Gay marriage advocates, on the wrong track?

[rightwinger]

A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.

Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?

What possible impact does that have on your life?

 

[Nosmo King]

A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.

Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?

What possible impact does that have on your life?

It's not Adam and Steve! It's Adam and Steven.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, morality is NOT a relative thing. That's the revisionist logic that people have been using for the last century to promote the acceptance of everything from Women's Sufferage to Gay Marriage. These things are not appropriate; regardless of whether society accepts them or not.

Morality is legally relative, in that it can’t be legislated. And there’s noting revisionist about acknowledging a citizens’ right to equal protection of the laws and due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, whether concerning one’s right to vote or marry.

These people are no more programmed by nature to be this way than a pit bull is programmed by nature to bite a child's face off. There may be hints to it in the genetic code, but these people are simply being allowed to act in an inappropriate manner and in fact are being taught that their Wrong way of doing things is acceptable.

Irrelevant.

People are not programmed to be Christian – it’s a choice – yet the practice of that religion is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Life is not and never has been about pleasure, fun, or happiness. It has been and always will be about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral life. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A good, decent, proper, and moral person will respect the privacy and civil rights of another person, even if he disapproves of how those rights are exercised. Homosexuals live good, decent, proper, and moral lives in the eyes of the law, which is all that matters.

What rights do straight people have that gay people do not have?

Wrong question, irrelevant, and that’s not the issue.

The issue and question are: ‘What laws do heterosexuals have access to that homosexuals do not’? Answer: marriage.

This is an issue of substantive due process and equal protection:

equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute

Clearly homosexuals are a suspect class, subjected to discriminatory treatment when the states do not allow them equal access to marriage laws – and recognizing them as an actual marriage in every sense of the term. The states also clearly have no legitimate purpose to deny gays equal access, as a religious or cultural aversion to homosexuality have no foundation in fact. The issue also has nothing to do with procreation as infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry.

Again, why should government get to determine who can preside over a marriage and not the people?

The government gets its authority from the people; indeed, the government and people are one in the same. This is the purpose of the Constitution: when the government/people get it wrong, such as in forbidding same-sex couples to marry, the courts review the action of the government/people to determine if a civil rights violation has occurred.

Marriage certificates do not mean marriage licenses. A certificate simply means you have been married, and you could be provided with a certificate after signing a marriage contract. My parents, married in the Catholic Church, have a certificate from the Catholic Church recognizing their marriage. In addition they have a certificate from the state of California. Certificates and licenses are not the same thing.

We know governments can’t ‘get out’ of marriage because they write and administer the contract law that defines the civil law. Governments can ‘get out of the way’ of marriage by simply allowing access to the law equally.

And there was too dispute about marriage. Interracial marriage was heavily disputed. To solve the dispute, government just banned them...via the marriage license.

And such actions were invalidated by the Supreme Court as 14th Amendment violations. The states do have a role in marriage to ensure equal access.

I personally would rather this be decided in the legislative arena than the judicial one, though.

Who wouldn’t.

Unfortunately there are majorities in some jurisdictions who elect to violate the rule of law. In these jurisdictions those adversely effected can find relief only in Federal court.

If you think the ACLU won't sue the hell out of the first church that refuses to marry a gay couple in a state that has sanctioned such, you are rather naive.

On what grounds? The Constitution guarantees the right of exclusive association – see: Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale (2000).

I just have a concern about the courts doing the job of the legistlature. Take Roe v. Wade for example. If left to it's own devices, we'd probably have abortion laws as liberal as the ones we have today. But a court mandating it has the stink of imposition on it. So it is still controversial today when it shouldn't be.

I have a real problem with courts doing the job of the legislative branch. (And this isn't a partisan thing, I have a problem when Right Wing judges overrule Congress or state legistlatures as well.).

Understandable – but again: the courts are reactive, not proactive; they take corrective action only when jurisdictions (representing the majority of the people) act in an unconstitutional manner. In theory, if all jurisdictions passed laws and like measures that comport to the Constitution all the time, there’d be no need for Federal civil lawsuits.

 

[Jarhead]

A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.

Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?

What possible impact does that have on your life?

None whatsoever.

What impact did my marrying my wife have on them?

None.

 

[IndependntLogic]

A marriage is always a bound between a man and a woman, not between Adam and Steve.

Why can't Adam and Steve get married if they love eachother?

What possible impact does that have on your life?

None whatsoever.

What impact did my marrying my wife have on them?

None.

Why don't my posts show up?

