So what is it in these thousand plus laws that makes gay marriage impractical,
and can't we modify them so it can be made to work? Or do you have another
Gay marriage, contrary to the letter writer's belief, is a civil right. As
for making a judgment based on some hypothetical injury to the non-gay world,
this is just a ruse perpetrated by a level of bigotry no longer (if it ever was)
acceptable in a free, democratic society.The people who oppose gay
marriage are free to express their opinions. No one expects them to change
their views. But understand that they are living in a changing world where
their opinions are becoming less and less valid. Possibly, in 20 years,
we'll look back at this time in American society and wonder what the fuss
was all about.Changing demographics and attitudes are just the way
things are going. Those who refuse to adapt to a progressing world will
eventually be left behind. Although there are those still around who think that
slavery was a real good deal for the slaves (" . . . they got free room and
board"), in a few more generations there won't be anyone around who
remembers the days of Jim Crow and the racism that pervaded this nation. Young
people will grow up having no contact with these old attitudes.
Reminds me of the movie "Lincoln" where the president wanted to free all
the slaves and make it a Constitutional amendment... many opposed it because
freeing people would result in all sorts of legal questions and social
challenges -- from loss of property to increased labor costs for plantation
owners to ex-slaves "being different" and warranting study about if
freedom would truly benefit them... Lincoln refused to let those
issues stop him from pursuing what he saw as "right" in the basic
principle of America that "All men are created equal" and deserve equal
rights and benefits.
" Most people have no idea what is contained in the 1,000 plus laws that
govern traditional marriage. How can they be expected to vote intelligently on
the issue?"So we should punish loving homosexuals for the
ignorance of the lazy masses? Or are you suggesting we make all marriages void
until the masses ready 1000 pages? I don't get your logic here other than
to merely obstruct gay marriage."These laws should be carefully
thought out, researched and debated before they are signed into law."This seems like code for, "Lets kick the can down the road and let
the next generation resolve this." I'm beginning to see
that this issue has more in common with the civil rights movement than I
originally thought. We could have eliminated racial inequality generations ago.
however, people like this letter writer existed back then as they do today to
instruct us to, "kick the can down the road and resolve nothing."People are making completely ridiculous arguments against homosexuals.
If you are going to be against it then you surely must bring some good arguments
to the table. If none can be found, then you must concede.
I have to wonder where exactly Blaine has been for the last 20 plus years
considering everything he claims needs to be studied more closely has been not
only studied but debated to death and beyond.
Blanket decisions about marriage? We have done this previously in
American history. 1967. The Supreme court ruling that
allowed Interracial marriage. So, the entire premise of the claim
that 'blanket decisions about gay marriage' isn proven moot. 46 years ago.
I think Blaine should commit to the "Golden Rule" as we all should then
those who profess it can truly become the Christians they think they are.
Anyone else doubt that Blaine would become supportive of gay marriage if studies
showed that they didnt have any negative impact on society? Yeah, me neither.Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched
gay marriage. Google is a wonderful tool. Try it out sometime.
'Btw, Blaine, there are a ton of studies out there which have researched
gay marriage.' I agree. 'After 5 Years of
Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce
rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate
state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940,
prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'Prediction: *'Same-Sex Marriage: Who Profits?' - Reported by ABC
News – 04/ 2008 - By Aude Lagorce, Forbes magazine.
’Same-sex marriage could be boon to N.Y. tourism’ – By Harriet
Baskas – MSNBC – 07/07/11 “The $142 million
benefit to New York City’s economy includes spending on weddings by New
York state residents who live outside the city but choose to marry here,”
the report noted.” Reality: ’NYC reaches
goal of 50 million tourists’ – By Samantha Gross – AP –
Published bßy DSnews – 12/20/11 'Legalizing gay
marriage may improve health and reduce healthcare costs' – The UK
Guardian – 02/01/13
Gay marriage is not a civil right. It's a privilege offered by the state to
those who meet the qualifications. The qualifications are established with the
expectation that the state will receive something of value in return for
benefits offered to married couples.Gay couples do not meet the
primary qualification, which, contrary to popular belief, is neither sexual
attraction nor love. The primary qualification is "one man and one
woman", for reasons which should be obvious - it's about the children.
No child should be conceived with intentional indeterminate heritage, nor should
any child be intentionally deprived of appropriate gender roles. All children
deserve to be raised in a loving home with their own mother and father. For the
state to legitimize any other ideal is to flirt with disaster of epic
proportions.It's about the children, not the desires of people
who are sexually attracted to and/or love each other.
