I understand how laws against murder are in the interest of the public good, same as stealing, drinking & driving, etc.  I can even understand how abortion could be considered murder if you believe that the unborn child is a life.  I understand how the .gov needs to regulate interstate trade.
But how is banning same-sex marriage something that protects the public good?  I don't agree with homosexuality, but what difference does it make to John Q. Public if two women or two men want to live together in a committed relationship and enjoy the same insurance & legal benefits as a man and a woman?  I can understand thinking that it's morally wrong, or that they're going to hell, or that they're dirty-birds for doing what they're doing, but isn't the banning of same-sex marriage nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality?  Should the .gov really be in the business of legislating morality?  Does it ever work when they try?

Will there be a poll coming?

Got a chain e-mail from a heavy Xian co-worker last week that said something like; since we’ve got God’s name on our money and mention Him in the Pledge of Allegiance – then we have to do whatever his Church says.  

And I’m pretty sure the God of most of our Governmental “leadership” is agin the act of homosexuality – nobody here will disagree with that I'm sure - so we better do what they say or else we’re no better then those dirty idol worshippers over in the middle-east that we’re currently blowing up, right?

Maybe I should have read the whole e-mail before commenting on it.

Quoted: but isn't the banning of same-sex marriage nothing more than an attempt to legislate morality?  Should the .gov really be in the business of legislating morality?  Does it ever work when they try?

Yes, No, No. (prohibition ?)

Quoted: All laws are attempts to 'legislate morality.' One way or the other. Eric The(Legal)Hun

I agree, as a self-professed anarchist.

However, I do see a diference in some laws from others.  The other laws I mentioned are attempts to protect man from his fellow man.  what/who are we protecting by making same-sex marriage illegal?

I read an interesting article in National Review recently that addressed this exact issue.

If I can boil it down a little, it basically said that society has an interest in perpetuating the marriage contract between a man and a woman.

Society does this because it is good for society for children to have famalies that produce children.  It is also good for man and women to have the rights and privledges of marriage.  The rights given to married couples such as benefits to spouses, joint property, inheritence guarantees, etc. are done to encourage the stabilization of families that produce children.

Since homosexual "couples" cannot produce families (i.e. children), society has no driving force to encourage these unions.

I'll grab this one...because without a moral compass, our laws are useless. To deny the moral standard "Man + woman = marriage", then you open the door for it's eventual depraved definition. In other wrods..why can't a man and a cat get married? Why can't a woman marry her horse? What is the standard? Then you have the real deprivation, when kiddie porn is ruled constitutional and free speech protected. if kids can be involved in porn, why not relationships? Why can't a man marry a 7 yr.old girl? Marriage is just a sexual preference, right?

The lower the morality bar goes...the less we become responsible humans. Freedom is protected by laws...perversion should never be protected by any law. If it is, then our moral "compass" will lead us into destruction as a society. We become moralless, conscienceless, anarchist with no direction except what and where our perverse actions lead us.

We need standards, we need morality, we need the law. These are what ultimately made us a great nation.

So you're equating a woman sleeping with another woman with a woman getting fucked by a dog, or a man molesting a 5 year old boy?

Lately, every time I take the increasingly rare opportunity to visit this board, there are more members leaning left than the last time. So either DU people are infiltrating the board. Or the human race is leaning left on issues and ways of thinking. At this rate, I won't be able to tell the difference between this place and DU in another year or two. I will look for it to be PEPPERSPRAY.COM by then because evil black rifles will be far to scary of a subject.

The last days are here... good is becoming evil and evil is becoming good.  

BOSTON -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot prevent gay couples from marrying under the state constitution, and ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days that would allow same-sex couples to wed.

The court, in its 4-3 ruling, did not immediately issue marriage licenses to the seven couples who sued.

"Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family -- these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in a 34-page ruling. "And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations."

"Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions," she wrote elsewhere in the ruling. "That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under the law."

Legal observers said the case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state, giving couples some of the rights of the marriage.

