Someone justify banning gay marriage to me

[otterinbham 0]

Because homosexuality isn't against the law and doesn't harm anyone. By casting them in the same light as drunks, murderers, and child molesters I can see your disdain for it. I don't like it, i think its a sin, and i think its gross but again its also none of my business. I myself am not a holy enough person to judge someone elses lifestyle and decide what they can and can't do. I will be honest about my opinions but I will leave the ultimate judgement to God.Give them civil unions and equal rights. Drunks, child molesters, and murderers harm and kill people, Gays dress really well and take care of their yards.

Last time I checked Sodomy is against the Law in the State of Alabama. This was used as an argument to stop a gay rights parade in Tuscaloosa about 12 years ago.

Sodomy laws also include all forms of non-reproductive sex. That means if your wife is on the pill while you have intercourse, or she's using a marital aid during the achievement of pleasure, or if you're getting your bobo honked, then you two violating the law, too.

Again, back to the central question, how is any of this the business of our government? I still haven't had an answer on this.

[Aufan59 80]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

[Aubie16 1]

Half of you guys sound just like the congressmen in Montgomery during the Gourmet Beer Bill debate.

Some of these comparisons are ridiculous at best and absolutely retarded at worst. I worry about the future of this country if this is the kind of intellect the average person possesses.

[bojack34 2]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

[bojack34 2]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

What is it that makes them gay? Explain to me how it is not a choice to be gay.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

What is it that makes them gay? Explain to me how it is not a choice to be gay.

Would you choose to be gay?

[bojack34 2]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

What is it that makes them gay? Explain to me how it is not a choice to be gay.

Would you choose to be gay?

No, but I at one point in my life I chose to be an alcoholic and have been delivered from it through the power of Jesus Christ.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I think we are talking about some different kind of wiring here as opposed to an addiction

[Defense(clap clap) 4]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

What is it that makes them gay? Explain to me how it is not a choice to be gay.

Would you choose to be gay?

No, but I at one point in my life I chose to be an alcoholic and have been delivered from it through the power of Jesus Christ.

How many men have you heard of that have gone to GA, as opposed to AA? I'm sorry for your alcoholism and I hope that you've been able to overcome it. But being gay is not the same as alcoholism. It's not an addiction. It's just that simple.

I don't know if I can put it any simpler that there it is not a choice to be gay. No man just wakes up one day and decides to be gay. They just are. That's who they are. They can't change that.

My fiances uncle is not going to be "delivered" from being gay. It is not going to happen. That's who the man is. I'm absolutely blown away that you believe what you do. I don't mean to offend you at all, but in the year 2008 it really blows my mind that people still feel this way.

I'm the first to admit that I used to make gay jokes. I used to laugh at gay people. That's before I knew these two men. I respect them as human beings. I respect them as role models. They are two of the most kind, caring people I've ever met.

I just wish you could open your eyes, heart and mind and see that gay people are not a threat to you. They're not a threat to your family. They're not a threat to your salvation. They just want to be accepted as an equal person just like every one else. That's all they want. Well, they may want to come into your house and re-arrange your furniture, but I promise it will look better after they do. But other than that, they're a human being, just like you and me.

[LegalEagle 22]

The government should not interfere with lesbian marriages. We all agree that it's fun to watch two lesbos in the act. However, two guys? Eeeewwwwww! Puke! If they want to do those things, they can just break the law and go to prison.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The government should not interfere with lesbian marriages. We all agree that it's fun to watch two lesbos in the act. However, two guys? Eeeewwwwww! Puke! If they want to do those things, they can just break the law and go to prison.

Not so fast, counselor. The typical lesbian couple look nothing like those in the movies. They are usually either knocking on 2-bills and sport horrible hairdos and very masculine tendancies.

[bojack34 2]

I don't understand how somebody who is born a drunk or child molester or a murder etc should be discriminated against.

Because they HARM OTHER PEOPLE.

How hard is that to understand?

