1 man+1 woman=marriage

Homosexuals have a right to express themselves too.

It's sort of like porn or premarital sex; just because you or I disagree with it, and make a choice not to engage, does not mean that we should make it so no one else could either. Don't force your feelings or beliefs on others... I don't think that anyone should be discriminated against.

You seem to be confused. Let me try to help you. The most common marrage type in all of history was one man and several women. Look through the Bible and read about all of those cases where David, Abraham, Solomon, Samson, etc. had more than one wife. And all of these people where blessed by God. The fact is that God supports people from deviating from the "One man, one woman" formula.

I don't know what you are talking about with the making it illegal to speak out against it ... I personally have never heard of that, but our government has done some wild things in its time, but either way, now I am currious ...

Finally, young children aren't usually given a choice in who adopts them ... so by your logic it is equally unfair for a heterosexual couple to adopt a child ...

Smile Like You Care

First, I would like to mention a few things regarding homosexuality as "...sort of like porn or premarital sex; just because you or I disagree with it, and make a choice not to engage, does not mean that we should make it so no one else could either..." But what of terrorism, murder, rape, etc. I don't agree with or engage in these, but does that really mean that we should not make it so no one else could either? Yes, there are "feelings and beliefs" that we should not "force" on others. However, there are choices that should not be allowed, even though some people may want to engage in such things. If someone shot your friend, I guarantee you would not be saying that it was okay for that person to murder, even though you disagree with it.

Second, it should be noted the most common marriage type in history is not a man and multiple wives, but one man and one woman. Yes, there are several cultures and instances (even in the Bible) that accept the former, but simply because several well-known Bible characters had more than one wife does not mean all did. As has been mentioned, marriage was created for a man and woman. Why should this blessing be abused?

Also, matthewsmith, if you're trying to make a point, how about doing so with proper grammar and punctuation? Writing as if you were an eighth grader IMing to his girlfriend just looks silly.

Oh jeez. Here we go...
"What was once thought of as "The unthinkable" has now become "commonplace" in the American society."
Homosexuality is not a new thing. It was just repressed by people like you for so many centuries. There are a lot of famous people, poets, actors and philosophers that were in fact gay. They were just afraid because people like you are too extreme and biased and can't see people for people.
"The homosexual community is pushing themselves out into the public eye wanting to become "partners"(This is not marriage!!!) in our churches and adopt children to raise. "
The heterosexual community thinks it's okay for themselves to show PDA or to push their relationships on the public, why can't gays? And last time I checked, we had this wonderful little thing called separation of church and state, so your religious mumbo-jumbo doesn't mean a thing here.
"Now would it be right tto give a child no other choice then to grow up in a home with 2 moms or 2 dads?"
I'm sure Charles Manson wouldn't have chosen the people who adopted him, but they were a heterosexual couple, and they made him a lunatic. They abused him and drove him literally insane. So, no matter your sexual orientation, you have an equal opportunity to be a good and bad parent.
"A child follows the example of his parents, and if this is what he sees modeled for him he to will in all probability grow up to be a homosexual."
It's been scientifically proven, through research and the study of genes, that a child with gay parents will not automatically become gay. They could, like children of heterosexual couples, but they also could not. That's just your crazy bigoted opinion.
"...and in turn it would make illegal for those who oppose homosexuality to speak out against it(basically taking away our freedom of speech)"
Honestly, did you just make this up? I think you did. I have never, ever heard of the governement wanting to make it illegal to speak out against something. It's unconstitutional, just like it is unconstitutional to oppress any citizen, or even non-citizen because of their preference of other people. I'm sure the Constitution says "every man (and woman)" not just the heterosexual ones.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return--

Well, not really. Honestly, it amazes me that in the 21st Century there are still so many people who are this ignorant and asinine.

> Homosexuals are becoming all
> to common in todays society.

This might shock you, but we're no more common in today's society than we ever were. We're just more visible thanks to the greater freedom that our modern society both permits and protects.

