Whats your opinion on the Marriage Protection Amendment that is currently being debated by the senate?

Question

I personally feel that marriage should be a union between a MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY!!!!!

Answer 1

Well optimistical, here's my take on it. I agree with you.

And my belief is that this is defined in the Bible that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. So, whatever bond same-sexers might have, it cannot be defined a marriage.

This Biblical description or definition is carried into our laws and is a 2000-year precedent. My marriage license says something like "Holy Union of Matrimony". So issuing this document to same-sexers is blasphemous.

finally, bestowing legal status on one's desires is simply a matter of getting an attorney to put it in legal terms. If you want a partner to have legal say if you are sick and incapacitated, then put it in writing legally. The argument that same-sexers are "denied" stuff is rhetorical crap.

Answer 2

I think gays and lesbians should have a separate but equal legal partnership arrangement like Civil Union. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. It's origins are religious in nature. I believe in equal rights and privileges for ALL, but the term marriage has always meant a man and a woman so come up with a new term. I do believe all of the rights given to heterosexuals in marriage should be available to homosexuals and lesbians who join in a legal lifetime partnership. After all why should I be rewarded with tax breaks and other incentives just because I love women?

Answer 3

The Senate didn't like the idea of a Marriage "Protection" Amendment, and turned it down.

It was only drawn up to rally conservative votes by George W. Bush, who was threatened by the Churches of America to lose their immense backing force. If the President focused on an issue that would make him more appealing to a conservative group, he would be more able to load up Washington D.C. with those who agree with him. It also served the nice, indirect purpose of drawing attention away from the war America has not made any progress in.

Answer 4

I read in a book of odd facts that a man in California married a 16 pound rock...if that's not mocking the beautiful union of marriage I don't know what.

Some people just need to get a clue

Answer 5

There is no marriage "protection" amendment currently being debated by either house. The amendment you *may* be thinking of didn't pass muster.

Bone up on current affairs next time you attempt to post a [bigoted] question, especially if you plan on using this forum as your personal soapbox. Better yet, get a Blog. ::rolls eyes::

Answer 6

I think that the belief that a marriage should be between a man and woman (ever notice how it's never woman and man) is due to a moral religious stereotype. Marriage is a civil institution and I believe that no religion has the right to push its morals on the law.
Churches, synogogues, mosques, temples and covensteads can all have their religious bans on gay marriage.
The federal government shouldn't legalise against it.
And were the caps and exclamation points necessary? You didn't need them to make your point. Why use them?

Answer 7

Marriage should be between a Man and a Woman.

Marriage should NOT be between a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.

Answer 8

marriage is not about love; its about legal protection and rights. just because heterosexual conservatives believe that homosexuality is a choice doesn't make it right to deny basic rights to two people in a life-long committed relationship. christian doctrine can't be used as an excuse for denying rights to people who choose to actually be with who they are attracted to. the fact is hon.. gay people are already living as married couples. this amendment bull crap is insulting and pathetic; it is also a ridiculous waste of time. the constitution has only been amended 17 times, and now that George bush is the messiah and all, he wants to try and inject more christian doctrine in to it. I'm so sick of even having to say this at all. more of my opinion can be found at www.hrc.com.

on a side note.. isn't it interesting that the country the pilgrims originally left to gain religious freedom (Britain) has passed it's own partnership registration act (i.e. gay marriage)? America is falling behind Britain in so many ways. i ******* hate this conservative bullshit. i can't even ******* type anymore I'm so pissed off. kittens and sunshine and glitter and rainbows. its not working ahhh I'm still pissed off. maybe ill go paint my toenails or something. oh i know... ill read a book. oh wait! maybe ill type some more stuff. nah..

Answer 9

My beliefs say that it should only be a man and a woman. However, I feel that if the people involved truely love each other, then why not. Thats how I feel.

It is better for a child in a foster care setting to be adopted by a gay couple than no one at all. Children need loving homes period.

Answer 10

OK, let's look at this honestly and open mindedly.
First let's look at your reason for opposing gay marriage

Religon- There are two aspects to this first, does the bible really oppose homosexuality as we know it today? That's a matter of interpretation. I have not found anything in the bible that addresses homosexuality not acompanied with either promiscuity, adultery, prostitution or rape...which is immoral regardless of sexuality right? So, if that is true than there wouldn't really be a religous based arguement for opposing gay marriage right? providing it's not accompanied with those things?

But let's even say that interpretation is incorrect and the bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong regardless of any of that...

You do realize we are in a country where people have the right to choose any or no religon right? These are consitutionally protected rights...agreed? If a person has the right to choose to not believe the bible, which they do, why should biblical beliefs be used to govern them? Now you may say, well where do all our laws come from...killing etc, the bible. This may have been true at one time but it no longer is, as many things are supported in the bible (polygamy, stoning non-virginal brides, slavery etc) but not permitted in our society and things prohibitted biblically but not in our society (adultery, worshipping other or no God, etc). So clearly law and the bible are no longer on the same page. There are no laws against many things in the bible.
Since there is no law against honosexuality, can the government in all fairness to it's citizens, deny the right to get married to homosexuals? There is no victim, there is no law, there is nothing to prove that it is immoral other than a bible that a person may or may not choose to believe in, in religons a person may or may not choose to practice.

So the answer is, the Christian church can define and limit marriage to one man and one woman, however it is unconstitutional for the government to do so. A person does not need a religon to get married, they only need the government. So religon should have no say in what defines a legal marriage, only it's specific religous ceremony of marriage.

The other reason commonly used to oppose gay marriage is children. However since the APA removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders, and unbiased research has found no negative impact on the children of gay couples, how is that a real reason? Besides there are no legal stipulations on childbirth and marriage. Once people get married they can have no kids or several if they choose to. They can adopt them, conceive them together, or use insemination or surrogacy or test tubes if a partner is sterile...the government does not intervene unless the couple is found to be unfit to be parents. Again, since there's no negativre impact on children of gays, and being gay is not against the law or a mental disorder, that alone cannot make a person unfit. Yes, I am quite sure that being the child of a gay or lesbian couple does leave the door open for bullying etc in schools. But so does interracial children. And single parent children. And poverty stricken children. Or having a learning disability etc. So what you really mean when you say this is: You should not get married and have kids because OTHER PEOPLE don;t know how to raise their children to be tolerant and kind toward others? (usually children of heterosexual couples mind you). Since they don;t know how to behave appropiately in society, we shouldn't let you do something beacuse that might add fuel to the fire and give them something to pick on you for. Gimme a break. There are people fit to be parents and people fit not to be, of every race, religon, creed, ethniticity, financial status and yes sexuality as well. Name one notoriously evil person who was raised by gay people. Can't huh?

So, I extend a challenge to anyone opposing gay marriage, give me a vaild reason, without the bible or children, to oppose gay marriage. Is there any other reason?

Sorry for my long-windedness but there is so much more to say....

Answer 11

To be honest with you I do believe that marriage should be equal across the bord because who's business is it anyway as to who I marry? Before Christianity and Bigots controled the world lesbian marriages and gay marriages existed right beside staight ones. Look at the Native American culture, there were no laws banding love because who can stop anyones commitment to another. I am a lesbian and the laws of America have not stopped me from marrying my wife. I traveled a 1000 miles from the capital to canada to marry her. Even though people make laws to try to feel like God, I know one thing, No matter what these lawmaker will never be God. I would like to get benefits that other straight couples have but, if the america wants to continue its bigotry I know that God will provide for me and my Wife. And If God never wanted me to marry a woman he/she would've killed me at the alter. These laws don't matter in any condition to my marriage because of the vows that I sent from my soul to hers under GOD.