Homosexual people should have a right to have a marriage, because saying they are not allowed what anyone should be entitled to, is like telling someone they are not allowed to vote because of their race.

And religion should not be brought into the governing of a country, when all should be unbiased, not favoring or disadvantaging people because of their religious views.

A few points for the religious-minded before I retire to bed (I'm up too late as it is):

1) "Marriage" is not solely the domain of the religious. Any heterosexual couple can be married by a justice of the peace or by a ship's captain. Atheists and agnostics can be married. All of those unions are considered "marriages," and all of them carry the same legal rights and protections. That's all same-sex couples want. They're not asking your priest/pastor to perform the ceremony.

2) Many of you say that ONLY God can judge, while in the same breath YOU judge your fellow humans. If you're so convinced that you're destined for Heaven and we for Hell, then our behavior doesn't affect your outcome, so why do you care what we do?

3) If there is something so fundamentally flawed in your marriage that it is going to be "threatened" or fall apart because Joe and George next door get married, you've got much bigger problems you need to address.

3a) If someone told YOU that you were not allowed to marry the person you loved most in the world, wouldn't YOU fight tooth and nail to oppose that decision?

4) Yes, children raised by a loving same-sex couple are going to have a different upbringing than children raised by a heterosexual couple. With any luck, they'll be more open-minded and accepting of our inherent differences as human beings. Can we also point out that same-sex couples make up the largest percentage of adoptive parents for those children who were, in one way or another, "abandoned" by the heterosexual couples who produced them? Those children are being raised in stable, loving homes instead of being bounced around the foster care system; how is this bad?

5) Granting same-sex couples the same legal rights and protections you enjoy as a married heterosexual does not diminish your rights or, really, affect you in any way. So again I ask, why do you care?

Good night (...okay, morning).

It is unfortunate that Google is flexing its muscle in such a way. I wonder as a whole how their employees feel and if they feel that they are being forced to support a position that is not their own since last time i checked 61% of people in the US believe in marriage as being between a woman and a man.. It is also unfortunate that i will have to find a different search engine to use since marriage and family are so important to me. With my deepest regrets i must now find a way to not use Google and i hate that.

I am new at this and just wanted to comment on Benn's message about animals not mating in the same gender. Actually, that's not correct there are several species that are the same gender and have sex. Look it up. Tweety

So embarrasing, I've got to correct myself: I meant to say the "bible WASN'T written by old white folk...."

I was correcting WeTheSheeple.

Ok, people knocking the legitimacy of the Bible, remember this: The Bible was written by old white folk 1000 years ago. It is a compilation of old scrolls and manuscripts written by middle eastern looking guys and it tells about stories that happened 2,000 years ago and earlier.

These manuscripts look much like any of the other manuscripts that provided us with information on historical events that made their way into textbooks for the public school system. However, due to the "relgious" implications of what was written on these manuscripts, secular folk like to set them to the side and call them fairy tales and bedtime stories. I didn't grow up in a Christian home; in fact I grew up thinking that the Bible was bogus until I gave it a serious chance. If anybody is seriously interested in hearing some solid evidence for the existence of God, or the accuracy of the Bible, I recommend checking listening to this:

http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Listen/LetMyPeopleThink.aspx?archive=1&pid=114

And yes, the guy's Indian, so he sounds a little funny, but listen to what he says. And just to get this out there, I don't hate homosexuals... and I'm not even sure what the "right" answer is reguarding gay marriage in all of this. I'm still trying to figure all of this out. But yea, please do listen to the audio in the link above and let's dialogue a bit here. Alright, see ya.

"I don't understand.. If naturally animals with the same gender do not have sexual relations and then why human being do? Aren't human supposely, considerably knowing better?"

- well other animals DO, its everywhere....

"You don't have to recognize it as evil to appreciate linguistic association in the definition of Marriage. The fact is that marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman - why should that definition be taken away now just because a small populous is complaining? It's not discriminatory, its a definition. Give them the same rights, give them the same societal benefits, but don't give away a definition. Give them their own name. In the long run, I believe this means more anyway.

Posted by: Jon | September 29, 2008 at 11:36 AM" (Quoted)

Jon:
I appreciate your thought on this one, re the political impact issue. The problem is totally an example of the mixture of religion and politics. Marriage means both religious marriage to many people, and also civil contract granting legal rights to couples, sort of an all inclusive contract for over a thousand rights and responsibilities.

The problem is that these rights are granted only to people with a legal marriage license. Gays can get married in half a dozen different churches religiously, byt legally, no liecense no benefits. To eg have civil unions or reg partnerships equal, you would have to amend virtually all those benefit laws in all states, and the fed laws also. Good luck.

So until the religious extremists change their tune, "marrriage" is the word that counts. Certainly I support the idea that churches cannot be forced to do marriages against their beliefs, but, really, that is a BS issue, the real issue is equality before the law, and fairness for all. It is little different then the struggle for black civil rights, or our society getting rid of most of the religious based hatred against Jews, which really happened as people came to understand the holocaust.