> What was once thought of as
> "The unthinkable" has now become
> "commonplace" in the American
> society.

Well, at best gay people are only about 6-12% of the population, so it really isn't all that common, even today. But even if it were, so what? How are you harmed by gay people simply existing, living their lives and exercising the same basic rights as any other citizen?

> As I went to a movie this week I
> observed two young men who were
> obviously homosexuals.

The public square is equally open to all citizens. If merely seeing a gay couple "offends" you, maybe you should stay home.

> When God created the union of
> marriage it was meant to be between
> 1 man and 1 woman not 2 men or
> 2 women,

This also will probably come as a surprise to you, but historically speaking the institution of marriage originated as a secular arrangement between families. The practice of marriage was already commonplace at the beginning of recorded history (around the 4th millenium B.C.E.) and easily predates even the earliest judaeo-christian scriptures by at least 1000 years. Of course, the predictable canard is that "god" created everything, but we don't live in a society that bases its laws on religiously motivated dogmas and pseudo-hisotries. In real history, there have been quite a few civilizations that recognized marriages between people of the same sex...Ancient China and Egypt, Feudal Japan and The Roman Empire, are just a few of the many examples of this.

> and whats making this even worse
> is the fact that they are wanting the
> American public to see what they
> are doing as "normal"(which this
> in fact is not).

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the terms "normal" and "fact," but in the usual sense of those terms homsexuality is most certainly a normal expression of sexuality found in numerous species of animals (including humans) and the fact of the matter is that the phenomenon of this adaptation has been widely studied and verified as such by the scientific community. Your opinion may disagree, but if it does it isn't (quite frankly) a very well informed one.

> The homosexual community is
> pushing themselves out into the
> public eye

Well, like I said above, we have just as much right to be in public as anyone else. That's one of the beautify things that comes with living in a free country. Perhaps you should take some advice from Matthew, and "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."

> wanting to become "partners"(This
> is not marriage!!!)

Acutally, technically speaking it IS a marriage if the Law deems it so. As much as it might pain you to accept, you don't just get to lay claim to words in the English language just because your religion has decided to tack on an additional connotation to the term.

> in our churches and adopt children
>to raise.

Honestly, I can't for the life of me imagine why any self-respecting gay person would EVER want to set foot in one of those hot-beds of hypocrisy, graft and intolerance, but hey...that's your problem. If you don't like having gay people in your religion you can either kick 'em out, or leave yourself. Religious freedom is a guarantee in this country, at least, and you can be a sect of one if that is what you desire.

> Now would it be right tto give a
> child no other choice then to grow
> up in a home with 2 moms or 2 dads?
> NO!!! this is the absolutely worst
> thing that we could allow to happen.

Once again, the "facts" really don't seem to follow your opinion. Statistically speaking, kids adopted by gay and lesbian parents tend to perform just as well in all measureable categories as similarly situated children adopted into opposite-sex parent households. In fact, there is a significant amount of research that suggests that the kids of lesbian mom's actually tend to perform slightly better in several areas. And in any case, the kids adopted by gay and lesbian couples certainly perform better than kids who are left without parents, which is I think is quite obviously a less desireable situation for these kids.

> A child follows the example of his
> parents, and if this is what he sees
> modeled for him he to will in all
> probability grow up to be a
> homosexual.

Factually incorrect. This question has also been widely studied and there is no reliable data that would indicated that having gay or lesbian children predisposes those children to any particular sexuality. In fact, kids raised by gay parents tend to sort out into the same ratios of gay/bi/straight as do the kids of heterosexual parents.

> This act of immorality is coming
> through our "Front Door"

Well, you might want to remember that "our" front door includes more than just the door that leads to YOUR house. Morality is a matter of personal choice, not Law, and while you may disagree with the "morality" of gay people (as is your right), you really don't have a right to try to tell us what our moral standards are going to be. In an objective sense, I don't see any real value in the kind of "morality" that you are preaching...ignorance, intolerance and bigotry aren't particularly "moral" in my opinion.

