This whole issue about gay marriage bothers me. Homosexuals should be able to marry if they want, without government intervention. No one should be able to tell gay men and women how they should live, based on one groups political or social views. As long as it doesn't cause harm to society [like drug use], people should, mostly, be left to their own devices. You cant impose a moral framework on society just because that's how you feel on a certain issue. Remember, we live under majority rule, but with minority rights. Honestly, what would the problem be with allowing gays to marry? The arguments that I’ve heard are ridiculous, and are just a sloppy attempt to cover up peoples disapproval of gay lifestyles.
1. It will destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. I would think that allowing two people who are willing to devote their lives to one another to marry would be enhancing the sanctity of marriage, rather than tarnishing it. Just as allowing women or blacks to vote helped enhance our electoral process, making it truly democratic, by letting gay people marry you are validating them as equals and making marriage better as a whole. Oh, and how is stopping gay marriage enhancing "family values"? What about their values, or their desire to start a family? Just because their lifestyle isn't accepted by some, doesn't mean that the people who disapprove of homosexuality should be allowed to force their values on the gay community.
2. It will lead to the destruction of traditional society and values. There has not been any proof that this is true. In fact, divorce rates declined and marriage rates rose in the countries which legalized gay marriage. There have been no ill effects. Because gay people are marrying, straight people aren't going to say "oh, i guess marriage isn't important anymore. i'm not going to get married." What has happened since gay marriage was made legal in Massachusetts? Like every country that has legalized gay marriage, their marriage rates rose and divorce rates dropped. In fact, Massachusetts has the second lowest divorce rate in the country.
3. It will lead to people marrying children, animals, or multiple people. No, it wont. Children and animals can't legally enter into a binding contract, so they can't marry no matter what gay people do. And about the whole “polygamy” aspect? Its a mute point. Being gay is biological, being a polygamist isn't. If we restrict people to only marrying members of the opposite gender, gays do not have an option, while polygamists will be just fine if we say they can only have one wife. And if its that big of a deal, make a constitutional amendment making marriage between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
4. We can let them have civil unions. A nice compromise, right? I used to agree with that concept until i realized one simple fact. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Sure, you could say that gays and lesbians will have all the same benefits as straight people if they have a civil union, but by calling it something different you are separating them from the rest of society as a result of their sexual orientation. Why not have all black and all white schools? They will get the same funding, the same teachers. Its the exact same argument that was used to support the segregation of schools in the South. Come on. Take that stick out your ass, get over your homophobic attitudes, and let these people get married so they can be as happy [or miserable] as the rest of us.
right on...
gay marriage doesnt hurt me at all...and it wont hurt the rest of us.
so if a person is gay and in love with someone of the same sex, hell yah get married!!
i completly agree, even if i did not care for gay marriage i don't think i would have the right to tell someone else how to live
"Moot point" is what I think you meant to say.
If we restrict people to only marrying members of the opposite gender, gays do not have an option, while polygamists will be just fine if we say they can only have one wife.
They won't be just fine. That would still be enforcing one's moral code on another person. I we tell someone he or she can only marry one person, we're preventing him or her from marrying everyone he or she truly loves. I see no difference between this and gay marriage in that respect.
it's okay. I have a black gay friend.
well the biggest problem i have with polygamy is that it actually DOES harm society
polygamists are far more reliant on welfare and drain money from the federal government because they usually have large families. multiple wives mean a large number of children, and it is very difficult to support them by oneself
on top of that, like i said earlier, polygamy isnt a biological need. we arent restricting polygamists in the same sense that we are restricting homosexuals
plus theres the whole problem of gender inequality. yes, one woman could concievably marry multiple men, but the majority of marriages would be one man and multiple women. this conflict with the whole notion of marriage as two equal partners
plus it honestly does cheapen the idea of marriage and love in general. theres a difference between pledging your love for someone in holy matrimony and pledging your love for wife #1 and #2 and #3 and #4..... polygamy should be taken as a completely separate issue from gay marriage.
