There have been studies suggesting that kids of homosexual parents aren't impacted negatively, and are defensive of their parents.

Goldberg, AE, Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2007 Oct;77(4):550-62
Rivers I, Poteat VP, Noret N., Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):127-34.



These studies have been done, though there is much more data on the children of lesbian couples than the children of gay male couples, and simply ignoring them isn't good enough.

Really? You want the government to legislate who can marry based on whether children that might be raised by that marriage might <i>get made fun of</i>? Why not deny marriage to people who are too poor, or sort of funny-looking, or overweight, or too skinny, or have jobs that kids would find amusing, or speak funny, or have a handicap? I mean, if we're instituting things so that our precious children will not have to go through the horror of <i>teasing</i>, that follows, doesn't it?

To say nothing of the fact that heterosexuals can get married no matter how bad they might obviously be at parenting. Sure, we take the kids away if it's an obviously abusive situation (though we don't worry about that when they're getting married), but what if they're just not being raised very well? If anything falls below ideal-suburban-and-picket-fences, should we run in, grab up the kids and dissolve the marriage?


But of course, this is all gay adoption/IVF. Which in my mind doesn't have that much to do with the question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to access the same legal rights as heterosexuals through marriage, and might be good for another thread.

it is, but there is a perspective of marrige that puts a whole different slant on it.

there is teasing and there is teasing.

I don't know the extent that it may be a problem for a child's wellbeing but i see it as a potential one, and one that I think shpould eb looked into if it hasn't already. Although from the sounds of your statment I stand corrected and have no real problem with gay marrige as it holds up to the stipulations of the perspective I offered. The perspective didn't mention gay couples directly you see (nothing printed in 1912 would) however it suggested marrige contracts be disolved after a certain period if there were no chilren as the point in marige having benifits was to provide the society with the next generation of decent human beings (and in fact non married people were passivly sterile). If people wanted to monogomasly cohabit that was of no concern of the state to benifit or hinder.

as far as I'm concerned that's all that matters regards marrige.

i think people who feel they can take the commitment should be able to marry. it doesn't matter what sex you like, you like what you like, it's not like you wake up one day and say'hey i wanna piss off the world' or ' i want people to hate me'. its not a choice its wat you like.

That's not what the bible sez.

it may not be what the bible says but its a regular sin. people who are straight sin everyday and we get forgiven, gay people would get forgiven too. i don't think god would only forgive straight people for their sins and not forgive gay people. or else straight people would go to hell to cuz they arn't forgiven. we all get forgiven for our sins. and being with the person you love no matter the sex is what matters. but i do get where your coming from,love.

I am agreed with gaydayy homosexual should have right to marry each other..If they trust each other i do not think there is any problem in it.

Especially if they get married in Maui.

Personally I think it's really the church's call.

This whole religious ceremony thing is what they do.

Outside church weddings, I see no reason why a state shouldn't recognise Homosexual marrage, it's really just ticking a box.

However, Marriage is a legal institution, is it not? what about separation of church and state?

Marriage is a legally recognized religious ceremony, which grants the status of a Civil Union. Marriage has been a religious ceremony for thousands of years. Why not let the religions decide if they want to marry gay people and have the state just recognize a Civil Union when the legal requirements have been met. (IE: Marriage\Civil Union contract, and whatever other documentation needs to be filed to complete this process.) All this arguing over verbage will never stop. The pro gay marriage side will never get the con gay marraige side to say they approve of their union being called a marriage. Which means that whenever it is put to a vote, at least for the forseeable future, that the Gay Rights people will be screaming about how unfair it is theat they can't enforce their beliefs on everyone else. When you attack a groups core belief structure you will often get a strong response in return.

Personally, I don't want Marriage defined as anything except a Civil Union between a man and a woman. I do think it's fair that gay couples have the right to have a Civil Union and all the legal responsibilities that come along with it. I don't care what two people do in the privacy of their own house, as far as who they sleep with, but I do take offense that I am told that I have to accept what they do is ok. Who you choose to sleep with is irrelevant. I don't care. Most people don't care. (At least until you tell them and start to make a big issue about it.)

If you take offense when you're told to tolerate "them", you do care.

Clearly, you didn't read what I said... I don't take offense because of what they're doing, which as I stated I'm fine with. I take offense when they tell try to force their opinion, that it's ok, on me. I'm entitled to my opinion that I think that it's wrong, but if I'm willing to get past my personal opinion and say it's ok, that is the very definition of tolerance.