> and it has to be stopped,

Take you best shot, buddy. But remember that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are really quite plain when it comes to the rights of citizens in this country. This isn't a fight that you have any real chance of winning, barring a Constitutional Amendment that would change the fundamental manner in which our basic rights are enumerated.

> the "fairness act" which would make
> it legal for homosexuals to marry in
> EVERY state and for them to adopt
> kids,

We can already adopt in most states, and the recognition of our right to marry is just around the corner. You might as well get used to the idea.

> and in turn it would make illegal for
> those who oppose homosexuality to
> speak out against it (basically taking
> away our freedom of speech).

Horsepuckey. Can you cite any acutal passed, pending or proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress that even suggests that it would be illegal to exercise your freedom of speech to speak out against gay people?

> So in summary the homosexuals
> would have the rights of "real
> married" people and we would
> not be allowed to speak out
> against them.

Okay...I'm calling bull$#!%. Please provide a link to the actual legislation to which you are referring. I think that it is highly unlikely that you have actually read whatever bill or act it is that you're talking about.

> So when you hear the "Fairness
> Act" is coming up to be passed I
> challenge each and every one of
> you to write your congressmen
> and women and tell them why you
> dont want this passed and why
> they should vote against this act.

Well, I'll certainly be writing MY congresswoman and letting her know my thoughts on this issue when the appropriate time comes, but my message (obviously) won't be in favor of the discrimination that you desire.

> (Or you could take the more abrupt
> approach and protest outside the
> statehouse, its your choice)

Please do. Protests are always more exciting when the buck-toothed fundies show up and make fools out of themselves.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

I always find some humor when people act like homosexuality is some kind of disease that someone can catch from being around gay people. Believe me, someone can spend all the time in the world around a homosexual and it won't somehow magically turn them gay.

I like how the one girl compared homosexuality to murder or rape. How in any way, shape or form can you compare someone's "choice" (her words not mine, I don't think its a choice) to be homosexual as someone else' choice to be a terrorist, murderer, or rapist? What kind of logic is that?

To me, marriage is about legacies. It's about family lines and cultures. When you say you are part of the Smith family, for instance, you should be proud you are part of a long lineage. You can say you look just like your great-grandfather, or great-grandmother and you can pass down the family history telling the stories of your great family.

If homosexuals marry, you will break this lineage because you will have a person in your family that doesn't look like you, and share no blood with you. A child may share a family line with only one of his parents, and have a break in history from his other natural parent.

In case of adoptions, this break is acceptable because adopted children have no parents. But if you do this as matter-of-fact by allowing homosexuals to marry, I think it is a shame.

I have to agree with Percivale. What harm will homosexuals existing bring onto others. So what if they get married, it's not like you have to live in the same house with them. Here are a few small facts in case you want to ponder over some things. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in America, followed by Chineese and a few others. Evidence shows that within another hundred years, being Caucasian will be a minority. Minoritys are constantly growing, I'm not saying that there will eventually be more homosexual people than there will not, but the homosexual population does seem to be increasing steadily, so its something to think about. As far a raising children in the home of two fathers or two mothers goes, what could be wrong with that,? you dont inherit homosexuality genetically.

> To me, marriage is about legacies.

Marriage may be "about legacies" to you, but the legal institution of marriage is just for you. The freedom to marry is a fundamental right afforded to the citizens of this country, and as such our Constitution requires that it be afforded to ALL citizens in a fair and equal manner and free from any forms of invidious discrimination.

> It's about family lines and cultures.
> When you say you are part of the
> Smith family, for instance, you
> should be proud you are part of a
> long lineage. You can say you
> look just like your great-grandfather,
> or great-grandmother and you can
> pass down the family history telling
> the stories of your great family.

That's a little naive, I think. The truth is that people get married for LOTS of different reasons. Some do it for love, some do it for money, some do it for convenience, and yes some do it to be part of a larger familiy. The point however is that the government doesn't have a legitimate role to play in telling people why they should get married.

