Does anyone agree with this theory on gay marraige?

Question

I firmly believe that marriage rights for gays center around a few minor details.

1. Medical/legal rights as next of kin. Both of which can be obtained in every state in the Union.

2. The largest single tax break that can be achieved without itemizing your deductions.

3. The small percentage that want homosexuality embraced by the general public. (i.e. that homosexuality is not wrong no matter what anyone thinks.)

The big issue for me is another dictating what is right and morale for me to accept and teach my children.

Leon, so if they legalize marriage between members of the same sex will common law marrieges have to effect also. I am sure their are many strait people that do not want to be commonlaw married to thier roomie from college

First of al do not assume that I taking some righteous stance against gay marriage. I have no problem with a civil union and if someone wants to be husband and husband or vice versa. What I have a problem with is California where they are dictating that public schools have to teach alternative lifestyles an that more traditional lifestyles are not allowed as they are discriminatory based on gender. Sexual lifestyle needs to be completely out of our government even more than religion.

Answer 1

As the numbers on this "gay marriage" social experiment continue to plummet, it's becoming obvious that homosexual activists don't care one iota about "marriage." Their true agenda is not really "marriage equality" and the right to enter into monogamous "marriages," but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage so that the institution - which is so very important to healthy child rearing and a healthy society - no longer has a unique and respected place in society. Everything that marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear family and those "oppressive" gender stereotypes associated with the need for a "mom" and a "dad") must be done away with in order to foster acceptance of sin.

But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. In order to legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it's necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear family are normative and represent the gold standard. According to some, that's a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And in order for secular humanism to properly take root, we need a society which embraces the idea that all forms of sexual behavior - no matter how perverse or destructive - are equally valid.

The good news is that Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage."

As fewer and fewer homosexuals avail themselves of the opportunity to "marry" in those areas where it's allowed, it's likely that the obvious disconnect between the clamor for "marriage equality" and "gay marriages" actually performed will continue to both expose and alert Americans to the illegitimate motives behind this illegitimate concept.

Answer 2

One must understand what "marriage" is. It is the "Ideal Standard" for a society. As one can imagine, when humans were first creating the earliest societies there were no rules. So there most likely were homosexual and heterosexual activities occurring with some frequency and resulting in a lot of pregnant females that became a burden on society. In primitive times, pregnant women needed a degree of help and children needed to be provided for.

One thing that evolved from all of this was a recognition of one particular arrangement that proved to be the best and most effective for healthy and vibrant societies. That was the concept of one man and one woman bound together for life and engaging in sex only with each other, resulting in children the male was confident were his own offspring giving him a sense of responsbility for his family's care.

Remarkably, this same model emerged in practically every successful society. It is the ideal standard or the best case scenario. There can be many other kinds of relationships involving any number and gender. Yet only one can be the ideal standard.

You cannot allow anything else to be considered marriage. By allowing homosexuals to marry or any other combination than one man and one woman you render the word meaningless.

As far as homosexuals being monogamous, loving and responsible for their partner, I highly recommend it. They deserve accomodation and encouragement. But you would have to call it something else. While I agree it is the ideal standard for homosexuals it is not the ideal standard for society as a whole.

.

Answer 3

I think the issue around gay marriage is that a lot of people think their religious beliefs over-rides other's lives. I disagree.

For crying out loud, what will change if people who love each other and live together now have public recognition of their relationship. The relationship is the same.

Hopefully in my lifetime I will see this argument fade away into night.

Left handed people used to be tormented until sooner or later the religious belief that they were the spawn of the Devil was squashed.

People! Get a grip! Gay people are tax-payers and co-workers, church-goers and transit-riders, consumers and neighbours, sons and daughters. They are more like straight people than they are different.

Answer 4

If you or other people for that matter do not like gay marriage, do not marry a person of the same sex........

Why should anybody in America have the right to tell another law abiding citizen what they can and can't do?

I think homosexuals are gross too, but the difference between you and me is that I don't think that my PERSONAL OPINION should be made into law.........sorry it's just what I believe........

Answer 5

i'm ok whit that, yet i don't be attentive to.... i do no longer experience like the marriage will do any good. My mom and dad hate one yet another they won't in any respect divorce, so they're in no way chuffed. in line with probability sometime i'm gonna discover the final guy and that i think of i ought to get married in my Nineteen Forties. Marriage isn't unavoidably a evidence of affection, so my guy will ought to attend plenty for a marriage.

Answer 6

How about just defining marriage as a commitment between two consenting adults? This would negate all the arguments of "What next, adults and children... humans and animals... multiple spouses"?

How would allowing gays to marry "hurt the institution"? How would two guys or ladies next door to my wife and I affect our relationship? It doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe the fundamentalists should consider stop trying to define morality for others - morality should be a system of beliefs that we hold OURSELVES to.

Answer 7

No, I disagree.

Marriage rights for gays and lesbians center around a major detail: If the government is going to be in the business of endorsing unions, it needs to have a nonreligious and nondiscriminatory basis for refusal to do so.

If we're going to say that marriage is solely a religious act and that God is the boss of it, fine...the government needs to refrain from endorsing it. The faithful can marry in churches, and if they want a government endorsement of their relationship...they can have a separate civil union, conducted by a civil official.

It wouldn't be denying you the right to a marriage, after all...just recognizing that matters of faith shouldn't be meddled in by the government. But if you want a government endorsement of your relationship...gays and lesbians should have the same ability to have theirs endorsed as well, and all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto.

You are at liberty to teach your children whatever morals you wish. You don't need to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying in order to do so.

P.S. Your statement about "common law" marriage doesn't hold up. Elements of a common law marriage include agreeing that you're married, cohabiting, and hold yourselves out to the world as spouses. If you're doing that with your roomie, you're closer to him than I was to any of mine.

Gosh, I love my legal research training.

Answer 8

Leon, the government legislates marriage for the benefit of offspring. Period. Otherwise it would remain in the purview of the Church.

And this is also my primary objection to gay marriage--it's a government infringment on the Church without a compelling state interest.

Answer 9

I respect your thoughts and ideas and ask that you respect, mine. I am not gay or a lesbian. I am straight. I was never brought up around the gay or lesbian community, it was something that was never talked about as I was growing up. As an adult. I have learned for myself, that there are many things in life to learn to understand before passing judgement. I met a gay man, I am female. I was not closed minded so I decided to ask questions. Thankfully, he was receptive of my questions and understood that I did not clearly understand why a man would want to sleep with a man. He did not see it as me judging him, he saw it as me gaining education the sociology of it. I am glad I researched it more, before pretending that I knew what it was really about and made ignorant statements that could make me look foolish.

Answer 10

I hope it's that soon Argle but things don't change very fast in the land of the pilgrims. The rest of the thinking world doesn't base their morals on what Billy Bob and his sister says is okey dokey .. just the moral majority of America..and the religious zealots of other wacko countries. I know this is redundant o mighty moral ones but who an adult chooses to love is their business..oh no..guess I'm going to hell..