View Full Version : The Marriage agenda. Gays vs traditional

2.1.08, 4:03 AM
This has been a topic for some time, but what do you think about this?

Should gay couples be allowed to have the same rights to marry or at least....have some kind of civil ceremony that is state sanctioned and where they have some of the same rights as traditional marriages as far as property rights, etc.?

Some want a Constitutional Admendment to deny gays any rights to marriage and keep marriage rights between a woman and a man.

Another question. If marriage between a man and a woman ....and the concern is that marriage is a holy or civial union sanctioned by the states and should remain so....then....

considering that half the marriages in this country end up in divorce, perhaps there should be a law restricting divorce, too? After all, if one is concerned about marriage between a man and a woman as being the focus of legitmate marriage, then why shouldn't there be a real finality to it and it made more difficult to obtain divorces...if sanctioned marriage (male/female) is the goal and who have the only rights given to marry?

2.1.08, 2:22 PM
I have a cousin who is gay and lives in Vermont where it is okay to get married. He is so happy and in love. As you said, so many people these days get divorced. In my opinion, if you are happy and in love and want to get married (by law) then why not!

2.2.08, 6:22 PM
I don't see letting people who love each other get married as a big deal. I'm in MA and we have legalized it. Since the legalization, my life has not changed a bit as a heterosexual person. If it makes two people happy to be 'married' let them. If it helps them with health insurance, legal rights, etc. - great! It's their business, not mine. Who am I to judge? I wouldn't want people to tell me who I can or can't love and marry so why should I tell them?

I do feel sad for the children of gay couples that have to deal with all the negative comments about their 'gay' parents. The children are innocents and are just as loved by their parents as any child of a male/female married couple. They shouldn't have to hear the nasty comments made by people who would like to dictate how their family functions.

2.3.08, 4:45 AM
I agree with you two above posters. I am old enough to remember a time when there were "some" state laws on the books that made it illegal for people who were black or white to marry one another. It's kind of hard to believe now, but it was a fact.

I think the issue today of gay marriage is a throw back to the same types who could not stand the idea of interracial marriage and today still have some closed minded agenda.

Love has no real boundary. I agree....It is a shame that kids being raised in homes of couples who are gay have to suffer the negativity of others...just like interracial children have had to.

Live and let live.

2.4.08, 2:18 PM
Most straight people don't care if gays are allowed to marry or not. It is just a few religous fanatics who get upset about it. The traditional Republican stance on 'family values' embarrasses me horribly and almost makes me want to vote for a Democrat. Ron Paul had a really interesting answer to that. I saw it in an interview with John Stossel, probably on an ABC 20/20 site, I don't remember exactly where. Paul said that marriage should be a concern of religions and churches not of laws and government. That is the traditonal role of marriage.

For the law to give benefits to a married couple that a single person does not have could be considered discriminatory. Perhaps the most fair solution would be if there were no legaly recognized marriage of any type. Churches could still officallly saction which ever marriages fit their belief system but keep the gevernment out of it. This is an extreme solution, I know, but it would be a very fair one.

2.4.08, 6:45 PM
Paul said that marriage should be a concern of religions and churches not of laws and government. That is the traditonal role of marriage.


2.5.08, 4:52 AM

Hmmm...doesn't seem like it's that way with certain political parties these days...lol

2.5.08, 1:19 PM
OH my...for a minute I thought you ladies were giving the final word on marriage to Saint Paul! So Ron Paul wants to make marriage a religious issue as opposed to secular. The problem I see with that is that troublesome first amendment to the Constitution which states that Congress shall make no law regarding the free expression of religion. Therefore if marriage is left to religious authority only we risk the following:

Warren Jeffs is released from prison and is free to force young girls into incestuous marriage or into marriage with lecherous old men according to the tenets of his church.

NAMBLA will establish itself as a church. No little boy will be safe. Michael Devlin can claim that as a member of the church of NAMBLA he was within his religious rights to kidnap and abuse his young victims. No more prison time for Mr. Devlin! He can just walk away from his 173 consecutive life sentences.

I am more or less jesting, but you see the ramifications of leaving family legal matters in the hands of the church, which has no means of enforcing the rights of the individual. It takes a court of law to enforce matters such as domestic violence, property rights, custody, etc. No church has the power to garnish wages from deadbeat parents.

You lose your own argument for gay marriage rights when you state that marriage should be a religious matter only. Gays are not campaigning for the right to be married by a church official. There are plenty of ordained pastors willing to marry gay couples. But such unions are not protected by law in matters regarding property rights, end-of-life issues, etc. These are the issues which I believe concern gays and they cannot be enforced by church officials.

Gay couples certainly are entitled to the right of law in such matters. There should absolutely be legal binding contracts between couples, either gay or hetero.

2.6.08, 8:50 PM
Mogul those examples you give couldn't happen- because civil law would make them illegal. Child abuse is child abuse.....and illegal, even if it's done in church.
Maybe we need to have some new legal definition of partnership that guarantees those rights married couples enjoy....maybe it won't be called "marriage" anymore.

big easy
2.10.08, 10:50 AM
this is an issue that I don't think the States had a right to vote on..

the constitution was designed to protect individuals from "mob rule" democracy...

individuals shouldn't be denied the right to file taxes jointly...or make legal preparations for wills and such..

I am not convinced that children are better off being raised by gay couples however... maybe I'm wrong... I'm just not settled on that issue right now...

2.10.08, 12:02 PM
"better off" than what? Having a female mother and a male father who share the childraising? I agree with you there.

However.......having two gay parents would better than being raised in foster care.......wouldn't it?