So lets just go with marriage, remember we are talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage.

And lets remember that the real stinkpile hidden in the barn is that some rigid living in the 2nd century churches have scapegoated gays as a way to power over people's minds, which is the real immorality issue here. And what they fear is that as people see gay people getting married, and nothing bad, in fact many good things happen, these churches will be exposed for what they are - a true abomination before God. And the churches will die. And they will lose their power and money.

And that is exactly what it is all about. And hardly different then in the level of physical violence, then the hate and scapegoating of jews that consolidated hitler's power and gave us wwII.

And with the collapse of marriage among str8 people, it is interesting to note two facts. First, in MA, home of the original gay marriage laws in the US, this is the state with the lowest average / year divorce rate in the nation. And the highest divorce rates are found in the Christian fundamentalist south. These of course are the people most opposed to fairness and equality before the law, and the descendants of those who gave us slavery and segregation, America's greatest crime.

The best statistic I can come up wwith is in England where gay civil Unions (yes they are specifically almost equal to marriage by law), has had about 1.3% divorces over the 3-4 years of existance, which puts the str8 marriages to shame. Again, the churches here are simply protecting their past, their hates, and their power, rather then having the ba_ls to stand up and admit how wrong they have been.

Please don't say you believe in GOD and use his name in a statement that accepts gays or has anything to do with it. GOD = Love yes but our God is a vengeful God and that is what many fail to see or choose to forget and what many churched sadly enough fail to preach. This is not historically correct but a failure of the times. We live in a falling world and YES gay is a huge evil and very big part of it. If you worry for your souls, I truthfully pray you research it some yourself and get back to me at the end of your lives.

Kevin,
I just wanted to share a few facts with you, umkay?! Your first paragraph is a logical fallacy. It is what you would call a “false analogy,” umkay?! You can’t make an argument by making up something fictional and then applying it to real day life. “umkay.”
Your second paragraph is what we call, a “false dichotomy.” It is never black or white. You have the entire spectrum of the rainbow to choose from. umkay
Until your logic is sound, I recommend you not critique someone else’s “view is logically deficient given the parameters.” Umkay
Sincerely, Mr. Garrison

Kevin Wrote:
Okay, let us ASSUME, for the sake of argument, that the founding fathers and this country now are founded upon Christian religious ideals. Who decides which denomination has the final say? Fundamentalists, Contextualists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Non-Denominationals, Mormons, Evangelicals? What if (and there are many) a denomination that labels themselves Christian wishes to bless a marriage between a man and a man or woman and woman based on their creed? Is it then acceptable for one denomination or group of denominations to impose their will upon that other Christian sect or arbitrarily label them "non-Christian" for their refusal to follow the former sect's beliefs? Wouldn't that be called religious discrimination in the very sense that your interpretation of the separation of Church and State defines it?

Marriage in secular and civil law revolves around custody, taxes, and other such processes. It leaves the ability to bless or not bless a marriage in the religious domain up to the religion of the married couples' choice. Either all marriages should be called civil unions under civil law (and then called marriages or otherwise under religious banners) or all civil unions called Marriages (and then called marriages or otherwise under religious banners). Any other view is logically deficient given the parameters and assumptions that YOU (several of you) stated yourselves.

Please Respond :).

The argument that gay marriage is not natural shows that people fail to understand a couple of things while in school. Marriage is a social construct created by humans to divide and inherit property. And what we mean by the history of "normal" marriage is owning the women like they are pieces of property for entertainment value. How many wives did the iconic figures in the bible have? MANY!

The Bible also states that you cannot eat shellfish because it is an abomination. When was the last time you had shrimp, lobster, clams? If you have enjoyed any of these delicious items. Total hypocrites.

Being gay is very natural because there are such things as "gay-relationship" between creatures in nature. Furthermore, gay-marriage is not about gay sex. It is about LOVING ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

How many more families are you'll going to try to destroy with your rage? May god forgive your ignorant ways for you all are far from His grace.

This is B.s.

We all live our life the way we want to live it, we're all different...........so why judge?

I think we ALL should be accepted for what we are,
'nuff said, who's harming anybody?
"Gay Marriage" should be accepted, love is all that matters.

The purpose of the government was to unify the nation into something manageable, not to dictate the belief systems, personal lives, or (to a great degree) the wallets of its people. To even consider gay marriage--or any sort of contract between people--as fodder for regulation is unconstitutional. To this end, while intervention could be easily avoided, outright recognition of gay marriage would show what a truly progressive nation we could become; although in this era a sizable part of the population would roll on their holy roller skates in picketing the capitol should gay marriage be legalized, I do believe that all of us can agree that sexual bigotry is no more justifiable (faith and Biblical quotes regardless) than racial, ethnic, or gender bigotry.

In other words, if the government would keep out of it, things would be much better. LET IT BE. If the government would modernize and recognize that we all have the right to love whom we choose without the state poking into our private lives and exposing them to the critique of the American public, we could finally catch up with our more enlightened neighbors.