I thought they wanted less goverment in our lives, but no...they want to control our bed rooms. Why?
2006-12-25 11:52:16 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is a values question, and to the person who asks the question, no answer can be the right one because it all has to do with how someone was raised and their value system. Conservatives, the religious right, evangelicals, or whatever your term you use, this is a simple religious argument. God granted us marriage, and it is reserved for the bond between and man and a woman. To Conservatives this is not a question of whether government is being involved in their life, it is a question about why government would be allowed to grant a marriage that God does not allow. In this case, government has no power to establish this union because it is not by the authority of government but by the authority of God that marriage is established. The great divide in our country is between people who feel that God has a central role in our lives and those others who have a secular view that God is somehow separate from our Government. To myself as a conservative, I think this approach is moronic. Why wouldn't I want my God involved in all things, especially with the leaders of my country. While your question does not mention gay marriage, it specifically questions gay unions; until someone can define what a gay union is it sounds like marriage to me ...
2006-12-25 12:14:46 · answer #1 · answered by Kyle G 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm a conservative and I couldn't care less. Except that I think it is a state issue because marriage is a state issue under the 10th amendment, in my view.
I'm hot on state rights but gay marraige, unions or what have you don't really impact me one way or the other.
Merry Christmas and good luck.
I think it is a red herring issue and I hate it for that.
2006-12-26 01:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One poster said it was "unnatural" for anything to enter the anus. I guess all proctologists should be shot.
Another stated that homosexuality was "against all laws of nature." Livescience.com had an article about a month ago that detailed the extent of homosexuality in the animal world. It was interesting.
I am not making a statement on the rightness or wrongness of the issue, just pointing out a couple extra angles.
2006-12-25 21:50:27 · answer #3 · answered by Git r' done 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The government is protecting corporations that provide health insurance to employees and their spouses, if the law changes then employers will have to provide insurance for gay spouses, I asked a similar question in politics and also religion and got mostly responses that were supportive of gay marriage as long as you call it civil union and not marriage
2006-12-25 20:16:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They -- conservatives -- mean that they want less government control of the economy. Conservatives (in both parties) have always believed that
****** STATE *********
governments should regulate and ban immoral behavior. And conservatives also believe that laws should be made by legislatures, not by judges who are doing their jobs wrong, which is what happened in Massachusetts.
Judicial activism also happened a few months before the Massachusetts ruling when the U.S. Supremes struck down "sodomy" laws in 13 ******STATES*****.
Why shouldn't conservatives be afraid that federal judges will legalize gay marriage on a nation-wide level by imitating the lies uttered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas and the lies told in Goodridge v. Dept. of Health?
2006-12-25 19:57:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I have no issue with civil unions for same-sex couples.
My issue with same-sex marriage is simple:
If it was federally passed as law, too many states would protest it.
If it reverted to the states, it wouldn't be fair to the same-sex couples; they would be married in one state, but it would be illegal in another.
2006-12-25 20:08:01 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It´s not gay "unions" they have a problem with. It's the changing of the definition of "marriage".
2006-12-25 19:56:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Speaking for myself I am just sick of the whole thing. Gay and marriage what a joke. Isn't the whole point of being gay hoping in bed with as many people as possible until you die of some exotic germ. Oh yeah, aids forced gays to have partners. So now we have to hear gay this and gay that. Why cant gays keep sex private.
2006-12-25 20:02:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
the answer is simple, just because you and a few other despicable queers want to destroy the basic foundations of a decent society so you can justify your inhuman desires and contaminate our people especially our young who are susceptible to things that are immoral and lets face it how can you call homosexuals moral, It is against every humanly instinct or law of nature, if you need to practice such at least keep it out of sight it is so disgusting,
2006-12-25 20:11:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Its about morality.
Its about traditional American values.
Its about what this nation was founded on, thrived and prospered on.
You want to be gay... good for you.. But don't request that the rest of the country change just to make 10 percent or less of the population happy.
We are about democracy. That means the majority wins.
2006-12-25 19:56:36 · answer #10 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