George-If the state, or government, doesn't have the right to
restrict the definition of marriage then any group of people who deem themselves
in love have will then have the right to be married. Right now, only a man and
woman fall under that definition. If you change the definition you cannot
restrict any group. There are many who believe that the state is
protecting the interest of the community. Just because you don't believe
that, doesn't mean it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in marriage
between a man and woman hates gays. But there is good reason to protect the
@CIhow does allowing gay marriage stifle decent? We have many rights
and privileges that are controversial such as gun rights but that has not
stopped those that have sincerely held beliefs that there should be restrictions
or an out right ban of these things from voicing their opposition. It does stop
them from being able to impose those restrictions on others and I think that is
where people like you get confused. You have every right to have your beliefs
and to not be forced to give them up, you do not have the right to use the force
of law to force others to follow your beliefs.
@counter intelligence the reason CA is looking to restrict those types of
therapies is because they have been shown to often do a serious harm to the
patient and are not based in sound science. I realize it is all very confusing
from the outside but within my filed it is basically considered highly unethical
to tell someone that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be and can be
cured. If a person presents for therapy because they are distressed about the
thoughts and feelings they are having about homosexuality then the therapist can
assist the patient to work through those thoughts and feelings, the final
outcome of that process is driven by the client not therapist need to cure or to
persuade the patient one way or the other.
@mick the only time the state should restrict access to any type of
marriage is if the state can show a compelling state interest in doing so. Laws
restricting behaviors should be limited to those that are proven necessary to
prevent public harm not based on nothing more then the unsupported opinions os
of people like axe-man.
@CI;The fact that you "know many same sex couples who survive
just fine without marriage" in no way negates the fact that they would do
just as well, if not better, as a married couple.The point is that
you have no right to deny someone else something you don't want for
yourself. You don't want it? Fine, don't do it. Stop interfering in
the lives of people who want it.
Marriage has always been about children--not a mandate to have children, but
it's always had at its foundation a societal approval to participate in
procreation. Before you disagree with me, can you name any society in which
marriage has existed, that also did not have a severe societal taboo against
having children outside of marriage? Marriage has never been a mandate to have
children, but it has always been a license to have children with society's
blessing. In fact, that is the only uniform purpose of marriage throughout
history that I can think of.
@Axe-man;There is no requirement to have children within a marriage,
therefore your argument about the necessity of a "father and mother"
falls flat.Unless you plan to refuse to allow marriage to elderly
couples, sterile couples, you have no logical argument against same-sex couples
RanchHand, Tolstoy, and other commenters who've not chimed in yet
repeatedly use the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy when their opinion
is disproved. They use keywords to try to show a belief in the scientific
process, but invalidate anything that disagrees with their point of view.
Statements like "every scratch of credible research" or "no
legitimate public interest" are like saying "all trees are green" in
spite of blue spruces or red maples. "Well, that's not a legitimate
reason" - "that research isn't credible." Each has his mind
made up, and no substantial research offered contrary to their respective
opinions showing children in a gay household suffer in social development
compared to a nuclear family can change their minds.Men and women
are different. Moms and dads offer different benefits to their children. Calling
any two people who proclaim physical love a "marriage" weakens the
institution as a whole, diminishes and dilutes the marriage rights of husbands
and wives, and flies in the face of thousands of years of traditional marriage.
And each of these reasons is only strengthened by religious arguments that
specifically define and sanctify marriage as a sacrament ordained of God.
Unless Romney supports gay marriage there is no political advantage for Obama to
emphasize his stand on gay marriage.
Geroge-Do you think the government should be able to restrict any
type of "marriage"?
@CI how is it logical to deny rights on your simple assumption that
because men and women are physically different they are the only people that
should be allowed to marry when all the research and all the facts show there is
no social or public interest being served by holding onto such simpleton
@CI Simple logic? what simple logic? every scratch of credible
research and the facts from those places that allow gay marriage already shows
there is no risk to allowing gay marriage or gay adoption, yet you continue to
argue against it, how could that possibly be logical?
@CI;It is true that men and women are different. There IS a
legitimate public interest in supporting marriage of gay couples. OUR Families
will be given the SAME protections that heterosexual families currently receive;
which WILL strengthen society (if the family is the foundation of society - we
HAVE families too).For a gay guy (I honestly don't believe you
are gay, btw), you take odd positions. Why would you oppose the marriages of
other gay couples just because you don't want to marry?
there is no reason to be vague on the issue President Obama, it is very simple,
a persons individual rights and liberties should never be up for public vote.
There is simply no legitimate public interest being served by denying gay
couples access to the same right and privileges straight couples take for