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.
Simple. It's not marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament given to us by God and being such it is permanent and immutable. It involves three: a man, a woman and God whereby the man and woman become one, making that commitment to each other and to God. If two people want to enter in to a legal contract that approximates marriage in a legal sense let them do so via civil unions.
Well that's fantastic for YOU, but then by your logic people who do not believe in God, or your God should not get married?
Im against homosexual marriages because it makes them eleigible for many public and private benefits that are aimed at children and families. We dont need another protected group of people feeding at the government trough.
One of my closest childhood friends is a conservative gay and I take alot of my feelings about the subject from him. He thinks the militant flaming gay community is doing more harm to the cause than good.
This is a question to those who are against it. I really dont care to hear from people who are for it. I am very very happy heterosexual male who is very pro gay marriage. My rational is everyone in this country should be treated equally. I really don't get involved in religion so it has no bearing in my life. If people want to be married I could care less what sex they are. Hell, they might actually get it right considering hetero marriages are only about 45% successful.
Quoting the current statistics on the success of marriages between men and women does not diminish the crucial importance of marriage to our society. If anything a low statistical success rate of mariage only means more needs to be done to create and promote more successful marriages.
The reason i am not for gay marriage is that they serve no function to society. There is no benefit nor detriment to society if two gay men live together within a sexual relationship, and their is no benefit nor detriment to society if they do not. If 20,000 couples of gays live together within sexual relationships, society will not suffer any negative or positive consequences. The same cannot be said for heterosexual couples.
All you need to do is a few Google searches for government funded programs aimed at promoting, encouraging and assisting marrage, and you will come away with hundreds of thousands of pages, the same results will be seen for searches of private charitable organizations. These programs and charities exist because of the singular importance of marriage and children to our society. All gay marriage will do is leach off of these programs and diminish them.
Two gay guys living together do not merit the same reductions in taxes and all the other perks hetero couple receive. Marriage is about children and the future of society, not about love, fairytale wedding gowns and hospital visitation rights. So their is no reason to allow two gay guys to be "married" just because on the surface, they have some of the same ancillary attributes of a man and a women.
If two gays want to share property, have visitation rights, share names and bequeath their wealth and belongings in a last will and testament, then they can lobby government for laws to accommodate these, but jumping on the marriage gravy train is not the way to accomplish this.
Now, if a gay couple can adopt a baby, then they should gain the same rights and privileges any woman or man gets when they adopt a child.
But just because two gays want to live together and dedicate their whole lives with each other, does not not entitle them to be "married".
One of my closest childhood friends is a conservative gay and I take alot of my feelings about the subject from him. He thinks the militant flaming gay community is doing more harm to the cause than good.
Yeah. Similar to those uppity blacks and women who talk back.
Many hetero couples would also choose a civil union rather than the term "marriage".
In states where civil unions are available to opposite-sex couples, how many of them choose a civil union over a marriage? Nearly zero.
Quote:
Seems to me that once you remove the "rights" issue, which IMHO is a red herring anyway, you get to the the REAL motive behind the whole marriage debate.
They want to feel fully accepted in society. That's the real motive. Of course, I don't expect the anti-gay crowd to ever believe that or to accept them. They're too small-minded, self-righteous, and sanctimonious to do that.
This is a question to those who are against it. I really dont care to hear from people who are for it. I am very very happy heterosexual male who is very pro gay marriage. My rational is everyone in this country should be treated equally. I really don't get involved in religion so it has no bearing in my life. If people want to be married I could care less what sex they are. Hell, they might actually get it right considering hetero marriages are only about 45% successful.
I agree! To me there are far more important issues facing us! I think the ones who are against it are more religious and less educated!
I've seen posts asking for gays to have the same "rights". Show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where marriage is mentioned as a right. Seriously. I may have missed it, I do miss things occasionally.
" Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
Same sex marriage does not have a sexual orientation litmus test, any more than marriages between a man and a woman do. Same sex marriage means that two women or two men are allowed to be married. They would not have to prove homosexuality to get married any more that a man and a woman have to prove heterosexuality. Homosexuals marry all the time. Usually they marry heterosexuals. Most times those heterosexuals aren't aware that they are marrying a homosexual. Sometimes the homosexual is a slow learner and doesn't realize it him/herself but often it's because the homosexual has chosen the heterosexual lifestyle, better known as "living in the closet".
Im against homosexual marriages because it makes them eleigible for many public and private benefits that are aimed at children and families. We dont need another protected group of people feeding at the government trough.
Many of those homosexual couples have children and families.
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,887,882 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Yeah. Similar to those uppity blacks and women who talk back.
Nicely put and debated. I guess if you have no good points then you ridicule. Now lets talk sensibly. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
In states where civil unions are available to opposite-sex couples, how many of them choose a civil union over a marriage? Nearly zero.
They want to feel fully accepted in society. That's the real motive. Of course, I don't expect the anti-gay crowd to ever believe that or to accept them. They're too small-minded, self-righteous, and sanctimonious to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
" Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
- U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredtinbender
I'll piggyback off this as it hits what I believe also.
I've seen posts asking for gays to have the same "rights". Show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where marriage is mentioned as a right. Seriously. I may have missed it, I do miss things occasionally. Point out one right that I, as a white, hetero, European, male, have that others do not. Please; I have a point to make to someone else.
And I have also read some of the most judgmental replies to answers to the OP. Not what I expected from the left thinking posters. How do any of them know what type of marriage I have? Or if it is falling apart?
If you are going to answer part, then how about the whole set of questions I posed? No fair picking and choosing to suit your personal agenda. As far as the Supreme Court, I ask again, where is it in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? That is where we get our rights not from the speeches of old men and women chosen by political office.
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.