 

[IndependntLogic]

okay I posted on this earlier but didn't show up.

I'm a Christian. And an Independent. This issue is a great way for the GOP to lose my vote and that of virtually every Independent I know.
The Extremes are always easy to spot because they are so self-contradicting:
I don't want Big Government BUT
I want a BIG Government telling everyone who they can marry.
It's wrong of the Libs try to try to "Force their morality on us" BUT
I want to do that to them.
Gays are promiscuous and that is bad BUT
I want to deter them from committing to a monogamous relationship.
We have problems. Big problems. The economy, the deficit, unemployment, war....
And this is the issue that people want to waste their time bickering about.
I don't care if Joan and Julie say "I do".
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy". (I fail at this miserably when it comes to say, Al Qaeda. But I've never been attacked by a gay suicide bomber so it's easier with them).
I want these people to have committed relationships with insurance etc... because, won't that help reduce the need for some of them to rely on the government for such things?

You want to make sure to lose the Independent vote in 2012?
Make stuff like gay marriage or the Birther issue your priority.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Anachronism]

Ok, so what you're telling me Logic is that you have no actual core morals and values that you live by. It's "Live and Let Live." Lessez le bonn temps roulez!! Moral relavitism and anarchy. How long do you actually think society can actually continue to function that way? Especially a society that was built on the foundation of a particular set of morals and values? We have already seen the destructive force of removing the societal barriers between genders in this country. The complete and utter destruction of the nuclear family. The loss of societal structure. The melding of the genders into one homogenous group.

Where does it stop? Or are we to become the next Roman Empire.... putting on spectacles for the citizenry in a vain attempt to distract them from the fact that they have no job, no money, and no food because the social order has been ripped to shreds like a Christian at the claws of a Lion?

 

[IndependntLogic]

#1) Ok, so what you're telling me Logic is that you have no actual core morals and values that you live by.

#2) We have already seen the destructive force of removing the societal barriers between genders in this country. The complete and utter destruction of the nuclear family. The loss of societal structure. The melding of the genders into one homogenous group.

#3) Where does it stop? Or are we to become the next Roman Empire.... putting on spectacles for the citizenry in a vain attempt to distract them from the fact that they have no job, no money, and no food because the social order has been ripped to shreds like a Christian at the claws of a Lion?

I've numbered your main points (and deleted a bit of the hysterics) above to make it easier to know what I am addressing. I do not dodge subject, change subjects or Cut & Run form a good debate. Mainly because I am not at all afraid of being wrong.

#1) You seem to have somewhat of a talent for missing the obvious. I guess you missed that whole:
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy".

Or maybe you don't recognize the source. All of those teachings are directly attributable to a guy named Jesus. You might look into what He taught some time. Great stuff.

#2) Yes we have eliminated societal barriers. Not just gender-barriers either. For example, my lovely bride is a Latina. This would have been a scandal once. I have friends who are black / white couples. Imagine that! And yet we have broken down those societal barriers and I personally think it's a good thing. Now people who used to be persecuted, can walk into a restuarant togther and have dinner without fear. I think that's good too. See how that might apply here? Of course you don't.

#3) The Roman Empire was for one thing, an Empire. While we seem to have exhibited rather empirical tendencies at times, our actual annexation has been minimal. That being said, the Roman Empire was the longest single-government in Western History and assuming you don't count the Chinese Dynasties as a contiguous chain of government, the longest in history. Certainly much longer and more successful than ours.
I believe you are referring to the times of corruption when the senate was dissolved and Emporers such a Caligula for example, ruled. In that case, there was no Senate or Congress. There was only an Emporer and even then, the sexual events were primarily in the palace and often against the will of the participants.
That is obviously not the case here. The people who are asking for this, are not asking for orgies in the streets, they are asking for shared health benefits, the right to visit those they love in the hospital, the right to commit to a monogamous relationship. None of the hysterical hyperbole you imply is being sought.

So it is easy to predict what you will say next....

 

[Anachronism]

I've numbered your main points (and deleted a bit of the hysterics) above to make it easier to know what I am addressing. I do not dodge subject, change subjects or Cut & Run form a good debate. Mainly because I am not at all afraid of being wrong.

One thing... I don't debate. I'm not here to change your mind and I can personally guarantee you won't change mine on this or any other topic. Just remember that.

I can see why you're not afraid of being wrong... you've got plenty of experience at it from what I can see.

#1) You seem to have somewhat of a talent for missing the obvious. I guess you missed that whole:
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy".