This decision, lawyers said, rules that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage and that creating a separate class of marriage -- such as civil unions -- would not be acceptable.

"It's a historic decision," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA. "Clearly, the court has said ... that there is a constitutional right in Massachusetts for same-sex couples to have the same benefits of marriage."

The ruling was hailed by gay-rights advocates.

"Today, the Massachusetts supreme court made history," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "In the best tradition of our nation, the court ruled that hardworking, tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens deserve the same rights and protections under law as other citizens of the state."

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney immediately denounced the decision and said he would support efforts to change the state's constitution.

"Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman," Romney said in a prepared statement. "I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

A constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman is currently under consideration in the Legislature but a constitutional ban on gay marriage could not be enacted in Massachusetts until 2006 because of all the various logistical hurdles required to change it.

Still, some court watchers said the Legislature's hands may be tied by the court's ruling.

"While the court left in place the rule-making authority of the Legislature to regulate marriage, there are boundaries to that broad discretion," said Shari Levitan, an attorney with the Boston-based law firm of Holland & Knight. "We have a number of statutes, both state and local, that need to be adjusted to take account of this."

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March, peppering both sides with pointed questions about the evolution of marriage.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

"The right to marry the person you love and with whom you wish to share your life is one of the most fundamental of all our human and civil rights," the plaintiffs wrote in a legal brief. "The desire to marry is grounded in the intangibles of love, an enduring commitment, and a shared journey through life."

Beyond that, they argued that nothing in the state statute dictates that marriage be restricted to a man and a woman. The only restrictions, they said, are that couples cannot be closely related by blood, must be of appropriate age, must have passed certain blood tests, and must be willing to pay a license fee.

The state's Attorney General's Office, which defended the Department of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the state's lawyer argued, any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers and not by the courts.

"Although there are also legitimate policy arguments for affording same-sex couples some or all of the benefits now more readily available to married couples, those arguments should be addressed to the Legislature, which ... is the body best suited to decide whether, when and how to make such a radical change in Massachusetts law," the state wrote in a brief.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.

A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont.

Courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage certificates to gay couples, but no American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license -- a privilege previously reserved for heterosexual couples.

The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has said he would support.

Canadian courts in Ontario and British Columbia recently legalized gay marriage, leading to hundreds of same-sex ceremonies. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage. (AP)

Quoted: Lately, every time I take the increasingly rare opportunity to visit this board, there are more members leaning left than the last time. So either DU people are infiltrating the board. Or the human race is leaning left on issues and ways of thinking. At this rate, I won't be able to tell the difference between this place and DU in another year or two. I will look for it to be PEPPERSPRAY.COM by then because evil black rifles will be far to scary of a subject. The last days are here... good is becoming evil and evil is becoming good.

alright, thanks for the hijack, but since you started it....

It's ridiculous to assume that everyone here is going to be a dyed-in-the-wool, bible-beating, Rush-listening, 7-days-a-week-church-attending, card-carrying, ultra-right-wing, "conservative".  Just because someone shares an interest in firearms with you does not mean that they share ANY other viewpoint with you.  I myself am a devout anarchist atheist, and for the life of me I can't figure out why nobody else here is.  
Secondly, you're jumping to an aweful lot of conclusions.  I haven't seen one post including my own, that advocates even homosexuality, let alone allowing it or legally sanctioning it.  I may have asked you and others to justify or rationalize your opinion/stance, but it would appear from your off-topic response that you're incapable of doing that.

Is banning same-sex marriage an attempt at legislating morality?

Yes

Quoted: So you're equating a woman sleeping with another woman with a woman getting fucked by a dog, or a man molesting a 5 year old boy?

No.

It opens the door for further deprivation of the law. We've gone 6,000 years with no real challenge to (man + woman = marriage) and now..what? We have now become a "better" society by allowing sexual perverts get married?

Sexual lifestyle should NEVER be the standard for marriage "which is what they are saying"..we need a constitutional standard to clarify what it is. I am sure this will make grand political fodder next fall.

