I agree, its ignorance to get mad about it. I don’t necessarily agree with that type of lifestyle, but they have equal rights like all of us, and should be allowed to get married.
Wake up you Right-Wing-WASPS, it’s not like they’re gonna stop being homosexual if you don’t let them get married.

I think an episode of “Law and Order” said it best.

“Sure they should be able to get married. Gay people deserve to be as unhappy as the rest of us.”

The debate over “marriage” for same-sex couples has been framed as an issue of “equal rights”–but it is not. The real issue is the definition of what “marriage” is. Our country currently defines marriage as, “the union of a man and a woman.”

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny “marriage” to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

The fundamental “right to marry” is a right that rests with individuals, not with couples. Homosexual individuals already have exactly the same “right” to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person’s “sexual orientation.”

Many people who now identify themselves as homosexual have previously been in legal (opposite-sex) marriages. On the other hand, many people who previously had homosexual relationships have now renounced that behavior and married persons of the opposite sex. If we define a “homosexual” as anyone who has ever experienced homosexual attractions, then both of these scenarios represent “homosexual” individuals who have exercised their right to be legally married.

However, while every individual person is free to get married, no person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, has ever had a legal right to marry simply any willing partner. Every person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is subject to legal restrictions as to whom they may marry. To be specific, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. There is no discrimination here, nor does such a policy deny anyone the “equal protection of the laws” (as guaranteed by the Constitution), since these restrictions apply equally to every individual.

Some people may wish to do away with one or more of these longstanding restrictions upon one’s choice of marital partner. However, the fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have someone of the same sex as a partner does not mean that they have a “right” to do so, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans give them a “right” to choose a child, their own brother or sister, or a group of two or more as their marital partners.

I never said morality based on religion. You need to read my post again. This is morality based on culture. Our American culture has defined marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”

However, if you want to use religion and assume that since America has long been considered a Christian county then look to the bible. God obviously disagrees with you or he wouldn’t have blown away Sodom and Gomorrah. (See Genesis 19) Also see 1 Corinthians 6:9-13

But, I agree with you that we should keep religion out of it…

Also, your statement, “If the law began recognizing their union tomoroww there wouldn’t be riots and orgies filling the streets. Let them marry.” is full of holes too! Where do we draw the line as a culture? Do we allow beastiality because of a great outcry!? Do we allow pedophilia because of riots in the streets??

“I see hetro idiots marrying at will all around- they have no beter qualifications then gays.”

It’s true that American society’s concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage–and their consequences:

· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man’s sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes described above?

And you saying that “gay couples aren’t hurting anyone” really disturbs me… You cannot be serious!? The statistics are alarming! See: The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

Homosexual men experience higher rates of many diseases, including:

· Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which causes most cases of cervical cancer in women and anal cancer in men

· Hepatitis A, B, and C

· Gonorrhea

· Syphilis

· “Gay Bowel Syndrome,” a set of sexually transmitted gastrointestinal problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis

· HIV/AIDS (One Canadian study found that as a result of HIV alone, “life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men.”)

Lesbian women, meanwhile, have a higher prevalence of:

· Bacterial vaginosis

· Hepatitis C

· HIV risk behaviors

· Cancer risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, poor diet, and being overweight

Various research studies have found that homosexuals have higher rates of:

· Alcohol abuse

· Drug abuse

· Nicotine dependence

· Depression

· Suicide

Now why would they think that? I’m not the one defending perverts…

Oh well, I’m off to go club some baby seals… I had some wonderful spotted owl for lunch too! It tastes like chicken.

Great points from both sides. I have heard some pretty excellent arguments from both sides (provided they are halfway intelligent).

Mr. Brumley, I’m just wondering what the point of your statistics are, in terms of relating them to the marraige of homosexuals, not just homosexuality in general. The point is that if homosexuals MARRY, they won’t be hurting anyone. If those are the statistics showing the negative effects of homosexuality, what does that have to do with them getting married? Are you saying those numbers will increase? Are you saying that if homosexual marraiges are allowed, this will encourage more people to decide to turn gay? No, the statistics are going to be the same anyway. Hypothetical situation:

Formerly Straight Guy #1:”Hey, dude. If we get married, you could totally collect on my insurance.”
Formerly Straight Guy #2:”Sweet. I guess it’s settled then. Let’s have sex and exchange STDs.”

You did sound pretty educated though. Good job on that. The weird thing is that you sound kinda fruity yourself.

True that Jason…