> If homosexuals marry, you will
> break this lineage because you
> will have a person in your family
> that doesn't look like you, and
> share no blood with you. A child
> may share a family line with only
> one of his parents, and have a
> break in history from his other
> natural parent.

There are a couple of points to consider that make this opinion a red herring. The first is that we already allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry without restriction. Interestingly enough, roughtly 10% of the reproductive age population in the U.S. suffers from some form of infertility. If "breaking a family line" is a sufficient justification for denying access to a public, legal institution, why aren't we trying to prevent these infertile couples (who just happen to exist in approximately the same numbers as gay people) from marrying, too? The answer is (of course) that the legal institution of marriage in this country is not in any way contingent on the ability or even the intent to procreate. In fact, there is not one single jurisdiction in this country that tests for the intent or ability to have children as a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. If a heterosexual couple that can't have children can marry without anyone even raising an eyebrow, how is it rational to say that a gay couple can't get married using this otherwise ignored justification?

> In case of adoptions, this break is
> acceptable because adopted children
> have no parents. But if you do this as
> matter-of-fact by allowing homosexuals
> to marry, I think it is a shame

People make their own families, and they really don't need you or anyone else to tell them how they "should" be doing it.

> Families can be made up of anyone
> who loves and cares for you. It
> doesn't even need to involve married
> couples. If your parents have died, for
> instance, you can make a family out of
> your closest friends.

Well, that really doesn't seem to jive with what you said above, but I'll take your word for it and accept the clarification.

> However. my comment was about
> marriages. If you marry, you are
> entering into your family history a
> new union. Any new children you
> have will be part of this new union.

That is, IF you have children and IF your family maintains an awareness of their extended relations and history. Of course, neither of these "IF's" are currently required of heterosexual couples that marry in this country, so it seems rather hypocritical to suggest that these subjectively inconsistent values could be used as a basis for prohibiting the marriages of gay people.

> It's wonderful for children to have a
> connection to their histories through
> these unions. But, this won't be possible
> if homosexuals marry. One parent will
> be your father or mother certainly, but
> you will not be sharing a family history.
> If you are not adopted, yet still do not
> have this bond, that is something I
> think is really sad.

Horsepuckey. The most basic premise of your argument is a fallacy, since actual blood relationships are not actually a requirement in order for someone to feel like they are part of a "family." If we accept your retraction from above, then your comment that "families can be made up of anyone who loves and cares for you" would seem to directly contradict your final conclusion.

Family is a Western term used to have denote a domestic group of people, or a number of domestic groups linked through descent (demonstrated or stipulated) from a common ancestor, marriage or adoption.

A family may be defined specifically as a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, and co-residence. Although the concept of consanguinity originally referred to relations by blood, many anthropologists argue that the notion of "blood" must be understood metaphorically; some argue that there are many non-Western societies where family is understood through other concepts rather than "blood."

> Adoptive parents have just as
> much bond with their child as
> natural parents.

Either you aren't expressing yourself very clearly, or you like to backpedal...at this point I can't tell which.

> However, adoptive children are
> rewriting a new history for the
> family and are not carrying on
> the family line. It's sad, but the
> child may start a wonderful new
> history.

If you feel that an adopted child can start "a wonderful new history," then how does this jive with your objection to gay people starting their own families through marriage and adoption? Honestly, your points don't seem to be consistently based on the same principles.

> And it really doesn't matter if a
> married couple decides to destroy
> their family lineage by not having
> children. It's their choice.

Why is it only "their choice" if the couple is heterosexual? Don't you think that gay couples can make the same kinds of choices as straight ones? Do you really think that its fair to say that heterosexual couples who don't have kids can get married, but gay couples that don't have kids (and even gay couples that do) cannot?

> It's just that if they do decide to
> have children, they will be creating
> an extension to their histories and
> legacy.

Not necessarily. "Histories" and "legacies" are not legal requirements for marriage, and there are plenty of heterosexual married couples today who have absolutely no conscious connection to their sanguinous ancestors.

