Neocons have all moved to a compound in the mountains of Idaho and are no longer a factor in the world at present. It is rumored that they are well armed and have taken many young breeding age females with them, so expect trouble from them again in about 23 years.
2006-12-12 03:19:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by iknowtruthismine 7
·
1⤊
4⤋
First of all I am a conservative, not a neo-con. Second it is the way they are trying to sneak sh*t in the back door so to speak. What does it matter if they get married or not? They can live together. They are trying to get benefits from the government and their employers by doing so. example Health benefits. Should anyone that shacks up be allowed benefits from their partner. This reminds me of the medical marijuana debate. The proponents could care less that it is used for people who are sick, they are just trying to find the back door so they can stay high legally!
2006-12-12 11:21:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't know about the neo-con label, but many government benefits, financial and otherwise, go with marriage.
And people want to have a say in what is done in their government's name.
You may as well ask why people care if polygamy is legalized, or why people care if America fights in Iraq, if neither personally affects them.
2006-12-12 11:14:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
The majority of the population is concerned with homosexual marriage, as evidenced by the many gay marriage bans, because people do not wish to encourage bad behavior that will destroy children's lives. I know that directly contradicts the prevailing view in the phychiatric community but it will not be long before it will be shown that homosexual households do not perform parenting duties as well as a good heterosexual household with both parents.
2006-12-12 11:25:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by halfway 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
It appears to me that the majority of folks getting married these days do so to show their commitment, and love, for their chosen partner. Many folks marry with no intention of bearing children, and this is viewed as being perfectly ok in our society.
Marriage is a LEGAL state, which may or may not be bolstered by a religion, or religious ceremony.
Marriage permits partners access to over 120 legal considerations involving taxation, health, medical, insurance, beneficiary, and inheritance considerations and laws, regardless of whether or not children are involved.
Gays, by being denied a legal union, are denied these legal considerations, which currently are granted only those in heterosexual unions. This is a civil rights violation.
Many gays have children from previous marriages, or wanting children, adopt the older children in the system that heterosexuals are rarely interested in adopting. Because they are GAY parents, they are denied most of the legal/financial opportunities granted to heterosexual unions.
Our current "nuclear family" model is a fairly recent sociological developement, and to state that gay unions would erode this is simply ludicrous. Gays are going to form families whether legally recogized or not. Our current system of "rewarding" heterosexuals simply for being heterosexual is unconstitutional, a violation of gay's civil rights, and unethical.
Gay is a sexuality. We do NOT choose what our bodies and emotions respond to, as we do not choose our sexuality.
There is hardly a shortage of people on this planet, and no law, one way or the other, can possibly effect the NUMBER of gays on our planet. I also do not see gays doing anything differently if the laws are changed, other than enjoying equal LEGAL/FINANCIAL/TAX/INSURANCE status.
Having come from a home of 7 adopted children, I can tell you that your efforts would be better spent assuring that prospective parents be FIT to parent, regardless of sexuality.
2006-12-12 13:10:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by tat2me1960 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
First it will be gays then it will be pot then it will be something else and society will fall apart .
Funny the industrial revolution took place while people smoked opium had cocaine in coke-a cola and industrial magnets created fortunes equal to todays billionaires all while drugs where legal .
People took morphine and other elixirs all the time .Men drank and whored around with prostitutes and the railroads got built mines where dug and the nation managed to survive .
Now a days you just need to make enough money to visit your doctor and all the pills you want are at your disposal .
I know people who clean homes for a living and the medicine cabinets of the rich are filled with every kind of pain pill anti depressant and stimulants to lose weight available . Drug free society my left nut . Drugs are like all things people enjoy .Only for the rich . Bush had no trouble doing cocaine nor did many other rich kids across America at prep schools and prestiges College campuses . Guess those poor kids must have been getting those rich kids hooked on drugs to create a market for the sale of illegal drugs .
Those poor kids bought expensive drugs and gave them away to rich kids to ruin them .
Thats what the rich want you to believe .Poor Buffy was not into drugs and sex till she went to college . She banged every guy on the football team at prep school and smoked more pot and drank more booze then most poor kids who can not afford drugs .
It is the rich who complain about drugs all the time .The poor man is the victim of a vicious battle to make it difficult for rich kids to get drugs legally and stories of kids getting shot and murdered buying drugs is an urban legend to scare them from trying drugs .Its the parents who have a kilo of coke in a special vase or hidden in the closet that the kids find and use . O well I seem to be getting way off topic here .
SO the answer is it leads to other problems of allowing people to be free to choose .
2006-12-12 11:28:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by -----JAFO---- 4
·
0⤊
3⤋
Its a religious thing. Marriage is the blessing of a covenant relationship between people by the church. All the monotheistic religions condemn homosexual sex as a sin. If the church accepts gay marriage they are condoning a sin harshly condemned in their scriptures.
2006-12-12 11:22:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mad Roy 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
IF they allowed gay marriage all of their children will marry. This way they couldn't continue to lie to their neighbors. Bob hasn't married he hasn't met the right person yet. The wedding invitation would have said it all. Bob And Tim.
2006-12-12 11:29:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by wondermom 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't care, let them be as miserable as other Married couples!!
2006-12-12 11:32:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Smoky! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm not a neocon (I've always been a Republican) but I couldn't care less. You want to marry your Volvo, be my guest.
2006-12-12 11:16:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
3⤋