The ultra conservative 'moral' beliefs of most Republicans prevent them from having compassion and an open mind to lifestyles other than their own. I think they view being gay as a deviation from the norm, and that it shouldn't be encouraged by legislation. I also think that most of them are homophobic and are afraid of what the fellow red-necks would think of them if they supported gay rights.
I think the U.S. will start to make real progress in these issues when (hopefully) a new Democratic president is elected. Unfortunately, Republicans use religion as an excuse to exclude humans from their basic human rights, based on their interpretations of the bible. (By the way, I have strong spiritual beliefs but people like George W. spewing their hatred have made me embarassed of the title "Christian")
2007-01-16 16:18:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by tiggywinkle 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
I'm a Democrat. But common sense says the family is the basic unit of society, society, the basic unit of a country.
Families then, are the role model for a country, the country a role model for the world. Common sense also says homosexuality is against nature. And honoring this disorder as socially acceptable is degenerate.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. With the way the extreme Right has been screwing up America, we need a government that is more sane and more close to nature. It's common sense. Think about it and don't be like Bush and let your own impulsive blind opinion blind you from using your mind and heart.
2007-01-16 16:19:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by forcedprogress 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is an attack on the family. The homosexuals already can use trusts and contracts to do most everything they want. If guys are allowed to marry guys then people will want to marry two women or two men, or two men and three women (etc.).
Some are already suing to do polygamy since these folks are trying to redefine marriage.
Societies for thousands of years have defined marriage as between men and women. Why all of a sudden do these people want to change that?
I see that some ask why special priviledge is given to men and women getting married. The Roman government long ago gave special priviledges to men who had families in order to encourage them to have families. A society that doesn't have children dies. Society needs to decide what society wants. Another way of saying that is the PEOPLE need to decide as a group. If we allow the will of the people to be overruled then we are giving up freedom to the part of government disregarding the will of the people. The branch of government least answerable to the people is the judicial branch, and 5 Supreme Court Justices can rule the country unless 2/3 of the Senate impeach them.
2007-01-16 16:15:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Steve S 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
The U.S. is a country which is governed as a democratic-republic. The laws are made by politicians elected by the citizens who vote. Both the politicians themselves and the citizens who do the electing are opposed to the policy of recognizing same-sex marriage. There are a number of reasons why, but I frankly don't care "why" in terms of answering your question. The one thing you need to understand is this: here, the people rule. Imperfect, hypocritical people who say things with sweeping generalities that they don't really mean. So wherever you heard that the U.S. is all about "being a free and fair country" you ought to take that statement skeptically. We talk that way about ourselves, but we don't really mean it.
No, come to think of it, I do have one more thing to say.
"Equal rights for sodomites" was NOT a campaign slogan that our country's Founding Fathers were willing to use in order to persuade the people to ratify the Constitution.
2007-01-16 16:40:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is why is any government granting PRIVILEGES to anybody at all? There is a profound difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE. In a free society indiviuals enter contractual agreements and government is there to enforce those agreements, the proper role of government is to make sure that no indiviual rights or property rights have been violated and no fraud has been committed. To go beyond that and grant special status to anyone is not the proper role of any government. Homosexuals are demanding not the right to contractual agreement, they already have that in civil unions, but are asking government to grant them the special status, the goverment granted privelege that married heterosexual couples have. There are after all heterosexual couples not legally married and they are not granted the special status that government grants the legally marrried. I am of the opinion that heterosexual marriage as a government granted special status privilege is beyond the proper role of government.
2007-01-16 16:33:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by which doobie, you be? 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It has been voted down in many states by the PEOPLE, many have the "where will it stop" attitude, worrying about polygamy which IS legal in many many countries, and supported by certain religions (ie.. Mormon, and Islam). People also seem the think that gay men are pedophiles, and worry about groups like NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Lovers Association), Many refuse to admit that MOST gay adults only have interests in other adults. So hateful lies hurt the non-guilty.
The GOV, is meant to be by and for the PEOPLE'S wishes, and as long as the issue gets voted down the politicians will pat themselves on the back and say "sorry guys, we tried"
2007-01-16 16:31:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Marriage between a man and woman protect the family, the basis of all civilization. Homosexual "unions" can and do have similar rights by other legal methods such as Trusts, Power of Attorney, contracts, etc. So society will never allow a "marriage" between two same sex people. Although society is starting more and more to accept homesexuality, it does not mean the general concensis will accept "marriage" of two gays; they fear it will be the downfall of our family, society, and culture as we know it. The Roman Empire accepted homosexuality, and look what happened to their empire after 2,000 years!?
2007-01-16 19:13:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by alaskasourdoughman 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
You're out voted!!!
Not only that if you finally get that right to marry a guy then brother and sister should have that right and then Group Orgies should have the right to marry each other all together then priest should have their rights to marry each other and what about people who have sex with animals?Then they should have the right to marry a Cow,Pig,Dogs and so on and so forth it could just keep going on and on forever out of control.
I'm sure this isn't what you wanted to hear but face the truth.It's the hard truth.
If everybody had the rights to do anything they dame well please then the next thing is we'd all get shot for it because they have their freedom and rights too using a gun for their beliefs too.People would want their rights to kill because of people like you who want to live in a fairy land.
You may take this as abuse but just remember ...it's called freedom of speech.If you turn me in for what you may call abuse then you just contradicted yourself about freedom and just proved that all that matters to you is your own freedom and no one Else's.
2007-01-16 16:33:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Matty G 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Every civilation in the history of the world has looked at homosexuality a immoral and disgusting. The only exceptions would be the greeks and the only when soldiers were away from home. At home, the soldiers were looked down upon if they continued. If you leave the God thing out, you still have 6000 years of human history that sais it's wrong.
2007-01-16 16:23:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by joe_89_9 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Big T you make a good point. Yes I agree the government should not have any say when it comes to someones right to marry whomever they desire. The U.S. is so far ahead in some ways and way behind the times in others. You have to look at it this way, our grandparents generation is "ruling" this nation. What would your grandma have to say about you marrying some one the same sex as you? It's like John Mayer says, "someday our generation is going to rule the population". Hope is a great thing. Peace.
2007-01-16 16:24:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by frogspeaceflower 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
because every time the issue has come up to a popular vote (as state issues), people have voted for heterosexual- only marriages. this was even the case in oregon, which is traditionally a socially liberal state. the primary method so far of pushing homosexual marriage has been to use the courts to circumvent popular opinion.
and fyi it's cheaper to file a joint return rather then seperately.
2007-01-16 16:19:18
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