Having something rammed up your rectum sounds pretty painful to me. I am not talking about just the physical nature of harm but the emotional nature of it. People are going to choose the homosexual lifestyle no matter what kind of laws our government puts into effect. The ten commandments were a law and people still broke them and people will continue to break them. Why make a law permitting homosexuality. Why we are at it lets just make a law permitting rape. Why? Well according to some peoples beliefs the rapist was born that way and he can't help it. The one whom was raped was born and predestined to be raped. Again, I don't believe that but their a lot of people out their whom believe we are born with a genetic defect and it is used to excuse all sorts of sinful behavior. We were all born with one genetic defect and that is SIN. But glory be to God that by the blood and power of Jesus Christ we can all be free and forgiven of our past sins. It is my prayer that all people choose to be washed in the blood of the Lamb. Regardless I will continue to love the sinner and saints equally.

Its between consenting adults. Comparing it to rape is the most ridiculous argument you can present, as rape by definition has no consent.

Something being a sin should have no bearing on what we consider legal. People confuse the fact that just because there is some relation between sin and law(i.e. murder) means that all sins should be illegal, or that something being a sin is justification for something being illegal.

But wasn't the point made in an earlier post that homosexuals were born homosexuals and therefore have no choice but to consent to being homosexuals?

What point are you trying to make?

I hope you do realize that not all gay men have "that kind of sex." Some may not like having something "rammed up their rectum" as you put it, and so they don't partake. Not all gay men are raving sex addicts like they're often portrayed.

What is it that makes them gay? Explain to me how it is not a choice to be gay.

Would you choose to be gay?

No, but I at one point in my life I chose to be an alcoholic and have been delivered from it through the power of Jesus Christ.

How many men have you heard of that have gone to GA, as opposed to AA? I'm sorry for your alcoholism and I hope that you've been able to overcome it. But being gay is not the same as alcoholism. It's not an addiction. It's just that simple.

I don't know if I can put it any simpler that there it is not a choice to be gay. No man just wakes up one day and decides to be gay. They just are. That's who they are. They can't change that.

My fiances uncle is not going to be "delivered" from being gay. It is not going to happen. That's who the man is. I'm absolutely blown away that you believe what you do. I don't mean to offend you at all, but in the year 2008 it really blows my mind that people still feel this way.

I'm the first to admit that I used to make gay jokes. I used to laugh at gay people. That's before I knew these two men. I respect them as human beings. I respect them as role models. They are two of the most kind, caring people I've ever met.

I just wish you could open your eyes, heart and mind and see that gay people are not a threat to you. They're not a threat to your family. They're not a threat to your salvation. They just want to be accepted as an equal person just like every one else. That's all they want. Well, they may want to come into your house and re-arrange your furniture, but I promise it will look better after they do. But other than that, they're a human being, just like you and me.

I don't feel threatened by gay people I just pray for them just as I pray for heterosexuals, child molesters, drunks etc. Believe my eyes are wide open to the things God wants me to see and not the things of the world. I believe they should treated with compassion and not discriminated against. You act is if I don't know any gay people personally. I do and they no how I feel about their lifestyle but I don't treat them any different than anyone else. We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. God is above time therefore it doesn't matter if it's 2008 or 2030 He still feels the same about sin. The good thing is that God loves the sinner no more, no less than the saint but he will not allow sin to enter his presence.

[jared52 4,354]

Well depending on the state, some don't have access to certain kinds of healthcare coverage, qualify for marriage/household tax exemptions/deductions, etc.

Can you show me in the constitution where those things are rights?

It's about equal access. IMO it's not very American to give basic rights/benefits to one group without the other. It's the same philosophy that was behind the civil rights movements, the womens right to vote movement, etc. If you truly want to live in a country with "equality and justice for all" then I don't see how you can't support civil unions.

A bunch of you are making arguments around how you define marriage and personally, I don't think that is the issue. The real question is on rights/benefits and therefore I think civil unions make sense.

FYI

"According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Sorry, I have been way out of the loop this weekend.

I still ask you to show me where "Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law" are in the constitution. Unfortunately for your side, it cannot be done. Fortunately for your side, the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land and if a majority approves it, screw the constitution.

I understand equal access, but I get sick of the government being asked to step into areas where the constitution never gave them the right to. It's not about my opinion of homosexuality, but my opinion of the government overstepping it's bounds. If Blue Cross doesn't want to recognize to gays people as a family, that's their literal business. If they don't then United Healthcare could offer those people "family" coverage and then promote themselves as gay-friendly or accomodating or what ever. BC could then decide if they were losing business based on this practice and might decide to change their policy. If they don't, they might suffer losses.