Or maybe you don't recognize the source. All of those teachings are directly attributable to a guy named Jesus. You might look into what He taught some time. Great stuff.

I recognize the source just fine. It is however a source that I have less than no use for. I wasted 27 years on that garbage. My father wasted all 54 years (to the day) of his life on it as well. Apparently in my dad's hour of need, your Jesus was conveniently on vacation for two years. Either that or He just didn't give a ****. I'm guessing the latter, since it fits with my experiences with your Jesus as well.

#2) Yes we have eliminated societal barriers. Not just gender-barriers either. For example, my lovely bride is a Latina. This would have been a scandal once. I have friends who are black / white couples. Imagine that! And yet we have broken down those societal barriers and I personally think it's a good thing. Now people who used to be persecuted, can walk into a restuarant togther and have dinner without fear. I think that's good too. See how that might apply here? Of course you don't.

Race and Sexual Orientation are two totally different things so far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of many of these couplings; but that's more based on the values and societal differences which often emerge in the midst of these relationships and have a tendency to damage them. So long as both individuals have common values and the ability to deal with each other's cultures, go for it.

We do not get to choose our race. We DO get to choose our sexuality, at least to a large degree. THAT is the difference.

That is obviously not the case here. The people who are asking for this, are not asking for orgies in the streets, they are asking for shared health benefits, the right to visit those they love in the hospital, the right to commit to a monogamous relationship. None of the hysterical hyperbole you imply is being sought.

They are asking for society to accept inappropriate and immoral behavior as if it were nothing different than the mainstream relationship activities between a Man and a woman. You're looking at symptoms while I'm looking at the disease as a whole. At some point we need to put our collective foot down as a society and re-impose some limits, standards, and rules or we're going to soon be looking at complete and total social anarchy, which I do not believe this nation can survive for any extended period of time.

So it is easy to predict what you will say next....

So, how'd I do?

 

[BOBO]

what is this marriage tax? I've never encountered it, in fact, you pay more in taxes by being single.

You live with your mate but are unmarried. Each of you makes 25 thousand dollars gross per year. Neither of you pay income tax.

You live with your spouse(legally married) & file a joint income tax form. You pay a tax because as a joint income you are now in a higher tax bracket because joint filing = one person now making 50 thousand dollars per year instead of 2 separate people making 25 thousand dollars per year.

If you are married & file separate returns you are also AUTOMATICALLY placed into a higher income tax bracket as individuals so you can be taxed. That is why it's called a 'marriage penalty tax'. Read the below links CAREFULLY...

The Marriage Tax Penalty

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

what is this marriage tax? I've never encountered it, in fact, you pay more in taxes by being single.

You live with your mate but are unmarried. Each of you makes 25 thousand dollars gross per year. Neither of you pay income tax.

You live with your spouse(legally married) & file a joint income tax form. You pay a tax because as a joint income you are now in a higher tax bracket because joint filing = one person now making 50 thousand dollars per year instead of 2 separate people making 25 thousand dollars per year.

If you are married & file separate returns you are also AUTOMATICALLY placed into a higher income tax bracket as individuals so you can be taxed. That is why it's called a 'marriage penalty tax'. Read the below links CAREFULLY...

The Marriage Tax Penalty

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One person making $25,000 has a single tax liability of $3,335, that $6,670 for the couple. Two Civilly Married people filing jointly of $6,666. The difference is not that great.


However, there are thousands of laws that define rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage including tax exempt transfer of property, tax exempt inheritance, being able to claim the "married" exemption on the sale of property up to $500,000 in profit (vice the single rate of $250,000) for two years for a single person whose spouse died.

In general there are LOTS more advantages under the tax system for Civilly Married couples then there are for a couple remaining single.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf


>>>>

 

[BOBO]

I understand your morality vs relative concept. It's NEVER morally acceptable to commit murder is an example. I must ask tho as you say... "These things are not appropriate;". If an act does not include a victim it CANNOT be a crime. One may take their own life but that does NOT constitute a crime for there remains NO victim that was assaulted/murdered by ANOTHER being. Liberal ideology will pass law against nature such as protecting oneself from their self but that is just people control(PC) & is against the very concept of the supreme law of the land... our federal Constitution & the Bill of Rights.
People ARE programmed by nature...

