Traditional marriage still social cornerstone

It is with real sadness that I have viewed the pictures and heard the words of homosexuals in California protesting the failure of the same-sex marriage referendum .

[Steve Gearhart]

Prove to the world that marriage is about "propagate the species and nurture children to maturity".

Second, since when did religion enter the concept of civil unions?

Third, why should anyone care if there is a same sex CIVIL union that does NOT violate the religious/spiritual IDEA of what marriage is?

Fourth, "I would hope that gay activists would grant the same respect to those of us who disagree with them that they desire for themselves." Disagreement is one thing, denial of rights of an American citizen based on sexulaity IS hatred!

How can you call for respect when on one breath you claim simple disagreement yet out the other side of your mouth you deny then the right to mariage based on religous/spiritual feelings? How is that not bigotry or hatred?

Think about it. Oh, you are in love with someone who isn't a Christian? Well, we don't hate her, but you aren't allowed to marry her because of religious/spiritual reasons. And we want our feelings to be made into law. But it isn't about bigorty or hate... Whe the he11 are you trying to kid?

I'm not even gay and I think its bullsh1t...

[USA]

Where in the constitution does it say marriage is a right?
Civil unions will give all the same legal rights, health rights, etc. I would hope.
You seem full of hate, btw.

[Quest]

USA wrote:

Where in the constitution does it say marriage is a right?
Civil unions will give all the same legal rights, health rights, etc. I would hope.
You seem full of hate, btw.

Marriage was deemed a civil right through the courts years ago. Society also deems it a civil right, which is why by statute, no individual of legal age is barred from it. Rapists, murderers, the worst of the worst may marry legally.

It's only gay folks who are to be forever banned from it. Makes a lot of sense, right?

Did you, or would you, choose to enter a civil union, or would you choose marriage for yourself? Why? If you believe they are the same, why would you choose one over the other?

[mike p]

Marriage is not or ever was a "right". It is an instution that was put in place by man to protect the wife and children to assure that they were cared for by the traditional breadwinner. I see the demand of marriage by gays and lesbians as a tool to force society into saying that their lifestyle is "normal". By doing this they can say that anyone opposed to this lifestyle are the ones with the problem.

[Larry]

Myra, thanks for your thoughtful and well-toned letter. I don't think anyone is asking for equal spiritual base or sacraments -- just equal civil interpretation. If marriage had no civil meaning in society, then I think it would be justified to say that religious traditions should be upheld -- but when religion crosses into state, it opens the door for all people to wanted to be treated equally and have equal access to civil institutions. If marriage is only available to those who propagate the species, then I suggest the same should apply to taxes that fund educataion and other program for the propagated species.

[LOL]

Marriage does not go "far back in time," it is a relatively recent, malleable, society-specific, and socially constructed status. It is silly for people to defend it as if it was a law of physics. Welsh probably doesn't like to thing of herself as homophobic (who does), but that is still the best explanation for her attitude. Her defense, "that some of us have homosexual children, relatives, or friends," is reminiscent of a familiar saying from the past ("some of my best friends are black"), that thankfully, one does not hear that much anymore. Hopefully, someday we also will no longer hear apologies like Welsh's for a different kind of bigotry.(It is interesting that she describes only "some people she knows" as not being bigoted. She doesn't say anything about herself.)

[Rebecca]

If marriage were to propagate the species, then maybe we should institute fertility tests prior to issuing a marriage license. What about all of the elderly that remarry after losing a spouse. Surely my grandfather should NOT be allowed to marry since he can no longer father children with his 80-year-old fiancee. If you don't ever want children you shouldn't be allowed to marry either. And what about those terrible people who only want a specific number of children and use birth control or sterilization when they are finished procreating. Guess after the husband gets snipped, our marriage will be null and void.......

[kdogg36]

[quote]For some, it is even a sacrament.[/quote]

Then it has nothing to with civil law.

[quote]I would hope that gay activists would grant the same respect to those of us who disagree with them that they desire for themselves.[/quote]

I have no respect whatsoever for people who want to continue to take a third of the fruits of our labor while denying us full access to the government protections we're supposed to be paying for. Frankly, I hope to see the day when I don't even have to share a planet with such people.

[Rebecca]

It's a sad day when you reach the point that taking religion OUT of something (because that is the only way to see it objectively) is the only way to make things right. It's so sad when something as beautiful as religion has been tainted into something so vile as justification for being inhumane.