Sorry Pops, if it's "all about the children", then infertile
couples should not be allowed to marry. Older couples, beyond their child
bearing years should not be allowed to marry. Men with vasectomies and women
with hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry.Besides:U.S. Constitution Article 4 - Section 2 The Citizens of each State
shall be entitled to all PRIVILEGES and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States.Amendment 14 ... No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of ... the equal protection of
@popsOnce again as many have pointed out on this thread just because
you-choose to ignore the volumes of research in this area does not make it go
away. The research could not be more clear that children do not suffer any ill
effects from being raised in a same sex homes.
Pagen-If all you want is profits and tourism, we shouldn't
waste our time with same-sex marriage. Lots of states are doing that. We should
go for something unique. Not gambling. Nevada does that right next door. How 'bout legalized prostitution? That would be unique on this
continent. Let the tourists and money flow in!
It is impossible to discuss this issue with gay-marriage supporters because they
want every benefit that comes with marriage regardless of whether or not it is
applicable to a gay marriage. They know that gay people cannot have children
together, so they subvert the conversation to gay people who adopt or have
children from outside the relationships outside of the gay union. They are not looking for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They
simply want their version of morality endorsed by the government. They want the
government to end its currently neutral stance on the morality of gay unions and
gay intimacy and instead adopt the stance that gay unions are morally good and
intimacy between gays is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who
disagree with their moral views.
@RAB --It is impossible to discuss this issue with
infertile-marriage supporters because they want every benefit that comes with
marriage regardless of whether or not it is applicable to an infertile marriage.
They know that infertile people cannot have children together, so they subvert
the conversation to infertile people who adopt or have children from outside the
relationships outside of the infertile union.They are not looking
for fairness. That's just their smokescreen. They simply want their version
of morality endorsed by the government. They want the government to end its
currently neutral stance on the morality of infertile unions and infertile
intimacy and instead adopt the stance that infertile unions are morally good and
intimacy between infertile is morally right. It is a blatant attack on any who
disagree with their moral views.----------Does this help
you to understand just how groundless your position truly is?I
don't believe that Republicans are morally good or morally right.
Nonetheless, I support their legal right to marry and enjoy the same rights and
privileges that I do. Legal rights and privileges are for EVERYONE -- not just
for people we happen to like or agree with.
@RABI find it interesting that you claim you cannot have a
discussion on this issue. I have seen you on many threads making simar arguments
and others refuting your claims. May I suggest it may not be that you cannot
have a discussion on the issue but rather that you do not get to.deine the
peramators of the discussion or declare them worthless simply because you fail
to sway anyone with your arguments.
@amazon docCough cough. There is no end to this smoke. I must have missed
this great movement to support infertile marriage. Your response proves my point
that subverting the argument is the name of the game.If a
person’s goal was to plant a beautiful garden, but a few of his seeds
unfortunately fell on rocks, he has unintentionally wasted some of his seeds.
Now, if your argument is that reforms should be made to assure that no seeds
ever fall on rocks, you have a sensible argument. Unfortunately, your argument
is that, because a few of the seeds fell on rocks, the man should purposely dump
lots of seeds on every rock. Does this help you to understand? Of
course not. Like I said. I'm wasting my time.
@TolstoySorry, I must have missed the comments that refuted something I
said. Laws can be adjusted to assure applicable rights without
changing what marriage is. Thus, the denied rights and privileges argument falls
flat with respect to demanding gay marriage. Gays can be allowed to
marry without government permission or reward. Thus, the denied right to marry
who they love argument falls flat with respect to demanding legalized gay
marriage. The only thing that can only be attained through legalized
gay marriage is the official stamp of government approval of the morality that
endorses gay intimacy and gay marriage.It may surprise you, but our
government represents religious people too--not just people who agree with you.
Just because you approve of gay intimacy and you believe gay unions are exactly
like marriage, does not mean that the beliefs of millions of Americans should be
marginalized and everyone in our country should be forced and obligated to
approve of gay intimacy and marriage.The government MUST take a
neutral stance on such a controversial issue. That is not what you are
@RAB;It may surprise you, but our government represents GLBT people
too--not just people who agree with you. Just because you disapprove of gay
intimacy and you believe gay unions are not exactly like marriage, does not mean
that the LIVES of millions of Americans should be marginalized and GLBT
Americans in our country should be forced and obligated to have your approval of
gay intimacy and marriage before they can marry.It may also surprise
you that we have a Constitution that gives GLBT Americans the right to expect to
be treated equally by our government to the way it treats heterosexual couples.
