Our country was founded by Christians. It was set up so that the Religion can't control the Government. That is why we have separation of "Church and State". Our laws are based on the majority, who are christian based religions. (Catholic, Protestants, Quakers, Amish, Baptist etc..) If you notice most of the supporters for Gay marriages come from large Urban areas where there is less fundamental Christianity. The opponents of this, are rural based people, where Religion is still an important part of their lives. Therein lies the problem.
I am not for or against this issue. If "they" want to get married fine by me. We should stop wasting all of this money and get on with other issues that are far more important. If you really think about this problem who really are the opponents. I would think that it would be the insurance companies. They stand to lose huge amounts of money because now they have to provide the benefits.
2006-07-14 09:41:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Boredstiff 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion based laws? That's just crazy talk. A well known religion says "You shall not murder." I guess we should take murder off the books because it is a Religion based law? As for Homos, legislatures don't make laws based only on what they personally think. This evil has been voted against in 14 states, and passed EVERY TIME. So, in a democracy, do we do what the vast majority wants or what every little group thinks is the thing to do? You have every right to try and convince the people they are wrong, but you must live with the decisions they make, literally!
2006-07-14 09:30:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by 1,1,2,3,3,4, 5,5,6,6,6, 8,8,8,10 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah i know its long but its worth the ink.
First off- You cant just pull laws outta thin air- they've gotta be based on something. Nowadays there is someone- somewhere- who believes anything u can imagine. Like its okay for grown-ups to sleep with seven year-olds, or human sacrificial killing is alright, or any number of things most of us believe are perverted and gross. And they can call these beliefs their form of religion. SO Basically there is no way for the government to create sensible laws without being inclined to some sort of religion- for example bible says Thou shalt not kill and its illegal to commit murder. Laws like this one-if people follow it- make a country easier and safer to live in- for everyone.
Secondly, laws reflect the overall opinions and beliefs of a nation's majority, otherwise they become useless and impossible to enforce because noone would listen. For example, the prohibition era- where it was illegal to buy, sell or consume alcohol- lasted like 2 years and everyone did it anyway- it was a good idea (maybe) but because the majority didn't agree with it, the laws created more problems than they cured and were eventually scraped.
Third, laws have to go with the times. If President Lincoln tried to enforce racial equality laws at the same time as abolition- it would have totally fell through- he had an entire war just to stop slavery itself. So much more bloodshed would have taken place than when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came around- why? Because American society simply was not ready to accept the idea that races were equal as yet.
Right now it seems the majority of society doesn't quite accept homosexuality as yet. If laws are made saying these unions can do what hetero-unions can, does that mean everyone will automatically treat them and/or their children equally? No. In fact the more u try to force an unpopular idea down someones throat- the more resistance and possibly the worse it will be in their everyday lives. They may win the battle but the war would begin when they try to move among people who dont accept them, who may not want them living in their neighborhoods, working with them, sending their kids to the same schools. U can legislate actions, but not attitudes, or opinions and most times its better to try and get both to agree before u put it on paper.
Personally i dont believe that laws against homosexual unions stop them from living together as man and wife or whatever and you just gatta let people do what they want but whether or not society-as a whole-will ever accept it is just something that you'd have to wait and see. Rankling against religion in laws wont help.
2006-07-14 10:07:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by KittyGatClaws 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Morals and faith will always be seperate. no matter if a range is moral or no longer has no longer some thing to do with what a 'god' says. homicide isn't incorrect because it is written down someplace - it is incorrect because it is evil. So obviously both can overlap. on the different hand, the only argument adverse to stem-cellular analyze is that non secular fanatics say that a blastocyst (the position stem cells come from - a nondescript ball of indifferentiated cells without organs or some thing of the kind) is an similar as an entire-grown individual. there is no longer some thing remotely immoral about it, the alternative to equate stem-cells and an entire human existence is only non secular in nature. an similar is authentic of people that note the be conscious 'immoral' to sexuality - pretending that one way or the different each and every individual is obligated from start to be heterosexual, and that any deviation from it truly is a personal, moral failing. Idiocy. So in spite of the indisputable fact that there are some guidelines that adjust issues interior an similar way that someone's' canon may dictate, that does no longer mean that both should be wondered. In an proper society, each and each and every regulation or rule whose foundation is in faith may be thoroughly voluntary. it isn't any longer only incorrect to base guidelines upon faith in a rustic without said faith - it is incorrect for a rustic to rigidity a faith on absolutely everyone, everywhere, purely because those human beings had the sick fortune to be born contained in the middle of a set of fantatics.
2016-12-06 11:34:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by palo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK. Just so you know I'm not ignorant, it's spelled "you're", not "your." Secondly, nobody has passed a law saying that homosexuality is wrong. This would be impossible in the USA. The question is, whether people of the same sex should be allowed to claim the benefits of being married. It is true that those who say "no" to this question, may believe homosexuality is wrong, but the arguments agains same-sex marriage have nothing to do with believing that gay sex is wrong or OK. The arguments say that marriage was instituted to protect children, the natural outgrowth of men and women who get together. Since gay couples do not produce children, they should not be granted the priveleges of the marriage contract (lower taxes, for example). This has nothing to do with religion.
