Bring it on, NOM. This ban is ridiculous, backwards, unjust and illegal, and it's about time, we end this travesty of justice, once and for all.

Let's start with the basic civil rights involved here, and by now I'm hoping we all know that we don't vote on civil rights.

Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case, and PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.

Question #1-

So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.

That being said...

Question # 2 -

Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

Question #3-

AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?

NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.

My final question...

How have any of you been harmed by a gay marriage?

Cult,

Hilarious! The scary thing is, there are people who ACTUALLY think that.

Cult

While I applaud your support of marriage equality, I think it is unnecessary that you resort to male bashing and stereotyping male behavior to do so. Women are just as likely to cheat on their husbands and hit them.

actually, you CAN'T make it legal to marry an animal, they can't give informed consent to a marraige contract.

and its not whehter its "right", its whether its legal.

This court has found, as a just and unbiased Supreme Court must ultimately find, that you cannot put people's rights to a vote, even in the name of religious beliefs.

Six of Diamonds

Cult

While I applaud your support of marriage equality, I think it is unnecessary that you resort to male bashing and stereotyping male behavior to do so. Women are just as likely to cheat on their husbands and hit them.

You are correct about this; which also helps make Cult's argument even more sound and rational.

Son,

The answer to why your post is illogical, is the fact that you can't answer any of my questions in post #1.1. Specifically, question #2.

Answer that, and we'll talk about beastiallity.

To answer Q1 - you call LGBT an entire group of people in the sense that the constitution was formed to protect that group of people. Your logic is not valid. By your logic all left handed one legged blind people would require protection under the constitution for anything they, as a collective group, would desire. The constitution was not designed for those microcosms of variations.

Q2 - yes, there is a fear that it will further erode society. a hundred years ago divorce was frowned upon and even illegal in some areas. then it became more acceptable. about 75 years ago, sex outside the marriage bond was deemed wrong. then it became more acceptable. 50 years ago a gay lifestyle was considered wrong. now it is not only viewed by many as acceptable, but they are pushing it in the face of others and flaunting their disgusting lifestyle. how long until bestiality, pedophilia etc are deemed acceptable? at the current rate of progression, not long.

Q3 - the LGBT community always said it was about equal rights. most states have passed laws accommodating their wishes by allowing visitation in hospitals, right of survival with regard to property, adoption etc. So, is it really about rights or is it really a question of forcing your disgusting lifestyle in the faces of others? I think we all know the answer.

The constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. notice the word pursuit. it does not guarantee happiness. so, you want gay marriage, go to a state that allows it and live there.

vermontguy: Thankfully, we will still discriminate against and show hatred towards those people who prefer adult, incestuous relationships or relationships with animals. Hopefully the police will still be breaking down bedroom doors and arresting those people. That kind of behavior is just disgusting and wrong by today's standards. Homosexuality is the only sexual deviance that should be made legal. Sheesh.

Convert:

Re: lefthanded - I've heard that many lefties who grew in 1940-60s were told in the Catholic Schools that left-handedness in un-wholesome, and many were forced to re-learn to use the right hand for writing.

Actually Convert, it was the refusal of states to give equal rights to visitation and inheritance that led to the marriage fight. There are something like 2000 laws in this country that specifically use the word marriage. Not Civil Union, not Domestic Partnership...Marriage. To make everyone equal under the law, you have to do one of two things. Get rid of all the special privileges that married couples enjoy OR make an mechanism that any two consenting adults that choose to build a life together can enjoy equity under the law. This isn't about religion.

My marriage was conducted by a judge in front of 20 of my closest friends and family. There was no priest, no sacrament, no holy scriptures. It was a legally binding act. 4 years later, my husband and I had a religious ceremony when we felt it necessary. I do not understand why Gay couples can't have the civil marriage as long as the religious institutions aren't forced to conduct them. There are a lot of people out there that don't believe in God or don't believe in the Abrahamic God. Why should you're beliefs affect their lives. Moral judgments should be left to the Churches and Mosques, civil law should cover every citizen. Even the left-handed, one legged blind man.

Convert, and what would happen if they said a one legged or a blind person was not allowed to get married? You do not think they would be protected by the constitution? Your very own argument proves why gays and lesbians shouldn't be denied the right to marry. Try again.

By your logic all left handed one legged blind people would require protection under the constitution for anything they, as a collective group, would desire. The constitution was not designed for those microcosms of variations.

Sure it was. If all left handed people were being denied a right or equal protection, thenthe constitution would protect them as a group. That is exactly how it works.

there is a fear that it will further erode society

50 years ago women were basically property, men could rape their wives whenever they desired, we had segregation, men could have affairs and the women were expected to ignore it (statistically adultry by men was higher in the 50s) etc. If this is "erosion" of society, then bring it on.

ut they are pushing it in the face of others and flaunting their disgusting lifestyle

Only in your mind. For every gay pride parade there is a mardi gras. For every castro district there is a Las Vegas. For every gay PDA there is 1000 straight ones. Get over yourself.

how long until bestiality, pedophilia etc are deemed acceptable?

Ummm, never. There is no indication these things are becomming acceptable. If anything we are moving further away from these being acceptable (getting married at 15 to a 30 year old man was commonplace just a few generations ago after all).

So, is it really about rights or is it really a question of forcing your disgusting lifestyle in the faces of others?

Marriage is a right per 14 different court decisions. This is about marriage, ergo it is about rights.

First?

Not sure, we'd better let the Supreme Court decide

imnotlost,

By your reasoning, Interracial Marriage would still be illegal and slavery would be legal. Sorry, the thing about civil rights is they aren't up to the majority. Lest we forget that our fore-bearers where minorities. Huegonauts, Puritans, Quakers, etc.

Convert,

What does this...

To answer Q1 - you call LGBT an entire group of people in the sense that the constitution was formed to protect that group of people. Your logic is not valid. By your logic all left handed one legged blind people would require protection under the constitution for anything they, as a collective group, would desire. The constitution was not designed for those microcosms of variations.

Have to do with a valid state interest? Let me see if I can make it simpler. Hmmm??? What reason does the government have to invade the privacy of gay people? Now, keep in mind some things. Our laws are not based on what MIGHT happen. We don't get to allow government intervention because we THINK this MIGHT occur, if we don't allow the government that power.

Until you can legally prove that society will be eroded by gay marriage, you don't get to violate their civil rights. And, pssst, none of the following are proof...

Morals, beliefs, ideas, Bibles, God's word, Jesus's word, religion... Also, if you're going to cite statistics and studies, please make them non-partisan. I need some legal, substantive, evidence that proves a threat to society great enough to pass strict scrutiny.

Moving on...

This,

Q2 - yes, there is a fear that it will further erode society. a hundred years ago divorce was frowned upon and even illegal in some areas. then it became more acceptable. about 75 years ago, sex outside the marriage bond was deemed wrong. then it became more acceptable. 50 years ago a gay lifestyle was considered wrong. now it is not only viewed by many as acceptable, but they are pushing it in the face of others and flaunting their disgusting lifestyle. how long until bestiality, pedophilia etc are deemed acceptable? at the current rate of progression, not long.

Also, doesn't answer the question. I asked you for the link, that ties the gender of one party to all the doom and gloom you speak of. Since, the gender of one party is all that will be changed, between a straight marriage and a gay one.

Finally, again, you didn't answer the question...

Q3 - the LGBT community always said it was about equal rights. most states have passed laws accommodating their wishes by allowing visitation in hospitals, right of survival with regard to property, adoption etc. So, is it really about rights or is it really a question of forcing your disgusting lifestyle in the faces of others? I think we all know the answer.

I asked you why they shouldn't then be banned from all contract law, if they can be banned from marriage. So????

Pretty much, all you did was type Q1, Q2 and Q3 before writing COMPELTELY unrelated drivel.

There are still millions and millions of people who think sodomy and other homosexual acts are an abomination and you denigrate them as if they're freaks.

Oh the irony. There are 300 million people in the US. If only 5% are gay that still 15 million. Yet you "denigrate them as if they're freaks".

Your views are far more abhorrent to the majority of the population than gay people are. So I guess you are a sick freak.

Convert:

The constitution was designed to accommodate all American citizens. Microcosms included. Denying equal rights to a "microcosm" goes against the spirit and letter of the constitution.

Next, how is pushing for equal rights pushing their lifestyle onto you? Bestiality and pedophilia have absolutely nothing to do with marrying two consenting ADULTS. Animals (which aren't even human), inanimate objects (not even living), and children are not adults.

As to your answer to question 3, you made a fool of yourself. All homosexuals want the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. This is America and everyone deserves to be treated fairly, with respect, and equally.

Once again I ask: how are they forcing YOU to accept their lifestyle? They aren't. Do you see anyone out there preaching "convert to homosexuality!"? No. You don't. Your excuse of "they are trying to force their lifestyle on us!" is nothing more than an excuse to FORCE YOUR OPINION AND LIFESTYLE ON OTHERS. That's right, YOU are forcing your lifestyle on homosexuals. You say what they do is "disgusting" and "wrong" but that argument is only based on how they have sex. Heterosexuals can and do the same thing as homosexuals. People can do whatever they want in the bedroom so long as the partner is a consenting adult and you have no right to tell them otherwise.

Why should homosexuals move away from their homes and their states to get the rights they deserve? Because you say they should? Right, just like how some people told blacks and whites to move to a state that allows interracial marriage because it was wrong. Denying a person's life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness in the state in which they live is wrong and goes against the core values of America. Homosexuals will get EQUAL rights because they deserve those rights same as everyone else. If you don't like that, then leave America.

the top court may get involved; since 31 states have already called for a constitutional amendment, article 5,,all it takes is 34 states, and congress must call for a election. I believe the court may well invoke the 10th amendment, and rule that a valid marriage is in fact a state issue.

Convert-1509451

You're trolling right? The Constitution was designed for EVERY citizen. By your logic, people of color wouldn't have equal rights today given the rampant slavery at the time of it's creation.

Q1 - You're comparing a mutually consensual relationship with pedophilia or beastality where it's only one sided? Get a reality check.

Q3 - Flaunting? They've got all the rights a decent US citizen does, with the exception of the benefits of a civil union. Why shouldn't they get that as well?

If you're going to answer legit questions, do so with legit answers. Not with half-ass comparisons and borderline retarded logic. Why don't you move to a state that DOESN'T allow gay marriage instead of vice versa? How about we split it North/South in terms of legality and the South can enjoy it's religions views (all the while ignoring it's ridiculously high teenage pregnancy rate in comparison to the more liberal North)?

Saxon,

The 10th Amendment, in a civil rights case, is null and void. You could have used it in say, 1860. But since we passed th 14th Amendment, applying the Bill of Rights to the states, we pretty much killed that argument. In fact, part of why we did that was so, individual states couldn't pick and choose which AMERICANS got civil rights and which didn't.

ALOE,

Oh for the love of whatever, freaking God you wanna believe in. Can you really not pick up on the "subtle differences" between a HUMAN BEING and a COW???

In fact, your argument, is placing gay people on the same level as cows. Do you believe gay people should be treated like cows?

So let's say this, when your cow has legally recognized capacity for informed consent, then please, go ahead an marry her.

Excellent i am applying to marry my cow she is the best and i deserve it, shouldn't we be allowed to be happy too?

No, 'moo' doesn't mean she wants to be thrown into the tall grass.

Convert- The constitution was absolutely intended to protect those minorities. That is the whole point. It prevents the majority from mistreating the minority. All those groups you use as examples absolutely do get protection under the constitution if laws are passed that forbid them from doing something everyone else can.

Your Q2 really confirms in my mind that conservatives would like to reverse our culture hundreds of years.

However, if you would like to look at history a little closer you will find accepted homosexual activity dating back thousands of years, and the slippery slope argument has been thoroughly tarnished in the eyes of the thinking majority.

Also, it is most definitely about equal rights. there is no forcing of a lifestyle down people's throats. Did you read the article? There aren't equal rights in most places. The part of DOMA that was struck down in California is about sharing insurance.

Finally, the constitution says nothing about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That would be the Declaration of Independence, which was followed years later by the treaty of Tripoli, which was ratified by Congress and stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" which is so against gay marriage. For all of you who are pushing your "Christian" values in to our government, read that.

@Convert
You're mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. But you know what IS in the Constitution? The Fourtheenth Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In what way is preventing homosexuals from marrying equal protection? And keep in mind that Sweatt v. Painter, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, and of course, Brown v. Board of Education consistently held that creating a "separate but equal" institution is inherently inequal and unconstitutional.

Bagdad,

Is that why the boys used to throw spitballs at me? I always thought I was an excellent "question monitor".

Any one who equates homosexual marriage with marrying animals is a moron. If that is the best argument that you have against marriage equality then leave now. How are two consenting adults who want to get married in any way like a person wanting to marry their animal? We call that a non sequitur. It does not follow!

Marriage has always been accepted between a man and a woman. So the people of California state clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman. Who are less than 10 people to decide what the people have decided? How come liberals always like to state conservatives are trying to "change" things and "take away our rights" when the ONLY way to initiate the liberal agenda is to "change" what has always been accepted?

The majority of the people in California (and the country) believe marriage should be specific to a man and a woman and has been that way since the beginning of time. If gays want a LEGAL identification that is fine and a civil union is an acceptable compromise but don't call that a "marriage" because it is not.

This gay push is becoming totally unreasonable. There is a recent case (New Mexico) where a photographer was asked to take pictures of a gay wedding. The photographer stated their religion does not support the gay lifestyle and requested they find another photographer. They did but also sued this photographer and won almost $7000. Appeals court just upheld. What's wrong with this country?? This photographer has strong religious beliefs but told their religion doesn't matter? The photographer must take pictures of gays, lesbians, or transgender "weddings" or decide to NEVER take pictures again?

The world is coming to an end - that can be the only reason. I am sickened by the heavy hand of government wanting to tell us what we can eat, where we can go, what we can take pictures of, and so on.