well the biggest problem i have with polygamy is that it actually DOES harm society
polygamists are far more reliant on welfare and drain money from the federal government because they usually have large families. multiple wives mean a large number of children, and it is very difficult to support them by oneself
in that case people who do not believe in contraception should not be allowed to get married because they will also have a lot of children.
on top of that, like i said earlier, polygamy isnt a biological need. we arent restricting polygamists in the same sense that we are restricting homosexuals
Why should it matter if it is biological or not? Homosexuality has not been proven to be biological. Religious beliefs are not biological either, yet no one would think of preventing a person of a minority religion from getting married.
plus theres the whole problem of gender inequality. yes, one woman could concievably marry multiple men, but the majority of marriages would be one man and multiple women. this conflict with the whole notion of marriage as two equal partners
Why does it matter if it conflicts with the notion of marriage as two equal partners? By that reasoning we should not allow gay marriage because it conflicts with the notion of marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman. Most polygamists are polygamists because of religious reasons, why should someone else's notion of marriage stop people from living as their religions says they should?
plus it honestly does cheapen the idea of marriage and love in general. theres a difference between pledging your love for someone in holy matrimony and pledging your love for wife #1 and #2 and #3 and #4..... polygamy should be taken as a completely separate issue from gay marriage.
It cheapens the idea of love for you. You wrote your blog about how someone else's marriage shouldn't make others feel that marriage as a whole is less important, yet you use that exact reasoning in your disapproval of polygamy. Your entire blog was about how we shouldn't impose our morals on other people just because we disagree with someone's lifestyle, but you apply completely different standards when polygamy is the subject. You are just like the people who oppose gay marriage.
“I hope the departue is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
~The Writer~
Ramon you're so right.
Personally I could care less if you want to marry an animal.
What you do in your own bedroom (as long as it doesn't end up on the internet) is your own business.
You can't deny someone their individual rights and pursuit of happiness based on your own personal biases, even if those biases held by the social majority.
It is always such a relief to see a supportive argument once in a while! It's also nice when it comes from a heterosexual, because opponents of gay marriage don't count the opinions of actual gay and lesbian people. Your vote counts more.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I hate that my opinion is automatically invalidated. The response is always"well of course YOU think gay marriage should be legal"
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
It makes a rational discussion impossible.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Sadly, that's how the cards will always fall.
Same goes for racism, sexism, and any other kind of prejudice you can name.
The world is dominated by ignorance.
~The Writer~
When you say "Being gay is biological".... This is only what you believe. I believe that gay marriage should be legalized and all, but I do not believe that being gay is biological. I even have a gay friend that agrees with me. Although, This is only my opinion, well and my gay friends... lol.
I am gay, but i don't think it's completely biological. I think it's part biology, part social upbringing, part whichever way the wind blows. My sexuality has changed over the years, even after puberty. I used to be totally boy crazy, but now the thought of a naked man is disgusting. I think it was Embryowassup who said that sexuality is like taste in music. Your taste in music can change over the years, but you can't force yourself to like something you hate. (I'm not sure if that's exactly how he put it).
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
Pubic hair is natural
...is that sexual orientation in humans is a complex trait. The American Psychological Association explains the phenomenon as follows:
"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people." (LINK)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Some people do choose to be gay i mean i have seen a freind of mine who love sex so much that as soon as he got tired of sex with women he went after guys and know he says he like gay sex better than women and he like geting it both ways
Poligamy is wrong...plain and simple
now on to gay marriage....i think that if a gay couple wants to get married they should be able to under GOD, but not under the STATE.
the STATE, which ever one you live in, offers certain tax breaks to married couples. Basically the STATE treats the couple as if it were one person, limiting the amount of money needed to pay back to the government. Gay couples should not be afforded these rights.
The reason is that the INSTITUTION of marriage is a business relationship with 1 MAN, 1 WOMAN, and the STATE. this is why you need a liscence.
The purpose of MARRIAGE is to create a family, through pro-creation between MAN and WOMAN. Each child born will then understand the power of family and go and create one of their own. Gay marriage, from a legal stand point blurs this definition.