God Bless.
LAS
2006-07-14 09:34:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Larry S 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Dear, there are plenty of people out there who are not religious who find gay marriage to be offensive. Oh, and to further prop up my answer, I have several family members who are gay. I continue to oppose gay marriage.
You don't like what lawmakers are doing? ELECT NEW ONES. This country works by the people ELECTING representatives to office. If the majority of the people elect someone to represent their ideals, then that person better damn well represent their ideals. Polls have REPEATEDLY shown that over 80% of Americans are against gay marriage.
Perhaps you should come up with some other examples of laws violating this "religious" issue.
Oh, and America wasn't created to AVOID religion; it was created to ensure that all religions had their place to worship. Just because gay marriage isn't legal doesn't mean that gay behavior isn't just fine.
Plus, there are plenty of ways to guarantee the same "rights" without marriage. It is called "see a lawyer and draw up the paperwork for a living will, power of attorney, and an actual will". Whoa. Imagine.
2006-07-14 09:53:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Goose&Tonic 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This country was based on religious segregation. Look at why each colony was founded and by whom. The right against religious persecution was a right not to go from state to state and be forced to practice a religion other than your own. It wasn't an attempt to destroy religion completely. This country was built by religious people. They wanted to express their beliefs openly. Now a days, it seems everybody is trying to forget from where they came.
As for gays getting married. No major religious group is out there advocating Gay marriage. That is just not true. There are some rogue churches out there doing as they please but they are inthe minority of their own religious groups.
And frankly, what we are talking about her is not a marriage, but a marriage license, which does't make a marriage real in the eyes of God and society. All a license does is register a couple with the community and government at large. It is there more for property rights than anything else.
Has anyone ever heard of Durable Powers of Attorney and Medical Powers of Attorney? Fill them out, and your partners's rights to your estate will be taken care of. List them as your beneficiary. Put them on your deeds. Co-sign everything and leave it at that. Magically, you have all the property rights of a married couple. Hoorah.
Social rights, that is a different story. Ammendment Ten to the Constitution clearly states that all rights otherwise not included in the Costitution are the property of the States. That means you need to convince the majority of the people in this country some 88% of them that they are wrong and you are right. Good luck. Especially since the majority of voters are from that 88%. You are more likely to antagonize them than to persuade them. You might as well be hitting a hornets nest with a stick for all the good it will do you.
The only major benefit I see missing is adoption rights. That doesn't seem to be a problem for the wealthy or the famous. Once again, use the paperwork in front of you to get you what you want. Make one partner attractive to the adoption office and go from there. Another power of Attorney concerning the children as to guardianship and you are done.
You seem to be wanting the government to fight your battles for you. Stop. You can win this battle with out fighting a war. Just take the path less travelled by and circumvent the traffic. Isn't getting what you want more important than being "right"? Really now. What is the more practical approach to the problem to stand on a soap box and call people "ignorant" or to prove that you are by overlooking the opportunities already available to you.
If you can get a major religious organization to come out an recognize homosexuality as normal, as not being a sin, then and only then will you stand a chance of getting Gay marriages declared legal. As it stands, you can't. And personally i find civil marriages to be not marriages at all. All they are is a legal construct, a piece of fiction like community property or cohabitation laws. They are a union in name only.
Take on the churches if you like. Otherwise, sit down and shut up. This government is not going to tell the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews to rewrite their religions for you. It just isn't going to happen. And that is what you are asking them to do. It is just not constitutional to do it.
2006-07-14 10:04:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by LORD Z 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because there are lots of misguided fools out there who will keep re-electing them if they do. Unfortunately these people seem to outnumber the sane and intelligent people, or at least they show up in greater numbers at election time. If you don't like their persecution, be sure to VOTE in November!
Regarding the benefits of marriage, since when do married couples have lower taxes? I know several heterosexual couples who have lived together for years but never married because the taxes would be higher. That's one of my biggest gripes with "family values" legislation. It's always directed at harming some minority, not at helping families.
I would also like to add that since no state in the union recognizes gay marriage, there is no valid legal reason to amend the Constitution to prohibit it. It would be needless persecution of an already oppressed minority purely for political gain (i.e. to get more votes from ignorant bigots).
2006-07-14 09:30:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by ConcernedCitizen 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the people escaping religious persecution wanted to follow THEIR religion. So, they ended up in the United States and ultimately persecuted others. Religion is engrained within most societies and it guides peoples moral/ethical ideas; therefore, it will guide their ideas on the law as well.
2006-07-14 09:29:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by ???? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No brainer Senior.
The same religious based organizations that killed off our predecessors still exist. They have the same controls and restraints.
Sure it is mostly underground secret stuff but the end result is the blood sweat and gold all goes to Rome.
2006-07-14 09:30:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by 43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