On a side note..if the clam lickers and dook divers ever reproduce with out the opposite sex. This might go far in protecting their importance...it is important that men and women have sex for life to continue..no such luck for the perverts.

The Law is for those who don't know how they should behave, not for those who do.

I’m going to make a proposal:

Separate the social/religious institution of marriage from the legal contract of “civil union.”

This way same-sex couples can have the same legal benefits and we wouldn’t have to worry about letting people break divine law (in some people’s opinion) because the legal arrangement would between two people and the government, not two people and God. This also means that traditional man-woman marriages don’t always have to involve a legal contract; then people can get married for purely personal/religious reasons and opt-out of the legal complications if they want to.

I guess this may be more complicated than it sounds, but I’m not a lawyer.

I agree that this will now become the hot issue at presidential election time.
Do you think then that this should be something that is addressed in our Unites States Constitution?  That it's just as important as the freedom of religion, the press, and self defense?

And why is this only about sex?  Is your marriage only about reproduction?  Do you have an emotional and spiritual bond with your wife?

Quoted: I’m going to make a proposal: Separate the social/religious institution of marriage from the legal contract of “civil union.” This way same-sex couples can have the same legal benefits and we wouldn’t have to worry about letting people break divine law (in some people’s opinion) because the legal arrangement would between two people and the government, not two people and God. This also means that traditional man-woman marriages don’t always have to involve a legal contract; then people can get married for purely personal/religious reasons and opt-out of the legal complications if they want to. I guess this may be more complicated than it sounds, but I’m not a lawyer.

That is a position that some politicians are taking.  The idea of the civil-union, so that you can get healthcare from your significant-other's company and inherit their property and make life-or-death decisions for them, but you're not "soiling" the institution of marriage.

Quoted: Lately, every time I take the increasingly rare opportunity to visit this board, there are more members leaning left than the last time. So either DU people are infiltrating the board. Or the human race is leaning left on issues and ways of thinking. At this rate, I won't be able to tell the difference between this place and DU in another year or two. I will look for it to be PEPPERSPRAY.COM by then because evil black rifles will be far to scary of a subject. The last days are here... good is becoming evil and evil is becoming good.

Great post.

Quoted: I agree that this will now become the hot issue at presidential election time. Do you think then that this should be something that is addressed in our Unites States Constitution?  That it's just as important as the freedom of religion, the press, and self defense?

My heart say yes,,mainly because the family as a unit,needs to be protected. This ruling which passed 4-3....4-3? These judges are going to change 6,000 years of history with a 4-3 vote? How ascenine...anyway, I think the constitutional ammendment would protect a "standard" that all of America can agree upon.

If it does not...then the roller coaster will only go down from now on. You cannot begin to legislate without a moral compass...and if that compass is perverted, there is no telling where you are headed. We need standards. We need laws. We need morality. We are nation that is ultimately protected by these 3 things.

Yes. To a constitutional ammenedment. It hurts noone..and protects the family.

alright, thanks for the hijack, but since you started it.... It's ridiculous to assume that everyone here is going to be a dyed-in-the-wool, bible-beating, Rush-listening, 7-days-a-week-church-attending, card-carrying, ultra-right-wing, "conservative". Just because someone shares an interest in firearms with you does not mean that they share ANY other viewpoint with you. I myself am a devout anarchist atheist, and for the life of me I can't figure out why nobody else here is. Secondly, you're jumping to an aweful lot of conclusions. I haven't seen one post including my own, that advocates even homosexuality, let alone allowing it or legally sanctioning it. I may have asked you and others to justify or rationalize your opinion/stance, but it would appear from your off-topic response that you're incapable of doing that.

so help me sunshine, i think you should REALLY look into some anti-depression drugs.  you come across as an absolute ASS most of the time, don't know if you truly are or not, maybe you just don't project yourself well over an internet medium.................  either way, it seems that you've got your shorts on way too tight, loosen up, at least some of the time

Is banning same-sex marriage an attempt at legislating morality?