Let the market decide. This isn't voting (which isn't a "right" given by the constitution), it's economics. It's not a civil (public) issue, it's a private (individual and corporation) issue. I don't know where "equality and justice for all" comes from, but I know "liberty and justice for all" and as far as I know, gay people are free to be gay and have all the health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. the rest of America has. If they want "family coverage" then they will have to find or form a company who supports their living arrangements and give them the coverage/benefits they desire.

Is the "8% of the population is homosexual" still correct? It's been a few years since I heard that number.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Well depending on the state, some don't have access to certain kinds of healthcare coverage, qualify for marriage/household tax exemptions/deductions, etc.

Can you show me in the constitution where those things are rights?

It's about equal access. IMO it's not very American to give basic rights/benefits to one group without the other. It's the same philosophy that was behind the civil rights movements, the womens right to vote movement, etc. If you truly want to live in a country with "equality and justice for all" then I don't see how you can't support civil unions.

A bunch of you are making arguments around how you define marriage and personally, I don't think that is the issue. The real question is on rights/benefits and therefore I think civil unions make sense.

FYI

"According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Sorry, I have been way out of the loop this weekend.

I still ask you to show me where "Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law" are in the constitution. Unfortunately for your side, it cannot be done. Fortunately for your side, the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land and if a majority approves it, screw the constitution.

I understand equal access, but I get sick of the government being asked to step into areas where the constitution never gave them the right to. It's not about my opinion of homosexuality, but my opinion of the government overstepping it's bounds. If Blue Cross doesn't want to recognize to gays people as a family, that's their literal business. If they don't then United Healthcare could offer those people "family" coverage and then promote themselves as gay-friendly or accomodating or what ever. BC could then decide if they were losing business based on this practice and might decide to change their policy. If they don't, they might suffer losses.

Let the market decide. This isn't voting (which isn't a "right" given by the constitution), it's economics. It's not a civil (public) issue, it's a private (individual and corporation) issue. I don't know where "equality and justice for all" comes from, but I know "liberty and justice for all" and as far as I know, gay people are free to be gay and have all the health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. the rest of America has. If they want "family coverage" then they will have to find or form a company who supports their living arrangements and give them the coverage/benefits they desire.

Is the "8% of the population is homosexual" still correct? It's been a few years since I heard that number.

I didn't think the 1st admendment distingished between married,unmarried gay or straight

[jared52 4,354]

Well depending on the state, some don't have access to certain kinds of healthcare coverage, qualify for marriage/household tax exemptions/deductions, etc.

Can you show me in the constitution where those things are rights?

It's about equal access. IMO it's not very American to give basic rights/benefits to one group without the other. It's the same philosophy that was behind the civil rights movements, the womens right to vote movement, etc. If you truly want to live in a country with "equality and justice for all" then I don't see how you can't support civil unions.

A bunch of you are making arguments around how you define marriage and personally, I don't think that is the issue. The real question is on rights/benefits and therefore I think civil unions make sense.

FYI

"According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Sorry, I have been way out of the loop this weekend.

I still ask you to show me where "Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law" are in the constitution. Unfortunately for your side, it cannot be done. Fortunately for your side, the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land and if a majority approves it, screw the constitution.

I understand equal access, but I get sick of the government being asked to step into areas where the constitution never gave them the right to. It's not about my opinion of homosexuality, but my opinion of the government overstepping it's bounds. If Blue Cross doesn't want to recognize to gays people as a family, that's their literal business. If they don't then United Healthcare could offer those people "family" coverage and then promote themselves as gay-friendly or accommodating or what ever. BC could then decide if they were losing business based on this practice and might decide to change their policy. If they don't, they might suffer losses.

Let the market decide. This isn't voting (which isn't a "right" given by the constitution), it's economics. It's not a civil (public) issue, it's a private (individual and corporation) issue. I don't know where "equality and justice for all" comes from, but I know "liberty and justice for all" and as far as I know, gay people are free to be gay and have all the health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. the rest of America has. If they want "family coverage" then they will have to find or form a company who supports their living arrangements and give them the coverage/benefits they desire.

Is the "8% of the population is homosexual" still correct? It's been a few years since I heard that number.

I didn't think the 1st admendment distingished between married,unmarried gay or straight

It doesn't. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Doesn't mention health care, retirement, etc. that's mentioned earlier.