1 becasue a gay couple cannot create children
2 the gay family system is not what the US govt. or ANY GOD wants to promote
3 people are naturally a product of their environment, so a child from a gay family would have a higher tendency to be homosexual.
so, there you have it. GAYS should be able to get married. they just should not recieve the federal tax breaks of a heterosexual couple for the above mentioned reasons.
First off, Webster's Dictionary (the most respected one) defines marriage not the way you do. Now to your three flawed points.
1. So straight couples who are unable to have children shouldn't marry either because they blur the definition
2.How do you know God doesn't want homosexuals? You are baseing this off the God you worship, what if the God a homosexual worships, doesn't think homosexuals are evil? You can't speak for every God.
3. Have you read anything that Percivale posts? It is becoming more and more recognized that homosexuality is a complex trait that is genetic and is based very little off of environment.
There are also lots of studies that show that gay parents don't increase the likelihood of a child becoming gay.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
There's just one teeny little problem with your argument. It's called The Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states that...
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.
If the freedom to marry is a "right" (and according to our Supreme Court, it is), then it must be afforded equally to ALL citizens...not just the straight ones.
I'll let the Justices in the landmark case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health answer this one for me...
A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis. Precisely, the case requires that we confront ingrained assumptions with respect to historically accepted roles of men and women within the institution of marriage and requires that we reexamine these assumptions...[A]s matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.
Actually, that is ONE reason to get married, but different people (even straight ones) get married for different reasons. This argument is revealed to be a red herring when one considers that in fact there are heterosexual couples who regularly marry without either the desire or even the ability to procreate.
This is also a red herring, since our laws already recognize the parent-child relationship in families that do not have any biological connection to one another. These families are known in the law is known as a defacto familes. This status is afforded to both adoptive and second-parent relationships, which for same-sex couples are similarly situated to the same arrangements found with the families of opposite-sex couples.
On the one hand...so what? Our Constitution forbids religious establishments, and any law based on this argument would clearly violate one of our most basic constitutional protections. On the other hand, not all religious groups agree with your presumptive declaration about what "ANY GOD" would want. There are in fact quite a few religious groups that ARE willing to bless these marriages, and already do so...and their opinion on the matter is just as relevant (or rather irrelevant) as yours.
Your opinion is poorly informed. According to the American Psychological Association, "In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both lesbian mothers and gay fathers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents." (LINK)
I think you're going to have to do better than that. There appears to be no legal (much less constitutional) justifictation for your argument. Your opinions of social and developmental realities of the families and children of same-sex couples is contrary to the evidence. And religious component of your argument is completely irrelevant.
What else do you have?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Well, this is certainly a spin I've never heard before.... People who responded above me have probably already covered these points, but I'm not going to hold my tongue here.
the STATE...offers certain tax breaks to married couples
That's exactly why, among other reasons, the state should not be allowed to prevent anyone from getting married. In doing so, they are favoring one couple over another. That's discrimination at its highest. And it's illegal by our constitution.
The purpose of MARRIAGE is to create a family, through pro-creation between MAN and WOMAN.
And yet, people get married and decide to not have kids at all, or choose to adopt rather than procreating. Should we dissolve any marriages, then, that don't produce children within x years?
Additionally, there are plenty of lesbian women that have biological children with each other, via in vitro fertilization. They're procreating, so they should be allowed to marry, no?
And what about children who have three parents? DNA from two, and an egg with 'good' mitochondrial DNA in another. It happens.
Each child born will then understand the power of family and go and create one of their own.
With the divorce rates as high as they are now, I'm not sure children should take the model of their parents. I know if I did, I'd be one screwed up kid.
the gay family system is not what the US govt. or ANY GOD wants to promote
And yet you say they should be allowed to marry via religious practices... hmm.....
people are naturally a product of their environment, so a child from a gay family would have a higher tendency to be homosexual.
Actually, the younger boys in a family with lots of sons will be more likely to be homosexual. Something about hormones during development or some such. So should we ban women from having more than two sons?
