• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%

  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
Goshin said:
Civil Unions would accomplish everything you're talking about.
Click to expand...

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare

If it is the same thing, then it is just a matter of semantics. It is completely fiscally irresponsible to make two different words, and therefore two sets of rules and paperwork with those different words in each, to cover pretty much the same thing.
 
Blackdog said:
No I am not. So by not supporting polygamy laws I am hurting people? By not supporting marriage between family members I am hurting someone?


Not likely.



So you would support it with restrictions? That would be hurting people wouldn’t it?



And I think it’s not. So where do we go from here?



So what? You are placing restrictions on people. You are hurting someone.

Sorry I know that sounds bad, but I am just being a little ****. Forgive the sarcasm.



Why is it 18? Pretty arbitrary considering I know 16 and 17 year olds more mature than allot of 20 year olds.

So you are OK with restrictions as long as you find them acceptable?



Yes they should.
Click to expand...

The laws should be there to prevent hurting people and property. In many cases, laws that go beyond this are discriminatory, such as those concerning marriage. This is why, essentially, laws that banned interracial marriages were deemed to be discriminatory. This is why sodomy laws were deemed to be unconstitutional. The government's job is not to regulate morality. It is to protect the people and their property. The government must do so fairly. When it restricts who person can make a legal part of that person's family, while allowing others to do so, without a fair explanation why, then discrimination is occurring.

Some restrictions are necessary when there is potential that certain factors can cause harm to someone, and in the case of marriage, age is seen as one of those factors, as is incest.

I have given reasons to justify my restrictions that pertain to the potential safety or welfare of at least one of the participants in the marriage or a product of the marriage, or why the marriage really isn't completely necessary in the first place. I can give more if you would like. You need to show valid reasons to justify why restricting gay marriage because of sexuality is potentially protecting the safety or welfare of one or both of the marriage members or a product of the marriage or anyone outside of that marriage because of that marriage. The same thing for polygamy itself.
 
roguenuke said:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare

If it is the same thing, then it is just a matter of semantics. It is completely fiscally irresponsible to make two different words, and therefore two sets of rules and paperwork with those different words in each, to cover pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...

A lot of people think otherwise, Blackdog and I among them. We consider marriage to be between a man and a woman and that gay marriage is a misnomer, like calling a tail a leg, and a change of an existing institution to accomodate a tiny minority whose lifestyle doesn't fit the defintion to start with.

Historically, marriage has been male-female and as much about family (the production and upbringing of children) as about couple-dom. This has been true for all of recorded history in almost every culture. Even cultures that were fully accepting of homosexual activity (ie certain ancient Greek city-states) normally reserved marriage to mean male-female and associated with reproduction. Reproduction is not a natural function of homosexual behavior. The very few exceptions in ancient history involved aristocrats who were powerful enough to flout social convention and bend the law.

So, from the perspective of those like me, SSM is an attempt, not to provide equal-access, but to alter the definition and function of a vital and fundamental institution in a way we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.

Now, let me ask you the same question: if "marriage" is just a name, why does it matter so much to YOU? Why not just accept "Civil unions" and gain all the legal benefits you say you want? Why is it so important to call it marriage?
 
Goshin said:
A lot of people think otherwise, Blackdog and I among them. We consider marriage to be between a man and a woman and that gay marriage is a misnomer, like calling a tail a leg, and a change of an existing institution to accomodate a tiny minority whose lifestyle doesn't fit the defintion to start with.
Click to expand...

Marriage in relation to the government is a legal construct. If the law says that two men or two women can get married, then by definition it is calling a tail a tail. What a church or individuals call it is irrelevant, since what matters, and what we are conserned with is what it is in legal terms.

Historically, marriage has been male-female and as much about family (the production and upbringing of children) as about couple-dom. This has been true for all of recorded history in almost every culture. Even cultures that were fully accepting of homosexual activity (ie certain ancient Greek city-states) normally reserved marriage to mean male-female and associated with reproduction. Reproduction is not a natural function of homosexual behavior. The very few exceptions in ancient history involved aristocrats who were powerful enough to flout social convention and bend the law.
Click to expand...