[weglchamp 0]

What scares or worries people so much about gay marriage? I don't see how it would have any impact, positively or negatively, on me. The Libertarian streak in me says that consenting adults can do whatever as long as they don't harm someone else.

[Aufan59 80]

Well depending on the state, some don't have access to certain kinds of healthcare coverage, qualify for marriage/household tax exemptions/deductions, etc.

Can you show me in the constitution where those things are rights?

It's about equal access. IMO it's not very American to give basic rights/benefits to one group without the other. It's the same philosophy that was behind the civil rights movements, the womens right to vote movement, etc. If you truly want to live in a country with "equality and justice for all" then I don't see how you can't support civil unions.

A bunch of you are making arguments around how you define marriage and personally, I don't think that is the issue. The real question is on rights/benefits and therefore I think civil unions make sense.

FYI

"According to the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO), more than 1,100 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage. Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law."

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922609.html

Sorry, I have been way out of the loop this weekend.

I still ask you to show me where "Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law" are in the constitution. Unfortunately for your side, it cannot be done. Fortunately for your side, the constitution isn't the supreme law of the land and if a majority approves it, screw the constitution.

I understand equal access, but I get sick of the government being asked to step into areas where the constitution never gave them the right to. It's not about my opinion of homosexuality, but my opinion of the government overstepping it's bounds. If Blue Cross doesn't want to recognize to gays people as a family, that's their literal business. If they don't then United Healthcare could offer those people "family" coverage and then promote themselves as gay-friendly or accomodating or what ever. BC could then decide if they were losing business based on this practice and might decide to change their policy. If they don't, they might suffer losses.

Let the market decide. This isn't voting (which isn't a "right" given by the constitution), it's economics. It's not a civil (public) issue, it's a private (individual and corporation) issue. I don't know where "equality and justice for all" comes from, but I know "liberty and justice for all" and as far as I know, gay people are free to be gay and have all the health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. the rest of America has. If they want "family coverage" then they will have to find or form a company who supports their living arrangements and give them the coverage/benefits they desire.

Is the "8% of the population is homosexual" still correct? It's been a few years since I heard that number.

How it it government's business to recognize marriage? Marriage is a church affair, thus the government should have nothing to do with it. The government is deciding how to treat people based on what a church decides, and that is completely backwards. No church decision should decide how the government acts. They need to be completely separate entities, no matter how 'right' people believe the church is on things.

If one set of two adults can get married, ANY set of two adults should be able to get married. Denying that is denying equal freedom for all. A person is a person is a person.

Saying gay marriage should be banned is the same as saying interracial marriage should be banned. Even if being gay is a choice, not allowing gays to get married is denying people freedom.

The problem is that people think church should decide our moral code, what is legal and illegal. Yes, church does get somethings right, but we need to set our own moral code by today's standards using common sense and logic. The fact that we are still basing everyday life on things that were decided upon back when they thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth is ridiculous.

[AURaptor 1,126]

How it it government's business to recognize marriage? Marriage is a church affair, thus the government should have nothing to do with it. The government is deciding how to treat people based on what a church decides, and that is completely backwards. No church decision should decide how the government acts. They need to be completely separate entities, no matter how 'right' people believe the church is on things.

If one set of two adults can get married, ANY set of two adults should be able to get married. Denying that is denying equal freedom for all. A person is a person is a person.

Saying gay marriage should be banned is the same as saying interracial marriage should be banned. Even if being gay is a choice, not allowing gays to get married is denying people freedom.

The problem is that people think church should decide our moral code, what is legal and illegal. Yes, church does get somethings right, but we need to set our own moral code by today's standards using common sense and logic. The fact that we are still basing everyday life on things that were decided upon back when they thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth is ridiculous.

It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property.

So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions.

[otterinbham 0]

It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property.

So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions.

The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban.

As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business?

Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so?

[jared52 4,354]

Yes, church does get somethings right, but we need to set our own moral code by today's standards using common sense and logic.

