Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Gay marriages?

On the subject of gays; did you hear that Rosie O'Donnell drown?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Apparently police found her face down in Rikki Lake

Agree...more important issues out there. Unfortunately, this one is being thrust in the presidents face. 3-4 mayors now just marrying people, I think largely for publicity.


What is the implication for the institution of marriage? Uncertain. It is a definition that has not changed for many years, and is undergoing problems with a 50% devorce rate. Some arguments against gay marriage include A) a higher than average (cw heterosexual) "partner turnover rate", B) the Scandinavian "experiment" where gay marriage has been permitted since mid 90s and now less persons are getting married while having kids. They have infact agrued in court that full "marriage benifits" should apply specifically citing that the redefinition opens thev door to a much braoder defintion. This cannot definatively said to be "cause & effect" IMO, however. Simiarly. polygomists and other non traditional groups will be likely to use this foot in the door for further modification of the definition.

So, while am generally in favor of "doing what you do as long as knowone else is hurt", I have concerns about redefining an institution that has worked well for years. Producing & Raising children was the reason why marriage was defined as it was..this is of critical importance. I hestitate to change the definition until it is PROVEN that no harm may come from this(ie the burden of proff should be placed on gay marriage supporters, not the other way around). If I see proof, then its OK by me..but I have not seen it. Until that time, I prefer another term be applied that carries many of the same benefits of marriage.

BTW, I was initially against a constitutional ammendment..however, I now understand why it has been proposed. If one state approves gay marriage and the couple moves to a state without GM then the state is forced to either reciprocate (which is not fair to the citizens of that state) or refuse (which is not fair to the couple). So this amendment is REALLY about protecting states rights every bit as much as it is critisized for being AGAINST states rights.

There aro NO REASONS that should prevent 2 people who love each other and want to take benefit of all that marriage has to offer other than personal feelings and religious issues.

Let all men/women have the same rights and benefits as any other.

I've got no objection to gay marriage (although I'll be interesting in seeing what particular issues, if any, kids raised by gay couples have in 15 years or so), although I disagree with the way that they're approaching the situation.

But I don't agree with this.

Originally posted by 7999:

---

I think there is more prejudice aimed toward gay people than any other group of people.

---

I kinda think that Christians get the most prejudice and animosity nowadays...it's the last "safe prejudice" to have.

i really could care less, in addition bush is an idiot for proposing more laws to 'ban it' we've already got the marriage protection act from the clinton administration. no state has to recognize any others marriage that may violate the other states laws... so do what the hell you want. I was against it at first as i'm not big on homosexual activity in the first place. but bottom line, marriage in this country is a frickin joke anyhow, if 2 people love eachother hey let em get hitched, be merry, happy, and gay. hey more straight people could probably benifit from the example i've seen a lot of gay couples set.

I've always held the theory that as long as gay people don't try to start a relationship with me personally, then I have no care in the world as to what they do with their lives. And I continue to hold to that theory. If they want to be intimate with somebody of the same sex other than myself, then so be it; more power to them.

As far as marriage, I think the government is making a bigger deal of this than need be. The long standing moral of heterosexual marriage seems to be giving way to this same sex marriage thing, and nobody of the non-homosexual world that's in power seems to want to recognise it. God forbid the government let the rest of this country evolve.

Maybe it's not right in the eyes of many, but it's a shame that those who think so haven't sat back and given it a good thought. What harm does it really cause? It's not "natural" enough? And I suppose obliterating everything that isn't "natural" is just the PERFECT dandy solution.

This country was founded by Christians that believed a person should not be persecuted for their beliefs. In doing so, they made a strict policy of seperating church and state. The problem is the state is trying to make a church issue a state issue and it shouldn't be.

I think in some ways this issue is similar to interracial marriages. It's discrimination.

-Andy

I will keep my personal feelings to myself, but what I DO know is this debate is draining, and utterly fruitless.

Here in Indiana, our state legislature went through about 2 weeks of deadlock because noone could agree- the Republicans wanted the state constitution amended, the Democratic Speaker of the House wouldn't let the bill out of committee, so the Republicans walked out of the chamber and refused to participate.

In the meantime, the legislative session expired with no significant business getting finished, including funding for full-day kindergarten.

I am a cold-blooded, heartless conservative bastard republican to the core, but I mean come on... when education is slammed to the back of the agenda over a 4th grade-esque impasse over whether or not a bunch of gays schlepping each other can have health care included?

Who elects these people anyways???

Everyone who keeps bringing up the seperation of church and state needs to do a little more research instead of just blurting it out. You'd be surprised what your forefathers had in mind compared to the liberal courts that decided we should have seperation of church and state.