Many marriages have nothing to do with children. Further, gay marriage is very much about families. Allowing gay marriage is a benefit to raising families.

So, from the perspective of those like me, SSM is an attempt, not to provide equal-access, but to alter the definition and function of a vital and fundamental institution in a way we consider unnecessary and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Except it is needed and reasonable. Equal access to people who have no reason to be denied that access is not unreasonable.

Now, let me ask you the same question: if "marriage" is just a name, why does it matter so much to YOU? Why not just accept "Civil unions" and gain all the legal benefits you say you want? Why is it so important to call it marriage?
Click to expand...

Because either a civil union is just another name for marriage, and therefore adds unnecessary complexity to the laws, or civil unions have different rights, in which case it is still excluding a group from those rights for no good reason. If a civil union and marriage are the same thing, then call them both the same thing. If different, then we have the same problem we have now.
 
Redress said:
Marriage in relation to the government is a legal construct. If the law says that two men or two women can get married, then by definition it is calling a tail a tail. What a church or individuals call it is irrelevant, since what matters, and what we are conserned with is what it is in legal terms.
Click to expand...

Thousands of years of history in hundreds of different cultures disagree.


Many marriages have nothing to do with children. Further, gay marriage is very much about families. Allowing gay marriage is a benefit to raising families.
Click to expand...

As an institution, historically marriage has been about families, and the production and rearing of children. Gay couple-dom does not inherently produce children by its very nature, so it does not fit the defintion. A given hetero couple might not have children, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority can and do. Gay couples CANNOT have children by themselves. I'm talking about "as a subset of couples", not as individual examples. Subset A typically can and commonly does produce children; Subset B is incapable of producing children in and of themselves. This excludes Subset B from the historical function of marriage and family.



Except it is needed and reasonable. Equal access to people who have no reason to be denied that access is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Equal access can be had by Civil Unions. Bear in mind that you can get a lot more popular support for this cause by calling it Civil Union, whereas insisting on redefining the term "marriage" will increase opposition.



Because either a civil union is just another name for marriage, and therefore adds unnecessary complexity to the laws, or civil unions have different rights, in which case it is still excluding a group from those rights for no good reason. If a civil union and marriage are the same thing, then call them both the same thing. If different, then we have the same problem we have now.
Click to expand...

Let's say you were given these two choices...
A. Civil Unions with all the same benefits.
B. No civil unions OR gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

Which would you choose? If the choice is left to the general population, that may well be the choice you have.

If you can have the same benefits, why insist on calling it "marriage" when so many people have a problem with that, but would accept civil unions?

I have to wonder if it is specifically because the word "marriage" would provide leverage to socially legitimize gay coupledom in a way that Civil Unions would not.
 
Goshin said:
Thousands of years of history in hundreds of different cultures disagree.
Click to expand...

Really? We have not even been a country that long, and it's our laws we are talking about. Further, appeal to tradition is an especially weak argument.



As an institution, historically marriage has been about families, and the production and rearing of children. Gay couple-dom does not inherently produce children by its very nature, so it does not fit the defintion. A given hetero couple might not have children, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority can and do. Gay couples CANNOT have children by themselves. I'm talking about "as a subset of couples", not as individual examples. Subset A typically can and commonly does produce children; Subset B is incapable of producing children in and of themselves. This excludes Subset B from the historical function of marriage and family.
Click to expand...

But there is no law saying that children must be an outcome of marriage. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the ability to create children within the marriage is irrelevant. The number of gay people with children may surprise you, it is quite high. Further, adopting and fostering are both very much about families. If you want to argue from a family standpoint, arguing against gay marriage is hypocritical.

Equal access can be had by Civil Unions. Bear in mind that you can get a lot more popular support for this cause by calling it Civil Union, whereas insisting on redefining the term "marriage" will increase opposition.
Click to expand...

You can, but it is stupid to do it so. If it is the same thing, then the only reason to get upset about using the term marriage is personal bias. You do not want to share the term with people doing the exact same thing.


