't meet your criteria for marriage?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