Picture the gay rights issue like this. There is a dam holding back a sea of immoral/amoral behavior, it called moral laws. The LGBT community is furiously chipping away at the dam because they want their so called 'rights'. They managed to get the morality law of sodomy rescinded thus making their lifestyle appear valid. This is a leak in the dam and others are chipping away at it too. So what happens when this leak causes the dam to break? The gays wont own up to the consequences either as it is many people who are attacking the morality dam so they can blend into the patchwork of denial. When the dam breaks, no-one will like the consequences, not even the gays.

On the side of the gays, I think we should just rescind all those nasty horrible freedom reducing morality laws. They are sooooo very oppressive! Get rid of them all so anyone can do anything they want, anywhere they want and with whomever/whatever they want, then people all over the world will be soooooooo free!!!

Unfortunately that isn't how the world works.

Fortunately for me, I have a vote! A vote to keep restricting people who attack this countries foundations, whom desire immorality to be the rule, not the exception.

Also there is no law that I will have to communicate, do business with or otherwise have contact with people such as this. I still control my own affairs and no LGBT person can force themselves into my life.

Question for Pro 8ers:

How can the State prohibit two individuals of the same sex from entering into a contract?

If that were allowed, no two individuals of the same sex could enter into any contract.

And btw, ceremonies are performed in churches, synagogues, etc. and have nothing to do with the legal contracting of marriage.

I still control my own affairs and no LGBT person can force themselves into my life.

Just so long as you can continue to force YOUR beliefs into THEIR lives, everything is fine, right? See, this is where you all miss the boat. Not a single one of you, can prove HOW gay marriage NEGATIVELY effects you.

From above...

What reason does the government (OR YOU) have to invade the privacy of gay people? Now, keep in mind some things. Our laws are not based on what MIGHT happen. We don't get to allow government intervention because we THINK this MIGHT occur, if we don't allow the government that power.

Until you can legally prove that society will be eroded by gay marriage, you don't get to violate their civil rights. And, pssst, none of the following are proof...Morals, beliefs, ideas, Bibles, God's word, Jesus's word, religion. Also, if you're going to cite statistics and studies, please make them non-partisan. I need some legal, substantive, evidence that proves a threat to society great enough to pass strict scrutiny.

Now, gay people can say that YOU folks are denying them the over 1000 benefits that are attached to civil marriage. That is an undisputable fact.

SOOOOOOO, in reality, you need to stop whining and cease the hypocrisy. Or, come up with that evidence I'm talking about.

If gays want a LEGAL identification that is fine and a civil union is an acceptable compromise but don't call that a "marriage" because it is not.

What is marriage anyway?

imnotlost - There are still millions and millions of people who think sodomy and other homosexual acts are an abomination and you denigrate them as if they're freaks.

The majority of Americans think bigots like you are freaks.

The only question is whether we'll vote to deny your civil rights.

When the dam breaks, no-one will like the consequences, not even the gays.

Please tell me Phil, what will be the consequences? Gay couples finally getting spousal rights as all other married people. More happy couples?

ProBusiness.... nnnnoooo, that's not really a truth, just like lots of anti-gay-marriage claims aren't. Historically marriage has frequently been between a man and several women, and in some cultures, marriage is commonly one woman and several men.

When someone as ProBusiness as you are is probably in favor of redefining "person" to include corporations, it's hard to buy into your outrage at "redefining" marriage because you don't like sharing.

And imnotlost... millions of people also find Christian fundamentalists an abomination. I assume you'd probably have a problem with those people deciding that your religious practices are illegal, by a fully democratic process?

BTW I'm guessing you aren't familiar with the term "tyranny of the majority". Try looking it up, and thinking not only of how you could use it against those you disapprove of, but how others might use it against you. Consider some of these social issues from both sides before you insist it should be okay to stomp on the civil rights of those you dislike. Someday you just might be the one stomped on.

Spydergirl: You said:.... By your reasoning, Interracial Marriage would still be illegal and slavery would be legal.

No. You're wrong. There is right now a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. If there were a specific amendment in the U.S. constitution denying interracial marriage, we would be duty bound to honor it. If a state passed a law making it illegal, SCOTUS could overturn it, but forty years later a SCOTUS with different members could reverse it. That's where the constitution comes in. They (SCOTUS) can't touch it once it's in there. So if you want gay marriage to be a reality, get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment and then get enough state legislations to ratify it, and then you got it. Easy, ain't it?

A lot of people are just arguing semantics. The word marriage means something different to different people. If you equate marriage with a religious ceremony then yes, religious organizations should be able to refuse to marry someone contrary to their beliefs. However, if you view marriage as a legal union between two people then no there is no right to deny that to anyone.

Separate the religious aspects from the legal aspects. Everyone has a right to the legal rights of marriage. Churches can refuse to perform a religious ceremony but that is all. Marriage at the courthouse should be legal for everyone.

There's no convincing the absolute nonsense arguement that says, LEGALLY (not religiously), there cannot be gay marriage. In fact, sorry, the nation benefits from the passage of all laws that protect the rights of human beings. Being married and gay, legally, is as legitimate as being heterosexual and married.

And it is, in fact, better. Because it is yet another opportunity to separate religion and state. Which is only beneficial. My recommendation, if you want to live in a religious state, is to move to Iran. It won't happen, of course, because people would rather war over their own piece of dirt than move, but if you have that mentality, it shows you probably think more like a Palestinian, anyway.

So now that's TWO countries you can move to if you think gays should not be married by law. And, of course, the list goes on. You could move to the U.A.E., Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria...

In fact, I hear the price of real estate is astoundingly low in Syria right now. Anti-gay marriagers might want to seriously consider it.

Give civil unions the same legal status as a marriage and everything should be hunky dory.

RodF: didn't Plessy v. Ferguson teach us that separate but equal is inherently unequal to those kept separate? Do we REALLY need to learn that painful lesson all over again?

Cult of Personality

When the dam breaks, no-one will like the consequences, not even the gays.

Please tell me Phil, what will be the consequences? Gay couples finally getting spousal rights as all other married people. More happy couples?

No, quite the opposite. It opens the doors to every perversion that could be thought of in the human mind, and nothing will be restricted. This won't make happy couples, it will make for an even more oppressive system where people of all flavors do whatever they want wherever they want, even if you don't like it. The theory that letting people do whatever they want making them more happy is a myth. It will step on even more people's toes and children all over the country will end up even more confused between right and wrong. Look at what we have today, more and more confusion and declining morals. Are you arguing that LGBT is a positive trend in moral fiber? I don't think so. Declining moral fiber just breeds further discontent, not happiness.

And whose morals are we talking about here Phil. Certainly gay marriage is not against my morals. Are you saying I'm immoral? I give to charities, I coach my child's little league team, I'm faithful to my wife. And you know what Phil, I know a gay person who is faithful to her wife, gives to charities and coaches her nephew's little league team.

imnotlost

So if you want gay marriage to be a reality, get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment and then get enough state legislations to ratify it, and then you got it. Easy, ain't it?

It's called the 14th amendment. This is the whole argument at hand! Please see Sarah's 1.2 post Question #1

Cult of PersonalityAnd whose morals are we talking about here Phil. Certainly gay marriage is not against my morals.

Yes, this is the very moral decline I'm talking about, relativity in comparisons etc. The fact that NAMBLA tried to gain legal legitimacy is further proof that moral fiber is declining. Oh, but I know, NAMBLA is HORRIBLE, but wait a few years and see them resurface wanting 'rights' and using relative arguments and gay precedent to try to gain their 'civil rights' too!

Once the gays marry it will unleash the dinosaur riding nazis and Surtr will be released from Muspellsheimer! Then the four horsemen will ride throughout the land and the disasters in that 2012 movie will happen! It will be the end of all life as we know it because two consenting adults of the same sex want to have to legal right to be married! Oh the humanity!

Phil.... you really gotta get out more. Your argument against gay marriage is that next someone else might be allowed do something else you don't like?

Seriously, of all the moral questions in the world, quite frankly who gets to marry whom (among consenting adults with full mental capacity) by God (and I mean that quite literally) ought to be just about the lowest on the list. I think such moral questions as "should one American or group of Americans be allowed to use their own moral beliefs to impose restrictions on how other Americans are allowed to live" should be pretty high up there. Probably not as high as "how is it moral to fight so strongly to enhance the opportunities for corporations and the wealthiest individuals in America to increase their wealth while children continue to starve, many go without medical care, and the educational system is constantly under attack". Oh there are lots of important moral questions in the world, but seriously, if you can't stop focusing on two people who disgust you by the horrible gay things they do together in their bedrooms that you just can't stop imagining, then quite frankly you should consider getting some counseling because you've got some serious failures in your ability to prioritize severity of moral issues.

Yes, this is the very moral decline I'm talking about, relativity in comparisons etc. The fact that NAMBLA tried to gain legal legitimacy is further proof that moral fiber is declining. Oh, but I know, NAMBLA is HORRIBLE, but wait a few years and see them resurface wanting 'rights' and using relative arguments and gay precedent to try to gain their 'civil rights' too!

Children are incapable of giving informed consent, so your argument is invalid.

You know since some of the states passed the right to marry for homosexuals..........I didn't notice that the sun didn't come up or the land masses crashed into the seas..............so just relax. Gay people should have the same right to get into unhappy marriages as everyone else. Why deny them the experience of divorce. I say pain and misery for everyone..........just kidding I love being married and feel that everyone should be able to experience it if they find that right person no matter who that is.

You know what I find immoral? Someone like Phil trying to deny the civil rights of other Americans.

Phil, you do know that no one under the age of 18 can legally agree to anything correct? Therefore how in the world could NAMBLA ever be legit? Gay marriage will not change the fact that minors can not legally enter into a contract.

Also, we seem to disagree at what makes a moral person Phil. We need a moral code don't we. Now who is going to write this moral code? If I write it (and approx half of the population) gay marriage would be well within moral limits. I would also call divorce immoral, curiously though half of straight marriages end in divorce and they would disagree with me.

It is such a travesty....a travesty is hunger, unemployed by the millions, cancer, murder, incest...gay marriage is no where close to a travesty, it is just a social pile of cow manure. Priorities people...geezzzzzzzzzz

Sarah:

You are doing it so well, and doing it so beautifully, that I'll just vote for your posts and then, stand down. Keep firing away. It's difficult, if not impossible, to mount a counter-offense against logic.

Hey all you conservatives... Pay attention to this...

EQUAL PROTECTION clause in our Constitution! Read it. Learn it. Live it...

One more court and this mater is DONE! Marriage Equality will be the law of the land.

Hey Skrekk: Welcome!! I was wondering when you'd jump in.

In the first place, you don't know me so don't call me a bigot just because I question the (legal) qualifications of a topic like this. I know you have a gay child and you're just taking up for her, but you don't need to blaspheme everything and everyone who doesn't happen to comply.

Secondly, I am doing nothing with or within my life that would give anyone cause to deny me my civil rights or even consider it. Civil rights has become such a broad term that it can be used in almost any situation. I promise you if George Zimmerman gets aquitted of murder the AG will try him for denying Trayvon Martin his civil rights. There you go.

ProBusiness - " If gays want a LEGAL identification that is fine and a civil union is an acceptable compromise"

except, the folks on your side dont want to give gays even that. maybe this is how you personally feel, the anti-gay marriage movement feels otherwise...and they've proven that in every state that has banned gay marriage, and banned civil unions, and pretty much made common-law marriage obsolete (which only hurts straight people) for fear that gays will somehow find a loophole to wiggle through. this isnt about protecting "marriage" - it's about ensuring gays have no equal rights, ensuring they are always second class citizens, and ensuring that they can legally keep their foot on the necks of a minority - just for sh!ts and giggles

"but don't call that a "marriage" because it is not"

Sure, LEGALLY the state says im not married - but in my heart and mind, I most certainly am.

been with my wife for 13 years, married for 7 and im 33 years old.

we had a wedding on my parents property - 100 of our closest friends and family attended.

80% of them were straight people - and almost ALL of them said it was the best wedding they've ever been to. Even to this day people bring it up and talk about how awesome it was, how memorable it was...how amazing it was.

a close friends mom officiated our ceremony, and she recently passed away from cancer. before she died she told us once again, just how wonderful we are and how we changed her entire perspective on what "gay people" were and looked like, acted like and all that jazz...her narrow view widened to the point where she realized, we are not different at all.

LOVE IS LOVE...and you either have it, or you dont.

and I take extreme pity on you...and hope your chosen GOD will too.

You want to be a good American? That means you stay out of the way of what this country is supposed to represent, and keep your religion to yourselves. For every person who says they hate the gay lifestyle flung n their face, well guess what? I hate it when christians pervert and twist their religion to fit what they want. You say the bible is against homosexuals? Well the bible calls for those who wear mixed fibers to be put to death! DEATH TO ALL WHO WEAR POLY-COTTON BLENDS!!!!!!!!

It is progressing as it should. A matter of civil liberties should never have been put forth for a vote to begin with. The Constitution gives us guarantees which cannot be voted away without making our foundation little more than a facade. Unfortunately, this takes longer than it should and it saddens me that this battle has even been necessary. But then, it is not the first time in my life I've had to witness one group fight to keep another group from equality. However, I believe in this nation and the precepts upon which she was founded and know that ultimately the right and just end will occur. The great vision of those men more than two hundred years ago recognized the tyranny of the majority and gave us the tools to avoid that peril. Patient persistence will one day see this to the inevitable conclusion: equality, nothing more and nothing less.

ImNotLost "Civil rights has become such a broad term that it can be used in almost any situation. I promise you if George Zimmerman gets aquitted of murder the AG will try him for denying Trayvon Martin his civil rights. There you go."

didn't he though? when he followed him and then ultimately killed him...he denied trayvon martin his legal right to freely walk in a neighborhood without being accused of a crime he did not committ.