Let's say you were given these two choices...
A. Civil Unions with all the same benefits.
B. No civil unions OR gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

Which would you choose? If the choice is left to the general population, that may well be the choice you have.
Click to expand...

Those are not the only possible choices, nor even the only likely ones.

If you can have the same benefits, why insist on calling it "marriage" when so many people have a problem with that, but would accept civil unions?

I have to wonder if it is specifically because the word "marriage" would provide leverage to socially legitimize gay coupledom in a way that Civil Unions would not.
Click to expand...

Because we should not tailor laws to the personal emotional reactions of people. If marriage and civil unions are the same thing before the law, then there is no logical reason to have separate categories for both.
 
Appeal to tradition doesn't matter. Nothing will change with regards to opposite sex marriages. That tradition will be unscathed.

Marriage is not solely about having kids or having sex. Gay people getting married is no worse than sterile people or the elderly getting married. That makes this line of argument irrelevant.

The government can't tell people they must procreate or even have sex in a marriage. The government's role is to grant rights and ensure protections. The government shouldn't be giving them a special classification as it shows bias.

By granting the rights, the government has legitimized it. You guys keep saying that it shouldn't be legitimized. This means that you want a second-class status for gay marriage.

Now if this is not the case, you would support the government calling all marriages "civil unions".
 
Redress said:
Really? We have not even been a country that long, and it's our laws we are talking about. Further, appeal to tradition is an especially weak argument.
Click to expand...

An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.





But there is no law saying that children must be an outcome of marriage. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, the ability to create children within the marriage is irrelevant. The number of gay people with children may surprise you, it is quite high. Further, adopting and fostering are both very much about families. If you want to argue from a family standpoint, arguing against gay marriage is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Gay couples do not produce children without the intervention of an outside person. Again, I'm not talking about what this couple or that couple might do, I'm talking about as a "class" of coupledom. Hetero couples can and usually do produce children. Gay couples are inherently unable to do so without assistance from outside the marriage. To me this makes it two entirely different things.



You can, but it is stupid to do it so. If it is the same thing, then the only reason to get upset about using the term marriage is personal bias. You do not want to share the term with people doing the exact same thing.

Those are not the only possible choices, nor even the only likely ones.

Because we should not tailor laws to the personal emotional reactions of people. If marriage and civil unions are the same thing before the law, then there is no logical reason to have separate categories for both
Click to expand...
.



Maybe I should just cut to the chase here.

I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know if Blackdog has covered this, but let's get it out in the open.

The reason why most theologically-conservative Christians oppose calling same-sex unions marriage is because we are forbidden to do so by our religious beliefs.

Specifically, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. Yes, in the New Testement also.

Also, the Bible teaches that marriage was originally instituted by God, and that it is a holy institution.

In our beliefs, Gay = Sin and Marriage = Holy. We can't call something Holy Sin, that doesn't work.

In fact we are specifically warned not to. "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil." If we agree to let a holy institution be used to legitimize something we believe is sin, we are ourselves committing a sin.

You're asking us to call what we consider sin by a term we consider holy, when we are specifically forbidden to do so. This is one of the most basic and core reasons why so many Christians cannot accept the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality.

The only way to convince us otherwise is to persuade us that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says. Lotsa luck with that.

No, asking us to seperate our religious convictions from our political position won't work in most cases either. This is matter of personal spiritual conscience and something we have to live with when we try to go to sleep at night.

Some of us have, with no small amount of personal internal struggle, managed to convince ourselves that we could accept "Civil Unions" as a compromise position, since it does not apply the same word (marriage) used for holy matrimony. Do you understand that even that is difficult for many of us? Do you understand that we're trying to find a way to compromise with you in a manner that still allows us to live with our conscience?

When you want to insist on calling it marriage, and insist that we ought to support it, what you're insisting on is that we violate our conscience and our religious convictions for the sake of giving you that word.

Perhaps, in ten or twenty or forty years, you'll get to use the word "marriage" legally nationwide. If so, those like me and Blackdog will have to deal with the fact that our society and government has done something we disapprove of... not like that's anything new. :roll:

But to ask us to support it, is to ask us to violate our own conscience and religious convictions. Do you realize what a big deal that is to people like us? You're asking us to do something that we believe God has specifically forbidden us to do.