Furthermore, I'd like to see your evidence that children raised by gay parents turn out gay, because OBVIOUSLY it isn't the case for the other direction (children raised by straight parents turn out straight... as most gay individuals are raised by straight parents).
they just should not recieve [sic] the federal tax breaks of a heterosexual couple for the above mentioned reasons.
You realize that marriage is more than a tax break, right? In an emergency situation, your next of kin is your spouse, end of story. Same sex couples aren't related, so during situations where only family can visit a patient, they can't see each other. Then, a number of insurance companies won't insure same-sex partners (though this is changing now). There are dozens and dozens of laws surrounding marriage... tax breaks are just one of them.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
married couples who cannot have children still put forth the idea of 1 MAN and 1WOMAN
Name a religion that promotes gay marriage
and just thinking logically...children often immitate their parents behavior
I never said there was a religion promoted it, but there are religions that give less than a fuck about your personal sexuality.
Ok, but they can't procreate, so they still blur the distinction, if I follow your logic.
Children imitate there parents, yes, but sexuality isn't environment, as Percivale as already shown.
United Universalists, Quakers, Episcopalians, and the United Church of Christ. Also some Lutheran churches, and two Catholic churches that I know of.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
They promote it? Wow, very cool.
They will conduct same-sex ceremonies and recognize partnerships within the church. They also lobby for fair marriage legislation and welcome gays and lesbians to take communion (where applicable). There are a lot of gay Christians out there, whether the rest of the Christians like it or not.
Reform Judaism also recognizes GLBT members and marriages, but it is up to the individual rabbi as to whether their congregation will perform ceremonies. The official stance of the rabbinate council is that GLBT members are fully equal and welcome.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Just one? Hmmm....let's try The United Church of Christ...
EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR ALL [Adopted at the Twenty-fifth General Synod on July 4, 2005]
Your "logic" is poorly informed. Regardless of how you "think" about the subject, the evidence does not support your assertion.
APA Research Summary: Children of Lesbian & Gay Parents
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Please use the reply link at the bottom of a comment to respond to it. It keeps clear who you are addressing, as in this case, you are clearly not addressing the original blog.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
in the US legal marriage is between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN
GAY people can get married all they want. i have no quams about anyone wanting to live the way they want. However, it takes a lot more to be recognized by the government. The US government is not going to pay you to be GAY. is it that gay people really want to get married, or is it that they want to get PAID.
Also, I follow the Bible just as most americans of a christian based religion do. In the bible GOD condems ALL homosexual acts.
Gay people must realize that since they are not apart of the mainstream, there will be consequences for the choice. and for those who say that homosexuality is not a choice, consider those who cant help but be attracted to little girls, they didnt choose their fate either, but do have to live with the consequences.
He also condemns all blended fabrics, pork, and shaving. Those are also abominations in god's eyes.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Only in certain Jewish and Muslim sects is that followed.
That was my point.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
At the moment it is.
So you don't believe in equality then. The government shouldn't pay you to be straight either.
The nation isn't Christian based however, so why should this country let a religion influence human rights?
Being a pedophile is a choice, it can be controlled. Being gay is not somethign you can control as studies have shown. So while pedophiles must pay for their crimes, homosexuals shouldn't because they aren't commiting a crime.
they dont pay me to be strait....they pay me to get married to a WOMAN because I am a MAN.
No they don't, they give you a tax break because you're married, you twit. And if I remember correctly your taxes go up as well.
thats what i said, i get tax breaks for marrying a woman, as opposed to marrying a man
You don't get a tax break, your taxes go up. It is cheaper to live with someone than to be married to them. But society looks favorable on people who are married, but you pay higher taxes. So I guess I can see your point.
It'll be nice not to give homosexual couples the higher taxes for being married opposed to when heterosexual couples marry. Sucks for heterosexual couples since they'll have to pay taxes that homosexual couples won't.