It may also surprise you to discover that your religious views are not the only
views on the subject.
@RAB so you have missed the last 20 years of this conversation,
including the many threads you commented on?
RAB,Please read the 14th amendment to the constitution and then tell
me how you can continue to want to treat other American citizens differently
than those with whom you agree with. Please mention why simularily situated
couples (those who cannot have children), ie, infertile couples, older couples,
gay couples, should be treated differently. To me, that goes against what we
stand for as Americans.Just above the entrance to the US Supreme
Court it reads, "Equal Justice Under Law." Does that mean treating all
with whom you approve of as equal? Or does it mean that ALL are equal under the
law.I have no problem with states not wanting to perform gay
marriages. I will have a problem if, when DOMA is reversed, having that state
not recognize a gay marriage that has occurred in another state (Full Faith and
Credit Clause).I am waiting for your reply.
@Ranchhand, Myer, etc.Like you, I WANT the government to fully
represent GLBT people. Unlike you, I also want the government to equally
represent other people. My whole point is that NOONE's moral views should
be adopted by our government. Not mine. Not yours. Yet, all I see are endless
accusations of wanting to deny rights to people and only wanting my morality
supported. All lies.Did I say I didn't want GLTB people to bond
together and call it marriage? Did I say I didn't want applicable benefits
assured to GLTB people? Did I say I disapprove of gay intimacy? Answer: No! No!,
and...wait for it...NO! Frankly, I couldn't care less what GLTB people do.
I just don't want my government telling me I HAVE TO APPROVE OF
those things. According to you people, anyone who fails to proclaim their
wholehearted approval of gay intimacy is "marginalizing the LIVES of GLBT
people". You Are Wrong.I want GLBT couples to be treated equally
to heterosexual couples. You however, also want the government to endorse GLBT
moral views and condemn ALL opposing moral views--all under the umbrella of gay
marriage. No Thanks.
@RAB --"I just don't want my government telling me I HAVE
TO APPROVE OF those things."Well, then, you can relax! Because
making something legal doesn't mean that you approve of it. Taa Daa!Making alcohol legal doesn't mean that you approve of alcohol
drinking.Making membership in the Republican Party legal
doesn't mean that I approve of Republicans.See how easy that
is? Legality isn't the same thing as approval! Legality is only
a recognition that people **have the legal right** to do something, whether you
happen to approve of that specific thing or not.And guess what?
According to our US Constitution, every single citizen -- within the limits of
Federal and state laws -- has the right to equal protection under those laws.
That includes citizens we adore, citizens we tolerate, AND citizens we just
can't stand. EVERYONE gets equal protection, whether we "approve"
of them or not. That means freedom from discrimination for **everyone**. It doesn't matter whether you approve of gay marriages, and nobody
is forcing you to approve of them. The **only** thing you are being forced to do
is to recognize the power of the US Constitution.
@RAB;Nobody wants your "approval". When marriage is a legal
right for GLBT couples, guess what? You won't have to approve of it.Separate but equal isn't equal; creating a new name for the same
relationship inherently makes one of them "lesser" than the other.
RAB--I salute your efforts to jump into this fray and be the one lone voice of
sanity and morality. Sadly, as George Bernard Shaw once said: "I learned
long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes
it."These on this comment board who are castigating you and your
views--while screaming for TOLERANCE and DEMANDING ACCEPTANCE for their
views--just want to wrestle in the mud. They like it.
@Yorkshire (perhaps named after the Yorkshire pig?) --"while
screaming for TOLERANCE and DEMANDING ACCEPTANCE for their views"Errr...no.Nobody really cares much whether RAB, or anybody else,
"accepts" gay marriages. What we care about is adherence to the US
Constitution.The Constitution guarantees equal protection. That
means freedom from discrimination. And freedom from discrimination means
allowing people of the same sex to marry each other. Nobody needs to
like it or to "accept" it or to think of it as moral. They only need to
recognize the power of the US Constitution under which we **all** live.
Give me a break! This comes down to religion and it isn't right for one
group of people to impose their beliefs on others! Period! So Mormons don't
believe it is right. We do! many of us have a belief that God is perfectly fine
with it. Who gets the right of freedom of religion? Do people ever look at it
that way? It is to the point of being ridiculous! How long do we have to put up
with people's insults about us? I don't have to live as the evil
person others think I am! I have been with my partner for 15 years! It works for
us and we should have the same legal rights as anyone! People can do as they
please, I am sick of it and I am sick of these so called good people here! They
are nasty and rude and arrogant! The people here are far from being nice and
pleasant like they want others to think of them!