George was the judge, the jury and the executioner. you're damn right he denied trayvon his civil right to even EXIST.

only white hetero christians are allowed complete freedom and liberty...it appears.

Why don't we all just admit that gay marriage isn't about anything other than the almighty dollar. Gays want the same tax (and other monetary) advantages that married couples have. Period. It isn't about morality, which you can't legislate anyway. It isn't about "rights". It isn't about freedom. It's just about money.

I don't really care one way or the other if gays can legally marry or not; I don't have a horse in the race.

@Sarah - You have part of Loving vs. Virginia right, you just highlighted the wrong section.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
- The Supreme Court of the United States

Seems to me we've been doing just fine without them throughout all of history. Civilizations haven't crashed because they didn't allowed gay marriages. Please explain how Gay Marriages are fundamental to our very existence and survival?

Next, to answer your questions-

Q1: The state has a specific interest in the propagation of the species. It's why they give tax breaks and benefits to create healthy, psychologically stable children. Gays, as a class, cannot do that within their relationship. Psychology has proven that children need both a mother and a father. There are necessary bonds that children form with each, and when one is absent the child is at a disadvantage. Why create additional legally dysfunctional relationships when regular ones are failing?

Here's a secular argument for the state's interest in marriage: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Q2: By changing the definition of marriage from husband and wife to spouse and from mother and father to parent, it opens the door easily to bestiality, polygamy, etc. A dog could never be a husband or wife, but why not a spouse? It's harder to argue and maintain the legal definition of spouse. It opens it up to animals, inanimate objects, family members, etc. Once it's changed the first time, why would you find it so difficult to change it from spouse to spouses?

Q3: There are two issues here, animals have already been granted rights under contract law. Animals have had trusts created for them, they have been named in wills, and they have certain "humane" rights over people. Second tho, it has more to do with the definition of spouse as contained specifically in marriage law that wouldn't allow it to be affect ALL of contract law that you are referring to.

Final Q: When something harms society, my marriage is harmed. When you try to change the definition of what my marriage is, my marriage is harmed. When you try to change what nature is and say that a man (or woman) is not necessary in a relationship, that harms my marriage. How do you feel by knowing YOU are not necessary, nor needed, to marriage? That is the message it is sending to society and why many are either choosing divorce, or not to marry in the first place.

Thank GOD this will go to the Supreme Court, and this is why it is sooo important to see the defeat of the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in November !!! GO republicans in 2012 !

Oh, but I know, NAMBLA is HORRIBLE, but wait a few years and see them resurface wanting 'rights' and using relative arguments and gay precedent to try to gain their 'civil rights' too!

But, since the argument for gay marriage is based on "equal protection" ... while heterosexuals may marry the consenting adult to whom they are emotionally and physically attracted, same-sex couples may not. So, what rights are NAMBLA members denied that are available to others? No adults may legally have sex with children, so there's no discrimination against NAMBLA members.

And I'd like to add my sincere thanks to MSNBC for the accompanying photo of a dude slobbering all over another dude's neck.......yechhhh!

imnotlost - In the first place, you don't know me so don't call me a bigot just because I question the (legal) qualifications of a topic like this. I know you have a gay child and you're just taking up for her, but you don't need to blaspheme everything and everyone who doesn't happen to comply.

You're a bigot because you think some Americans should be treated as 2nd-class citizens and denied equal protection of the law.

Moreover, you're a greedy bigot because you want the special legal rights and privileges which are denied to those you hate.

The state has a specific interest in the propagation of the species. It's why they give tax breaks and benefits to create healthy, psychologically stable children.

Yet, the state allows infertile couples and those past childbearing age to also marry. If that was the point of marriage, such couples, especially those past childbearing age, could easily be denied a marriage license. Yet, we allow them to get marry and enjoy tax breaks and benefits that are supposed to be there for the children.

When something harms society, my marriage is harmed. When you try to change the definition of what my marriage is, my marriage is harmed.

Really? Please tell me how allowing that nice gay couple down the street harms your marriage? Please provide a specific description of how allowing that gay couple to get married will lead to the destruction of your marriage.

When you try to change what nature is and say that a man (or woman) is not necessary in a relationship, that harms my marriage.

Again, how? Did you get married because you felt "necessary", or because you loved your future spouse and wanted to build your life together?

This gay push is becoming totally unreasonable. There is a recent case (New Mexico) where a photographer was asked to take pictures of a gay wedding. The photographer stated their religion does not support the gay lifestyle and requested they find another photographer. They did but also sued this photographer and won almost $7000. Appeals court just upheld.

That's because New Mexico has a civil rights law that bans discrimination, including by businesses based upon - among other things - race, relgion, sex and sexual orientation. If that photographer had refused to provide its service to say, a catholic, or mainline protestant, or mormon, or jewish customer, or to an interracial couple because he/she claimed that his/her religion considers such religions as non-christian cults, or the interracial couple as going against the bible god, he/she wouldn't have a leg to stand on in New Mexico. New Mexico includes sexual orientation regarding civil rights. If a photographer, or any business owner, doesn't want to do business with people he/she considers making him/her go against his/her religion, he/she should not open up a shop in New Mexico. The New Mexico photographer is not being denied "religious liberty" anymore than a racist who would refuse to provide his/her services to someone of another race because of religion. People can practice any religion they want. They can avoid anyone they want in their private lives because of their religion. However, when they open up a public business, that is a public accommodation and must meet the criteria of that makes it accessible to the public based upon human and civil rights. This is a free country. That photographer is free to close down his public business if he/she doesn't want to follow the laws regarding the public. Or he/she can move to another state, like Florida, which refuses to pass a law protecting the rights of people regarding sexual orientation. In Florida, people can discriminate against gays and lesbians all they want, including in conducting business or hiring/firing. Of course, that also means that people can discriminate against straights all they want, including in conducting business or hiring firing. I wish a business in Florida would take advantage of that to teach the state a lesson and say it is going to fire all its straight employees and refuse to hire them.

SonofButch Comment collapsed by the community

Beastiality? Your mind seems a tad twisted. Cat & Dog are both 'modern' slang terms used for a man.

I'll make it simpler for you. You can make it legal, but you can't make it right.

Thanks for simplifying. However, it's not the liberals who keep bringing up the comparisons between gay sex and animal sex. So then I would be left to assume that not only are conservatives closeted when it comes to their repressed homosexual desires, it's apparent that the idea of @!$%#ing animals is pretty constantly top-of-mind for conservatives too, who keep making the comparisons. Is it safe for me to assume this using the same logic as conservatives do when defining liberals?

Personally, I don't spend any time thinking about having sex with animals, and would never think about bringing it into a debate. It's why I keep asking why Republicans keep making that comparison between homosexuality and bestiality? I can tell you this: nobody's ever knocked on my door and asked me if I'd like to suck a dick; nobody's ever run my doorbell and asked if I want to @!$%# their poodle. I am, however, regularly disturbed by strangers at my door insisting that I must accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior or face eternal damnation.

So if you're a person who's worried about having the "homosexual lifestyle" shoved down your throat: How about you stop knocking on doors trying to shove Jesus up my ass? Then we can have a rational conversation on what it means to live in a FREE country.

Soon, all across the great land of America, regardless of what people voted for in 30 states to restrict the Constitutional right of marriage, same-sex marriage equality will the the law of the land.

That means that the gay couple living down the street, both working jobs to pay the mortgage and replace the furnace when it goes out, raising their two children, sending them to school and making sure they do their homework so they can grow up to be productive citizens, who mow their lawn and shovel their neighbors' sidewalks, who bring a meal to the elderly opposite-sex married couple two doors down, who attend a church, will be able to legally marry and have the same rights and responsibilities of all other married couples.

What a horrifying thought.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Rationalone:

Nice try, but you're pretty much just blowing smoke on all accounts.

Q1: Actually, studies have shown that children benefit with two parents. Until recently, almost no studies had been done comparing children with heterosexual parents vs. homosexual parents. Thus, you would not be able to conclude from any research done that a child does better with a mother and father. You could only conclude that a child does better with two parents. You are misrepresenting the studies. P.S. One of the few studies that have been done in which the actually included homosexual parents as part of the study, showed that lesbian parents actually had the happiest, healthiest children and made the best parents. Of course, more research needs to be done -- but point is you are misrepresenting the claim entirely. There is no actual evidence out there that states that a child does better with specifically a mother and father. The only research out there says that a child does better with two parents vs. one parent.

Q2: If you want to talk about the wording of the law, you could easily make the wording be that two people who are of proper age and mental capacity to enter into a marriage contract are allowed to marry. With such wording, none of your fears would be valid. Tada! I completely solved this problem for you.

The entire argument about bestiality, incest, and polygamy all runs into one major problems. The each have their own issues that need to be dealt with that have nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage is the fight to allow two people who are of age and mental capacity to enter into a legal contract of marriage. As the law stands now, two people who would already be considered capable of entering into a marriage contract are not allowed to do so if they happen to be the same gender. So, as the law stands, we say "Bob - Yep, you are totally legally allowed to enter in a marriage contract. Sam -- Yep, you are totally legally allowed to enter into a marriage contract. Oh wait, you want to enter into that contract with each other? Nevermind." No one has put forward any credible arguments as to why those two adults who the law has already stated is capable of entering into a marriage contract can not do so with each other.

Want to hear why each of the slippery slope cases does not work?
Children -- can not consent to a marriage contract. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, because gay marriage is about adults who already had the abililty to enter into a marriage contract.

Animals -- cannot consent to a marriage contract. See above as to why this issue is not applicable to gay marriage.
Incest -- Children with defects is one problem. Furthermore, often in cases of incest relationships are not consentual or are the result of coercion. So, you would have to find a way to ascertain that the relationship was truly consentual and not the result of coercion. Not present in gay marriage -- there is no bond of family on which one can use coersion to create a relationship. There is no evidence that coercion or lack of consent is characteristic of gay relationships.
Polygamy -- The fundamental problem with legalizing polygamy is the legal nightmare it would cause. If a man marries two women and those two women marry two men -- who is married to whom? How do assets get divided? Who has rights to what? Thus, it would create a legal quagmire and would require the complete upheaval of all the laws and benefits related to marriage. Not present in gay marriage. If a man can marry another man and a woman can marry another woman, all existing marriage laws would apply exactly the same. No need to change hundreds of thousands of other laws.

So, in every instance there is no instance of "gay marriage then ________". Because in every instance given, other legal issues would have to be addressed. This is what makes this argument the slippery slope fallacy. Because gay marriage is not in anyway equivalent to these things, thus one does not lead to another.

Furthermore, if your claim is that "well, if we legalize gay marriage then other people will want rights to marry. What's going to stop them?" Then, why does the same argument not apply to opposite-sex marriage? Given that you give special rights to straight couples, that makes other people want marriage rights. So, under your very argument, we should just abolish marriage entirely. Right? Or is it that you only want to apply the slippery slope argument to things you don't agree with but won't apply to it to things that you do agree with?

Q3: As the current laws stands, molesting your dog is illegal on the basis that your dog can't consent. Thus, your point here is completely moot. It is already recognized by laws that animals can not give consent, therefore, to make bestiality legal you would have to change other laws.

Q4: Give us evidence that gay marriage harms society. Give us evidence that gay marriage leads to divorce among straight couples. Give us evidence of any of these claims. Until then, you are making unsubstantiated claims. As soon as you provide evidence for these claims, I and others will be glad to discuss this concern with you.

Sarah-3043284

Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

- The Supreme Court of the United States

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),^[1] is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory

Hmm, Lawrence v. Texas talks about the sodomy law not the right to privacy. That would be the privacy act of 1973. Of course it does not talk about same sex marriage!

Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law

And I thought it was a little piece of paper called a marriage license. Hardly even a contract unless you think that the application for marriage is a contract. hmm, have to consult lawyer beckett!

This is why the STATE issues the lisence

So this way they can make money on the oldest tradition on earth.

it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.

Take a look back in a history book and you will see that before the word marriage came into being. Ancient cultures used to describe it as a union between a man and a woman. Or typically called a bonding of man and woman. The word holy matrimony can only be traced back to one of the oldest of religions that worshipped only one God. That is called Monotheism before the word holy matrimony was ever used it was called bonding under polytheism.

it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT?

which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects

You just answered your own question.

Skrekk: Careful, someone's going to report you for calling names if you keep it up.

Cult: Stop hiding behind the 14th Amendment and shouting CIVIL RIGHTS. There are plenty of amendments dealing with a particular situation. Besides since when is allowing gay marriage "protecting" someone.

Jessica: You're darned right Trayvon's civil rights were violated, but if Zimmerman gets convicted of murder he'll never be tried for violating them. Also, can you recall the last time a minority person was tried for violating a white person's civil rights? OMG, Skrekk's gonna call me a racist!!!

Do you understand "we the people" can inbreed without getting married even if'n we two homophobes???

Thenight:

Over the course of human history, over 70% of cultures (cultures, not people -- just to be clear) has allowed polygamy. Thus, the vast majority of cultures have NOT defined marriage as one man and one woman. Furthermore, there are cultures in which women married ghosts of dead warriors, in which men married other men dressed as women, etc. Thus, there have been many different definitions of marriage across cultures and across time. So, your claim is actually just incorrect.

Btw, before you inevitably misunderstand what I'm saying: I'm not using these facts to support the idea that any of these marriages should or should not be allowed (in fact, I don't use any claims of traditionalism whatsoever to support any of my arguments). I am merely addressing the fact that your claim is incorrect.

Hmm I must have missed 60 minutes! Could you please refer to what post that you are referring Siobhan27?

Cult: Stop hiding behind the 14th Amendment and shouting CIVIL RIGHTS. There are plenty of amendments dealing with a particular situation.