> When you have homosexual married
> couples, if a child is born, by default,
> you've already destroyed the child's
> link to one side of his family past.

Again, not necessarily. Many gay people have kids from previous relationships (just like many straight couples), and it really isn't all that difficult to make sure that the kid has a connection to his or her "other" parent. We see this in action with heterosexual couples all the time when couples divorce and remarry or adopt. And, even if this was not the case, maintaining this sort of connection is not a legal requirement for marriage in this country, anyway.

It really seems to me that you are trying to apply a different standard to gay people that you are to straight people. That is a hypocrisy that our Constitution will not (for long) tolerate.

percivale

-------------------------

"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.

It’s too hard to quote and write my own comments, so I will comment on your post without your quotes. It might get confusing because I am still responding to each paragraph of yours despite not quoting every time.

What exactly makes marriage a fundamental right? We make all sorts of restrictions on marriage. No polygamy, no marrying of underaged youths, no marriage of first cousins, no marrying of brothers and sisters, etc. There’s nothing fundamental about the right. It’s more based on traditions of the last several thousand years; but this tradition has created long legacies of direct relationships between you and your ancestors. That’s a wonderful tie to your past that will be destroyed, and there doesn’t seem to be a good justification for it.

My comment wasn’t about why people get married, it’s that if they produce a child, they will be extending their own family history. It does not happen with homosexual couples by default.

Marriage, by default, should be a system where your natural born children is your blood relation with ties to your family line.

It doesn’t matter why couples get married, nor that they get married a couple dozen times, nor if they produce a child in each and every single marriage. Today, if a child a born to a married couple, it would still mean that each and every child has a direct link to the past of their family line. That’s a wonderful connection that shouldn’t be completely ignored.

Even if the couple divorces, by default, the child still has this connection to the family. He still has maternal grandparents, he still has paternal grandparents.

It’s the problem I see with heterosexual parents who remarry. When couples remarry, the child gets a stepdad or stepmom, and the new extended families that go along with it. However, when these parents divorce, the child very often loses his connection to the stepparent’s extended family. It’s awkward to continue a relationship when you are not a relation of your stepparents family. And when the child’s parent remarries again, the child gets another stepparent with a whole new extended family.

In the case of children who are born to heterosexual couples, however, no matter how many times the couple decides to remarry, the connection to the extended family always exists, by default. It may certainly be true that a child may not be made aware of his extended families, and that’s certainly a sad thing, but just because that is sometimes the case, does it mean you should make it ALWAYS the case with homosexual marriages?

And, I don’t care if marriage results in a child. I do think that a child, if he is not adopted, should have a link to both of his parents’ pasts.

And there really is no contradiction here. Families are composed of anyone who loves you.

And there really is no double standard. Married heterosexual couples have the opportunity to produce natural offspring. It doesn’t mean that they have the need to reproduce, it just means that if they do, they produce such natural offspring by default. Marriage for a few thousand years has always produced blood relations. That’s a good thing.

I guess my final statement is that I’m not understanding why homosexual couples must marry. There is no problem going into a civil union and give homesexuals the same rights, but not call it marriage. Marriage has always been a union of family lineages. That is the whole reason the ancient world created the institution of marriage. What it has created, however, is a long line of links to each child’s past. I just absolutely do not see a reason why this long link should be broken.

Its another thing to redifine a foundational social institution like marriage.

40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

It seems as if my point has been taken the wrong way. It may not seem "logical", but it is simple. To agree to something only on the basis that a person has chosen to do it, even if you wouldn't have made the same choice, does not make that choice right. Is that not understandable? Homosexuality may not "hurt" people, but it is wrong, just like murder and rape. Many people do not believe so, but that is exactly what the American society wants. Fifty years ago it wasn't a fad to say that you're gay, it wasn't acceptable to get divorced, and this country just keeps widening its norms. I really don't care what is thought about my opinion, but it is silly that a basic point cannot be understood. Anyone need further clarification?

Beautiful. It's great to incite argumentative people. Do you not get it?