If a moral code is fluid, it's not a code at all. Yes, the Bible was written many years ago, but I still believe that the truths in it are still true. Same goes for the constitution. My problem is with the idea that the argument here is to essentially force private businesses into providing for people based on some flawed idea of "rights". I haven't mentioned one single thing about the morality of homosexuality until now, and based on earlier statements in this post, you should be able to determine my position. I don't hate homosexuals, am not scared of them, or have repressed feelings of homosexuality, I simply believe the Bible. I'm a sinner, just like everyone, else so there's no pride issue in saying that I am the standard. But I didn't get into this discussion on the merits of the morality of homosexuality, but I got into it to discuss the concept of rights. No homosexual is, as far as I know, denied the ONLY rights we have listed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and (property was the original third, but was changed to) the pursuit of happiness.

If you want to discuss the benefits not granted to homosexuals by private companies, we can discuss that too. These aren't moral issues. Everyone in agreement with the idea of gay marriage or civil unions says the same thing, why should the government intrude on a matter as private as two people's relationship. I say, why should the government intrude on a matter as private as whether a company recognizes the relationship of those same two people. Why don't a few homosexual people start a company that recognizes that two men can be married and sell them insurance, IRAs, etc. as though they are a family? That would solve a lot of these arguments.

[channonc 466]

It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property.

So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions.

The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban.

As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business?

Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so?

I am not sure how 2 people going to the court house to get a marriage license is a religious thing. Whether you choose to have a religious ceremony is a completely different subject IMO.

I am all for gay marriage, what 2 people do in their house is their business. Secondly, why not let them get married and incur the marriage penalty tax just like everyone else-- if they want to break up, they now have to go through a divorce-- just like the everyone else.

[otterinbham 0]

It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property.

So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions.

The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban.

As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business?

Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so?

I am not sure how 2 people going to the court house to get a marriage license is a religious thing. Whether you choose to have a religious ceremony is a completely different subject IMO.

I am all for gay marriage, what 2 people do in their house is their business. Secondly, why not let them get married and incur the marriage penalty tax just like everyone else-- if they want to break up, they now have to go through a divorce-- just like the everyone else.

Well, that way you can be sure that the Barbra Streisand records are divided in a just and equitable manner.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It becomes the Gov'ts business when you have 2 parties and involves the issue of property.

So, since a person is a person, you think brothers can marry sisters ? Or fathers can marry their daughters ? Gay marriage is nothing like interracial marriage. A marriage is defined as a man and a woman, which happens to be the basic components needed for a child to be made. That fact alone distinquishes it from gay unions.

The analogy doesn't hold. The reason two siblings cannot marry is because there is an immediate and demonstrable chance of harm to others--i.e., the greatly increased risk of genetic disorders in the offspring. This effect was observed millennia ago, hence the ban.

As far as the issue of property is concerned, I ask the question once again: How exactly is the government's business?

Seriously, Raptor. You are one of the most vocal people on this board against the continued intrusion of government. Yet you turn around and want to impose the government right into the most personal decisions of all. Again, I don't really understand the lifestyle. But if two people want to set up housekeeping in that manner, who the heck am I to legally bar them from doing so?

If 2 people want to set up ANYTHING, I'm ok for that happening, legally. But don't call ANYTHING 'marriage'. Just so you know, I'm ok w/ civil unions. Be it 2 gay partners, or even siblings who live together in their old age, I find no reason to limit their ability to legally set each other up as guardian should 1 end up in the hospital, for example.

The brother/ sister thing is an extreme, to make a point. But we also ban 1st cousins from marrying, even though birth abnormalities occur in no greater % than they do w/ the general population. So why not let 1st cousins marry?

2 things here. 1 is the essential basis of a family. It takes 1 man and 1 woman to create an offsping. The foundation of human civilization has been the family. Human beings don't come into this world knowing how to speak, walk, etc....There's a huge committment in resources and energy needed to raise a child. And children with better resources tend to develop faster and better equipped to take on the world. Doesn't mean that there's only ONE way to raise a child, but why hinder or potentially hinder a child's growth by making a social statement ?

2nd, the union of 2 families is literally the union of 2 bloodlines, coming together to from a direct descendency for the next generation. We can trace our families by whom we marry, who are parents are, etc... And while geneology comes into play here, there's also the very real matter of heirs and ownership of the family property. 100's of years of tradition have developed into our working legal system and Government. The family is the basis of how we bequeath to the next generation, and when that occurs, you can't help but deal w/ legal matters, and that includes the court system.

[channonc 466]

Raptor, what's the difference b/w a civil union and a marriage in the eyes of the state? I see no difference.