[mike p]

LOL wrote:

Marriage does not go "far back in time," it is a relatively recent, malleable, society-specific, and socially constructed status. It is silly for people to defend it as if it was a law of physics. Welsh probably doesn't like to thing of herself as homophobic (who does), but that is still the best explanation for her attitude. Her defense, "that some of us have homosexual children, relatives, or friends," is reminiscent of a familiar saying from the past ("some of my best friends are black"), that thankfully, one does not hear that much anymore. Hopefully, someday we also will no longer hear apologies like Welsh's for a different kind of bigotry.(It is interesting that she describes only "some people she knows" as not being bigoted. She doesn't say anything about herself.)

If it doesn't go "far back in time" then why is it mentioned by scripture during Abrahams time?

[Rebecca]

mike p wrote:

<quoted text>
If it doesn't go "far back in time" then why is it mentioned by scripture during Abrahams time?

Yes, lets go with that. In fact, let's take that to the next step and go back to our marriage "roots" and make ALL unions between a man and woman legal. Let's go back to Abraham times and legalize plural marriage. I could really use a second husband........

[NSA]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It has always been that way. To the tiny minority who disagree - get over yourselves. You have the same freakin' right to marry a member of the opposite sex as a normal person does. If that's not good enough for you, tough sh*t. No "special" deals for anyone, got it?? Gay people are proving to be nothing more than a tiny special interest group that enjoys making noise - as if it justifies their pathetic existence. If you're gay, lesbian, transvestite, man/boy lover freak or whatever - accept the fact that your - how can I put this lightly - "unusual" lifestyle comes at a price. A person with Hepatitus C cannot get affordable life insurance. Neither can someone who lists skydiving as their favorite outdoor activity. A convicted felon cannot own a gun. A guy who habitually breaks traffic laws and gets caught cannot get cheap car insurance and may not be able to keep his drivers license. There are a lot more of these folks out there than you perverts. I don't hear them b*i*t*c*h*i*n*g and moaning.

[MDvet]

kdogg36 wrote:

[quote]For some, it is even a sacrament.[/quote]
Then it has nothing to with civil law.
[quote]I would hope that gay activists would grant the same respect to those of us who disagree with them that they desire for themselves.[/quote]
I have no respect whatsoever for people who want to continue to take a third of the fruits of our labor while denying us full access to the government protections we're supposed to be paying for. Frankly, I hope to see the day when I don't even have to share a planet with such people.

What if laws are changed to give same sex couples full access to the government protection, would same sex couples still ask for the rights to get married? I guess is that the answer is yes. The debate about legalizing same-sex marriage is not about full access to the government protection. If the debate was about getting full government protection, improvements and addition to civil union law will accomplish the same end state and with less resistance. I believe majority of the Americans suport to granting same government protection to same sex couples.

In my opinion, the debate is about if same sex marriage should be accepted as "normal." Perhaps in the future the society will accept the same sex marriage as Joe and Jane getting married, but not now (as shown by the California).

Lastly, most, it not all, rights are not conditional to if you pay or not.

[Get Real]

kdogg36 wrote:

[quote]I have no respect whatsoever for people who want to continue to take a third of the fruits of our labor while denying us full access to the government protections we're supposed to be paying for. Frankly, I hope to see the day when I don't even have to share a planet with such people.

If gay people are allowed to marry and are given the same benefits as normal people, expect health care costs (already too expensive) to skyrocket because insurers will have to compensate for their bizarre lifestyle which includes a much increased propensity for AIDS and other debilitating maladies that normal people generally do not succumb to. This increased cost would be spread across the board to all insured persons - the vast majority of them normal straight people. How dare you expect normal people to subsidize your sick and perveted lifestyle?!

And yes, I agree - you belong on a planet by yourself!

[flyboy]

Get Real wrote:

<quoted text>
If gay people are allowed to marry and are given the same benefits as normal people, expect health care costs (already too expensive) to skyrocket because insurers will have to compensate for their bizarre lifestyle which includes a much increased propensity for AIDS and other debilitating maladies that normal people generally do not succumb to. This increased cost would be spread across the board to all insured persons - the vast majority of them normal straight people. How dare you expect normal people to subsidize your sick and perveted lifestyle?!
And yes, I agree - you belong on a planet by yourself!