No.

Allowing same-sex marriage is an attempt at legislating morality.

I like pizza.

Quoted: ...But how is banning same-sex marriage something that protects the public good?

It does nothing to protect public good.

Modified quote...

...want to live together in a committed relationship and enjoy the same insurance & legal benefits as a married couple?

bingo.  15th and 19th Amendments.  If the government recognizes a privileged status between two citizens, it should not limit the benefit based on race or sex.

… Should the .gov really be in the business of legislating morality?  Does it ever work when they try?

No, No.


There are plenty of married man/woman couples out there that are less productive to society then unmarried man/woman (or man/man or woman/woman) couples.  Your religion can tell you it’s wrong, should you be allowed to make a law based on a religion? No.  If you answered ‘yes’, then whose religion wins?  Do you want the .gov to make that call?



I know I'll get flamed for this.

Sometimes all the members of this board have in common is guns.  I'm not trolling, my post count is low, but I've been here a while.

Quoted: Quoted: So you're equating a woman sleeping with another woman with a woman getting fucked by a dog, or a man molesting a 5 year old boy? No. It opens the door for further deprivation of the law. We've gone 6,000 years with no real challenge to (man + woman = marriage) and now..what? We have now become a "better" society by allowing sexual perverts get married?

I dont like fags, more than dont like actually, whis is usually the reason I dont comment in these threads.

But...

You are making an argument about "slippery slope" that could apply to anything, and it's a technical mistake because you could apply that logic on just about anything and come out with bad conclusions if you followed it far enough.

Technical mistake number two would be the 6000 year "fact". Marriage as it is understood now hasnt been universal for that long. In  classical societies it was just a socio-political union, yes between a man and a woman but it was never exclusive (for the man anyway). More like an alliance of property than a moral thing.

Quoted: Is banning same-sex marriage an attempt at legislating morality? No. Allowing same-sex marriage is an attempt at legislating morality.

At first I didnt get what you were saying but once I thought about it, you are exactly correct.

I don't really see a need for civil unions even.

I agree with what Old painless said in that it's important for society to encourage unions between a man and woman and encourage intact families by giving them special rights and privileges.

Other than getting a ride on your boyfriends insurance,I think most of the other things can be taken care of if you bother to take the time and pay a lawyer to put it together for you.

Things like leaving someone your posessions/property,giving power of attorney over your decisions should you become sick or incapacitated,making them the guardians of your kids,ect.

Why not allow a civil union between you and your sister or brother?

Sex doesn't have to be involved does it?

I mean if they're your best friend and you love them,you're living together,why not have some special civil union to get them on your insurance and have all the rights and privleges of marriage?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont like fags, more than dont like actually, whis is usually the reason I dont comment in these threads. But... You are making an argument about "slippery slope" that could apply to anything, and it's a technical mistake because you could apply that logic on just about anything and come out with bad conclusions if you followed it far enough. Technical mistake number two would be the 6000 year "fact". Marriage as it is understood now hasnt been universal for that long. In  classical societies it was just a socio-political union, yes between a man and a woman but it was never exclusive (for the man anyway). More like an alliance of property than a moral thing.

No mistake in my logic. It has been tested and tried. It works. Man + woman + marriage is just now being challenged. Why? Because homosexuals want to marry each other? They are the ones who re-defining the meaning of marriage. My logic has been used for thousands of years.

Marriage has not been what? Universal for that long? I hate to bring the bible into the conversation but, the bible which argueably was'nt written last week. Clearly defines the definition of marriage (between a man and woman) and goes into detail at the responsibilites of marriage. You are now 0 for 2...the bible has been an understandable influence on every society all over the world.

What in the hell is a "classic society"? I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you are talking about the third world nations "Africa" who have multiple marriages and trade woman for cows. Other than that..most (civilized) nations have the common thread of marriage being between men and women.

