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.
i'd also like to hear some proof of #1. 4-6 are basically opinion and supposition.
massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country and that has not changed since gay marriage was made legal there. divorce rates have remained the same or lower. if a group of people with a higher divorce rate joined the pool, wouldn't the rate go up?
Just show me where, in the law, all states recognize the legality of gay marriage? It is breaking the law and is not recognized. If you want to change the law, that is your perrogative. Give it a try.
Why not have gay marriage?
1. HIV and STDs increase in areas where gay marriage is allowed- it is a public health issue
2. Domestic violence is greater in gay "domestic partherships" than heterosexals- it is therefore not a suitable place for children
3. Gay divorce rates in Massachusetts are higher than heterosexual divorce rates- they are not stable. There are enough broken families
4. Homosexuality only 35 years ago was a part of the DSM 1 diagnositc manual for psychiatry. It was removed for political reasons. Why have children raised in an environment with high affective disorder rates?
5. Gay marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument of "equality" does not wash, as there was never that right.
6. The slippery slope- why not polygamy and bestiality. By the homosexual argument, this would lead to a defacto expansion of the definition of marriage.
Firstly, "gay marriage" isn't illegal, sorry. It is merely not legally rocognized outside of the 6 states that have overcome the draconian, medieval mindset of the Religious Right( which is niether).
1. I'd ask you for proof, but there isn't any since you pulled that one from your bottom.
2. Same as above.
3. Same as above and doesn't enter into this conversation anyways.
4. Homosexuality was placed on the DSM when the APA sent out a questionairre asking it's members to list, in order, what their patients saw them about. It was REMOVED from the DSM not two decades latter when the APA switched to SCIENTIFIC, CLINICAL RESEARCH. Homosexuality has been OFF the DSM for far longer than it was on. Science triumphs over religion once again. Next
5. Marriage is indeed a right, as noted by SCOTUS in Loving vs. Virginia.
6. Slipper slopes are debate FALLACIES. We speak of two consenting, unrelated adults, noting more, nothing less, so leave your strawman and slippery slope fallacies at home.
I also recall hearing ALL about slippery slopes when Loving vs Virginia was going through the appeals process. Oops, no men marrying children, no one clamouring to marry animals. Just another lame excuse to try and deny gays Equality of Marriage.
it's probably worth pointing out, since hawkeye probably won't bother to look into it, that loving v. virginia was a supreme court case in the 60s that declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. the Lovings, who were an african american woman and caucasian man, were married in DC, went back to their hometown in virginia, and were arrested in their home for being married.
mrs. loving actually died not too long ago and was a passionate advocate for gay marriage.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Just show me where, in the law, all states recognize the legality of gay marriage?
It is breaking the law and is not recognized. If you want to change the law, that is your perrogative. Give it a try.
Why not have gay marriage?
1. HIV and STDs increase in areas where gay marriage is allowed- it is a public health issue
2. Domestic violence is greater in gay "domestic partherships" than heterosexals- it is therefore not a suitable place for children
3. Gay divorce rates in Massachusetts are higher than heterosexual divorce rates- they are not stable. There are enough broken families
4. Homosexuality only 35 years ago was a part of the DSM 1 diagnositc manual for psychiatry. It was removed for political reasons. Why have children raised in an environment with high affective disorder rates?
5. Gay marriage is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution. The argument of "equality" does not wash, as there was never that right.
6. The slippery slope- why not polygamy and bestiality. By the homosexual argument, this would lead to a defacto expansion of the definition of marriage.
First, you start off with something I never said and ask me to 'prove' it? What I said was IF same sex marriage were to become legal in all 50 states, you'd likely never hear or read about the issue again.
Points 1-4 are either your opinion or unproven conjecture, none of which pertains to same sex marriage in the slightest.
As for #5, you do know that most of the rights we have in this country are not enumerated in the Constitution, don't you? But, if you want to insist that marriage isn't a right because it isn't listed, then I guess you have no 'right' to a heterosexual marriage either, do you? Ah, but the SCOTUS, 40 years ago declared marriage to be 'one of the basic rights of man'.
And your #6 is ridiculous. Or do you not understand the 'slippery slope' is considered a logical fallacy? Meaning it is NOT logical.
The Catholic Church needs to grow up...lol Gay people are not a threat to the public good.If the Catholic Church wants to work on social issues, they can start in their own house because its pretty messed up.
x2
Catholics, time to get move out of the 14th century!
The gay community is no more a threat to the public good than the straight community. One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with how they do or do not cause detriment to the public.
it's probably worth pointing out, since hawkeye probably won't bother to look into it, that loving v. virginia was a supreme court case in the 60s that declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. the Lovings, who were an african american woman and caucasian man, were married in DC, went back to their hometown in virginia, and were arrested in their home for being married.
mrs. loving actually died not too long ago and was a passionate advocate for gay marriage.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
A brave and wise woman, she is greatly missed by Equality Advocates everywhere.
i guess hawkeye would have told mrs. loving back then that if she wanted to get married to the man she loved, "If you don't like the law, get the votes and your state legislature to change it."
and would have supported the police barging into their house in the middle of the night and arresting them.
after all, it was against the law at the time for black and white people to marry in virginia, so they were breaking the law.
p.s. in 1958, the year the lovings were arrested, 94% of americans opposed interracial marriage. and it wasn't until the 90s that the majority of americans approved of it.
these are the results of gallup polls taken between 1958 & 2007:
but the darn activist judges had to mess it up for everyone back in the 60s.
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.