This is some of the richest bull@!$%# that I've seen all day. Next time conservatives start screeching about their rights to protect themselves and carry guns I'll just say they're hiding behind the second amendment.

oh my gosh - so - let's try this ...

in california there is also something called Common Law marriages. Which have been used in the past for men and women living together to get each others STUFF. Now if you are a guy living with a women for a long time and DON'T want common law - what do you do?

Also in the case brought up above, the reason for this whole fight is so that visititation in hospitals, right of inheritance and other "marriage" laws which aren't available for those not married can be had. - now if you really know the laws you CAN have all those things that they are requesting WITHOUT being married.. it's called a legal CONTRACT and living wills.

The real issue is that even when some of these people did that and had documents, the persons OWN FAMILY didn't want the gay person in the hospital, or to receive the money and was able to get the hospitals and lawyers to lean their way. -

Bottom line - if it were me I would take away the special priveledges held for marriage and call it good. Problem solved - no one benefits and the gays don't have to get married for those reasons which they say is the start of this whole thing. I for one would GLADLY give up those extra priviledges, pay the attorney to update my living will, and change the deed on the house to say jt tennet to "what's his name" rather than let a union be between two people of the same sex...

Sarah - You will never get the anti-gay nuts to give you a valid reason why same sex marriage will adversely affect their marriage or their life. The only argument they are capable of is to either quote the bible (which proves their inability to think independently) or simply say that it isn't natural. My hair is gray so I color it - not natural. Men and women shave off unwanted hair - not natural. I mowed my lawn this evening - not natural. Men taking Viagra for sexual dysfunction - not natural. So many unnatural things come to mind which makes their argument invalid. The issue for most of them is that they are simply obsessed with what goes on in other people's bedrooms and they have obsessive control issues - not natural.

How many years did it take to abolish slavery? How many years did it take to give Native Americans, African Americans and women equal rights? Why is it that some like to subjugate and dominate others? When will the world finally grow up ?

What happened to good old fashion family values? This use to be a Proud christian country what happen,everyone has lost their way and threw morals out the window. Whast next is it going to be legal to maryy animal just because their is a few sick ppl that want to so we all have sacrifice our diginity and the countries reputation to satify some sick ppl

What happened to good old fashion family values?

Which values would those be? The ones where you got to keep slaves and beat your wife if she didn't act nice and docile?

RationalOne

Q3: There are two issues here, animals have already been granted rights under contract law. Animals have had trusts created for them, they have been named in wills, and they have certain "humane" rights over people. Second tho, it has more to do with the definition of spouse as contained specifically in marriage law that wouldn't allow it to be affect ALL of contract law that you are referring to.

There is quite a difference between an animal being named in a will or having a trust created for them and the animal being the one writing the will or creating the trust, which to my knowledge they are not allowed to do.

Final Q: When something harms society, my marriage is harmed. When you try to change the definition of what my marriage is, my marriage is harmed. When you try to change what nature is and say that a man (or woman) is not necessary in a relationship, that harms my marriage. How do you feel by knowing YOU are not necessary, nor needed, to marriage? That is the message it is sending to society and why many are either choosing divorce, or not to marry in the first place.

I hate to burst your bubble (not really), but you are not actually necessary to anyone's marriage but your own. Just as I am not necessary to anyone else's marriage.

Q1: P.S. One of the few studies that have been done in which the actually included homosexual parents as part of the study, showed that lesbian parents actually had the happiest, healthiest children and made the best parents.

Sibiohan: Actually I saw those studies. First of all, many of those studies were considered biased because the the people in question were already aligned with the LBGT community and were looking for something to prove they made great parents. In other words, there was no baseline to compare them to. Second, there is not enough studies being done on two gay men as parents, so for you to say that it doesn't effect the children is false. As far as anyone knows, young children almost always do better in the care of a mother (whether she is single or gay).

Q2: Gay marriage is the fight to allow two people who are of age and mental capacity to enter into a legal contract of marriage. As the law stands now, two people who would already be considered capable of entering into a marriage contract are not allowed to do so if they happen to be the same gender. So, as the law stands, we say "Bob - Yep, you are totally legally allowed to enter in a marriage contract. Sam -- Yep, you are totally legally allowed to enter into a marriage contract. Oh wait, you want to enter into that contract with each other? Nevermind." No one has put forward any credible arguments as to why those two adults who the law has already stated is capable of entering into a marriage contract can not do so with each other.

The same can be said of two siblings who wanted to marry. They would both be of legal age and capable of marrying other people. Where is your reasoning on that cause? For you to say it applies to one and not to another means you have just a different type of "bigotry". I believe the phrase you would be called is an incestrophobe( bigot).

Unhappy,

I think you had some sort of problem with reading and comprehending my entire post.

Sibiohan: Actually I saw those studies. First of all, many of those studies were considered biased because the the people in question were already aligned with the LBGT community and were looking for something to prove they made great parents. In other words, there was no baseline to compare them to. Second, there is not enough studies being done on two gay men as parents, so for you to say that it doesn't effect the children is false. As far as anyone knows, young children almost always do better in the care of a mother (whether she is single or gay).

Immediately following the bit you quoted, I said "more studies need to be done." Thus, implying that before we can come to a conclusion about who makes the best parents (gays, lesbians, or heterosexual couples) that more work would need to be done.

Furthermore, I never claimed that there was no effect on children. I don't know if there is or isn't, because the research out there isn't conclusive. What I actually claimed is that all studies have shown thus far is that children do better with two parents rather than one parent. People like to misinterpret that to mean children have to specifically have one mother and one father to do well. But since, historically, those studies have ONLY compared two heterosexual parents to one parent and have never included gay or lesbian parents, you actually can't make that claim. The only claim you can make from the research out there is that two parents are better for children than one. And then I went on to point out that the few studies out there that do compare heterosexual parents to homosexual parents have suggested that lesbian parents do the best (but again, I will make this as clearly as possible so you don't misunderstand it: MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS). So, you seemed to failed to comprehend my point. Also, I'd love to see your sources on the claims you are making.

The same can be said of two siblings who wanted to marry. They would both be of legal age and capable of marrying other people. Where is your reasoning on that cause? For you to say it applies to one and not to another means you have just a different type of "bigotry". I believe the phrase you would be called is an incestrophobe( bigot).

Again, you didn't seem to finish reading my post. I pointed exactly why, below the bit you quoted from me, some of the reason why people would have a problem with incestual relationships. The first being the issue of children with defects. The second being that research shows that a vast majority of incestual relationships are either not consentual or are the product of coercion. Essentially, people use the bond and authority of being a family member (e.g. being a parent, an older sibling) to convince the other family member to be in a relationship with them and exploit their trust. Thus, one can easily decide that incestual marriages are not okay but gay marriages are. It is a falsehood to act is if these two things are equivalent and that if you believe in one, you must believe in the other.

More to the point, I'm of the opinion that if there are no plans (or no possibility) of having children and the relationship was not a result of coercion and was completely consentual, if two people who are related really want to have a relationship, then that is their perogative. So, not only did you not finish reading my post, but you made an assumption about what I was saying that wasn't true.

Please try actually reading and comprehending what someone is saying before responding with 1.) points that have already been addressed or 2.) assumptions that aren't merited.

Convert:

Q3 - the LGBT community always said it was about equal rights. most states have passed laws accommodating their wishes by allowing visitation in hospitals, right of survival with regard to property, adoption etc. So, is it really about rights or is it really a question of forcing your disgusting lifestyle in the faces of others? I think we all know the answer.

Yes we know the answer. Apparently you don't because the answer is "rights". Gay people are already legally allowed to practice their lifestyle. Sodomy laws don't exist in most states. SO maybe you are a little behind on legislation. It wouldn't surprise me since you have deluded yourself into believing your opinions are gospel. You know what I THINK is disgusting? Hateful, spiteful, self righteous people who claim to be religious but cannot practice the teachings of Jesus. And by your logic, because I think it then it must make it true.

"Civil Rights" : Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private
organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and
political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Sexual preference is NOT a "Civil Rights Issue."

Jay,

Equal protection, privacy, freedom from religion, and gender, are.

no, but participation in CIVIL contracts like marriage are.

Sexual preference is NOT a "Civil Rights Issue."

You're actually quite wrong.

sorry - lolfattynerdswhoknew. It is a civil rights issue.

How can I tell? simple.

If you claim that morals or your religious beliefs are what guide you to your decision that makes you feel it's your right to tell others whether they have the right to do something or not, it's a civil rights issue.

If you claim that someone else's rights are infringed (stealing thier property, murdering them, etc.), then it's not a civil rights issue.

ALL non-morals or religious belief arguements have been struck down as infringing on the civil rights of another person or group of people. Be it about civil rights for blacks, allowing mixed race marriages, divorce, gay rights or gay marriage.

You don't have to agree with 'gay', but because your morals or your religious beliefs tell you it's wrong doesn't give you legal rights to tell them that they can't have equality with you. If you truly think that, go ask an older black man about what he thinks civil rights reforms that allowed him to have the same rights you do.

jayd1958

"Civil Rights" : Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private
organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and
political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

Sexual preference is NOT a "Civil Rights Issue."

Dude - if your morals or your religious beliefs are the basis of your being anti-gay, then it is a civil rights issue. Sexual preference isn't the issue. Whether or not you can prevent one group of people from having the same rights you have IS the issue.

The definition of a civil rights issue is when one group of people blockade another's rights based on thier moral, religious or other beliefs. When ONE group decides that thier moral, religious or other beliefs give them the right to force another group to not have the same rights...

The bans on Gay marriage are clearly based on moral and religious beliefs. The arguements against it are blatant proof. Per our Constitution, no one set of morals or religious beliefs can be used to supercede another. That's why the morals based laws in this country have disappeared.

There's not one anti-gay marriage arguement that isn't based on moral or religious beliefs.

They can't procreate: That's not a requirement for straight marriage. Therefore it cannot legally be used to block gay marriage.

They aren't following God: That's a religious reason. Religious reasons aren't Constitutionally allowed for the simple reason that not everyone follows the same religion, and the government can't pick one over another.

It's not natural: That's your morals. 'Natural' is in the eye of the beholder. What's not natural for you could be natural for someone else, hence the law cannot enforce this due to it running afoul of the equal protection under the law clause of the Constitution.

It's not in the state's best interest to allow it: Neither is divorce, but the state allows that. And the test of 'in the state's best interest' is not a legally valid reason to ban it. MANY things that are allowed are 'not in the state's best interest', and because these MANY things are allowed, using this reason to ban gay marriage is an arbitrary (as defined by legal standards) choice based on morals and religious beleifs.

Marriage isn't a 'right': Yes it is based on legal precidents in multiple court cases. Because it's a right, it's protected where applicable under the other clauses in the Constitution, including the equal protection clause.

Ignoring the will of the people: Sorry - the will of the people cannot be used to prevent one group from being protected under the Constitution.

The entire list of anti-gay marriage arguements are Constitutional failures.

Whether you or I like gay marriage does not matter. It's inevitable that it will survive in the supreme court - even with the deck stacked with the current list of conservative justices.

So if "anti-gay" marriage arguments are failures, then why do we still have anti-bigamy laws? What's the reasoning behind not having more than one spouse if it's not a moral issue infringing on the bigamists "rights"? People do it all the time..."serial monogamy". I love the way the pro-gay people try to denigrate people who are disgusted by gay sex as "homophobes" rather than "homodisgusted".

Thank you Former Marine Sgt.

Your post was reasonable, intelligent, and balanced.

So if "anti-gay" marriage arguments are failures, then why do we still have anti-bigamy laws? What's the reasoning behind not having more than one spouse if it's not a moral issue infringing on the bigamists "rights"?

Compelling governmental interest in stopping abuse and legal uncertainty in the dissolution of these arrangements. Sort those two issues out and we could have polygamy.

I love the way the pro-gay people try to denigrate people who are disgusted by gay sex as "homophobes" rather than "homodisgusted".

Homophobic is clkearly defined as fearful, hateful or discriminatory of gay people. I think you are discriminatory thus the term is accurate.

Bagdad,

I've already addressed this.

Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to polygamy? What is the link between changing the gender of a single party in a contract and polygamy?

bagdadjoe, because civil marriage is between two consenting adults (not already related too closely by blood). The operative word is "two" bigamy involves three or more. A second marriage by a person is invalid because of the first marriage (assuming is has not been annulled or divorced). You can be as disgusted as you want about gay sex, just as I am disgusted by the excesses of Christianity starting from about 900 A.D. to the present day. Neither of us is legally permitted to ban the other from practicing their non-intrusive beliefs. I will add to Sarah's questions, NiD #1: In what way does someone else's marriage affect yours? To be clear religious arguments are invalid. I need to see or hear a real world effect of one marriage upon another.

As much as I love to say the the President is wrong about so many things, he's got this one right. We republicans should consider a compromise, like acknowledge the fact that gays should have the right to form domestic partnerships/civil unions and be miserable just like straight people. It's clearly discrimination and a civil rights issue. Personally, I think they'll need their own word to describe their union and call it something other than marriage, but that's just me thinking out loud.

Neal, if religious arguments are invalid as you say, then anything goes. What is the standard? There will be none. So, let's just okay everything, and not legislate any type morality, thereby freeing those who wish to steal, murder, etc. What's the point of restricting anything?

Now let's get to basics. I'm sure that you will make all sorts of accusations against me, but here goes. There IS a moral standard - that being God's word. All religions of the world that I know of denounce homosexuality as being wrong. (Homosexuals are beheaded in Islamic countries, you know.) Marriage was defined at the outset as being between one man and one woman. Man, in his finite "wisdom" has attempted to redefine that almost from the beginning. It has never worked, and it won't work this time, no matter what the courts say.

So if "anti-gay" marriage arguments are failures, then why do we still have anti-bigamy laws? What's the reasoning behind not having more than one spouse if it's not a moral issue infringing on the bigamists "rights"? People do it all the time..."serial monogamy". I love the way the pro-gay people try to denigrate people who are disgusted by gay sex as "homophobes" rather than "homodisgusted".

