GAY-NUPTIAL AMENDMENT UP FOR HOUSE VOTE TODAY
Win or lose, if Republicans in the U.S. House vote later today on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it will send political messages to at least three different audiences: conservative voters, Democrats and the judiciary.
Ref. Source
QUOTE |
Should people have the right to be gay? |
SENATORS REJECT BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE
The U.S. Senate rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Wednesday, following nearly two straight days of debate and thousands of phone calls, letters and emotional arguments from constituents.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C3949%2C%2C00.html
I think the point is being made that you can DO or SAY or ACT however you like based on your sexual preference or religious beliefs or what ever. The point was that the desire to ban gay marriage is not based on any studies or science but on the religious moral principle that gay marriage is wrong. If its a religious principle, moral principle, then how is it the governments right to establish a law regarding it, in fact, especially a constitutional amendment. Since gay marriage has never been allowed, and few gay parents have been allowed to keep and raise kids, there are no studies to back up the claim that gay marriage is bad for kids. No unbiased scientific group has ever made that claim. Its all religiously motivated groups and churches. So if its a moral issue, then the government does not have the right to say a single thing about it, none the less ban it. And since its not banned, it should be allowed. What right do you, me, or anybody have to tell someone how to live their life? None.
Why do all words have to have a politically correct definition? I'm Anglo-Saxon by DNA but I have to check the box for Other or be a Caucasian. A Marriage from the stand point of Human History is between a man and a woman. Why do people think that just because a legislature changes the spirit of the word that makes it so? If I met a person with an angry demeanor and murdered them, could I claim precognitive self defense and make it excusable? I was raised by a gay mother and while I love her partner as my oldest and dearest friend and as a member of my family, I would not attend a ceremony or recognize any marriage between them. I could never love them less but, no, never has any civilization recognized a "gay marriage". If they want a union of some sort that's their business, but heterosexuals have at least a 6000 year old monopoly on marriage. Sorry Mom.
I think the main question here is, how do you define marriage, and what do you believe are ethically sound reasons for getting married?
The people arguing and lobbying for legal gay marriage have claimed the reason they want it, is for the right to inherit and be recognized as the obvious inheritor should one partner die without leaving a will.
If a woman said she wanted to marry a man and stated her major reason as wanting to inherit his property, she'd be blackballed socially, wouldn't she? His family would and could fight in court for decades (as per Anna Nicole) to keep her away from his property - and Ms Smith never claimed that as her reason for marrying the old tycoon, did she.
I would have to say that marriage is the union of a Husband and Wife, who together have entered into an emotional and civil union that constitutes the only building block of a family, a household, and therefore a society. How many court cases would my taxdollars have to help pay for when a homosexual decided to sue over a will that leaves an inheritance to a persons biological child and that gay person decides that they should have more right to it based solely on a consentual sexual relationship. That leads to the real distinction of a marriage. It is a relationship that is not defined by sexuality. I can't by any reasoning enter into a marriage and call a woman my husband and I can't be a wife, because I am a male. Legislation and litigation cannot change that fact.
Roy, you are lacking in understanding of civilizations history as it is known. You say that homosexuality has NEVER been accepted as a marriage in any civilization. You could not be more wrong. In fact, homosexuality was so accepted in ancient civilization as to be a non-issue. The Romans, we know, had multiple partners both male and female. The Greeks before them the same. We know the Assyrians and Babylonians did the same, its even in the Bible. The ancient Egyptians had orgies for sexual rituals that involved sex with both sexes, often at the same time. Homosexuality being some great unnatural thing was spawned by Judaism, enforced by Christianity, and taken to an extreme by Islam. The fact is that current beliefs about homosexuality are less than 2000 years old being widely accepted. History tells us that there is beauty to be experienced physically in both sexes. Modern Religion (Christianity and Islam) tell us its a sin, its immoral. Being that, we are still talking about a law that enforces christian morals on the country, on the individual, when there is no right there to do so. Banning gay marriage should be the real crime, enforcing religion on people is.