My "slippery slope" has merit...if judges leave the definition of marriage as just a union between partners of sexual preference...then we are indeed headed for a moral crisis. Like we have'nt stooped so low already...sexual lifestyle is not about marriage anyway. it is a preference of what kind of sex a person indulges in. The judges had no right in attempting to define it as such..it was one vote from lsoing..which leads me to believe that this is shearly a political move. Unlike say,, Brown versus board of Edu years ago, which was unanimous (9-0) in ending racism. this is not about racism...this is about sexual deviation. And it will not make through the American logic.

Quoted: No mistake in my logic. It has been tested and tried. It works. Man + woman + marriage is just now being challenged. Why? Because homosexuals want to marry each other? They are the ones who re-defining the meaning of marriage. My logic has been used for thousands of years.

Yes, you were equating it to things getting progressively worse. Hence slippery slope.

Marriage has not been what? Universal for that long? I hate to bring the bible into the conversation but, the bible which argueably was'nt written last week. Clearly defines the definition of marriage (between a man and woman) and goes into detail at the responsibilites of marriage. You are now 0 for 2...the bible has been an understandable influence on every society all over the world.

This isnt about the bible. Read below.

What in the hell is a "classical society"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

You have to be kidding, did you go to high school? The Classical period in european history is when the greek/roman's had the main influence, about 600BC to 200AD maybe a little more. The concept of marraige was very different until the Christians showed up.

My "slippery slope" has merit...if judges leave the definition of marriage as just a union between partners of sexual preference...then we are indeed headed for a moral crisis. Like we have'nt stooped so low already...sexual lifestyle is not about marriage anyway. it is a preference of what kind of sex a person indulges in. The judges had no right in attempting to define it as such..it was one vote from lsoing..which leads me to believe that this is shearly a political move.

Uh, I wasnt disagreeing. Cincinattus said it best either way. I dont think they should even rule on it.

Classical society is not Classical period...

And the days of Caligula were not about marriage it was about sexual deviation.


Marriage is between a man and a woman. If we deviate from the definition we will inevitably weaken it's importance...and eventaully do away with a standard all together.

This is the same reasoning to ridding all of our moral standards by these liberals. It's like poisoning the wells until they of no value..we must hold onto our values if we are to survive as a society, not degrade them.

I will fight to my last breath to protect the "sanctity" of marriage..it is a noble cause and a worthwhile cause. Our nation needs to stand up to the liberal judges and politicos, then stop them from perverting our society. It does no good whatsover to piss on an institution like marriage. This is exactly what they are doing...is is'nt about freedoms either, it is about sexual preference, which does not define marriage. Period.

No !!!!  Let's just take all our standards for society & throw them out the fucking window !!! I've got to bust my ass so I can get enough hours in my hour bank for the month so I can have the privilage of health insurance, two butt pirate queers shack up & get health insurance under domestic partnership ........ & hey they give it to them because he has his d!@k up his ass & no other reason! Another drain on the system & my health care keeps going up & up & up !!!!! I recently heard some schools have books titled "why does Bobby have 2 mommies ?" & "Why does Cindy have 2 Daddies ? " or something to that effect. Teaching your kids that homosexuality is normal !! OMFG !!!!! Sorry Gents, but that pisses me off !!! Excuse the rant.

               ........Paul

Quoted: This is exactly what they are doing...is is'nt about freedoms either, it is about sexual preference, which does not define marriage. Period.

I asked you before, is your marriage to your wife only about sex and reproduction?

Quoted: No !!!!  Let's just take all our standards for society & throw them out the fucking window !!! I've got to bust my ass so I can get enough hours in my hour bank for the month so I can have the privilage of health insurance, two butt pirate queers shack up & get health insurance under domestic partnership ........ & hey they give it to them because he has his d!@k up his ass & no other reason! Another drain on the system & my health care keeps going up & up & up !!!!!

I'll bet you your best rifle against mine that fat-asses and smokers are a much bigger drain on health-care than fags & dykes.