The bad joke in this is that you think pro-gay marriage people are against bigamy. If you think you can convince enough people to support it then go ahead, but good luck.

Neal, if religious arguments are invalid as you say, then anything goes. What is the standard? There will be none. So, let's just okay everything, and not legislate any type morality, thereby freeing those who wish to steal, murder, etc. What's the point of restricting anything?

Are you just completely ignorant of any sort of non-religious system of morality? Ever hear of "informed consent"? If someone steals from someone else, they obviously don't give their consent for another person to take their things. Most people don't give their consent to be killed. Most people don't give consent to be raped. It's not rocket science if you spent more than 10 minutes thinking from more than a narrow perspective.

mintjulip - do you seriously believe that the only reason people don't kill each other is because of religion? Really??? First, let's start with the laws that prohibit murder, rape, theft, etc. Then lets think about all the non religious people who are moral, loving and compassionate without going to church or the strict belief that God will strike them down. Maybe you need the fear of God to keep you from committing crimes, but most of us care about our fellow man and have our own personal morals and scruples that keep us in line.

Sarah:

There are legitimate concerns about "gay marriage" that indicate that more is served by a ban than just the oppression of "gay people." When you look at the hard facts about "gay relationships" there is an inherent instability, irresponsibility and irrationality within it to indicate that it does cause harm. You ask if those of us that are against gay marriage have ever been personally harmed by one. I have not. Have I ever been harmed by a mass murderer? No. Have I ever been harmed by a pedophile? No. That personal issue is irrelevant. The statistics are that they do cause harm to children that are raised in such conditions. You will try to cite studies that claim otherwise, but I would be happy to lead you to other studies that demonstrate how flawed those studies are. "Gay marriage" is an attempt to corrupt the very foundation of marriage and open marriage up to the distorted understanding of relationships that are prevalent in the "gay community" - relationships where partners must accept unfaithfulness as normal and even healthy, relationships that do not last for more than a couple of years, and relationships fraught with more violence and abuse than heterosexual marriages.

Sally Lu - You are deceiving yourself if you think that your conscience and morality had any foundation in atheistic or humanist principles. They are a product of a religious heritage - even though you may not be religious - that is the source of human morality. Sam Harris (atheist neuroscientist) and Steven Pinker (atheist linguist/neuroscientist) both have tried to formulate a morality based on atheistic principles and found out how impossible it is. (Though they would not admit it.) There is no basis for morality in a strictly atheistic world.

Sarah is gay... face it.

Yeah she seems pretty happy........oh you meant that as an insult..............so even if she is that would affect you how?

When you look at the hard facts about "gay relationships" there is an inherent instability, irresponsibility and irrationality within it to indicate that it does cause harm.

Christians have the highest rate of divorce and infidelity in America.

Therefore we should ban Christian marriage.

Jeff Henderson: I have been harmed by a hetrosexual relationship, as I'm sure millions of people have been affected by divorce. My parents divorced when I was one and I never heard from my mother again until I was in my twenties.

So since so many people have been actually "harmed" by hetrosexual marriages, maybe we should just ban marriage. Period.

And btw, I'd love to see your stats on gay marriages being "more abusive, unstable and more likely to be unfaithful. That sounds like numbers from over 50% of the hetrosexual marriages.

Sally Lu: Something tells me "mintjulip" is coming from a place where there are baptist churches on every street corner...how could they be expected to think any other way when it is all they know?

Homie if that was supposed to be an insult - it reflects on your lack of moral integrity

@lolfatty and @Debi --- As BAD as Christian marriage now is - divorce rate of 50% or so, it is still monumentally better than so called "gay marriages" and I am using statistics and studies from gay publications. Yes Christian marriages are bad - mostly due to the so-called "no-fault"divorce laws but also due to a corrosion of fundamental values and it hurt you Debi. It hurt me as well. And unfortunately I see it hurt my children - since I am divorced (wife achieved no-fault divorce). That is a shame and we should work to fix the marriage issue - but "gay marriage" is a whole different creature - and they intend for it to be. Heterosexual marriages 75% last 15+ years. "Gay marriages" only 15% last 12 years. Those are the hard numbers.

For numbers on Domestic Violence check out: "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs: 30; "Intimate Partner Violence," Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report:11.

Jeff, I'm sorry, I'm laughing out loud.

relationships where partners must accept unfaithfulness as normal and even healthy, relationships that do not last for more than a couple of years, and relationships fraught with more violence and abuse than heterosexual marriages

Proof please. I've known gay people who have been in committed, monogamous relationships for over 20 years. And there isn't any beating going on.

@lolfatty and @Debi --- As BAD as Christian marriage now is - divorce rate of 50% or so, it is still monumentally better than so called "gay marriages" and I am using statistics and studies from gay publications. Yes Christian marriages are bad - mostly due to the so-called "no-fault"divorce laws but also due to a corrosion of fundamental values and it hurt you Debi. It hurt me as well. And unfortunately I see it hurt my children - since I am divorced (wife achieved no-fault divorce). That is a shame and we should work to fix the marriage issue - but "gay marriage" is a whole different creature - and they intend for it to be. Heterosexual marriages 75% last 15+ years. "Gay marriages" only 15% last 12 years. Those are the hard numbers.

If you had the stomach to follow through with your chain of logic, you'd realize this would mean we should ban any type of marriage except the ones with the best divorce statistics. But the last I checked that's not how it works and means nearly everyone would be banned from getting married.

To "Homie D Clown" who wrote "Sarah is gay":

Seriously dude? Really? All you have to contribute is what you consider to be an insult? First of all, she's straight. Second, she's very open-minded and cares about social justice for ALL, unlike you, apparently. Third, calling someone "gay" is no longer the insult that society used to think of it as. I could just as easily call you "straight", but I could be so wrong, since I (thankfully) do not know you. Also, if you are indeed gay yourself, and I called you straight, you might just as easily take offense to that remark.

Basically, you fail at being a decent human being. It's sad you have to attack Sarah because you simply do not agree with her. That makes her 1000X a better person than you could hope to be.

Jeff: Would you mind citing the publications so we can read this evidence ourselves?

Jeff Henderson - As BAD as Christian marriage now is - divorce rate of 50% or so, it is still monumentally better than so called "gay marriages" and I am using statistics and studies from gay publications.

Massachusetts has had same sex marriage the longest, and consequently has by far the lowest divorce rate in the country.

In sharp contrast, the bible-babble belt has the highest divorce rate.

"Gay marriages" only 15% last 12 years.

Since gay marriage has only been legal in this country for less than 10 years, how can ANY of them last 12 years? You can claim that gay relationships are unstable. Aren't heterosexual relationships involving unmarried people also "unstable"?

As for your claims about partner violence, infidelity, etc..., we don't deny individuals rights just because others misbehave. By your logic, we should lock up all priests because some of them are child molesters.

@Enough - and @lolfatty -- I do not find any of this humorous. Yes there are rare "gay couples" but they are very rare in comparison to heterosexual couples. The facts stand for themselves. The difference in domestic violence is a rate of 50 times more likely in a gay relationship than in a heterosexual relationship (.26 (hetero) percent women to 11.4 percent (lesbian) - men being abused .05 to 15.4). That is not 100% - but indicates there is a vast difference in the quality of the relationships experienced.

As far as length of relationships and sexual fidelity in marriage commitments the numbers for "gay couples" are in a completely different "ballpark" than the numbers for heterosexual marriages (which certainly need improvement).

@lolfatty - I am not saying numbers alone should be used - but these tell me there is more at work behind the scenes and there is some inherent damage caused by what is purported to be a normal healthy "gay relationship". If it were equivalent to heterosexual marriage (just with two people of the same sex - we would think the numbers would be equivalent. Since the number are off, and monumentally off, that tells me there is something wrong there, or at least we should explore the possibility that something is not right there. Isn't that logical?

Debi - much of the evidence can be seen collectively at the website for the family research council. I know it is a conservative site, but I have check out several of the studies they cite and ALL have checked out as accurate and they are not faking numbers.

@Barry - the gay numbers are called marriage but would be better to have been called "committed relationships" - since marriage has not been used, but the numbers cited are from sources like a survey conducted by Parade magazine and several publications catering to the homosexual community as well as books written about their experiences.

Debi - much of the evidence can be seen collectively at the website for the family research council. I know it is a conservative site, but I have check out several of the studies they cite and ALL have checked out as accurate and they are not faking numbers.

The family research council? That's a good one.

I do not find any of this humorous. Yes there are rare "gay couples" but they are very rare in comparison to heterosexual couples. The facts stand for themselves. The difference in domestic violence is a rate of 50 times more likely in a gay relationship than in a heterosexual relationship (.26 (hetero) percent women to 11.4 percent (lesbian) - men being abused .05 to 15.4). That is not 100% - but indicates there is a vast difference in the quality of the relationships experienced.

50 times more likely? How about some real numbers. Do you have any idea how common actual sexual assaults against females by heterosexual males are? Domestic and otherwise?

Jeff, where is your proof??? Where can we find the source of your information??

sheepdog - research a little bit - given the ignorance you claim - it is amazing you think yourself qualified to have an opinion.

lol - I have cited sources with links to studies - give me some that differ from my evidence.

A link to your sources, Jeff...any link...please. I shouldn't have to go out and validate your claims. You are the one making them. You should be backing them up. And sorry, but the family research council does not count. I am looking for non-biased, non-partisan sources. If you are unable to back up your numbers here, I will continue to view your statistics as...well...a load of hooey.

Jeff Henderson -

The numbers you are giving match none of the reports from the CDC, the National Women's Survey, or the peer-reviewed research out there on intimate partner violence. So, yeah, what are the original sources of these statistics? I'd be glad to look them up.

Also, did you actually make the point that heterosexual women are abused more than lesbians? And if so, are you not arguing against your very own point with those stats?

Ex-Gay Says Homosexuality Caused By His Emotional Trauma Starting at Age 6:
Author and AIDS victim Jerry Arterburn said: "I was involved in the homosexual world as a blatant attempt to obtain the affection from other men that I did not receive from my own father." (from his autobiography "How Will I Tell My Mother?")
Due to his sensitive nature, he was more deeply affected than most boys when his own father rejected him early in life. Without a loving father figure, he yearned for affection from other boys by the age of six. His yearning became sexualized at puberty. He said being abused or severely neglected in childhood was "too common a thread to ignore" in the gay community and his female mannerisms were due to his mother, his only role model. He was NOT born gay.

Ex-Gay Says Homosexuality Caused by Emotional Trauma at Age 8:
"Like many who struggle with same-sex attractions, the early years of my life were filled with pain and confusion. When I was 8 years old my parents divorced. This single event was the turning point. For the next 12 years my life would be marked by rejection, estrangement, isolation, abuse, insecurity, and fear....What I did not realize for the first half of my life was that my struggle with same-sex attraction WAS BORN OUT OF A LEGITIMATE HUNGER FOR LOVE, AFFIRMATION, IDENTITY, AND SECURITY." (D. Berryessa, ex-gay)

Gay Suicides INCREASE in Gay-Friendly Nations:

Being supportive of the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians does not require a belief in the false notion that people are born gay. They are not. Homosexuality is caused by emotional trauma - from childhood neglect, abuse, or any number of traumatic causes.

If we love someone, we want to see them healed (from the emotional trauma connected to the homosexual feelings), not see them get married.

In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been accepted for quite awhile now, has seen no decrease in gay suicide - in fact, some studies show an increase.

Homosexuality Caused By Emotional Trauma as Early as 4 Years Old: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2009): "One half of the victims...often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences...The age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10."

Homosexuality Linked to Emotional Trauma Says Medical Studies - a SEVENFOLD Increase: W.C. Holmes, MD said: "Abused [male] adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual..."

Homosexuality NOT Fixed in All Individuals - 200 People DID Change!

"Like most psychiatrists I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue - some people can and do change."

(Archives of Sexual Behavior 2003: 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation)

Lesbian Scientist Says 'Born Gay' Concept is UNSCIENTIFIC:
Lesbian activist and biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling, referring to the "born gay" argument, said: "It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics."

Sexual Identity Confusion (Transgenderism, Homosexuality) Caused by Emotional Trauma: Peter Dimrock (MSW) said: "Many men who were sexually abused (especially those abused by other men), are confused about their sexual/affectional preference." (The National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization (NOMSV) website)

@Siobhan - You must have missed the decimal point - abuse for heterosexual women is 0.26% compared to 11.4% for lesbian relationships. Pay attention and try to keep up.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994) 31% of lesbians experienced physical abuse

Journal of Social Science Service Research 15 (1991) more than 50% reported psychological and/or physical abuse by their partner

Men who Beat the Men who Love Them: Battered Gay men and Domestic Violence (1991) estimates domestic violence in gay men is over double that of the rest of the population

US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs "Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence" July 2000 2-3 times the number of rapes/sexual assaults and/or stalking among same-sex partners as per heterosexual partners

Does not matter where facts come from - if they are true - they should be addressed.

@Siobhan - You must have missed the decimal point - abuse for heterosexual women is 0.26% compared to 11.4% for lesbian relationships. Pay attention and try to keep up.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994) 31% of lesbians experienced physical abuse

Journal of Social Science Service Research 15 (1991) more than 50% reported psychological and/or physical abuse by their partner

Men who Beat the Men who Love Them: Battered Gay men and Domestic Violence (1991) estimates domestic violence in gay men is over double that of the rest of the population

US Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs "Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence" July 2000 2-3 times the number of rapes/sexual assaults and/or stalking among same-sex partners as per heterosexual partners

Does not matter where facts come from - if they are true - they should be addressed.

Christians have the highest rate of divorce and infidelity in America.

Therefore we should ban Christian marriage.

Lolfattynerdywhoknew: Gays have the highest rates for HIV.