I don't care if I see two people gay or straight kissing, holding hands, cuddling, etc... with each other in public, as long as it's tasteful. When it becomes obscene, the phrase "Get a room" comes to mind in both cases. This isn't aimed at one group more than the other. Again, the very definition of tolerance.

It is possible to disagree with something somebody does and still tolerate their behavior. However, your comment specifically highlights my point. You feel that I'm being intolerant, when in fact you are being intolerant as well. Even it is simply intolerance of, what you perceive to be, my intolerance. I think it's sad that it seems to becoming increasingly difficult to just respectfully disagree. Instead, you get cast as a hater and a bigot. It seems to me that it is this type of people that are the intolerant ones, because they cannot accept any view besides their own.

Hataaaah

Here's the thing, since this "Religious institution", which became a religious institution when the early Medieval Christian Church decided to take it on in the early Dark Ages, affects legal and civil matters in our society, it is no longer a religious function. It is a civil matter and therefore, under the Affirmative Action laws, in which a government agency cannot discriminate or exclude rights thereof based on religion, creed, etc. etc., and sexual orientation, it violates the law. Secondly, Civil Union and Marriages don't grant equal rights. Civil Unions grant less rights.

Also, gay marriages are not an attack on straight marriages, that's a common myth. They are no threat to the traditional marriage.

No ones' telling you, you have to accept gay marriage.



No one's forcing their opinion on you. Prop. 8 supporters, are, however, enforcing their opinion on others.

Also, you're upset because others won't tolerate your apparent hateful rhetoric and phobia based on illogical grounds here? You have a victim complex. You see yourself as a victim, when it is not you in fact that is victimized here, but rather, other's rights and you are concerned others aren't going to respect your feelings. Seems kind of selfish. In the effort to not have to people expecting tolerance, you support taking away basic human rights for it. Sad.

Aaaaand I don't know your reasons for thinking it's wrong, but replace homosexuality with any other sexual preference out there (barring the illegal stuff) and it just seems stupid. Would you deny foot fetishists the right to marriage because they're deviants? Don't think it's wrong; just don't think about homosexuals or foot fetishists but let them live their damn lives in peace and with rights.

Irresponsibly or no, we use the word marriage and think of it as both a religious institution and a civil arrangement recognized by the guv'mint (we being non-lawish people, I guess). So why not let both uses extend to the gheys? As someone pointed out, no one will force any priest, vicar, pastor, etc. to perform ceremonies and some of these people already feel compelled to marry homosexual couples in meaningful committment ceremonies because God tells them it's okay.

Wow, did you just compare two totally different things? I think you did. Could you compare apples to apples and not apples to Bearskin rugs? Clearly, the types fetishes and preferences that might apply here are things like bestiality, since it's not about what you do, it's about who, or what, you do it with. I agree let them live their lives in peace, which means not marching down the damn street proclaaiming how proud they are that they sleep with <insert>. If they get peace, why don't I? I'm only asking for equal rights here!



The point is, that Marriage is a religious insitituion. Why should they be able to dictate to people what their religion should allow? Instead of taking the path to their end goal, of having the rights marriage grants, they are trying to force their way through the hardest path. This indicates, to me at least, that it's not as much about the rights, it's that they want to FORCE thier own beliefs on everyone who disagrees with them. This is where we are simply to the point os splitting hairs. They want the end reuslt of having the same priviliges of a married couple. They are being offered it, with the caviat that it can't be called marriage, because laws cannot be passed to force religions to change their practices, at least in the US, unless you're a Mormon (but that's a whole different debate).

So when it comes right down to it, both straight and gay couples can get civil unions, which is simply a set of legal rights. If they are a member of a congregation that will marry gay couples, then their religious authority can perform the ceremony and in the eyes of that religion, which is what matters from a religious perspective, they will be married. But legally, they will just have a civil union, which is legally no different than the civil union of a married straight couple.

There is little that bothers me more than people comparing homosexuality to beastiality.

People are not animals. Gay men and women are people. Gay relationships are in no way similar to beastial relationships.

Animals are not legal entities. Animals are not conscious entities in the way human ares. Most importantly, animals are not capable of giving consent to have sex with humans.

Gay sex is sex between consenting adults. It is not by definition abuse (as pedophilia is). It is not rape. Rape, incest, and abuse are no more common among gay men and women than straight men and women.