If you attain your goal of redefining marriage, we'll have to live with the outcome... but you'll have to attain it without our support. We are not allowed to support you.
 
An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

"Millenia".

/ snort. :roll:


Right.
 
The government isn't creating a Holy institution. Never has. In fact, only the two parties involved can make it a Holy institution.
 
Goshin said:
An institution that has been thus established for millenia across hundreds of cultures in a certain general format, and endured in that general format for all that time, is irrelevant. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

You know better than this Goshin. The legal institution that is marriage in the United States is not millennia old. That is the topic of conversation. Yes, it was adapted from traditions, but the key word is "adapted". Further, it has evolved since the country has been founded. You made it a point to ignore that appeal to tradition is a weak argument, but it is important in this argument. Every advance society has made has been by changing tradition. If tradition is so important, then at least be consistent, not pick and choose what traditions you like, and call those important because they are traditional, and ignore those you don't like, because tradition is not important in those cases.

Gay couples do not produce children without the intervention of an outside person. Again, I'm not talking about what this couple or that couple might do, I'm talking about as a "class" of coupledom. Hetero couples can and usually do produce children. Gay couples are inherently unable to do so without assistance from outside the marriage. To me this makes it two entirely different things.
Click to expand...

About 1/3 of lesbian couples have under 18 children in the household. About 1/4 of gay male couples likewise. It is believed those numbers are rising. The fact that two gay people of the same sex cannot generate children is a red herring.



Maybe I should just cut to the chase here.

I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know if Blackdog has covered this, but let's get it out in the open.

The reason why most theologically-conservative Christians oppose calling same-sex unions marriage is because we are forbidden to do so by our religious beliefs.

Specifically, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is a sin. Yes, in the New Testement also.

Also, the Bible teaches that marriage was originally instituted by God, and that it is a holy institution.

In our beliefs, Gay = Sin and Marriage = Holy. We can't call something Holy Sin, that doesn't work.

In fact we are specifically warned not to. "Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil." If we agree to let a holy institution be used to legitimize something we believe is sin, we are ourselves committing a sin.

You're asking us to call what we consider sin by a term we consider holy, when we are specifically forbidden to do so. This is one of the most basic and core reasons why so many Christians cannot accept the redefinition of marriage to include homosexuality.

The only way to convince us otherwise is to persuade us that the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says. Lotsa luck with that.

No, asking us to seperate our religious convictions from our political position won't work in most cases either. This is matter of personal spiritual conscience and something we have to live with when we try to go to sleep at night.

Some of us have, with no small amount of personal internal struggle, managed to convince ourselves that we could accept "Civil Unions" as a compromise position, since it does not apply the same word (marriage) used for holy matrimony. Do you understand that even that is difficult for many of us? Do you understand that we're trying to find a way to compromise with you in a manner that still allows us to live with our conscience?

When you want to insist on calling it marriage, and insist that we ought to support it, what you're insisting on is that we violate our conscience and our religious convictions for the sake of giving you that word.

Perhaps, in ten or twenty or forty years, you'll get to use the word "marriage" legally nationwide. If so, those like me and Blackdog will have to deal with the fact that our society and government has done something we disapprove of... not like that's anything new. :roll:

But to ask us to support it, is to ask us to violate our own conscience and religious convictions. Do you realize what a big deal that is to people like us? You're asking us to do something that we believe God has specifically forbidden us to do.

If you attain your goal of redefining marriage, we'll have to live with the outcome... but you'll have to attain it without our support. We are not allowed to support you.
Click to expand...

Let me cut to the chase. What your book of beliefs says is entirely irrelevant to the laws of this country. The beliefs you want to pick out of it and say are important does not matter to what the law should be, nor are the parts you want to ignore. You are free to believe whatever you want. I will not stand in your way, and I will not try and legislate what you should believe. I just wish you religious folks would show the rest of us the same courtesy.
 