Therefore, we should ban gays from having sex.

Sarah-3043284:

Equal protection, privacy, freedom from religion, and gender, are.

You got that incorrect - it is freedom of religion. Natural Law is the basis of the USA. A person is free to believe or not to believe in a higher being. To choose or not to choose.

You got that incorrect - it is freedom of religion.

But in order to have freedom OF religion, there must be freedom from religion. For example, if I choose to be Catholic (minus the altar boy fondling) and a Baptist tells me that my Christianity is flawed, I can tell him to piss up a rope. If I were Lutheran and a Methodist tells me I'm a second cousin to a Catholic, I can inform him of the anatomically impossible action he can take. If I choose to practice Santeria and a Moslem tells me I'm in the wrong religion, I can slaughter a live pig and offer him some. If I choose Buddhism and a Jew attempts to send me to the mohel, I can lift my jerry-can and say "mazel tov" as I self-immolate.

Or I could choose as my religion the option of NO religion. That's the freedom I have to choose. I can choose a religion for myself, or can choose to be free from a religion.

Homer -

You just disagreed with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Your are wrong, they are right. Take your argument up with them.

Unhappy - the highest AIDS population is heterosexual women between the age of 25 and 35.

Do you really stoop to Family Research Council data mining? Are you not aware that they have been officially listed as a hate crimes organization? Yep, right alongside the good ole KKK. Right where they belong.

And several states tried to ban same-sex sex, but those state laws were ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas.

"There is no basis for morality in a strictly atheistic world."

Morality isn't a religious concept alone, being religious doesn't always make one moral and religious fanatics have been well known to doing very immoral things to enforce and maintain their morality on others.

Jeff Henderson,

Those statistics for heterosexual individuals aren't even remotely close to hundreds of reports and studies that have been put recently and over the years. Are you not even trying to hide the fact that you or your sources are making up data?

Lol.. .26% of heterosexual women? Even someone who knew nothing of the stats on abuse would know that stat is BS. I'm pretty sure there are more cases in the media than would add up to .26% of abuse against heterosexual women.

P.S. I actually do research on relationship maintenance behaviors, which includes mate-guarding and intimate partner violence. So, I'd be more than glad to debate this point with you based on actual studies and real sources with you.

Homer Adams -You got that incorrect - it is freedom of religion.

Homer, you might want to get up to speed on the last 100 years of jurisprudence. Freedom of religion necessarily entails freedom from religion. See cases like Torcaso v Watkins.

Natural Law is the basis of the USA.

That depends on what you mean by "Natural Law". If you're referring to the uppercase "Natural Law" of Catholicism, then that's definitely not the basis for our laws which are primarily rooted in English common law.

the gay numbers are called marriage but would be better to have been called "committed relationships" - since marriage has not been used, but the numbers cited are from sources like a survey conducted by Parade magazine and several publications catering to the homosexual community as well as books written about their experiences.

It is extremely misleading to compare "committed relationships" against legal marriages. A lot of heterosexuals will also be in a "committed relationship" for a few years when they're younger before they move on to marriage with someone else (or perhaps another committed relationship). If you factor all of those into your statistics, I doubt that even 15% will last 12 years.

Surveys by Parade Magazine and unnamed "publications catering to the gay community" are hardly scientific.

If you'd like some real stats on intimate partner violence in gay and straight relationships, here's a good article. It's a review article looking at intimate partner violence directed toward straight and gay men. It compiles evidence from over 90 studies published since 1999 in peer-reviewed journals.

Nowinkski & Bowen (2012). Partner violence against heterosexual gay men: Prevalence and correlates. Aggression and Violent Behavior.

Overall, what they found is that generally heterosexual men and homosexual men had similiar rates of intimate partner violence, though it seemed to depend on how IPV was measured -- in some studies, homosexual men were higher, in some cases heterosexual men were higher. It also depended on what kind of abuse was being measured. Highest incidence rates indicated that homosexual men were more likely to suffer from sexual abuse, whereas heterosexual men were more like to suffer from physical abuse. As for psychological abuse, they were about the same. In general however, incidence rates of IPV directed at homosexual men vs. heterosexual men were very similiar -- studies which found differences, generally only found small differences.

Furthermore, the researchers point out that one of the problems with studies on male-male IPV or female-female IPV is that they often look at lifetime prevalence rates of abuse, but don't ask them to indicate whether the relationships they experienced the abuse in were homosexual or heterosexual relationships (as a signfiicant portion of homosexual individuals have had heterosexual relationships at some point in their lives, particularly earlier in their lives). Here's a quote from the paper:
"Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of those studies which focused on the prevalence of IPV within male same-gender relationships. First, not all studies specified whether lifetime experience of IPV could include a previous heterosexual relationship. This may be misleading, as Tjaden and Thoennes (2000a) found that although 23.1% of gay men reported abuse at the hands of a partner, when the sex of the partner was considered, it appeared that only 15.4% were victimized by a male partner. Therefore, when lifetime measures are used, it may be that participants, who now identify themselves as gay, were once a member of a heterosexual partnership."

Thus, many studies are actually overestimating abuse prevalence in gay relationships because they are not actually asking participants to indicate whether or not the abuse occurred in homosexual relationship or a heterosexual relationship. If so, given how close homosexual and heterosexual abuse prevalence was found to be, once you account for these things, it may suggest that abuse in gay relationships may be significantly lower than abuse directed at men in heterosexual relationships.

Either way, the evidence does not point to this huge difference between abuse in gay relationships vs. straight relationships (at least insofar as abuse directed at men). In fact, they are similiar. So, try again there, Jeff.

Convert:

Q3 - the LGBT community always said it was about equal rights. most states have passed laws accommodating their wishes by allowing visitation in hospitals, right of survival with regard to property, adoption etc. So, is it really about rights or is it really a question of forcing your disgusting lifestyle in the faces of others? I think we all know the answer.

Yes we know the answer. Apparently you don't because the answer is "rights". Gay people are already legally allowed to practice their lifestyle. Sodomy laws don't exist in most states. SO maybe you are a little behind on legislation. It wouldn't surprise me since you have deluded yourself into believing your opinions are gospel. You know what I THINK is disgusting? Hateful, spiteful, self righteous people who claim to be religious but cannot practice the teachings of Jesus. And by your logic, because I think it then it must make it true.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in February that the ban discriminated against gays and lesbians and served no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians." It rejected the key argument by ban supporters that Prop 8 furthered "responsible procreation."

LMFAO - Please I am begging you. Would the opposers of gay marriage please find a new tune to sing??? Are they too stupid to realize that these arguments about the sanctity of marriage and responsible procreation have zero credibility until they start screaming just as loudly for the ban of divorce, adultery, unwed mothers and baby-daddy's with children from multiple mothers? The day we start enforcing mandatory chemical birth control or criminalizing premarital sex, THEN they can start spouting that nonsense again!

Face it - the sanctity of marriage disappeared when all of the above listed things were not squashed by the gov't years ago. Morality is no longer a valid argument because 1) we have freedom of religion in this country which means you can't cater to the ideals of religious organizations and 2) you can't cherry pick when and how you will enforce morals. As someone said earlier in this thread, our laws are based on consent and what actions are causing harm to others. Although they align with certain Christian ideals they are not exclusive to religious teachings.

On a side note - bagdadjob - The issue with polygamy isn't merely based on morality. There are proven scientific and genetic issues with allowing such a practice. Gay people can't procreate with each other but polygamists can and the tradition of one man/multiple wives can lead to a finite supply of different DNA in the future. If it becomes a majority practice then how will you eventually be able to spread the genes apart? It's a question of mathematics vs. debatable opinions from Christian groups. One can be proven, one is still being disputed. BIG DIFFERENCE!

I think you make a lot of sense. If DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, and it's left up to states to decide, for states that do allow gay marriage, where does that leave married gay couples in terms of their FEDERAL rights and responsibilities as far as marriage goes?

Currently, you are not allowed those federal rights and responsibililties because of DOMA.

Currently, you are not allowed those federal rights and responsibililties because of DOMA.

Didn't they strike that down as unconstitutional like last week?

Didn't they strike that down as unconstitutional like last week?

It was struck down in the first circuit, but it hasn't yet been challenged at the Supreme Court level. Just going through one of the lower courts is a step in the right direction but not quite enough.

It was struck down in the first circuit, but it hasn't yet been challenged at the Supreme Court level. Just going through one of the lower courts is a step in the right direction but not quite enough.

Hm. So how do those circuit rulings work then? Is it stuck down unless SCOTUS rules otherwise? Or does it effectively just kick it upstairs?

federal circuit courts have jurisdiction over their geographic area, not nationally. So its very complicated on a subject like this where there is so much divergence of "local" law.

Federal circuit courts have the final say UNLESS the parties to a case are successfull in getting an appeal heard in a higher court.

Federal Circuit courts do hear and resolve national level issues - it's only those that are sucessfully appealed where they can potentially be over-ridden.

Let the states be the final word.

Gabe: and while we're at it, let's let the states be the final word on racial equality and on women's rights and on and on and on.

These #3 responses are highly informative. It's so nice to see this kind of exchange rather than the vitriol that all too often happens.

Gabriel-1934044 - Let the states be the final word.

The bigots in the south would love for that to be the case. Unfortunately for them, all persons have federal civil rights - like equal protection of the law.

The same argument used in the 60's by the likes of George Wallace in Alabama on civil rights. There comes a time when the Federal Government must step in and say for the sake of all enough is enough. It is about equal protection under the law for everyone no matter what state they live in.

Federal government has no say in marriage. Marriage is not a right.

Homie D Clown - Federal government has no say in marriage. Marriage is not a right.

The US supreme court disagrees with you on both points.

"Born Gay" Concept is UNSCIENTIFIC
Gay activist and scientist Simon LeVay said: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."
"Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality".

We need something like that in NY. It was a known fact, that no one in this state got to vote on gay rights, but the legislature decided to do that for us. I wonder if it is too late for an appeal?

Why do you call yourself "True LGBT-(+ meaningless string of numbers)"?

Are you an "ex-gay" who learned everything you spouted in between behavior therapy?

What the @!$%# do you know?

Regardless, learning from personal experience -- sexuality is innate... not something learned, not caused by enviroment or upbringing and no one would choose to be something that has been shunned and hated throughout history, especially around people who think like you.

And Unhappy-(+ meaningless string of numbers), civil rights shouldn't be put up for majority vote, otherwise the only ones having rights in the US are white, hetrosexual, Christian men.

We need something like that in NY. It was a known fact, that no one in this state got to vote on gay rights, but the legislature decided to do that for us. I wonder if it is too late for an appeal?

The fact that you used "vote" and "rights" in the same sentence and feel you were supposed to influence these rights shows your distinct lack of understanding of the Constitution and its intended protections, as well as the fact of this nation being a Constitutional Republic, not a strict Democracy.

Aug,

It's actually a computer generated automatic response used by NOM.

I wonder if it is too late for an appeal?

@unhappy, an appeal on what grounds? Anyway, why? Same-sex marriage has been legal in NYS for almost a full year now. Please name some of the terrible things that have happened as a result. Did heterosexuals break off their engagements? Did happily married couples get a divorce? Come on, now, give us the details!

They already have been. Every time that a judge (no matter how stricly constitutional or strictly conservative he/she is) decides something that is contrary to thier narrow minded bigotry.

Another lie made up by gay activists? If NY had that option of appealing, then you would not be talking like you do right now. Nobody in NY got to vote on that which is why it's time to vote the democrats out!

NY DID NOT GET TO VOTE ON GAY RIGHTS!

TIME TO VOTE THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE!

Ruken:

Are you stating if a person disagrees with the ruling of a Court, that person is a Bigot? Do you mean only for this matter?

An activist judge" is usually defined as one who creates law rather than applies the current law(s).

NY DID NOT GET TO VOTE ON GAY RIGHTS!

I didn't get to vote on my state's sales tax increase a couple of years ago. Can I appeal it? I also didn't get to vote on about a thousand other pieces of legislation, including some that directly affected me. Can I appeal?

NY DID NOT GET TO VOTE ON GAY RIGHTS!

You don't get the right to vote on the civil rights of others.

Oh hey look! It's another poster who has no idea on what principles this country was founded on.

See #6.1 for my response.

Jayd, what if a majority of the people voted that murder was not a crime? What if a majority of the people voted that slavery was legal? Majority vote does not necessarily equal constitutionality.

Tyranny is denying basic human rights to a group of people based solely on bigotry.

The "will of the people" doesn't supercede the Constitution. If it did, why would we need a Constitution to guarantee our rights, since our rights would be subject to the whim of the public?

"The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - MLK Jr.

I just keep repeating. It's so true.

proudamericanveteran

This is why liberals hate democracy.

This is why conservatives love bestiality.

This is why liberals love incest. They have no other reasons not to allow it, but somehow they still think it is wrong.

Good luck with that reasoning, Hypocrites!

Um, incest can cause birth defects and infect the gene pool?

Good luck with your education, Unhappy!

Keep passing unconsitutional laws based upon religion and this is what you will get, time after time after time.

If it were a "democratic" process. The the will of the people who support Prop 8 and amend the Constitution of the State of California would have been upheld.

Jayd, that's why he put "democracy" in quotes; because it isn't one.

Jayd- Then all one would have to do is wait 4 years, as all those young people who have nothing against gay marriage come of age to vote, and have an election again. and then the anti-gay marriage people will want yet another election, and on and on.

That's why no one should vote on RIGHTS.

jayd1958

If it were a "democratic" process. The the will of the people who support Prop 8 and amend the Constitution of the State of California would have been upheld.

I've never had a knock on the door from a couple of nicely-dressed individuals trying to convince me that I need male-on-male sex to get into heaven.

Perhaps you should be prepared for the day when religious "rights" can be stripped away by the majority of Americans who might feel that all religions are cults; people tired of being bombarded by the story of Jesus and his flying Reindeer with an insane, accelerating fervor.