It is incredibly shallow to suggest that the fight for same-sex marriage is about "getting PAID." But, let's presume for a moment that your evaluation of the situation is correct. What does that change, really, about the legal issue of whether or not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? The fact is that the government DOES issue marriage licenses to its citizens...in fact, our Supreme Court has consistently ruled that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." (Loving v. Virginia) That being the case, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires that this basic civil right be afforded to ALL citizens equally...not just the straight ones.
Who cares? Our Laws certainly don't. Thanks to the First Amendment, this objection is completely irrelevant.
The idea that being gay is a "choice" is not only remarkably ill-informed, it is also a meaningless objection. All of the priviledges and immunites of citizenship are affored on an individual basis. A citizen does not owe "the mainstream" any explanation or justification at all when he or she wishes to exercise a personal right.
Aside from the fact that associating pedophillia with homosexuality is a hollow, unsicentific association, the obvious flaw in this objection is that there are age of majority laws that protect young people from entering into contracts before the age that they can offer their reasonably informed consent.
Would you like to try again?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
is it that gay people really want to get married, or is it that they want to get PAID.
Do you really want to get married, or do you want to get PAID? Is the government paying people for being straight? No... the government is reducing the amount people have to pay for creating a family.
In the bible GOD condems ALL homosexual acts.
Actually, He (though Moses) only condemns male-male homosexual acts. There is nothing in there about lesbian relations. Paul condemns orgies.
and for those who say that homosexuality is not a choice, consider those who cant help but be attracted to little girls, they didnt choose their fate either, but do have to live with the consequences.
A child cannot protect his or herself, so parents and, yes, the government does it for them. Men who take children are committing a crime... kidnapping. Two adults are fully capable of making rational decisions and wanting to commit to each other is not the same as a man wanting to take a little girl or a little boy from their home by misleading them into making decisions they aren't aware of.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
some pediphiles are clinically unable to control themselves
Therein lies the difference. Relationships between consenting adults are a lot different than one between a consenting adult and a forced or coerced child. The former is legal. The latter is immoral, because one party does not have a say in the use of their body.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
dont tell me....tell the US govt.
i just tend to agree with them on this topic
i am not saying that christians SHOULD control America....I'm saying that they do, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it
its just funny that i never hear a GAY activist mentioning anything about the federal tax breaks they would recieve if GAYS were allowed to LEGALLY marry. They always just say, "We want to get married!" Fine go get married!
because technically under GOD, they can be wed. and if it is about their assets upon death, then they can leave a will and testament outlining who is to recive their estate.
There are many cases of contested wills in which the family won and the surviving partner is left with nothing. Also, wills are expensive. There was an assessment done of the monetary cost of all the legal services required to draft documents that afford the protections automatically granted by marriage, and the price tag came to over $100,000! What does it cost to get a marriage license? We need legal documents granting the right to visit one another in the hospital, make decisions about medical care, to buy a house together, to make financial decisions, to inherit anything from our partner. We have to pay extra to our tax preparers, because owning property jointly makes tax filing totally complicated. And if we have kids, the price tag goes through the roof! We have to jump through so many hoops, just to make sure no one can take our kids away from us. It's not about a tax benefit. It's about the security, the legal invulnerability that marriage automatically affords two partners. These are the ties that bind.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That depends on where you live. For example, in my home state of Georgia, our Constitution was recently amended to prevent same-sex couples from making legal arrangements that simulate any of the protections normally associated with a marital arrangement.
No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship." (LINK)
In practice, laws like this around our country have been used to invalidate contractural arrangements between the partners in a same-sex couple that would otherwise be legal if those same citizens were not in a relationship together.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I have my opinions and you have yours CLEARLY.
I was raised to think that homosexuality is WRONG. but i can understand the views of another person, YOU.
I would like to say that OPEN homosexuality is a choice....i dont care what you do in your home, but when i have to see a grown man parading down the street in a "Fairy costume" it troubles me. Only a MAN and WOMAN can create a child. Since procreation is our main goal as a human race, it is detremental to promote a relationship that goes against that principle.
I equate it to College. IF America could no-longer reward those with a college education, it would basically be promoting the opposite. If america didnt reward those who are involved in a TRADITIONAL heterosexual relationship, then they would be promoting the OPPOSITE.