I recently heard some schools have books titled "why does Bobby have 2 mommies ?" & "Why does Cindy have 2 Daddies ? " or something to that effect. Teaching your kids that homosexuality is normal !! OMFG !!!!! Sorry Gents, but that pisses me off !!! Excuse the rant.                ........Paul

You're confusing the issue, as have most on this thread.  It's not about whether or not you think it's right, it's about whether or not the .gov should be legislating something like this.  Naked-gunman has at least stated (whacked as I personally think it is) his opinion that the Constitution of the United States of America should be amended to say that marriages in this country can only be between a man and a woman.  At least he has been able to stay on topic instead of wandering off on some illiterate rant.  I can almost imagine you foaming at the mouth over your keyboard as you typed that.  If I had kids would I want them reading a book like that in their Kindergarten class?  Hell fuck no.  But that has little to do with the topic at hand.  Does that .gov bear the responsibility of legislating morality?  Who determines what that morality is?  Has the .gov been succesful in legislating morality in the past?  Should the only role of the .gov to be to attempt to protect us from one another by providing for punishment when we violate each other's basic rights?  If so, how does two dudes living together affect your quality of life in ANY way?  And is the slippery slope theory that Naked_gunman has bought into a valid one?  Does it make for good policy when enacting laws and constitutional amendments?  Are you capable of an independant thought and the basic firing of synapses and grasp of the English language to convey those thoughts?

Quoted: alright, thanks for the hijack, but since you started it.... It's ridiculous to assume that everyone here is going to be a dyed-in-the-wool, bible-beating, Rush-listening, 7-days-a-week-church-attending, card-carrying, ultra-right-wing, "conservative". Just because someone shares an interest in firearms with you does not mean that they share ANY other viewpoint with you. I myself am a devout anarchist atheist, and for the life of me I can't figure out why nobody else here is. Secondly, you're jumping to an aweful lot of conclusions. I haven't seen one post including my own, that advocates even homosexuality, let alone allowing it or legally sanctioning it. I may have asked you and others to justify or rationalize your opinion/stance, but it would appear from your off-topic response that you're incapable of doing that. so help me sunshine, i think you should REALLY look into some anti-depression drugs.  you come across as an absolute ASS most of the time, don't know if you truly are or not, maybe you just don't project yourself well over an internet medium.................  either way, it seems that you've got your shorts on way too tight, loosen up, at least some of the time

check your IM

My wife and I have been married for 16 years and are unable to have kids. Should our marriage be anulled?

I think the ban is legislating morality.

I also think allowing gays to marry will be better for society.

Just live and let live. It isn't hurting anyone to allow them to be legally married. Sometimes the intolerance here is truly shocking.

I've watched this debate form over the last few decades and all I see is a special interest group made up of folks trying to convince us that their ‘lifestyle’ is somehow worthy of our approval and support.

They want to set homosexuality up as a viable alternative or even an equivalent analogue to the traditional family model. This simply is not true.

For a society to be successful it must support what works and shun what does not. History tells us that successful societies are based on the heterosexual model. There have been aberrations but a quick look around reveals that they didn't get far.

Heterosexuality works. Homosexuality, though it may be fashionable at the moment, doesn't. If it did we would see successful homosexual cultures today.

Enlightened self-interest leads societies to adopt codes of conduct that maximize their chances for success. History shows that heterosexual families are more stable and contribute to the long-term viability of a society. If this were not the case we would abandon it and seek a better model.

Laws governing marriage, sexual practice, and all the other areas where government intrudes on personal privacy are made to codify, safeguard, and sometimes encourage those practices that make a society successful.

The homosexual lobby talks about how ‘unfair’ it is that heterosexuals get to be married and they don’t. They want us to think they are being deprived of some fundamental right.

They chafe for ‘domestic unions’ that are equivalent to marriages so they can enjoy the same status as married couples.

They fail to acknowledge that the special status afforded married couples isn’t there as a convenience or recognition of some recently discovered civil right. It is a support mechanism put in place to help maintain stable, successful, families.