Goshin said:
I think you missed my point.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you missed his. Your church can recognize or not any marriage as it chooses. The government is not legislating what you believe, or what marriage is or is not in terms of your beliefs. We are talking about laws, which are not holy.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The government isn't creating a Holy institution. Never has. In fact, only the two parties involved can make it a Holy institution.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Holy Institution part is a private religious ceremony. But the state sponsored institution of marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
 
Your Star said:
Yep, the Holy Institution part is a private religious ceremony. But the state sponsored institution of marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.
Click to expand...

Which is the problem we are having in this discussion. If some one made a law regulating their religion, BD and Goshin would both be, rightly, up in arms over it. They however see nothing wrong with using their religion to make laws regulating others.
 
Goshin said:
I think you missed my point.
Click to expand...

No, I get your point, even if you wanted to, you are forbidden from supporting it.

There are a great many marriages that are sinful. That is of no concern to secular (government) marriage. Many feel that divorce is a sin. The government needn't worry about that either. You think that your personal religion should dictate government policy. You don't have to support it. But to actively campaign against the use of an aptly descriptive word seems more highly motivated than the more ubiquitous problem of heterosexual sinful marriages.
 
Wow, some interesting new reading. Thanks everyone for participating!
:applaud
I see some fallacy claims out there but thats ok, they wont be the first and probably wont be the last.
Anyway since all reasons have been debunked by the OP and criteria does anybody have any NEW reasons or any that hasn't been already debunked repeatedly?
:beatdeadhorse

Thanks! still interesting though.


6/13/10
2:05pm

GOOD REASONS: 0
 
Redress said:
You know better than this Goshin. The legal institution that is marriage in the United States is not millennia old. That is the topic of conversation. Yes, it was adapted from traditions, but the key word is "adapted". Further, it has evolved since the country has been founded. You made it a point to ignore that appeal to tradition is a weak argument, but it is important in this argument. Every advance society has made has been by changing tradition. If tradition is so important, then at least be consistent, not pick and choose what traditions you like, and call those important because they are traditional, and ignore those you don't like, because tradition is not important in those cases.
Click to expand...

Redress, the traditions of marriage have been modified, yes... but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions.

Explaining why I consider this significant would take pages and pages of dissertations on how societal traditions tend to result from survival-oriented needs, and how changing them drastically should be done only at need and with great caution and consideration. I don't feel like typing several pages worth of arguments on this topic, so let's just sum up:

It matters to me.
It doesn't matter to you.
Therefore you and I need not bother to argue about it.




About 1/3 of lesbian couples have under 18 children in the household. About 1/4 of gay male couples likewise. It is believed those numbers are rising. The fact that two gay people of the same sex cannot generate children is a red herring.
Click to expand...

All those gay couples got children either through the intervention of a third party or through adoption. Gay coupledom has no functionality in reproduction.

Again, this matters to me, but not to you. May as well skip it then.


Let me cut to the chase. What your book of beliefs says is entirely irrelevant to the laws of this country. The beliefs you want to pick out of it and say are important does not matter to what the law should be, nor are the parts you want to ignore. You are free to believe whatever you want. I will not stand in your way, and I will not try and legislate what you should believe. I just wish you religious folks would show the rest of us the same courtesy
Click to expand...
.

Redress, I AM extending the same courtesy to you. You are free to vote according to your conscience. I will do the same, and the outcome will be whatever it is.
I cannot stop you from voting your conscience. You cannot stop me from voting mine. Would you want to? Is it a free country if you tell me I can't vote according to my beliefs?

What is your purpose in this post? If it is to persuade me to change my mind, it didn't even come close. Nor is it likely to persuade Blackdog, or other theologically-conservative Christians to change their mind and support SSM. We are not allowed to. We are, in point of fact and within the context of our beliefs, forbidden to do so.

Do you want me to seperate my religious convictions from my political position? I've already told you why that isn't likely to happen. I have to live with my conscience and be able to sleep at night.

I may sympathize with the desire of gay persons to have access to the same kinds of benefits and status as married couples. My sympathy is irrelevant; I am forbidden to support them in that issue, on pain of the displeasure of my God. A willingness to compromise in the matter of Civil Unions is as far as I can go in that direction, and frankly that itself is pushing the envelope. Some of my co-religionists would give me a hard time about that, if they knew.