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture in AllPsych Journal

True hermaphroditism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...no one in the medical/biological area of research would contest this as it is established physically proven fact.
I must ask WHO are the people to judge these people with homo tendencies??? WHO in a society sets what is wrong & right acts for people to engage in when NO VICTIM is present??? You stated that life is not about pleasure, fun, or happiness. Don't tell this to the framers of the U.S. Constitution for they stated just the OPPOSITE!!!!!!!! No one has an OBLIGATION to fellow man or they cannot remain truly free. It sounds that you back communalism better known as the 'religion of man'. The ONLY way people can remain both free & in a state of peace is to quit trying to control others. Communalism & the herd mentality(groupthink) has been responsible for every war & act of injustice perpetrated against mankind.
May I ask where, who or both you obtained your ideology from???

Morality is a relative thing. Things that were considered completely immoral 40 years ago, such as couples living together outside of marriage, are considered completely normal now and no one says boo about them.

Sorry, I don't see this as a moral issue. If gay people are programmed by nature to be attracted to their own gender, you might as well let them do it. It would be a lot worse if you had a society that forced them to play at being straight and make themselves and another person fairly miserable.

No, morality is NOT a relative thing. That's the revisionist logic that people have been using for the last century to promote the acceptance of everything from Women's Sufferage to Gay Marriage. These things are not appropriate; regardless of whether society accepts them or not.

These people are no more programmed by nature to be this way than a pit bull is programmed by nature to bite a child's face off. There may be hints to it in the genetic code, but these people are simply being allowed to act in an inappropriate manner and in fact are being taught that their Wrong way of doing things is acceptable.

Life is not and never has been about pleasure, fun, or happiness. It has been and always will be about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral life. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I've numbered your main points (and deleted a bit of the hysterics) above to make it easier to know what I am addressing. I do not dodge subject, change subjects or Cut & Run form a good debate. Mainly because I am not at all afraid of being wrong.

One thing... I don't debate. I'm not here to change your mind and I can personally guarantee you won't change mine on this or any other topic. Just remember that.

I can see why you're not afraid of being wrong... you've got plenty of experience at it from what I can see.

#1) You seem to have somewhat of a talent for missing the obvious. I guess you missed that whole:
I was taught not to judge another.
I was taught that the people some would consider "the least" are often "The greatest among you".
I was taught that my sins are no better than someone else's.
I was taught to have love and compassion - even for those I would call "the enemy".

Or maybe you don't recognize the source. All of those teachings are directly attributable to a guy named Jesus. You might look into what He taught some time. Great stuff.

I recognize the source just fine. It is however a source that I have less than no use for. I wasted 27 years on that garbage. My father wasted all 54 years (to the day) of his life on it as well. Apparently in my dad's hour of need, your Jesus was conveniently on vacation for two years. Either that or He just didn't give a ****. I'm guessing the latter, since it fits with my experiences with your Jesus as well.



Race and Sexual Orientation are two totally different things so far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of many of these couplings; but that's more based on the values and societal differences which often emerge in the midst of these relationships and have a tendency to damage them. So long as both individuals have common values and the ability to deal with each other's cultures, go for it.

We do not get to choose our race. We DO get to choose our sexuality, at least to a large degree. THAT is the difference.

That is obviously not the case here. The people who are asking for this, are not asking for orgies in the streets, they are asking for shared health benefits, the right to visit those they love in the hospital, the right to commit to a monogamous relationship. None of the hysterical hyperbole you imply is being sought.

They are asking for society to accept inappropriate and immoral behavior as if it were nothing different than the mainstream relationship activities between a Man and a woman. You're looking at symptoms while I'm looking at the disease as a whole. At some point we need to put our collective foot down as a society and re-impose some limits, standards, and rules or we're going to soon be looking at complete and total social anarchy, which I do not believe this nation can survive for any extended period of time.

So it is easy to predict what you will say next....

So, how'd I do?

I'm truly sorry about your father. I lost mine when I was 21. It was extremely painful for me as well.
I'm sorry about the pain and loss of faith. I can understand and appreciate both, given your post.

 

[BOBO]

Libertarians? We cut your tax burden, open up your sex life & increase your individual liberties. I'd say dump the republOCRATIC party & vote for representatives that will give you what most folks really want... control of their lives.

I can't understand all the commotion about gay marriage in the USA today. I know there is some political motives for it but WHY would the gay community want government as a 3rd party in their personal relationship??? I mean at a time when even the vanilla folks are avoiding government sponsored legal marriage...

U.S. marriage rate continues to decline - UPI.com

...this gay marriage issue seems outta place & outta time.
[...]
My question is WHY would some in the gay community want to be legally married when it will only beat them up financially & leave them open to the ever present family law attorneys lurking in the future???