If homosexuals want to leave their partners something when they die they can make out wills. If they want to proclaim their love before the world they can take out an ad in the paper. If a homosexual couple wants to safeguard individual assets they can enter into contractual agreements that are easier to enforce since they don’t have to contend with community property laws.

Just because homosexuals want favorable tax status and special insurance deals isn’t a good enough reason for government to step in and start passing laws.

Recognizing heterosexual marriage as one of the pillars on which our society stands is.

Quoted: Quoted: This is exactly what they are doing...is is'nt about freedoms either, it is about sexual preference, which does not define marriage. Period. I asked you before, is your marriage to your wife only about sex and reproduction?

No.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This is exactly what they are doing...is is'nt about freedoms either, it is about sexual preference, which does not define marriage. Period. I asked you before, is your marriage to your wife only about sex and reproduction? No.

so then why do you reduce a homosexual marriage to being only about ass-fucking or kitty licking?

Good post Delta.

Where's the need?

What is the point of government going out of there way to create a gay marriage?

As has been stated,there are ways to contract to be responsible for eachothers lives if that's what they're interested in.

Heck,I've even heard of some private sector companies that will recognize "partners",gay and straight,for benefits.

Is this all about making gays "feel" better?

Is that what government should be in the business of?Making assorted groups "feel" good or more mainstream?

Norman74,
In answer to your rhetorical question, I say "Yes."  At this point in the evolution of our society, we need our judges (and other elected officials) to "lead" us.  The church sure doesn't seem able to...  Someone has got to take the moral high ground. The morals of the populace have been steadily declining.  The Bible contains many laws that could/would lead us.  But not many will follow to the letter- incl me (unfortunately).  I'm no Bible freak; just interested in the Bible and the fact that "just maybe" the end is near.

Normally, I don't believe that gov't should try and tell us what to do/believe/etc.

But man, we're going down the shitter (as a society) and I can't see any other way out.  I just don't think the "everyday Jack and Jill" will achieve straight and level flight just because it's the right thing to do.  If you have a better idea for cleaning up our collective act, I'm all ears.

Perfect, NAKED-GUNMAN!

Quoted: The lower the morality bar goes...the less we become responsible humans. Freedom is protected by laws...perversion should never be protected by any law. If it is, then our moral "compass" will lead us into destruction as a society. We become moralless, conscienceless, anarchist with no direction except what and where our perverse actions lead us. We need standards, we need morality, we need the law. These are what ultimately made us a great nation.

OFF TOPIC:

Quoted: I also think allowing gays to marry will be better for society. Just live and let live. It isn't hurting anyone to allow them to be legally married. Sometimes the intolerance here is truly shocking.

SS109,

Well, God is intolerant toward gays...

This is God speaking to Moses in Leviticus 18:22 -  "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

If nothing else, that's good enough for me to be "intolerant."

Hey Norman !!! Yes I have wiped my keyboard off from my profuse foaming. Two dudes doing what ever it is that they do in private is fine w/ me. I believe in the definition of marrige to be between a man & woman as does my state. Anything other than that is granting special rights & it's a never ending erosion.If you play the game, follow the freakin' rules, don't change them because "your special"

Are you capable of an independant thought and the basic firing of synapses and grasp of the English language to convey those thoughts?

Well are you not the pillar of intelligence ? Nice dig !!! This post strikes many a nerve w/ several here. Opinions are formed by many things I believe you formed one above in the quote, I too have one that is newly formed Norm 74.

                .........Paul

The idea of the .gov as my moral dictator scares the shit out of me personally.
I personally think that the reason we're in the state we're currently in is that nobody knows how to make a decision on their own.  Everything is decided by the .gov.  Who needs to be responsible for their own actions?  The .gov will tell you what to do/think.  I thik that the idea that more laws will solve the problem is exactly what got us where we are today.

Quoted: The idea of the .gov as my moral dictator scares the shit out of me personally.

Norman,

I'm with ya on this.

