why is gay marriage illeagal?!?

Question

if 2 people love eachother, they should be able to get married. you dont choose to be gay. all fetus' are female, like it or not. but the brain has to register the masculinity or the femininity. and sometimes the brain fails to do that. so i dont see why people are discriminated because they love differently. and since when are we a country of moral?? george w. bush is the one killing evryone and trying to make every country like the u.s.! does anyone agree with me??

Answer 1

I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

The politician's argument is that couples should not reap the same benefits and tax breaks that heterosexual couples receive. I think that's crap!

The best thing that open-minded people like ourselves can do is to continue to speak out against the bans, and remind people that less than 50 years ago, people were fighting for civil rights. How silly does THAT seem in today's age? I think that 50 years from now, we'll look back on this struggle and realize that- just like the struggle for civil rights- people are stupid and closed minded, for no reason. But this too shall pass.

Answer 2

Gays have all the rights a married couple have. In a civil union they get all the tax breaks, they can be put on their partner's insurance if needed and any other benefit married people get. I'm tired of you people crying for rights. Marriage is constituted as being between a man and a woman. PERIOD! You aren't being discriminated against. You get everything else. Leave marriage for straight people. The majority of the voting population want marriage for a man and a woman only. It's not up to Bush.

Answer 3

I wish I knew the answer. as far as I can determine from the time humans evolved from lower hominid forms(you notice I didn't say apes, that is a misconception of the ignorant)until the year 1000CE the church wasn't even involved in marriage so I don't see how "christian values" get to define a civil contract.

Answer 4

"if 2 people love eachother, they should be able to get married"

So, if my 13 year old daughter loves her 32 year old teacher and they want to have sex and get married, htey should be able too?


Proving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue. In the last decade, as this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians. And that's exactly what has groups opposed to homosexuality so concerned. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in its book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true."

Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.

For much of the 20th century, the dominant thinking connected homosexuality to upbringing. Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped make boys gay. It took the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 to remove "homosexuality" from its manual of mental disorders.

Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.

Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.

In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.

That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.

Answer 5

because the people backing the banning of gay marriage are intolerant and physically can't think of anyone not exactly like them as anything but immoral. however, bush can't legislate morals and there will always be people who are pro-gay marriage (i count myself among them, even as a heterosexual male), but i sincerely hope that bush stops bending over backwards to appease the religious right, because it will destroy our country.

Answer 6

Because people insist on applying biblical doctrine to law. All of the biblical references have no place when dealing with legal issues, lest they run astray of establishment cause in the constitution.

Answer 7

gays are partners. males and females should get married. this has been the majority for over 5,000 years. look at all the different species. do male frogs have sex with male frogs? no. there should be no tax discount for partners. they are not normal enough to reproduce. keep the human species alive and get a discount.

Answer 8

My brother is Gay and is having his Civil Union in October. I am so excited for him. He deservres the same happiness as I am going to have next year at my wedding!

Answer 9

I agree with you, I hope it changes before I hit 18 because I'm engaged to my girlfriend of 3 years!

Answer 10

I totally agree. But see, the problem is, the figures of authority in that field of law are not very open-minded and very naive to the power and bondage of love and what it should be.