Re: Re: Real Reasons
 

In terms of greater risk for AIDS/HIV, you are way off. A married couple is less likely to contract STD's, if they're abiding by their vows.

@ Rho...

I can't begin to number the talk shows where mates confess or get caught cheating..those two little letters "if" have to be the key word in the sentence and STDs had to come from some where (which is kind of interesting..like where did the first one come from..bacterial infections..so probably from built up bacteria..or something to that nature) what I'm getting at is yes homosexual married faithful couples would be at less of a risk (but that applies to heterosexual couples too) but it really all depends on their faithfulness.....

-Dick Chenney Oct 5, 2000 Vice Presidential Debate on CNN.

i don't agree with same-sex marriages and i doubt i ever will; but, that's between them and whatever spiritual being they believe in.

Me, Personally....
 

Don't agree with it, but at the same time if its what makes you happy, then go for it. Who am I to judge what someone else does? Let them be accountable for their own lives. If my sister, friend, cousin, aunt, or whatever wanted to marry another woman, then so be it.

I have a sister, 18, who goes both ways and has a 2 yrs old son. I always tell her to be SAFE and have fun! I love her all the same and that won't change. If she were to get married to another woman, I would support her decision and be of help in any way.

I just think that its a phase, but if not, oh well.

Q

It seems that a common school of thought is that what goes on between people in the privacy of their own home..is their business...So..if people are

getting high on coke, crack, X
having sex with corpses or animals
having sex with family members

....In the privacy of their own homes...why should we care what they do? Do you all also believe these laws are intrusive because it happens in the privacy of one's home?

I morally see each of these as wrong, but I wouldn't stop people from doing them, except for bestiality, because that hurts the unconsenting animal. But, if people want to be incestuous, so be it. I'm not responsible for their spirits. If they asked me, I'd tell them the truth.

What America Thinks of Gay Marriage
 

FYI ;)

Eleven States Ban Gay Marriage

Wednesday, November 03, 2004



In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas (search), Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon — the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

"This issue does not deeply divide America," said conservative activist Gary Bauer (search). "The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart."

Gay rights leaders were dismayed by the results but declared that their struggle for marriage equality would continue unabated.

"Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions."



In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others — Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon — the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions.

Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.

Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the grounds that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court challenge in Georgia involves a similar argument.

Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states such as Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

Rest Here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137424,00.html

wasn't there a time when marriage was between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman?

What's the arguments?

For the kids?
Gay couples who who adopt kids probably do it because they ACTUALLY WANT children, unlike the absurd amount of proper families out there, my friends included, who are unhappy little families because of an untimely accident. At least these couples weigh the concerns, the expenses, the consequences, etc...and chose to accept a child...I don't see an argument for the kids.

For traditional religious purposes?
Let the churches forbid it, that's fine. I try to be very open-minded about it all, but I'll be the first to admit when I see gay PDA it freaks me out a little bit. So what...I'll get over it. The church can ban it, but what right does our gov't (mine being one of the 11) to deny these people? They don't even get a claim of separate but equal here where civil unions are now banned.

Are we trying to force people into lives of heterosexuality? Is it a choice......I can't say, but I can say it's absurd to deny anyone the right at the governmental level to be married...churches can ban it all they want...and if it has the same effect, I don't care...its just not a governmental role...we live in such a conservative land right now...at a time when I genuinely thought that we were as a people becoming somewhat more liberal.

I personally think Civil Unions are BS...I think its another separate water fountains/separate but equal diversion from the real problem and that there is but one proper solution.

That's just my thoughts...

...gave proof through the night, that our land was filled with homophobes...

CO-DERN-SIGN!!

Co-friggin'-sign!

You ain't nevah lied!
For the post of the day I give:
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/35_3.gif

Just going to throw this out there...

I'm Jewish. While I realize that I am not of the majority religion in this country, I do not base my moral beliefs on the bible or the church whatsoever.

Let's pretend I was gay and wanted to get married. Do you think I should be denied this human right just because it conflicts with someone else's religious beliefs?

What if Judaism became the majority religion? Would it then be ok for me to impose my beliefs on non-Jews?

Just curious.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By allowing gay marriage you are not really affecting those who are not gay. Straight people will still be able to get married. Virtually 100% of those people who are against gay marriage are not gay. Therefore, they do not have to engage in gay marriage. Banning gay marriage would only limit the rights of others, and would not infringe on the rights of non-gays.

However, not banning gay marriage would only give gay people the same rights everyone else has.


MY SOLUTION:

Politics should steer clear from this issue. States should not ban gay marriage, as we should have a separation of church and state. Then the CHURCHES could decide to ban gay marriages if they so choose, as it is a religious institution. Those who want same sex marriages can either get married in a neutral way, in a temple, or somewhere else. Or, if they can find a church that WILL marry them, they can get married there.

I just think the government has no place in this issue.

Question: If gay marriage was "legal" but churches, insurance companies, etc. refused to recognize the union or give them the same benefits...wouldn't they be able to be sued? Wouldn't this affect Straight people? This couldn't happen in a vacuum. This will affect other people because they will have to do everything from performing the ceremonies to changing policies etc. You may have some ministers being sued because of this. This is ONE way gay marriage affects those who are non-gay.

No, churches would not. The First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association are very close to absolute. The Supreme Court permitted the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gay members even though it is not a religious organization, and even greater privileges are given to churches. It also ruled that a church may discriminate in hiring even when it is acting as an employer rather than a church (for example, it may choose to hire only Mormon janitors if it chooses, even though it would be illegal for an ordinary employer to do that).

Churches are permitted to select/reject members on any basis whatsoever, and cannot be coerced by the state to give their blessing to anything whatsoever. This can never change as long as the First Amendment stands.

Secular providers of public accommodations, such as insurance companies, are a different matter, and have to recognize any marriage recognized by the state. This is true just as an insurance company that wanted to stick to America's traditional definition of marriage, which was a white man and a white woman, and refused to cover interracial couples, could indeed be sued. That traditional definition of marriage existed in this country for its first 360 years, from the very first settlement of the Jamestown colony in 1607 until the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Recognition of black/white marriages is a recent and radical innovation and a total departure from American legal tradition.

Ivy, J.D.

so if someone asks a liscensed minister (that is not necessarily a pastor of a church) to marry them..and gay marriage was legal...and the minister refused...are u saying he could not be sued and his license would still be intact??