Not in the United States it's not. Marriage is not any ceremony at all. It's a legal union (which, in this country, means it's secular). You don't need any ceremony at all to get married - much less a religious one. The ceremony is the ceremony; the legal union is the legal union; these discussions of rights never have anything to do with the former and always have to do with the latter.

Further, "marriage" and "civil union" are not synonymous.

States are not required to recognize Civil Unions from other states. All states are required to recognize marriages from other states*. Further, marriage is an explicitly covered and guaranteed right of the United States Constitution.

Incidentally, no civil rights group has ever attempted to legally force any religious institution to perform private religious services of any kind. Ever.

*The Defense of Marriage Act recently changed this, to specify that states are only required to recognize marriages between different-sex partners.

This never is and never was a valid argument (hi, slavery); furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized in the past that regardless of the overstated cultural history of the institution, laws specifically referencing homosexuals are a product of recent times - and implicit history is not nearly close enough to explicit legislature.

Several recent state supreme court rulings seem to indicate otherwise; there is and has been a definitive trend recently to settle the issue.

Why is what you personally want relevant? In the slightest? We are discussing legal rights - whether you want people to have those rights or not is absolutely irrelevant to their existence.

Even if only one person in the entire nation wanted or didn't want a certain thing to be considered a right bears absolutely nothing on whether or not it is, and therefore should be recognized as, a right. what's more, Supreme Court rulings have explicitly stated that the desires of the majority (or minority) are irrelevant in determining what are and are not rights.

what you personally want is completely irrelevant to this discussion. The civil rights movement wants same-sex partners to be able to marry, yes, but they are not arguing for that right because they want it; they are arguing that it is a right and should be recognized as such.

You don't have to accept it as OK. You're not the government. what you do or don't accept always has been, and always will be, up to you. In this country, two Nazis can get married - does that mean that we all accept Nazism? It is a Constitutionally protected right of this citizenry to publish volumes of literature claiming that all black people are intellectually inferior to their white counterparts - does that mean we all accept those beliefs?

Your inability to distinguish "rights" and "my beliefs" is crippling your ability to understand, in any real way, what is actually being discussed here.

Unless you're equating a legally competent adult with a pet dog in terms of legal stature, the comparison to bestiality is laughably inaccurate. That said, could you explain what it is that separates the union between a man and a woman, and the identical union between two men (or two women), in a legally significant way?

There are very many states that do not allow civil unions between same-sex partners. Civil unions between same-sex partners granted from the states that do allow them, are not recognized as valid in the rest of the nation. So no, they can't get the same "civil unions" - claiming they do is simply untrue, and displays a significant ignorance of existing legislature.

Meanwhile, on a federal level, all marriages between different-sex partners legally must be recognized in every state, period. So no, civil unions and marriages are not legally equivalent.

Well then you shouldn't be bothered at all by what I said, as I didn[I AM TOO STUPID TO USE AN APOSTROPHE]t' say the two were equivalent. I simply said they were a preference. I never once implied that anything you stated was untrue. If you read what I was responding to, perhaps you can get a complete picture of what I was saying. If you need clarification, please ask and I will be happy to provide it.

And their point was that bestiality and homosexuality are not comparable preferences in the slightest.

How about my post, then, which also read and responded to what you said?

Having personally been to many many Marriage Ceremonies, including my own, I feel I can, 100% unequvicobly, state that you are wrong. I never had a seperate "Civil Union (Legal Union) ceremony, and neither has anyone else that I know, which doesn't mean it can't be done, if just means that it's common practice to have a single ceremony that handles both things at once. Usually in a religious setting, I might add.



All true, however, rather than seeking introducing an act that would require all states to recognize Civil (Legal) Unions, it was decided that making all states recognize gay marriage would be a better route to take. Clearly, I disagree with this decision.



Wow, being gay is just like slavery? Even if it's an analogy, it's a very interesting choice. Trying to demonize those who disagree with you, while a tried and true tactic, is quite transparent, wouldn't you say?

Regardless, there is a slight distinction between one being kept in bondage and forced to work against their will than who you chose to sleep with and whether or not you want to tell the whole world about it. I know it's very minor, but let's try to focus on what is relevant, shall we?



Has that stopped the arguing of anything in the past? I mean really, Roe v Wade is still be argued on may levels and there are those who are trying to overturn it. So I think that a ruling my the Supreme Court will hardly stop the arguing.