For the same exact reasons heterosexuals get legally married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarians? We…open up your sex life & increase your individual liberties.

You have a strange way of showing it.

Otherwise:

Rational basis and restrictions on same-sex marriage

Given that one person’s prejudice is another person’s principle, it is often difficult to predict in advance what the Court will deem to be “animus.” With respect to sexual orientation, however, the Court has deemed anti-gay views to constitute animus and applied rational basis “with bite.” In the Romer case, the Court observed that gays and lesbians had been the victims of “animus,” as described above. In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court also determined (without applying formal strict scrutiny) that statutes criminalizing same-sex sodomy did not pass constitutional muster under the Due Process Clause. Lawrence can thus be read, at a minimum, as a due process rational-basis “with bite” case. A critic could counter that Lawrence was a case about same-sex sexual conduct rather than about homosexual status. Just last Term, however, the Court rejected this conduct/status distinction in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The majority opinion asserted that “[o]ur decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context,” citing Lawrence for the proposition that “[w]hen homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” This constellation of precedents suggests that the Court will apply rational basis “with bite” rather than ordinary rational basis to discrimination against gay people, including restrictions on same-sex marriage.

Nor will the Court have to look far to find animus motivating recent restrictions on same-sex marriage. Last Friday, the plaintiffs in one of the DOMA cases catalogued some of the statements in the congressional record leading up to the passage of the Act in 1996. As discussed in that memorandum, Reprentative Barr characterized homosexuality as “hedonism,” “narcissism,” and “self-centered morality.” Representative Funderburk described homosexuality as “inherently wrong and harmful to individuals, families, and societies.” Representative Smith referred to same-sex sexual intimacy as “unnatural and immoral.”

Much debate has centered on whether sexual orientation deserves the strict or intermediate scrutiny that the Court accords to classifications such as race, national origin, alienage, non-marital parentage, and sex. While important, this debate often leaves the false impression that the plaintiffs in the marriage cases cannot prevail without acquiring either strict or intermediate scrutiny. Cases such as Reed, Eisenstadt, Moreno, Plyler, Cleburne, and Romer demonstrate otherwise.

In addition to making the best case for heightened scrutiny, plaintiffs should press the Court to apply rational basis “with bite.” And the Court should clarify its own practice, noting that rational basis “with bite” obtains once the Court discerns the presence of actual animus, not after the Court has proven the absence of all conjectured rationales.

Why the Court can strike down marriage restrictions under rational-basis review : SCOTUSblog

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, so what you're telling me Logic is that you have no actual core morals and values that you live by. It's "Live and Let Live." Lessez le bonn temps roulez!! Moral relavitism and anarchy. How long do you actually think society can actually continue to function that way? Especially a society that was built on the foundation of a particular set of morals and values? We have already seen the destructive force of removing the societal barriers between genders in this country. The complete and utter destruction of the nuclear family. The loss of societal structure. The melding of the genders into one homogenous group.

Where does it stop? Or are we to become the next Roman Empire.... putting on spectacles for the citizenry in a vain attempt to distract them from the fact that they have no job, no money, and no food because the social order has been ripped to shreds like a Christian at the claws of a Lion?

The Roman Empire was a Christian Empire for 170 years before it fell.. So maybe Christianity caused its fall. (Actually, Rome's fall was that it was a slave economy that ran out of sources of new slaves.)

Frankly, I guess I have a problem with a God who couldn't announce slavery was wrong, but was upset about who was sleeping with whom...

Marriage has already been redefined many time. Originally, marriages were arranged, women couldn't own property in their own names, it was okay to beat your wife, and her right to apply for divorce was non-existant.

All you moralists have yet to give me an example of how we are going to have chaos if gay marriage is allowed.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's the gay agenda to persuade everyone that gays are just like normal people. That's it. Everything else is bullshit ginned up to make this pass. Gays are denied nothing. They are not discriminated against at all. It is all bullshit.

Yeah....right....and, their biggest defenders are the folks over at.....

....FAUX Noise!!!