Firstly, homosexuality is normal. Homophobia/homohatred is a psychological disease. Secondly, your AIDS statistics are a joke. Black people of ALL sexual orientations and drug users are at most risk for AIDS, and HPV and herpes are spread majoritively by heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have more diseases, rape more kids and get caught in more sex stings. You need to look in the mirror for what sick really is.

[flyboy]

MDvet wrote:

<quoted text>
What if laws are changed to give same sex couples full access to the government protection, would same sex couples still ask for the rights to get married? I guess is that the answer is yes. The debate about legalizing same-sex marriage is not about full access to the government protection. If the debate was about getting full government protection, improvements and addition to civil union law will accomplish the same end state and with less resistance. I believe majority of the Americans suport to granting same government protection to same sex couples.
In my opinion, the debate is about if same sex marriage should be accepted as "normal." Perhaps in the future the society will accept the same sex marriage as Joe and Jane getting married, but not now (as shown by the California).
Lastly, most, it not all, rights are not conditional to if you pay or not.

Not only is homosexuality normal, but it is unconstitutional to not grant gay couples equal rights under the law they deserve. PERIOD. Your gonna have to get over your uncomfort and fear. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to marriage/equal rights in relationships are a fundamental right gay people deserve, and civil unions are not federally protected, therefore not equal. Society can make laws, but the courts/government/constitution has the final say. Losers always lose.

[devons]

I'm always amazed at the words and phrases used to try and describe heterosexual marriages. They have had to reduce marriage to such levels as to make it sound like something to be avoided unless the only reason to have sex is to reproduce. Apparently when you finished reproducing you become a drag on society....or raising their children is more important that some others raising theirs. But what happens when the children are raised? What is marriage then? Do they still have sex and why?

This is what marriage is to them when you sit down and really think about what they are saying....or at least that is what they have to reduce it to to try and make a point. Their point making is making a joke of marriage. Honestly....do they really feel that a small percentage of strangers entering marriage is going to stop reproduction? That it will destroy their families? Do they really feel that hearing the truth about homosexuality is going to permanently harm their children? I guess they feel their children hearing about it behind the barn is a much better way to learn.

Are they so naive as to think that thinking people will believe that the failure of their marriages or their families is anything but their fault? Do they really think that caring parents want to have their children's minds filled with lies rather then knowing the truth?

You wonder how spiritual these people would be if the majority of people believed something just a little differently then they did and suddenly found themselves asked to live by some one else's beliefs which resulted in them losing their right to live their faith. You just know they would be out their outraged at such a suggestion.

[1noteasilyfooled]

mike p wrote:

Marriage is not or ever was a "right". It is an instution that was put in place by man to protect the wife and children to assure that they were cared for by the traditional breadwinner. I see the demand of marriage by gays and lesbians as a tool to force society into saying that their lifestyle is "normal". By doing this they can say that anyone opposed to this lifestyle are the ones with the problem.

Mike.. it IS normal for them.. what YOU do in your home is NOT "normal" to my family.

[What garbage]

Myra,

Do you support allowing couples with no desire to propagate, or with no ability to do so as in post-menopausal women, people who are sterile, etc... to enjoy the priviledges of this 'cornerstone of society'?

If the answer is yes, then you can not deny it to same-sex couples on that basis.

Do you support the right of opposite sex couples to marry who do not consider it a sacrament or to have any religious or spiritual basis at it?

Again, if the answer is yes then you can not use that reason to deny it to same-sex couples.

Which leaves tradition, and the honest truth is other societies have recognized same sex unions for much of history: China, Japan, Rome, Greece, Medieval Europe, Native Americans, etc... If what you really mean is since it was outawed in Rome by the Christian Emporers in 342 AD and continued to face increasingly severe sanctions under future Christian rulers then you would be mostly correct. As Christianity spread throughout Europe homosexual marriages became outlawed there as well, though plenty of evidence showing it was a relatively common and accepted practice has survived such as the Albanian vellameria and French affrèrement.

So that leaves exactly what argument against allowing same-sex marriage again?

[1noteasilyfooled]

NSA wrote:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. It has always been that way.

Yeah right.. how come the marriage between my transmission and engine is still together today?

Well blew that argument out the window didnt I?