But, the issue of same sex marriages is in the government's lap.  This is where I think they need to take the moral high ground.  Ergo: Legislating Morality.

Who else will stop these acts???

If the gov't, for instance, allowed kiddie porn, there's another nail in our coffin.  Because people will partake.

Maybe they should just let us go down the shitter...

Edited to add anim

OK, I'll throw you guys a bone.  And maybe this is what some of you were getting at and I missed it.

The reason for the "benefits" of marriage are to support reproduction and the establishment of a "healthy" home environment.  It has nothing to do with love, fucking, or anything else.  So, since homosexuals can't reproduce, they don't have the nead for a "healthy" and stable home environment right?

and just so everyone is fully informed, and since more than a few have mentioned "just draw up a contract to get the rights they're looking for"...

Gay and Lesbian Couples are denied:

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
Appointment as guardian of a minor;
Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
Burial of service member's dependents;
Certificates of occupation;
Consent to post-mortem examination;
Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
Criminal injuries compensation;
Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
Disclosure of vital statistics records;
Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
Exemption from conveyance tax;
Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
Funeral leave for government employees;
Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes;
Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
Inheritance of land patents;
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
Legal status with partner’s children;
Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
Making partner medical decisions;
Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
Notice of probate proceedings;
Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
Proof of business partnership;
Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
Right to change names;
Right to enter into pre-marital agreement;
Right to file action for nonsupport;
Right to inherit property;
Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
Right to support after divorce;
Right to support from spouse;
Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
Rights by way of dour or courtesy;
Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
Sole interest in property;
Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
Spousal immigration benefits;
Status of children;
Support payments in divorce action;
Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
In vitro fertilization coverage;
Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

Quoted: Gay and Lesbian Couples are denied: Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment

That one really pisses me off!  Yep, I'm really intolerant when it comes to the military.

In vitro fertilization coverage

Well, first of all, I see no reason that a gay couple should need this coverage.

A few comments...

All this great gnashing of teeth about a tiny percentage of the population wanting to get married is silly. Let us be careful to bear in mind that all we are tlkaing about is the granting of a marriage license by the government, and the legal perks like healthcare, etc. Nothing else. In other words, in no way does the state "allowing" something it has no constitutional mandate to control in the first place affect the definition afforded to the word "marriage" by various religions. Your marriage remains exactly what your church says it is. Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it.

Heterosexuals will continue to meet, wed, and produce offspring, no matter what homos do. It is a fact driven by a biological imperative. nobody is going to say "I'm not going to get married and raise kids now, because those icky gays can get married".

One of the things that the institution of marriage can and does do is to create a stable "family" unit. The members of this unit pledge to stay together, and there is usually something thrown in about honoring the other, etc. As a side effect of a stable relationship, the job stability, growth in earning power, etc. tend to be very positive. All of that adds up to being good for the economy and, therefore, good for the country. If two people love each other enough to want to marry and be with each other until death do them part, I say let them. Allowing gays to use a tool that aids in community stability has no downside that I can see.

All the people who say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong are missing the point that the US is not a religious theocracy.

The Bible does allow polygamy, but state goverments don't. Should we allow it because the Bible does?

Quoted: The Bible does allow polygamy....

This is from The Ryrie Study Bible.

1 Sam 1:2 - "And he had two wives; the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children"

Footnote to above:  Though at great variance with God's ideal for marriage, polygamy was allowed in the case of a childless first marriage, but the practice often caused great misery.

So I guess polygamy is allowed, under certain conditions.  

How...in the world...did I end up defending the Bible??  Not my usual place.

Quoted: All laws are attempts to 'legislate morality.' One way or the other. Eric The(Legal)Hun

^^^^^^^^

Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it.

Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004

Quoted: Quoted: Same sex marriages will NEVER be marriages in the eyes of the church, so why be upset about it. Some churches do. as a matter of fact JT and I are getting married in the church we go to on May 1 2004

I guess I should have been more clear on what I was thinking. The people who think it matters what the government recognizes, tend to belong to churches that will not recognize gay or lesbian marriages.