 

[JohnMario56565]

What makes people change their mind? Purposefully or not, children pick up on their parents’ beliefs and tend to follow them for the beginning of their life. Occasionally, around the teenage age, some kids transition into a revolt stage and completely change their views on the world. I believe this is mostly due to frustration in something which their parents believe; they have always taken it for granted but now that they have become more educated, they begin to question their beliefs and if unable to come up with an answer that they can rest upon, they choose to find their own way. My civic issue this semester will be gay marriage. I believe that by the time a child reaches his mid-teenage years, he will have picked up on his parent’s reaction to gay marriage. My curiosity about what makes a person change his mind sparked from an article I read from the Los Angeles Times titled,“Obama’s family influenced his gay-marriage shift.” The article explains that even when Obama’s position was in an early state of evolution, Michelle Obama “went out of her way to invite gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual couples to the events she sponsored for military families.”

Obama writes,“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents, and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective,” I thought it interesting that when Barack Obama, our president, was thinking about his position on gay marriage (one of the most controversial topics currently in our nation), he thought of his young daughter. In a way, their thoughts are the most valuable—bear with me, but they are not “corrupted” by society. They are clear and pure; they see their friends and their parent’s just as normal families. To them, a man a woman, two men, or two women in love with one another are perfectly capable of raising a loving and healthy family. Sometimes I think it amazing how much we can learn from kids.

To begin my blogging over the semester I chose to look into some of the arguments that others use in order to opposite same-sex marriage. Most of quite similar and repetitive; the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was formed to “resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” They argue that marriage is naturally a covenant between a man and a woman and that it violates natural law. While biologically it is true that a man and a woman are needed to produce children, if children can not understand why gay parents would be treated differently, it is really that “natural?” It definitely is not built into us—rather, picked up from society. Also, for the matter of nature, Bruce Bagemihl, a distinguished Canadian biologist and linguist, shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The TFP also write that “it is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother.” As for that matter, I urge all to watch Zach Wahls address this issue (Speech). The people writing this article never had experience being raised by gay parents. They have no basis behind their thoughts, they are simply unsupported beliefs.

Thanks for reading this! Looking forward to what you have to say.

 

[Michelle420]

I can't understand all the commotion about gay marriage in the USA today.

I know there is some political motives for it but WHY would the gay community want government as a 3rd party in their personal relationship??? I mean at a time when even the vanilla folks are avoiding government sponsored legal marriage...

U.S. marriage rate continues to decline - UPI.com

...this gay marriage issue seems outta place & outta time.

My question is WHY would some in the gay community want to be legally married when it will only beat them up financially & leave them open to the ever present family law attorneys lurking in the future???

Same reason any hets want it.

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com

 

[Bigfoot]

What makes people change their mind? Purposefully or not, children pick up on their parents’ beliefs and tend to follow them for the beginning of their life. Occasionally, around the teenage age, some kids transition into a revolt stage and completely change their views on the world. I believe this is mostly due to frustration in something which their parents believe; they have always taken it for granted but now that they have become more educated, they begin to question their beliefs and if unable to come up with an answer that they can rest upon, they choose to find their own way. My civic issue this semester will be gay marriage. I believe that by the time a child reaches his mid-teenage years, he will have picked up on his parent’s reaction to gay marriage. My curiosity about what makes a person change his mind sparked from an article I read from the Los Angeles Times titled,“Obama’s family influenced his gay-marriage shift.” The article explains that even when Obama’s position was in an early state of evolution, Michelle Obama “went out of her way to invite gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual couples to the events she sponsored for military families.”

Obama writes,“There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents, and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective,” I thought it interesting that when Barack Obama, our president, was thinking about his position on gay marriage (one of the most controversial topics currently in our nation), he thought of his young daughter. In a way, their thoughts are the most valuable—bear with me, but they are not “corrupted” by society. They are clear and pure; they see their friends and their parent’s just as normal families. To them, a man a woman, two men, or two women in love with one another are perfectly capable of raising a loving and healthy family. Sometimes I think it amazing how much we can learn from kids.

To begin my blogging over the semester I chose to look into some of the arguments that others use in order to opposite same-sex marriage. Most of quite similar and repetitive; the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) was formed to “resist, in the realm of ideas, the liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” They argue that marriage is naturally a covenant between a man and a woman and that it violates natural law. While biologically it is true that a man and a woman are needed to produce children, if children can not understand why gay parents would be treated differently, it is really that “natural?” It definitely is not built into us—rather, picked up from society. Also, for the matter of nature, Bruce Bagemihl, a distinguished Canadian biologist and linguist, shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. The TFP also write that “it is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother.” As for that matter, I urge all to watch Zach Wahls address this issue (Speech). The people writing this article never had experience being raised by gay parents. They have no basis behind their thoughts, they are simply unsupported beliefs.

Thanks for reading this! Looking forward to what you have to say.

****** please!