Posted on 02/16/2005 9:29:38 PM PST by Dan19
AMEN!!
Against legal recreational sex.It's a ploy to shove an agenda down others throats. Gays are free to do as they like with one another but they have not the right to force others to approve/accept it. I'm not gay bashing. Marriage was meant for procreating couples.
Legitimizing Gay unions as Marriage will only result in the deterioration of the moral fabric this Nation was founded on. Embracing immoral behavior is a very slippery slope we should avoid
For civil unions, against marriage.
I have known enough gays over the years to become convinced that their sexuality wasn't a matter of choice. They played the cards they were dealt. It is mainly the more conservative gays who want marriage/civil unions, so try it state by state.
One of the reasons that I am bothered by the idea of gay marriage is that I don't want to see an inevitable consequence: spectacular gay marriages produced by gay set designers, choreographers, male dancers, singers, florists etc. Marriage is very often about creating children. Creating good children is extremely important to society, while creating extravaganzas with good production values is not. Keep the focus where it belongs.
The State has no business regulating marriages of any type.
Only for Penguins.
OBVIOUSLY the state -- the Federal government, at least -- has no business regulating marriage! Just make civil unions available to everybody and base all official rights and obligations now associated with marriage on civil union, which would automatically ensue from marriage. (Or maybe it wouldn't have to. Since there are official DISadvantages to marriage, why should you be penalized because your religion doesn't allow you to live together unofficially? I can't imagine there'd be much call for it, but I can imagine there being marriages which existed ONLY in the eyes of God and not at all in the eyes of the state -- perhaps in the case of two older people who wanted the comfort of marriage without the legal complications for their individual estates.)
I can certainly understand the discomfort some people might have with extending the sacrament of marriage to people of the same sex, but unless you allow civil unions, I can see no argument for banning gay marriage. It's a clear violation of equal protection under the law and of the separation of church and state. And I can't imagine how any real conservative could possibly favor a Constitutional amendment further limiting the authority and independence of the individual states by imposing a new Federal mandate.
(Then again, I can't imagine why all conservatives aren't up in arms over the Patriot Act and the Administration's suspension of habeas corpus. How are you going to feel when a Democratic Administration is in office with the right to detain people secretly? If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you can't stand by while any portion of it is denied to anyone! Indefinitely long, secret detention of people without charges or trial, without access to an attorney or communication with their families -- that's terrifying, and it's Un-American. What was the Ben Franklin quote? Something like, "A people which tries to barter its freedom for security will end up with neither"?)
I don't support legalizing perversions.
Wasn't Engler strong? Wasn't the state blue even under him?
I think a group that doesn't want government in their bedrooms should not be asking the government to sanctify what goes on in their bedrooms.
They can't have it both ways.
When it is 2 members of the same sex, it's not/can't be "marriage".
If 2 people want to enter into a contractual agreement (i.e. civil union) they can do so. Get a lawyer and draw up an agreement.
A union of the same sex is not marriage no matter how you dress it up. Marriage by it's very nature is m/f.
I am in favor of getting the government out of ALL marriages. How people arrange their private lives is no business of the government's.
Amen brother! that means, quit giving tax breaks to married couples/familes.
pot right.
I never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy of contemporary Mormons, leading political crusades against gay marriage. Even long before any talk of polygamy in the Mormon church, the state of Ohio was refusing to recognize marriages performed by Mormon clergy on the grounds that it wasn't "a legitimate religion". Who knew the state was empowered to make such a determination, regarding a religion which was clearly genuinely believed by its followers? A few decades later, after the Mormons had established a conspicuously thriving society in Utah, with widespread practice of polygamy, the federal government sent in troops to forcibly stop the practice by ousting the governing officials who sanctioned and promoted it. Presumably Mormons were, and still are, opposed to that act of tyranny on the part of the federal government, and the previously act of tyranny on the part of the Ohio state government (though I think very few contemporary Mormons are even aware of the Ohio issue). But they see nothing wrong with campaigning to have government prohibit gays from enjoying whatever benefits the government confers on married people. The whole notion stinks, and personally I think anyone who feels the need to register their adult family relationships with the government needs their head examined. Child custody may be a legitimate issue for some government involvement, but marriage ceased to be a factor in that a long time ago anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.