Rick - so your minority gay beliefs trump the beliefs of those who hold a majority counter opinion?

Hmmm...

Homie,

In a word: Yes. Because Rick's "minority gay beliefs" are an inclusive belief based on civil rights and equal treatment. The "majority counter opinion" is exclusive and prejudiced; those thing are an impetus to equality.

Jawbone - marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract. Do you require marriage to live? It's not a human right.

It has been repeated over and over, not just on this board, but every time there is a story about same-sex marriage. To the point that I just went a copied it from another poster's comments: vermontguy said, "SCOTUS ruled, in Loving vs virginia, that marriage IS a fundamental right."

And what's with messing up my name? Did I show you that sort of disrespect? Not to mention, your's is just a nom de plume.

Homie D Clown, SCOTUS disagreed with you in Loving v Virginia stating that marriage is a right of all citizens. Try reading a bit before typing.

Homie D Clown

Rick - so your minority gay beliefs trump the beliefs of those who hold a majority counter opinion?

Hmmm...

Beliefs are yours to hold, opinions yours to share; but rights are not for the majority or minority, Clown; they're for everybody. That's something conservatives used to believe too.

Homie D Clown

Jawbone - marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract. Do you require marriage to live? It's not a human right.

Quite the contrary; marriage is the oldest, most basic of human rights. Using your logic, any and all marriages could be nullified by majority rule: straight, gay, interracial, or any combination the "majority" deemed inappropriate.

Jayd ... a state can not amend its constitution, not matter what the voting majority, if it violates the US Constitution. We're a republic, not a democracy.

As a Californian as well, yes its infuriating. This is what happens when money crosses states. If you keep the voting populace 'engaged' in these trivial issues, then the real toxic policy that effects everyone is easier to get through federally and not noticed until its too late.

CaliforniaFirst - I'm sorry, but irrespective of where we all stand on marriage equality, as far as I'm concerned this is a sovereignty issue now.

California used to ban mixed-race marriage. Should that issue have been decided by California alone?

What if Perez v Sharp had ruled to uphold the anti-miscegenation law?

I can sympathize with the frustration at having out of state hate groups like NOM interfering in CA law, but really this is a national issue of equal treatment. NOM is just on the wrong side of history.

Homie - #1 It is not a disease. Every major health organization in the country has affirmed this.

#2 You apparently think it is a choice - It is not. You can not find one person (if they are being honest about it) that can tell you they chose to be either a homosexual or a heterosexual. It is not a choice. The opposition, hatred and Unchristian approach of conservatives on this subject is based entirely on this assumption.

Skrekk, Civil Rights (defined by race) is Federalized as an issue and has been, constitutionally speaking, for a long time - since after the ratification of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution in 1868, even if courts didn't start ruling on it until only half a century ago. It is now settled law. In CA's case, in 1948, the state legislature made us the first state in the country to repeal a miscegenation law since 1881, after the CA STATE Supreme court found against it in Perez v Sharp, not the US Supreme Court, and both Perez and Sharp were Californians.. not a DC-based not-for-profit run by Virginians and Jerseyites.

Unfortunately, gay marriage is not (yet) Constitutionally protected. Not only is it not protected as a matter of settled law, it isn't protected at all. It is perfectly logical to me that some Californians - who feel their natural human rights (although not yet protected by law) are being violated - want to test this in the courts. That seems fair and logical to me. NOM"s engagement is, however, not. As far as I'm concerned, NOM is just interfering with our state's internal affairs.

CaliforniaFirst - In CA's case, in 1948, the state legislature made us the first state in the country to repeal a miscegenation law since 1881, after the CA STATE Supreme court found against it in Perez v Sharp, not the US Supreme Court

That was precisely my point - had the Perez v Sharp ruling gone the other way, would you still claim that this should be a state's rights issue?

Civil Rights (defined by race) is Federalized as an issue

So is gender. The state has no more legitimate interest in the race of your spouse than it does the gender of your spouse. And like racial discrimination, gender discrimination is subject to heightened scrutiny by a court.

Also, civil rights are not just about race. The civil rights issue being violated in gay marriage bans is equal protection.

Unfortunately, gay marriage is not (yet) Constitutionally protected. Not only is it not protected as a matter of settled law, it isn't protected at all.

Neither is straight marriage. However, SCOTUS does view marriage itself as a basic civil right due all persons, just like equal protection.

The bottom line for me is that while I don't agree with hate groups like NOM, they certainly have the right to advocate their position in CA or any other state. Just like AFER, HRC and other marriage equality advocacy groups do.

I was thinking the same thing. Gay marriage is currently illegal, but over 50% of babies are born out of wedlock. How is preventing a biologically infertile couple from obtaining visitation and inheritance rights going to fix the teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock problems?

What gets me are those families who kick out kids like a factory but can't even care for them. People are getting so scared of what they think same-sex couples may/may not do that people are not looking at the heterosexuals that are already destroying what they are claiming is sacred.

Gay Americans do live the lives they want, without marriage.

Silly Rabbit...

They don't find divorce as "yucky".

The same reason they don't picket Red Lobster: because they pick and choose which of God's immutable laws they follow.

i had a bacon cheeseburger the other day. I'm clearly going to burn in hell for mixing dairy and meat together. :) (but I had a kosher pickle!)

Dude, I'm screwed too. Wearing a cotton-poly blend.

I planted the seed from two different plants together in my garden, You mean I'm for it as well??

I planted the seed from two different plants together in my garden, You mean I'm for it as well??

ABOMINATION!!!!!!!

Had to give all of y'all thumbs up. Too, too funny!

I killed my son today when he was disobedient, as Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires.

(actually I didn't do it myself, I had the village elders stone him to death)

Homie,

I'm doubting that you got educated.

This is for Sarah-3043284, who seems to have a lot to say on the issue.

I as a Christian am opposed to gay marriage. I don't condone the abuse from Christians against the gay community but I also don't appreciate the utter hate and condemnation from some gay activists against my fellow Christians. As a Christian it is our obligation to spread God's word. You don't have to like it or agree with it but it is our duty to spread it. All of it, not just the good parts. We too, have freedom of speech.

Now also as a Christian I understand that it is not logical to ban gay marriage as there must be a separation of state and religion. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I do not hate gay people. Some of the most delightful people I've known have been gay. But I do pray for their salvation on a daily basis because at the end of the day, if a person sins against God and doesn't not repent their soul is sent to hell. And that is any sin not just homosexuality. I am a sinner. Humans are sinful. We must ask for forgiveness for them or risk damning our soul.

I can appreciate the want to be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law for tax/hospital/death/division of property reasons. However before I am a citizen of the US I am a Christian and servant of God. So His wants supercedes my own. He says it is immoral therefore I will follow his direction. Just as with any law he makes, I may stray because that is human nature but I repent. That is where the issue stands. Repenting. My moral compass is directed by God's will. I may taint it sometimes with my own selfish ways but I try to be Chrislike in everything I do and when I am not, I repent.

What I DO NOT appreciate and refuse to tolerate are your nasty comments towards those who do not agree with you. Your remarks against Christians are JUST as bad as some Christian's views towards gay marriage. Making you look just as bad as they are making themselves look.

You can get your point across without being hateful to Christians just as Christians can get their point across without judging anyone. I do not judge anyone. I am not perfect. I do not claim to be. I do try to treat others the way I want to be treated. I also will continue to pray for mankind, myself included, that we may follow God in all aspects of our lives.

uh oh, i ate shellfish.......

so where is "your logic" lets have some logic? you say you pary for everyone who you don't agree with, but did they ask you too, and when did god come down and teel you it was your job to spread your religious beliefs on others who may believe in their own reliogious beliefs. shut up ok! god is not happy with what you are doing , i am sure of it. and when you meet him , he will be the first to aks you why, how and who told you too do so!

Jesus said " If you can not love your neighbor whom you can see - how can you say you love God whom you can not see". Sure are a lot of people (who claim to love God) doing a lot of hating against their neighbor.

Let's have some logic - I as a Christian am opposed to gay marriage.

Are you aware that your Jesus was a gay dude who was himself denied the right to marry his one true love, John? There's a reason Jesus violated the Talmudic obligation for a rabbi to marry, and a reason why Jesus ordered his mother to treat John as her son-in-law.

But the real question is why do you think your Christian sharia laws should be enforced by the government, and imposed on people who aren't members of your cult? In particular, since there are many Christian sects which do recognize same-sex marriage and perform religious weddings for gays, why should the government enforce the religious views of bigoted sects like yours? Shouldn't the government just treat marriage as the secular legal contract it is, and let each religious cult decide for itself whether to recognize it?

Let's have some logic:

"He says it is immoral therefore I will follow his direction."

Your moral beliefs do not apply in this country.

If gays began their own religion and their "god" said he wanted them to marry, whose "god" trumps? That's why your beliefs cannot be deemed more important than anyone elses.

Everyone has the right to equality and people need to keep their "beliefs" to their own person. If you have to "spread" something, why not love, compassion and understanding.

I'm just wondering where it was, I so vociferously insulted Christians or Christianity? WTF? Can you quote where I was hateful?

But anyhoo, let's try to apply the "but for" test, shall we? BUT FOR, Christians using their religion to deny basic rights to my fellow citizen's, would I have anything to say to them or about them?

Let's have some logic, I think Sarah already beat me to it,... but there's a key difference here. Even if some of us who support same-sex marriage equality display contempt for Christians, we are NOT advocating they be given unequal treatment under the law. The Christians, even those who are as nice and sweet and affable as can be, but who vote against recognition of civil same-sex marriage, are advocating unequal and inferior rights under the law for same-sex couples. Do not kid yourself that the two groups are morally equivalent.

SURPRISE: There are a lot of marriages without children. It is not a requisite nor should it be considered a factor in the union of two loving people. In fact it should not even be considered as an argument for it is such a moot point. You do not have to announce your bias, it comes through loud and clear with your tenuous defense. This is about as civil as i can get when approached by such a ridiculous platform to support a marriage ban. No sense in being nasty as the churches have cornered that side of any discussion.

actually, SCOTUS ruled, in Loving vs virginia, that marriage IS a fundamental right.

I have to disagree with your view with how same-sex parents creates a twist like with abusive parents. I have a few friends and family members who are "married" to the same-sex and have children. Guess what? Those children grew up as normal as you, know right and wrong, and have stable OPPOSITE-sex relationships. In my opinion, there is more instability in heterosexual marriages than the fear of what homosexual marriages may/may not create. You have families (like the Duggars) who are kicking out kids every year, but fail to take responsibility for them and leaving it to other family members/society to care for them. True, same-sex couples can't have kids, but do you realize how many children are out there that don't have families and are on the streets in our country and abroad? If same-sex couples want children, they are giving these kids a chance at life without them worrying about dying on the streets. It's better to first worry about the heterosexual problem with our influences on children than worrying about what homosexuals will do when they adopt kids or fail to kick out a few of their own.

Your concept of the 'nucluar' family is the false construct. In cultures throughout history, a vast wealth of support from nannies, grandparents, other wives, and communities have all raised children for centuries. The idea that it must be a father and mother is relatively new, and mostly American.

I was raised by a single mother with an extended family. My brother and I were raised right with good morals and a strong character. That is what benefits society, not your upbringing pedigree.

First off, no has the right to marry, the only reason why people care about that now is the gay marriage issue.

Second, the reason why I believe society will suffer is that they can't have children. Sure, they can adopt, but they can't provide the proper role models that a child needs, the role of a mother and a father, and the child will need that when he/she starts a family. Families are the main unit of society, and there are many examples of what happens when the family becomes twisted, like with abusive parents. Now, I certainly believe gay parents are not abusive and can be very loving towards their children, but it is another twist on the family and, I say with bias, the cheap imitation of one.

1) Marriage is a right - as determined by NUMEREOUS court cases where precedence has been set as such.

2) Your entire diatribe against same sex couples raising a child is based on your own morals and beliefs (be they religious beliefs or otherwise). You also completely ignore the impact of single parent familes who can't provide the "proper role models that a child needs". How can you ignore that when 'gays' are failing in the exactly same manner per your explanation. You also ignore the thousands of exceedingly terrible and abusive 'normal' families where children are abused and killed - yeah. That's a great thing to ignore... Oh yeah - and how about broken families due to divorce, abandonment, etc. Are they better than gay families too????

By percentage as many if not more gay 'families' with kids that raise thier kids to be as normal as any other kid, with no confusion or problems because of thier parents than happen in straight families. I happen to know a few 'gay' families and you wanna know something? Those kids are growing up just fine and very well adjusted. Probably because these particular gay families are trying harder to insure they raise thier kids right than most 'normal families'.

Your entire arguement is based on how you feel about gays, not on the cold reality of facts.

Alright starlite, you make a good point. Having children is not a requisite for marriage. I guess what I meant to say is they can't naturally have children by having sexual intercourse with each other. Whether that means anything is debateable at best, as well as what anyone can say since it is all based in personal opinion. I only say that I'm biased so that at least I know I have biases I need to keep in check. My biases come from how I was raised and by what church I go to every Sunday, as well as my emotions on the topic in general. As I said before, you have a valid point.

Also, it appears I was wrong about marriage not being a right, I'll have to remember that in the future. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

It is not easy to admit you are wrong. Good for you.

I understand if you don't personally feel that gay marriage is something you like, but to restrict someones rights over your feelings is not what this country stands for.

If our creator whoever that may be meant for same sex to have children it would be so, and to this point it takes the body of a female and the sperm of a male no matter what! The reason same sex couples should not adopt is the child time growing up will be painful because no matter what law is, people will feel the way they feel and have that right, I would not allow my child to spend the night with a friend who had two dads, so on. I would have more respect for these gays if they would publically speak to our teenagers who now play around in the 7th gr. and up, mostly girls, they act and do bi things because they think and boys think its cool, well its not, these children are not mature in mind and will have to live with their memories when they do grow up. I do not like the way this country is going, and its reduces our morals in society. Uganda has it right!