Really? My opinion is irrelevant? Let's just institute a dictatorship right now then, if you've decided that the opinions of voting citizens are irrelevant.

However, in a convoluted sort of way, you did just agree with my point. Leave marriage out of this completely, and get Civil (Legal) Unions recognized in all states regardless of the couples orientation. I've long though that denying one couple the same legal rights that the other has is wrong. I've stated this several times, you seem to be missing that part though.



And the other side is arguing that they shouldn't. The problem is that the word "marriage" is linked, through thousands of years of history, to the rights that you want, and that I, at least, agree you should get. I just want the word to be decoupled from those rights.



what does being a Nazi have to do with anything? Anything at all, really? Again, you're simply using a demonizing tactic. Can we stop with this? I'm not demonizing you with irrelevant references, am I? If you could show me the same courtesy, I would greatly appreciate it.



I belive one way, you believe the other, that is why were having this debate of course. Trying to portay my beliefs are irrelevant, by comparing them to someone who thinks someone is inferior because of the color of their skin is yet another thinly veiled attempt to demonize me. Enough of this, it's childish and transparent, and I as stated earlier, I would appreciate it if you could try to state your case withouth resorting to such tactics.



By the same logic, your inability to open your eyes and read what I've said is crippling your ability to understand what I'm actually saying. Taking what I've said and refusing to take the overall MASSAGE? of "Gay people deserve and are entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else" is staggering. You say it's not about the word "Marriage". Then let it not be about the word "Marriage". Make this about getting you the same legal rights as straight couples. Just don't insist that you want it called "Marriage" and you'll see many opponents simply go away. Not all, of course, there are always ignorant people.

Quit playing dumb.

Yes. And notice how "usually" and "common practice" aren't "always" - which is what I said. The law doesn't care about the ceremony, the law only cares if you are legitimately married or not, and the criteria for "legitimately" are purely legal, not a single one of them is ceremonial or religious. Thanks for agreeing.

Marriage is a "Civil (Legal) Union." Not all civil unions, however, are marriage. For example, marriage is explicitly a Constitutional right, and as such is granted protections that other civil unions are not. There is no substitute for a Constitutional right.

Nope - just pointing out that "It's been this way for thousands of years!" was never a valid argument, and certainly isn't now. Would you like to respond to my actual point now?

Yes, actually. That's kind of the point of a court ruling. Civilians can argue about what they think as much as they like; the immediate problem is what the law allows, not what the layman thinks.

We don't need to. We already have a Supreme Court that doesn't answer to voting citizens. In fact, that's the very point of it. And the Court itself has repeatedly stated that the will of the majority has nothing to do with the Constitutional rights granted to all.

Yes, your personal, subjective opinion about gay people means absolutely nothing. As does mine. As does anyone's. what matters are the facts concerning these laws.

Marriage and civil union are not synonymous. They are not equal. And a civil union, even if functionally identical in that state to marriage, is still not equal to marriage because marriage enjoys Constitutional and federal protection that no civil union - heterosexual or otherwise - does.

The two are not equal. To borrow a phrase, "I've stated this several times, you seem to be missing that part though."

No you don't. Unless you're suggesting that there should be no legal concept of marriage, at all. Because so far, you've been arguing that it should remain coupled with those rights, but only for some people.

You claimed that permitting two partners of the same sex to marry is tantamount to forcing the entire nation to accept a specific ideology. I gave an example of that not being true.

Given that I didn't call you or anyone else a Nazi, or similar to a Nazi - in fact, the opposite, I was saying that you and the vast majority of this nation are not Nazis - it's hard to say I was demonizing anyone.

It'd be nice if you stopped pretending that I ever insulted you, and responded to my points.

I love a good tautology to end an argument.

The word "marriage" is a specific and special legal right.

I never said it wasn't about the word "marriage."

It's always been absolutely and entirely about the word "marriage" in legal rights.

Until "marriage" is no longer a legal term, it will be.

In the meantime, however, marriage is a legal term, and a Constitutionally guaranteed one at that. Therefore, maintaining it as a legal term that is inaccessible to a certain demographic contradicts the Constitutional basis of the term.

To the degree that it is lawful for citizens to be wronged by one another is the degree to which that government values liberty over civilian welfare. To the degree that what is right, fair, and just is not legal is to the degree to which that government is a tyranny. In our world, unfortunately, what is legal is not always right, and what is right is not always legal.

Homosexuality marriage is not a illegal thing....