Hello conservative right wingers:

Why do you deny the happiness, that you yourself enjoy, from your fellow citizens? Isn't doing that UN Christianlike?? I think it IS!!

You are bad and wrong for doing that. Tell my why you're not.

excon

Because marriage was made for MAN AND WOMAN. Period. Most people are hetero, and a good # of them have kids. It's known that kids do better with a mom and dad in their lives. Before birth control and nursing homes/hospitals, families had to stick together. And people still get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person. Gays should stop trying to muscle in on a straight tradition. It makes "real" marriage look like a joke. What would be next, marrying a horse?

Hello pass:

You're just wrong... Marriage wan't MADE. There isn't any "real" marriage, any more than there is a "real" Virginia. It ISN'T known at all that children do better with a mom and a dad. You're just making that up.

I'd like to argue with somebody who has FACTS on their side - not just more right wing Christian mumbo jumbo. Please.

excon

If marriage wasn't "made" then how does it exist, and exist with rules? Virginia is real as far as we're concerned (maybe not in the grand scheme of things) and it has it's own laws.

BTW, this question is mostly a matter of opinion, so I don't know why you are so angry about me stating my opinion along with some facts. Also, you addressed this question to Christians, or right-wingers... so duh, what do you expect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeby

And people still get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person.

---

Why should this not apply to gays? Why should they not be allowed to "get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person."?

Seriously, the outcome of prop 8 sickens me. For all the acceptance the american people have shown by voting for obama, the amount of sickening discrimination and manipulation shown in the campaign to pass prop 8 is truly shocking.

Hello again, pass:

I expect an argument based on facts - not Christian dogma. And, you ain't got facts.

excon

PS> Ok, I'll play with you a little while. Marriage is a religions institution. I don't think it was "made". I think it just was. If marriage REMAINED a religious institution, I wouldn't have ANY problem with it...

However, in addition to it being religious in nature, it ALSO has a LEGAL aspect. People who are married are granted specific legal rights BECAUSE they're married. Therefore, it's only fair, and CHRISTIAN like to make sure your brother gets to enjoy the very same rights YOU enjoy...

But no... Because gays are going to hell, so they don't deserve ANYTHING... Come on, pass. You can tell us how you REALLY feel.

First off "passmeby"... you offered no facts.
Secondly, your opinion that it is "known" that children do better with a mom and dad in their life is wrong.
Children do better with two parents... period. That can consist of a male and female, male and male, or female and female.

There are numerous studies that prove, giving real facts, that children brought up in a homosexual family exibit the same positive upbringings that a child brought up in a heterosexual family does. Actually, most children in a homosexual parent household outshine other children in areas of socialibility, and creativeness.

And, what, you are trying to compare a woman marrying a women or a male marrying a male... like marrying an animal?? Hardly a vaild comparison and actually hinders your answer from being consider factual or mature.

~best wishes from a heterosexual female who is married to a heterosexual male... and who truly understands that there cannot be limits on love.

I've said many times that the states should get out of marriage all together. All of the Christians want marriage to be a religious issue then it should be not be a part of state law then.
I have no problem with the state renaming my marriage to domestic partnership and then if I want the religious title of marriage I have to find a private institution willing to do it.

I feel that "marriage" is not nearly the religious institution it used to be. Many marriages are desolving because of problems ranging from abuse to adultry to who knows what. Many people get married only for the legal aspects, i.e. more tax deductions.
Yes, many people do still enter into the religious institution of marriage, and many survive and grow through it.
No matter what the reasoning of someone wanting to get married, should this not be allowed for all people, no matter their sexual preference?! It's very sad to know that so many americans are still so blinded by predjudices, that they vote to deny marriage to people who, choose a slightly different lifestyle. I personally think it's very sick and very wrong to deny people that which they deserve. Homosexuals love just as strongly as hetrosexuals, and should be given the right to marriage if that is what they choose to do.