I do not like the way this country is going, and its reduces our morals in society. Uganda has it right!

Yep, because nothing screams MORALS like Uganda. Please screw your head on right before posting.

Oh, and kids in gay households statistically do better than those in straight households. Probably because a gay couple cannot have an "opps" baby and therefore is more financially secure than the average straight parent. Regardless, they don't live a life of pain as you suggest.

Nathaniel Taylor

Hi there, appreciate your comments!

Recent research has shown children benefit from two parents regardless of the sex of these parents. I'll try and find the link if you are interested. The research followed mixed sex and same sex parents and their children for 17 years. They discovered no difference in maturity or psychological outcomes and both groups were well adjusted.

My head is just fine, thank you for caring! I too have rights and its called freedom of speech, wait your not saying you dont care about that constitutional right because it has nothing to do with same sex marriage, come on, I thought you were for a persons rights. No matter what the law is or becomes, people still have the right to feel and say what they feel, I say gays heads are not screwed on right because what? it doesn't coincide with the way I feel, and you say my head is not screwed on right because it does not coincide with the way you feel. Are you getting the picture here?

No matter the outcome of the law, people will still be divided on the gay issue, and both sides should be respected and allowed to be heard. No law can change how we the people as a whole feel, and we should never be silenced! Expecting someone to feel the way you feel is not humanity, except peoples principles on both sides of the isle! By the way, in Uganda the gays are very different, they have spread aids to the unwilling, people with disabilities, the under age, and there is no money to fight the battle of aids there so it is a death sentence for people, they are not finding a partner and sticking to it, research! It is murder! Uganda had to do something to stand up for those who could not!

sorry, accept peoples principles on both sides of the isle!

vrt1968 - No matter the outcome of the law, people will still be divided on the gay issue, and both sides should be respected and allowed to be heard.

Just like both sides should be respected and allowed to be heard on the mixed-race marriage issue, right?

Same thing with letting women and blacks vote.....both sides should be heard and respected.

Nathaniel,

Civil marriage cares about children only as marriage is the mechanism for inheritance that can be overridden by a valid will. Civil marriage otherwise could care less if a marriage can or does generate children. Since mine has not and will not, I suppose you are against my marriage? Before we decide to ban marriage between people of the same gender, can we at least do something about the complete and utter failure of traditional marriage? The divorce rate still hovers areound 50% and children really suffer when their traditional role models turn out to be vindictive, spiteful people who only care about control of the children instead of caring about the children themselves?

You're allowed your freedom of speech, sure. We're allowed our freedom to reply. That's how it works. Welcome to the United States. Enjoy your stay.

"Yep, because nothing screams MORALS like Uganda." - LOL, love it!

I would have more respect for these gays if they would publically speak to our teenagers who now play around in the 7th gr. and up, mostly girls, they act and do bi things because they think and boys think its cool, well its not, these children are not mature in mind and will have to live with their memories when they do grow up.

vrt,

I don't think you realize that these bisexual and homosexual acts have been going on for quite a long time.....say before Jesus Christ was around. It wasn't until the 1970s/80s when homosexuals started to become more public about themselves due to the other civil rights movements going on. But here's the thing, the "rebel" thing kids are going through gets influenced by their parents because lack of communication and education on their part. Other kids do it because they feel more comfortable with the same-sex where it isn't being used as a "rebel" thing. And it's been known to happen with other species of animal as well. But children are always going to go through hell from ages 12 to 18 because they are just starting to find themselves. It doesn't matter if they are with same-sex parents, opposite-sex parents, single father, single mother, grandparents, an aunt, an uncle, or foster parents. It doesn't matter who these kids are being raised by, they are always going to go through spurts of experimenting to learn that what they did was a mistake or the path to finding who they are.

You will have divorce in same sex marriage too! If the law changes, and same sex couples are allowed to marry, I am saying that it should not silence anyone, people will still have the right to say I dont like it, and dont agree with it, just like supporters of gay marriage have the right to say the same thing when the law says a man and a woman, The country will still be divided on their opinions, and this you cant change, the only thing that will change is who can marry!

My wife and I made the conscious decion to not have children. Frankly we like our carefree lifestyle and make much better aunt and uncle. Is our marriage less valid?

Do you have children, You couldn't be further from the truth, this is not kids finding who they are, they are going with what is cool at the time, or what turns on the boy sitting in the back row, this is not ok, they are doing this for all the wrong reasons. I have noticed that the acceptance depends on where you live, such as my kids last school located 2hrs away in Cali had alot of it going on, their new school, does not, the past location was a city that had alot of problems.

No No! You are not understanding this, a man and a woman coincide to reproduce, and it can be a choice not to, or some cannot and want to. With same sex in my opinion their bodies do not give them that choice, because they do not coincide for that purpose. I am not saying that a married couple has to have kids to be right, it is two seperate issures very pure and simple!

vrt1968 - No No! You are not understanding this, a man and a woman coincide to reproduce, and it can be a choice not to, or some cannot and want to. With same sex in my opinion their bodies do not give them that choice, because they do not coincide for that purpose.

So what you're saying is that elderly and infertile couples should also be denied the right to marry, right?

What so many anti-gay people fail to realize is that just because GLBT folks are allowed to get married, doesn't mean your straight "traditional" lives will be impacted in any way/shape/form. Also, to the anti-gays making ridiculous statements like "gays can't have children!" - SO WHAT? They can do everything infertile straight couples do (IVF, adoption, surrogates, etc)! Also, straight people will ALWAYS HAVE BABIES! Gay marriages will not keep straight people from reproducing!!!

Me thinks vrt1968 doth protest a little too much.

I would have more respect for these gays if they would publically speak to our teenagers who now play around in the 7th gr. and up, mostly girls, they act and do bi things because they think and boys think its cool, well its not, these children are not mature in mind and will have to live with their memories when they do grow up.

vrt, Really? I think that statement is hilarious, and here's why. Let's say your kids school brings in a lesbian to discuss the topic as you suggest, do you really think she will tell them anything other than "it is ok to explore your sexuality and figure these things out." I wager that if you found out your childrens' school was bringing in a gay person to speak to the students you would be in the front of the mob protesting that your children were being brainwashed by the homosexuals.

@vrt1968

Wow. Just... wow. However, in the spirit of fair play, let me help you out a little bit: Coincide - you're not using that right.

By the way, in Uganda the gays are very different, they have spread aids to the unwilling, people with disabilities, the under age, and there is no money to fight the battle of aids there so it is a death sentence for people, ...

In Africa, AIDS is primarily transmitted by heterosexuals. So, according to your logic, we should ban heterosexual marriage!

They are already banning hermaphrodites, XXYs and XYYs from getting married at all as none of these would pass the definition of man and woman (that the bigots forgot to put into their legislation).

"Further proof that in America when you lose, cry until you win."

Yeah, just like people did when England wouldn't give us independence, when people wanted to end slavery, when women couldn't get to vote, and when black people wanted to sit at the front of the bus. Damn, whining Americans, always crying until they win. Take away rights that you have because of them, and we'd hear YOU whining from several states away.

I would say its "further proof that in america when people vote for unconstituational laws, there are legal remedies to offset the "tyranny of the majority".

I prefer Vermontguy's response over trolly Nicky.

I still say they should have just put another bill on the ballot rather than photo ops and activism parades.

lance: come on, everyone love a parade. :)

Alright I'll give you that.

bottom line for me: Everyone should have the right to a two person union. but if the word "marriage" signifies a union between a man and a woman, there should be a separate word for same sex other than "Civil Union". With so many different types of descriptions (LGBTQASomgwt*bbq) for a person that links to an interest of the same sex, I don't see why this is an issue.

that's my stance, and I won't change it for anyone. If it turns out the people say, "No, you're wrong, the word "marriage" holds no bounds." I won't cry, because it's what the people want.

for the record, the NC ban on civil unions is insanity.

Lance, do you support Jim Crow laws in general, or just this one?

The SC could easily overturn the 9th Circuit Courts' rulling.They may determine who or what "marriage" is left up to the state as defined by a referrendum in which the people define marriage between a man and a women.Why don't all of you gays and lesbians who want to get married,go to the states that allow it and get married! What's the big deal! This is more about wanting to impose your ways on the "church"! Some way or another,if this ban on gay marriages is overturned and gay marriages are permitted in Mexifornia,some gay or lebanese is going to sue a religious organization because they refused to marry a gay couple.This is all about sueing not marrying.Setting up the groundwork for a lawsuit agianst the Catholic Church! You are mean ,evil and litigious little children who always have to have their way! 1.7% of the population! That's is the percentage gays and lebanese represent in America's population today!1.7%!

And you whin like little spoiled children,all day long!

Shrekk - You are seriously comparing the debate of allowing homosexuals the right to marry IN ONE STATE to segregation laws toward an entire race of people for the ENTIRE US OF A?? Oh that's right, "Separate is never equal". Does this mean if Homosexual Marriage is universally accepted the term LGBT or "straight" will not exist since we are ALL HUMANS??...not heterosexual, not homosexual..homo sapiens?

puhleezzz. Human sociology is all about labeling something or another.

gays and lebanese...

?

What is funny is there is actually proof that same sex marriages were performed by priests in chapels in the 11th century. So the Catholic Church doesn't actually have a leg to stand on, historically.

lancesackless11 - You are seriously comparing the debate of allowing homosexuals the right to marry IN ONE STATE to segregation laws toward an entire race of people for the ENTIRE US OF A??

So far the courts are making the same comparison, since all the rulings have been based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

But apparently you think some Americans should be 2nd-class citizens, and subject to Jim Crow laws. You're no better than the dumb bigots in Virginia 50 years ago.

2nd class citizens??!? Where did I say that, Shrekkie? Quote the passage and enlighten me how stating that because I feel a same sex couple should rightfully have the SAME legal rights and privelidges that comes with a 2 person union but it should have a different type of verbage to describe the union therefore makes me a bigot? Are you really that hung up on a word more than the rights of an individual? What if instead of the word "marriage" the term passesd down from generation to generation to describe a union was "sh*tsuckingjesusf*ckstick". would you be so hard pressed to ensure everyone falls under the same banner?

Save the bigot card for the Presidental election, my friend. That's where the true bigots lie.

better yet, I'll save you the trouble...with all the ways American's slang things, Gay Marriage is just problably going to be shortened to "Garriage" anyway if it becomes the norm. So nothing will change. all sides win and everyone still complains.

and I'm done with this lame story.

Hey folks,

What is the rationale for defining "marriage" as the union of two people. At least heterosexual marriage has support from the science of physiology and biology. There is logic for saying two people, one of each gender, form a natural pair. But a group of "any two people"??? That is totally arbitrary. Why should that have any more status than "any three people" or any other arrangment that some group wants to make?

It seems to me that accepting marriage as "any two people" can be easily changed, and will probably be changed as soon as another socio-political agenda gains power. The likely outcome is that the word "marriage" will soon not have any meaning at all.

lancesackless11 - Quote the passage and enlighten me how stating that because I feel a same sex couple should rightfully have the SAME legal rights and privelidges that comes with a 2 person union but it should have a different type of verbage to describe the union therefore makes me a bigot?

You just did it right there. In fact, having two legally identical contracts each of which is exclusive to different classes of persons would be proof to a court of unlawful bias. There simple is no purpose to having two separate but equal contracts.

Just like there's no purpose to having racially segregated drinking fountains.

Excellent i am applying to marry my cow she is the best and i deserve it, shouldn't we be allowed to be happy too?

The majority if for gay marriage. And as the population ages the support for gay marriage will only increase. And as for "morals" I think we are more moral a nation now than anytime in our history. 200 years ago we were committing genocide against the natives, 150 years ago we were having slavery, 100 years ago women were property of their husbands, 50 years ago we had segregation. I see a distinct trend toward morality in this progression.

We (majority who oppose homosexual marriage) should "let homosexuals be homosexuals".

WRONG. You are no longer the majority on this issue. Live and let live, just like your religion tells you to. (I forgot, you probably cherry picked around that part didn't you?)

The Majority is FOR gay marriage? What polling group took this survey - Disney? The GAP? Subaru?

Try again, EngEsq. NC just proved your comment wrong. And 29 other states feel the same way.

where people voting for unconstitutional principles doesn't matter...as per how the constitution is set up.

America: where the majority can't use the "majority vote" thing to marginalize or suppress a minority. Did a majority want civil rights for blacks? Votes for women? No, they did not, and they would not have voted for those things. And even WHEN Americans do give a majority vote to something, like Obama's election as president, people like you will disrespect that majority vote and call it "stupid". Hypocrite.

Votes are votes. All it really tells you is that over 50% of California voters disapprove of perverts marrying eachother.

When you are voting on silly things like "I hate gays," maybe such a stupid vote by stupid people really doesn't count for much. Just because a group doesn't like another group really doesn't legitimatize a third grade vote like this. The Constitution is there to protect everyone from whackjob agendas. Heck, Hitler won his elections. Maybe majorities sometimes get it wrong. Like with this hateful law in the name of a misquoted god in a country of religios freedom.

Jeff,

The statistics are that they do cause harm to children that are raised in such conditions.

I put forth to you that any harm caused to children of gay couples comes more form those outside the family giving the kid a hard time about having 2 mommies or two daddies, and not from the family dynamic itself. I know it isn't exactly the same, but I was adopted as a child, and some of my "friends" teased me that my "real" parents sold me, did not want me and stuff like that. It made me feel as though I was unworthy, but it had nothing at all to do with the fact that my adoptive parents gave me love, it was just from the outside crap. I have friends whose parents divorced when they were young and they got the same sort of treatment, and I know that the same happened/happens to children of mixed-race marriages as well.