Fundamentally i agree GAYS should be able to get married, but what if EVERYONE was gay. WHo would populate the earth?
And CLEARLY, the difference is that in my opinion, I see you as an equal, while yours would deem to discriminate against my family, and treat us as second-class citizens.
I'm sorry, but I can't reciprocate by saying that I understand your point-of-view. Someone always seems willing to discriminate against those that they feel are "different" or "inferior." I try to see other humans as humans, and treat them all with equal dignity, and don't understand the need of people to shit on other people simply because they feel that greater numbers somehow equates to some sort of moral superiority.
It sounds to me like you're the one with the issue, not the guy in the "fairy costume" (and frankly, if that's your opinion of what makes someone gay, you have a remarkably narrow-minded understanding of our community). How could such a man's choice of dress harm you or your family in ANY way?
Thanks, but neither you nor the "human race" has a right to tell me what MY goals are for marrying my husband. The simply fact is that people get married for different reasons, and not even all heterosexual marriages are formed with the intent of having kids. This is a red herring, anyway, since there is absolutely nothing in our marriage laws that are contingent on either the ability or even the willingness to produce children, and in fact infertile heterosexual couples (who are also incapable of procreating) are regularly granted marriage licenses without issue. And, our laws already recognize a wide range of non-biologically related parent/child relationships. If you are not advocating for these same restrictions being placed upon similarly situated heterosexual couples, then your position is hypocritical.
How so, are you really suggesting that if I married my husband, you would be unwilling to marry a wife? Is your "traditional" instution so WEAK that it will crumble because a same-sex couple decides to seek the same protection for their family that you would seek for yours? I would also note to you that the appeal to "TRADITION" is an argument that our Supreme Court has already warned against in the landmark decision of ~ Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (footnotes and citations omitted)...
"[H]istory and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of the substantive due process inquiry."
The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Id., at 851. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. The decision in Bowers would deny them this right.
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”
I cannot say that you comments have left me with that impression.
Your question is meaningless, for several reasons. The most obvious is that "everyone" is NOT gay, nor is there any evidence of which I am aware that would suggest that recgonizing same-sex marriages would make anyone gay who isn't already so. In fact, homosexuality is at least as old as recorded history, and our best estimates indicate in roughly the same numbers throughout. And yet, the human population in the world has only increased over that same period...which would seem to reject this final concern rather handily.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
clearly ediblewoman you are a lesbian, and my antithesis...lol
i can understand from your point.....handling day to day financial business is difficult but because of the country you live, the government obviously wants it to be as difficult as possible for you to live in a gay relationship...
it sucks when your the minority.......i can tell you from my own experience
however i cannot understand the total GAY experience because i am not GAY.
so, please do not fault me for my views. For i have developed them without the intimate knowledge of personal experiences.
the more i debate with you the more i realize that, there are no real right or wrong answers, but if enough people with the same opinion have a chance to affect change they will.
so you will probably deal with this for the rest of your life, unless america becomes majorly gay, or you become heterosexual.
If everyone could stop for a moment and ask each other about their experiences and motivations, there would by fewer misunderstandings and far less prejudice. I know a lot of people think it is all about the tax breaks, but that is kind of an insulting assumption. It is about so much more, that most straight people don't know about. Most people have no idea how many rights and protections are granted through the simple act of signing a marriage license, because they don't have to think about it. They can take those rights for granted. We can't, and all we want is the right to fairly protect our families and our unions.
Thanks for listening to my side of the argument. It goes along way toward fostering understanding.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Then, perhaps I can put this argument in a perspective with which you might be able to relate.
LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1
June 12, 1967, Decided
In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
...
The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.
...
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
If you would like to really understand our perspective, just read the Loving case, but relace the word "race" with "sexual orientation," and see how similar the arguments offered by the State of Virginia to defend their bigoted prohibition of interracial marriages were to the current situation.
percivale
-------------------------
"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination." ~ Coretta Scott King
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.