If it happens it happens. I can't support it.


Redress said:
Actually, I think you missed his. Your church can recognize or not any marriage as it chooses. The government is not legislating what you believe, or what marriage is or is not in terms of your beliefs. We are talking about laws, which are not holy.
Click to expand...

Matter of perspective. I believe marriage is a holy institution, whether the individuals entering into it acknowlege that or not. The government can pass a law saying "marriage is NOT a holy institution" and that will not change my belief that it IS.

I already know that you disagree with me. What more is there to say?
 
Redress said:
Which is the problem we are having in this discussion. If some one made a law regulating their religion, BD and Goshin would both be, rightly, up in arms over it. They however see nothing wrong with using their religion to make laws regulating others.
Click to expand...

The law, as it already exists in most states, does not allow for homosexual marriage.

I am not proposing a new law. I am not proposing banning something that already exists. I am telling you that I cannot support the changing of existing law to accomodate SSM.

If you manage to get it changed, then you do. It will have to be without my support, which I am not allowed to give. I am not trying to impose my religious views on you, I am simply being true to my personal convictions.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No, I get your point, even if you wanted to, you are forbidden from supporting it.

There are a great many marriages that are sinful. That is of no concern to secular (government) marriage. Many feel that divorce is a sin. The government needn't worry about that either. You think that your personal religion should dictate government policy. You don't have to support it. But to actively campaign against the use of an aptly descriptive word seems more highly motivated than the more ubiquitous problem of heterosexual sinful marriages.
Click to expand...

Who said I actively campaign against it? I said I can't support it, and have tried to explain why. In response I've been told I wish to impose my religion on others, that I think my personal religion should dictate government policy.

I'll say it once more: if you get it passed, then you just do. It will have to be without my support for reasons I've already explained.

As for divorce and adultery, I'm against those too, other than certain limited exceptions for divorce.

WHO here does not let their personal beliefs, whatever those might be, guide their political positions to some degree? Redress, IT... have you EVER ONCE advocated that the government should not allow people do something? Then you've made a value judgement based on what you think is right, and have no grounds to bust on me for doing the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
but it has remained male-female throughout history with hardly any significant exceptions.
Click to expand...
false
like it has already been posted since we are talking about america and fair and equal rights and freedoms this doeant matter much even if it was true but lets talk about it. the majority have been male-female but the fact remains gay marriage was around like 2000 years ago
now things you said in other threads
you will still be just as free as you are RIGHT NOW to no support it, nobody is asking you to support it

also gay marriage wont change anything about marriage that is already effecting you besides that its already not holy per the law. Nothing NEW will change since theres marriages out there already that your religion doesnt see nor does it have to.
 
All those gay couples got children either through the intervention of a third party or through adoption. Gay coupledom has no functionality in reproduction.
Click to expand...


Hetero marriage has no "function in reproduction", either.
In more than half of all US households with minor children, the children are not the biological children of both partners. Further, more than half of all children in the US do not live in a household with both their biological mother and father.
Since it is more than half, you can no longer call households with children headed by the children's biological mother and father "the norm".
It is no longer the norm.
Society has changed, and laws have adapted along with it.

Over 60% of all gay women in the US have biological children (and that's not even counting gay adoptive mothers).
Approximately 86% of heterosexual women in the US are mothers.

That's not a really huge difference.

Gay couples (and especially gay parents) need and deserve the legal protections that marriage offers, as much as hetero couples/parents do.
They are taxpayers and law-abiding citizens, and there is no valid reason to withhold it from them.
 
I've never understood why people care so much about stopping "teh gays" from getting married. To people who oppose gay marriage, I have two questions. 1. Have you ever had a gay acquaintance?, and 2. Are you a Christian? I think opposing gay marriage based on fear that it will destroy the institution of marriage is irrational, by that logic we should outlaw divorce and prosecute adulterers, which brings me to religion. If you support a law denying rights to homosexuals just because you believe the bible is against it, then you are truly doing more harm to America then two people who are in love getting married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom