When two people of the same gender get married. Has been legal in most European countries for many years now. If it were legalized in the United States, whether you agree with it or not, it would put a lot of money into the economy. Many people would move into bigger houses or apartments, buy different/newer/bigger cars, and so on. At one time it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry in many places in the United States. Straight couples have already set an excellent example of marriage in the US, with two-thirds of marriages here ending in divorce. 'Sanctity'?
We must protect the sanctity of Britney Spears' 48-hour marriage and Mario "A.C. Slater" Lopez's two-week marriage and Nicky Hilton's 84-day marriage.
The Sanctity of Straight Marriage Math:
3 Rush Limbaugh
3 Jennifer Lopez
+2 Ronald Reagan
__________________
8 Elizabeth Taylor
The Sanctity of Straight Marriage Math:
3 Rush Limbaugh
3 Jennifer Lopez
+2 Ronald Reagan
__________________
8 Elizabeth Taylor
by Ryan Thompson February 14, 2005
I don't understand this argument: "IF GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL THEN THEY'LL TURN EVERYONE GAY AND WE'LL GO EXTINCT." The people who use this argument are the same ones who say homosexuality is a choice. Well, that's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? If it's a choice, then how can anyone "turn other people gay"? What... all of a sudden it's contagious?
I understand that the Bible is against homosexuality, and anyone is allowed to hate gay people... but your beliefs canNOT influence government policies. It blurs the line between church and state.
It is not the American way.
The sanctity of marriage, for all those who are worried about that, is beyond repair at this point. People follow celebrity marriages like they're a sport or a reality show, not a holy ceremony. Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez treat marriage like it's a joke. MORE THAN HALF of marriages today end in divorce. Now, is gay marriage really going to hurt the institution?
(Churches and other religious institutions cannot legally be forced to perform gay marriages, by the way.)
Gay people cannot and will not "turn everyone else gay." It is a ludicrous to assume that gays have some sort of hypnotic grip over other people's sexual orientations. There is nothing to fear; homophobes are entitled to their beliefs, but beliefs are merely personal opinions that have no place in our government of FREEDOM. Keep your beliefs to yourself, and let two loving people get married.
I understand that the Bible is against homosexuality, and anyone is allowed to hate gay people... but your beliefs canNOT influence government policies. It blurs the line between church and state.
It is not the American way.
The sanctity of marriage, for all those who are worried about that, is beyond repair at this point. People follow celebrity marriages like they're a sport or a reality show, not a holy ceremony. Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez treat marriage like it's a joke. MORE THAN HALF of marriages today end in divorce. Now, is gay marriage really going to hurt the institution?
(Churches and other religious institutions cannot legally be forced to perform gay marriages, by the way.)
Gay people cannot and will not "turn everyone else gay." It is a ludicrous to assume that gays have some sort of hypnotic grip over other people's sexual orientations. There is nothing to fear; homophobes are entitled to their beliefs, but beliefs are merely personal opinions that have no place in our government of FREEDOM. Keep your beliefs to yourself, and let two loving people get married.
by McCain in '08... please!!!!!!!!!!!! November 26, 2004
A union between two people of the same sex who love each other. Marriage is a symbol of love between two people, gender and sexual orientation should be irrelevant. However, gay marriage is an issue people are taking up due to their deep-seated religious beliefs and homophobia, which are sometimes one and the same.
"All marriage does is legitimize children, and allow serious repurcussions if you beocme divorced. Gays shouldn't care if they can marry, because they can still love some if they aren't officially married, and they can't have children."
I suppose I should inform the numerous gay parents out there (some of which I know personally) that they're not allowed to be parents. And if this is truth, then you should also deprive gay parents from adopting children which is legal. And I suppose you should take away the privelege of marriage licenses to all the atheists. If gay marriages are sacrilegious, then so are married atheists. And you should take away all the marriage licenses of all of the heterosexuals who married with no intent to reproduce for whatever reason (physical, emotional, financial, personal, etc).
"All marriage does is legitimize children, and allow serious repurcussions if you beocme divorced. Gays shouldn't care if they can marry, because they can still love some if they aren't officially married, and they can't have children."
I suppose I should inform the numerous gay parents out there (some of which I know personally) that they're not allowed to be parents. And if this is truth, then you should also deprive gay parents from adopting children which is legal. And I suppose you should take away the privelege of marriage licenses to all the atheists. If gay marriages are sacrilegious, then so are married atheists. And you should take away all the marriage licenses of all of the heterosexuals who married with no intent to reproduce for whatever reason (physical, emotional, financial, personal, etc).
by Akasha Tsang March 3, 2004
The marriage of two females or two males. With this comes civil rights, so gay individuals can be people, TOO.