I have answered this many times. My biggest question at this point is :why do people of California overwhelmingly vote in these Gavin Newsome types while at the same time voting for conservative intitiatives ?

Orwellians do like to change the meanings of words .But marriage is a religious institution. The term "marriage " should be stricken from the "public "records and replaced by the term "unions" .We don't want the government making decisions about baptism ,communion,or other sacraments .The government should also get out of the marriage business. On that we agree.

Where the states are involved in the contractual aspects of the relationship( joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity,child rearing ), I agree that all equal rights should apply. That would be easily solved by calling all such contracts on the state books as "unions "or "contracts " and leaving the term marriage to the authority of religious institutions.

The distinction nonetheless ,where states have both definitions, does not in my view violate your concerns about 14th Amendment rights since both "marriage " and "civil unions" where they are presently practiced afford equal rights to both.Before you come back at me with the "separate but equal " distinction of the 14th I will say that does NOT apply in this case. The reason Brown V. Board of Education was overturned was that the court believed the facilities were unable to ever be truly equal. In this case, civil unions are held to be an acceptable alternative where they have been granted .

But the bottom line is that there are apx 1000 Federal Benefits and apx an additional 400 State benefits that the contract of "marriage " qualifies .
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Extending those rights equally to all contractual "unions " would more than satisfy all legal concerns ;it would also give the added benefit of qualifying cohabitation and other common law concerns.

Frankly, I don't think anyone should be allowed to be "married" until they have a "domestic partnership" that they go to a courthouse and get from the state.

Once you have a domestic partnership, you have all the LEGAL aspects of marriage. You are not, however, allowed to call your spouse "husband" or "wife" or call yourself "married". You have a spouse and are partnered.

If you can find a religion---ANY religion--that is willing to "marry" you, then great! You can get married in that church, and call yourself married, etc, etc, etc.

And guess what? Most pagan religions recognize homosexual marriages. I see a great uprise in people converting to MY religion because Christianity is too judgemental.

Oh--and those people against gay marriage because it's against their religion should ALSO be against divorce because THAT is against most religions. Show me where divorced people didn't end up as social outcasts, excommunicated, prior to the 1950s or so! So... those preaching "no gay marriage because it's against god" need to remember that the church vows for marriage state "Til Death Do Us Part"----which to me means you're going against god if you divorce.

So basically THAT argument means that all divorced people should be pro-homosexual marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Extending those rights equally to all contractual "unions " would more than satisfy all legal concerns ;it would also give the added benefit of qualifying cohabitation and other common law concerns.

---

Hello tom:

What I want to know, is why you don't want them to marry. I know you think it's the same... But, it ain't.

What does it TAKE from YOU, that gays can marry?? I asked a simple question at the top. I know WHY you Christians DON'T want to answer it...

Cause you can't!

excon

What you are asking for is a rejection of the morals and that won't happen here.

Hello again, tom:

At least you have to courage to say it outright. Wassa matter with your fellow righty's?

I think you're wrong. At least I hope you are.

excon

What's moral about preventing the happiness of your fellow man?

Hello Cappy:

Because gay people are an abomination. They're damned to hell and not worthy of equal rights, happiness, or ANY Christianlike attitudes. Besides, this IS a Christian country.

There, Christians. I answered for you.

excon

Reagardless of my opinion ;I have given an equitable solution for the secular state .

Hello again, tom:

I again, suggest that separate but equal, ISN'T equal, EVEN if differs in name only. Because if it truly WAS equal, you wouldn't have a problem with what it's called.

excon

I disagree for reasons I stated in my first response.

But still the main thrust of my response is that for all legal concerns, the state calling all cohabitational unions as "civil union"would satisfy your constitutional concerns.

To make it COMPLETELY equal would require that ONLY marriages made by the state be recognized as legal for any kind of legal/state benefit--like seeing your spouse in the hospital, or inheritance upon death, or legal decisions when they are incapacitated, or tax breaks.

All religious marriages would then be ONLY recognized by the church.

If you want recognition from both, then you have to get married in both.