What many people against gay marriage don't understand is that we're not voting against YOUR marriage, so why are you voting against ours? If one woman marries another woman, is that going to effect your life? Just because it goes against YOUR religion doesn't necessarily mean it goes against a gay's religion. One of the ten amendments is freedom of religion, so technically, religion can't bend a law.
Some arguments ignorant straights might make are:
The argument: Society needs traditional marriage to promote new families and children who will become the leaders of the next generation. Same-sex marriage does not promote this. Rather, it promotes the wants of individuals.
Response:Many marriages produce no children at all, but are either childless or are home to adopted children. These marriages are no less marriage in the eyes of the federal government or of God (ask, "Don't you agree?"), and the parties to it have no fewer rights because the two married individuals failed to procreate - nor should they. Many same sex couples either produce natural children or adopt, create new families, and are no more self-serving to the individual than any opposite sex marriage, therefore should not receive any fewer rights, societal accordances or benefits.
The argument: Gay marriage robs a child of a two-parent family, and studies show that a child without one or the other parent is more likely to be stricken by poverty or drug abuse.
Response:Not supported by facts. Many children suffer the loss of one parent to all sorts of different causes: death, divorce (and one parent moves far away), drug abuse or abandonment by the parent. Conveniently, many opponents of gay marriage ignore the fact that there are far more children doing well who are not being raised by their natural mother and father in an intact marital situation than there are those languishing. The figures they cite are often relating to drug abuse, arrest, and abandonment issues, and of course these things all put children in worse straits. But in many committed gay families, there are two parents in the home - and the children are well adjusted and successful in school. In fact, a recent study showed that for the very best parental situation, one would need to be sure a child was raised by a pair of lesbians; these children turned out to be more well adjusted and have better IQ scores than their peers being raised by their own bio moms and dads.
The argument: It's not about Civil Rights. Gays should not be equated with the struggle of African Americans for their Civil Rights, they were never slaves. (Many cite Jesse Jackson here, or other African American leaders)
The response: Nonsense. It is about Civil Rights. Civil Rights means the rights accorded to each and every citizen of the United States being equal and across the board to all citizens. African Americans and gays and women and anyone else who's being denied equality under our Constitution. Thankfully, the black Civil Rights movement has greased these wheels considerably and provided a template so that other minority groups experiencing discrimination can achieve more equal treatment in decades rather than the centuries it took for African Americans to get as close as they have (though there's still a ways to go, there, too).
The argument: It's a slippery slope that will lead to incestuous marriage, or even bestiality in marriage. Just because a brother and sister feel that they are in love and want to marry, the law forbids it for good reasons. If Gay Marriage is allowed, then where will it end? Why not allow polygamy, too, for that matter?
Response:This is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gays want the same rights as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery slope" is all in the minds of these poor people who are so afraid that their way of life is going to be threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems to be waving their way.
The argument: Why would traditional marriage be in Federal Law? - President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996.4 If traditional marriage was wrong, why would one of our former presidents, with the support of the House of Representatives and Senate, sign it into law? Of course, the Federal government has made mistakes in the past on subjects such as slavery and suffrage. The difference is that slavery has been abolished and all Americans have the right to vote, while the Defense of Marriage Act is still in law.
Response:This one's just funny. Let's think about it. First of all, nobody, as far as anyone can see so far, has said that "traditional marriage is wrong." It's fine, for traditional couples. The reason the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law is because it was politically expedient at the time for Clinton to sign it into law; there was not the base of support for Gay Marriage that exists today. And, as the other person points out, The Federal Government "has made mistakes in the past, on slavery and suffrage." And is making a mistake here, too. The difference is that "slavery has been abolished and all Americans now have the right to vote." Those laws were wrong then, and this Defense of Marriage Act is just as wrong - we just haven't gotten to the point yet where it's politically expedient to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet. It's still in law. For now. But have no doubt that it will be abolished eventually, just as the others were. This person acts as if the fact that it hasn't happened yet is proof that it never should.
What many people against gay marriage don't understand is that we're not voting against YOUR marriage, so why are you voting against ours? If one woman marries another woman, is that going to effect your life? Just because it goes against YOUR religion doesn't necessarily mean it goes against a gay's religion. One of the ten amendments is freedom of religion, so technically, religion can't bend a law.
Some arguments ignorant straights might make are:
The argument: Society needs traditional marriage to promote new families and children who will become the leaders of the next generation. Same-sex marriage does not promote this. Rather, it promotes the wants of individuals.
Response:Many marriages produce no children at all, but are either childless or are home to adopted children. These marriages are no less marriage in the eyes of the federal government or of God (ask, "Don't you agree?"), and the parties to it have no fewer rights because the two married individuals failed to procreate - nor should they. Many same sex couples either produce natural children or adopt, create new families, and are no more self-serving to the individual than any opposite sex marriage, therefore should not receive any fewer rights, societal accordances or benefits.
The argument: Gay marriage robs a child of a two-parent family, and studies show that a child without one or the other parent is more likely to be stricken by poverty or drug abuse.
Response:Not supported by facts. Many children suffer the loss of one parent to all sorts of different causes: death, divorce (and one parent moves far away), drug abuse or abandonment by the parent. Conveniently, many opponents of gay marriage ignore the fact that there are far more children doing well who are not being raised by their natural mother and father in an intact marital situation than there are those languishing. The figures they cite are often relating to drug abuse, arrest, and abandonment issues, and of course these things all put children in worse straits. But in many committed gay families, there are two parents in the home - and the children are well adjusted and successful in school. In fact, a recent study showed that for the very best parental situation, one would need to be sure a child was raised by a pair of lesbians; these children turned out to be more well adjusted and have better IQ scores than their peers being raised by their own bio moms and dads.
The argument: It's not about Civil Rights. Gays should not be equated with the struggle of African Americans for their Civil Rights, they were never slaves. (Many cite Jesse Jackson here, or other African American leaders)
The response: Nonsense. It is about Civil Rights. Civil Rights means the rights accorded to each and every citizen of the United States being equal and across the board to all citizens. African Americans and gays and women and anyone else who's being denied equality under our Constitution. Thankfully, the black Civil Rights movement has greased these wheels considerably and provided a template so that other minority groups experiencing discrimination can achieve more equal treatment in decades rather than the centuries it took for African Americans to get as close as they have (though there's still a ways to go, there, too).
The argument: It's a slippery slope that will lead to incestuous marriage, or even bestiality in marriage. Just because a brother and sister feel that they are in love and want to marry, the law forbids it for good reasons. If Gay Marriage is allowed, then where will it end? Why not allow polygamy, too, for that matter?
Response:This is the most spurious argument of all, and it's just a ridiculous one. Gays want the same rights as straights. Incest will still be disallowed. Bestiality will still be disallowed. Marriage should be the committed relationship between two persons of consenting age which is lawful in all other ways. The "slippery slope" is all in the minds of these poor people who are so afraid that their way of life is going to be threatened that they are grasping at whatever straw seems to be waving their way.
The argument: Why would traditional marriage be in Federal Law? - President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, 1996.4 If traditional marriage was wrong, why would one of our former presidents, with the support of the House of Representatives and Senate, sign it into law? Of course, the Federal government has made mistakes in the past on subjects such as slavery and suffrage. The difference is that slavery has been abolished and all Americans have the right to vote, while the Defense of Marriage Act is still in law.
Response:This one's just funny. Let's think about it. First of all, nobody, as far as anyone can see so far, has said that "traditional marriage is wrong." It's fine, for traditional couples. The reason the Federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law is because it was politically expedient at the time for Clinton to sign it into law; there was not the base of support for Gay Marriage that exists today. And, as the other person points out, The Federal Government "has made mistakes in the past, on slavery and suffrage." And is making a mistake here, too. The difference is that "slavery has been abolished and all Americans now have the right to vote." Those laws were wrong then, and this Defense of Marriage Act is just as wrong - we just haven't gotten to the point yet where it's politically expedient to abolish the Defense of Marriage Act. Yet. It's still in law. For now. But have no doubt that it will be abolished eventually, just as the others were. This person acts as if the fact that it hasn't happened yet is proof that it never should.
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage.
by xstarshineox January 31, 2008
The marriage between a gay couple. Now legal in Canada. Also and issue that gives Christianity a bad name. Around half of the Christians out there are for gays and have gay friends, so the people with their heads up their asses are the ones pointing fingers at Christians.
by Respect.. January 3, 2006
I'm not going to get into the whole religious side of this issue, I don't know enough about the old and new testaments to be able to back up what I say about those. At least I'm intelligent and wise enough to not go making stuff up just to suit my purpose. I'm not religious, but I was raised in a methodist church, so I know a little about tolerance. I generally look down on close-minded people who refuse to think about why they believe what they believe. But! That isn't the point of this.
The real point of this is that some conservatives say gays have the same marriage rights as straights. Any one consenting man is allowed to marry any one consenting woman, regardless of sexual orientation. But that's not actually equal rights. Gays are being denied the right to marry someone they're attracted to, someone they'd want to marry even if given the choice of any human partner. Straights can marry someone they're attracted to, why can't gays?
I know enough about christianity to be able to tell for myself that neither god or Jesus wrote the bible. People, <i>christian</i> people wrote it. Jesus taught tolerance, forgiveness (The whole seventy times seven thing? Matthew 18:21-2. Yeah, I've read the bible), and universal love. He condemned grudges and all that promoted the idea that someone was better or righter than another. Jesus is the prophet of christianity, the main figure. Not god. It's called christianity after Christ, it's not called Godity. God's word can be interpreted how you want, but Jesus, assuming he was a specific person, said concrete things that should not be skewed for your own benefit.
God is wrathful, Jesus was not. This religion is supposed to be about what Jesus said, how HE related to god. Why does no one know this any more? They get so wrapped up in carring out "god's will" that they forget that they are subject to it too. What happened to Jesus's will and ideals?
The real point of this is that some conservatives say gays have the same marriage rights as straights. Any one consenting man is allowed to marry any one consenting woman, regardless of sexual orientation. But that's not actually equal rights. Gays are being denied the right to marry someone they're attracted to, someone they'd want to marry even if given the choice of any human partner. Straights can marry someone they're attracted to, why can't gays?
I know enough about christianity to be able to tell for myself that neither god or Jesus wrote the bible. People, <i>christian</i> people wrote it. Jesus taught tolerance, forgiveness (The whole seventy times seven thing? Matthew 18:21-2. Yeah, I've read the bible), and universal love. He condemned grudges and all that promoted the idea that someone was better or righter than another. Jesus is the prophet of christianity, the main figure. Not god. It's called christianity after Christ, it's not called Godity. God's word can be interpreted how you want, but Jesus, assuming he was a specific person, said concrete things that should not be skewed for your own benefit.
God is wrathful, Jesus was not. This religion is supposed to be about what Jesus said, how HE related to god. Why does no one know this any more? They get so wrapped up in carring out "god's will" that they forget that they are subject to it too. What happened to Jesus's will and ideals?
"But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."
~ Luke 14:13 &14
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"
Gay marriage and seperation of church and state:Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s?”
~ (Matthew 22:21)
~ Matthew 5:9
~ Luke 14:13 &14
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"
Gay marriage and seperation of church and state:Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s?”
~ (Matthew 22:21)
~ Matthew 5:9
by JakeNotCliff September 20, 2007
ok... first of all... marriage is a religious institution, but not of christianity. the pagans, woulds, and germanic tribes of europe were doing it way, WAY before christianity came about. so were various tribes and religions all over the world. many of them weren't polygomous, so don't start with no gay or bi marriages.
second of all, you cannot choose to be gay. you do not turn gay later in life, you realize it. it's a mutation in the genes. if you don't believe me, try to turn yourself gay. honestly, if you think you can turn yourself gay and then back, you shouldn't be afraid. turn yourself gay. sexually want someone of the same gender. it isn't easy, is it? neither is forcing your genetic structure to follow society's standards just because christians said so.
in the end, religion doesn't decide the laws of our country. morals and needs do. basic human morals are being kind to your fellow man, not banning the ability to love another man. it's religious morals. don't force religion on people, don't force sexuality on people. gays have never done anything like that to you.
second of all, you cannot choose to be gay. you do not turn gay later in life, you realize it. it's a mutation in the genes. if you don't believe me, try to turn yourself gay. honestly, if you think you can turn yourself gay and then back, you shouldn't be afraid. turn yourself gay. sexually want someone of the same gender. it isn't easy, is it? neither is forcing your genetic structure to follow society's standards just because christians said so.
in the end, religion doesn't decide the laws of our country. morals and needs do. basic human morals are being kind to your fellow man, not banning the ability to love another man. it's religious morals. don't force religion on people, don't force sexuality on people. gays have never done anything like that to you.
actually i'd like to see an example of gays ganging up on straight people because they're straight, or trying to pass laws based on their sexuality. apparently a lot of people thing gays need to leave straights alone. why can't they stand to leave gay marriage alone?
by gypsys_child March 7, 2006