Gay Marriage
June 23, 2008
The Court in Massachusetts ruled “that the hard working, tax paying gay and lesbian citizens deserve the same rights and protections under the law as any other citizen of the state”. “Gays and Lesbians have the same right to marry as heterosexual couple”. The California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay and lesbian couples from marriage is unconstitutional on May 15th, 2008. The court gave thirty days for the state to begin marrying same sex couples.
However, The Federal Government prohibits same sex marriages. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act stated; the Federal Government recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. This means that married gay couples cannot file joint federal tax returns, sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes or receive federal benefits such as social security.
Did the court even think about the health risk of homosexual lifestyles? Some of the health risks are: HIV/ Aids, physical health risk [anal cancer], emotional health risk [depression, anxiety disorder and that they are more likely to commit suicide], physical and sexual abuse [males with same sex attraction have been abused by other homosexual men, some reported violence in their relationship, lesbians complaining about sexual abuse.
Published in The Aftenporten Newspapers [Norway] on June 12th, 2008 issue stated, “Same sex marriage law passed by the majority and adoption will be easier and lesbian couples will qualify for state funded fertility treatment.
I am very confused reading it all. Did the court determine whether gay marriage hurt or harm children? Would this union create obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons?
A child does best with a good mother and a good father. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two fathers and no mother.
Apsana
- There are no related posts.
People who read this, also read...
Comments
24 Responses to “Gay Marriage”
Got something to say?
We need a man and a woman to have a baby. There is enough gays in the world already- we dont want children going to elementary school and have to see text books with pictures of two men or two women.Why did the court passed such laws?What kind of children gay couples would raise-gay children?
With gay / lesbian couples they always dress and act like one is a man and the other a woman, also one partner has to act more shy,feminine and defenseless. They want marriage,home,family and stability; then i suggest that a man should marry a woman for that.Afterall thats what they are pretending to be.
God created Adam for Eve.
Ohhhhh Reader you need to be a bit more open minded, I guess you’re not that smart after all must come from living among so many trees. I agree that gay couples deserve to have the same rights as us straight couples do, most gay couples didn’t grow up and decide oh I want to be gay. Its something that they struggle with most of their life and if embracing this way of life makes them happy then I say more power to them, they need to live their life the way they want not how you or I want them to live it.
Mike even after Adam and eve there were gays, now being gay and committing gay acts is considered sinning as Christians we are thought that we should try not to sin. Lying is a sin and we all do it on a daily basis, I have learned that no sin is greater than the other “a sin is a sin” in Gods eyes. So I believe that God will forgive those who sin after all that’s why he died on the cross.
P.S. There is no sanctity in marriage anymore among most straight couples maybe the gays might be better at it.
you’re all dumb closed minded people.
People should be able to love and be with whomever they choose. A long time ago people thought it was ok to outlaw the marriage of blacks and whites. If gay people want to marry, what business is it of yours? Why do they bother you so much? Would you want someone telling you not to be with someone because they dont believe in it? Personally I dont mind gay marriage AT ALL. It doesnt bother me. and I fully support the gay community in this legal battle.
I agree with So Fly G35
Simone,
When you call someone dumb, i am inclined to question your ability to be debatable on the subject.
Andrew,
Look at the comments this article got from Anonymous, Reader and Mike…they sound ignorant to the fact and my indicial response would have been the same as Simone. Simone was just more upfront about it.
It’s about cultivating intelectual conversation. It is as if i would have said that you are ignorant for saying that rather than saying that I choose to disagree with you. Don’t you think so ? When someone says exactly what simone said, I am inclined to think that the individual is heated ready to lash out rather that have civil open dialogue that cultivates new and revolutionary thinking.
Andrew I don’t believe that you can actually have an intellectual conversation with an ignorant person. My experience with dealing with ignorant people is that they really don’t care what you say because their ignorance hinders them from thinking any differently, therefore you simple settle it with an ignorant response such as “dumb”. I agree its not the smartest way to go about it but it can be satisfying.
It’s your prerogative to think that way. I guess the intelligent conclusion to this is that we should agree to disagree. I would go a step further though to invite you to a debate/chat about the subject on camera on one of our up coming forums.
Thank you Andrew but I would have to decline, I’m not a camera person.
Sofly,
The offer will be left open to you at anytime if you should feel so moved in anyway to lay your thoughts via debate on the table.
Andrew
i know that gays are entitled to their freedom just like any other human being.However, i dont support the idea.I’m just wondering what’s next?Soon human would want to marry animals.This people in this world is so corrupted!
The issue here is not whether people have a right to their alternative lifestyles, because they do. I don’t think the state cares who you have sex with once it isn’t a minor, next of kin, or an animal. Hard working, tax paying gay and lesbian citizens have always had the same rights and protections under the law as any other citizen of the state. However, the issue of marriage is different. Marriage needs to be between a man and woman because this is the ideal setup and foundation of human society; man+woman+children = family; family makes up communities, communities make up countries. We don’t need to reconstruct that foundation. Nature and history has seen not problem with this establishment. Any sensible state knows that it needs to keep producing healthy citizens and those citizens come from families. Therefore, a state should not provide incentives for its citizens to deviate from the ideal foundation of the society. Therefore, we do not discriminate against homosexuals, but we cannot sanction a homosexual marriage as we sanction that between man and woman.
correction: Nature and history has seen a problem with…
Straughn
I like your response particularly ” foundation of human society; man + woman + children = family” which is so true but, I believe that if gay couples want to get married, then let them…. it doesn’t hurt anyone.
“It doesn’t hurt”? What do you mean? This is the argument that most people want to make, “they don’t hurt anyone”. But sometimes a country has to make decisions for the greater good. Imagine a world in which gay marriages are sanctioned by the state. Imagine having to explain to children why two men are kissing; imagine your 6 year-old son asking you, “daddy/mommy, can I kiss John, he’s my good friend?” Of course you can’t son, he’s a boy like you and then you get the “but daddy/mommy” and you find it hard trying to explain why your son can’t kiss his friend John.
My point is that all these decisions (though appearing personal), have consequences for the society and the direction of the society, especially when they are embraced as the national policy or sanctioned by the state. Your decision to marry someone of the opposite sex benefits the state because it can produce children who ensure the state continues. Also, your stable family helps raise kids that will benefit society; or the opposite is true; unstable abusive family producing criminals or burdens for society. Heard of the butterfly effect? Or the ripple effect? Small, almost insignificant things can have severe consequences. So gay marriage is not just about two people of the same sex wanting to get married and live happily, it’s about the direction of a nation; about the foundation of our society; about the future of our children and our nation.
Here’s a TV ad for the Heinz Deli Mayo that tries to normalize the gay family, Click here to watch the video.
The ad has not aired yet in the United States and will not be airing as The American Family Association has convinced Heinz to pull the ad.
Yeah, I saw the ad. It’s ridiculous!
Ohhh that Add was too funny…I can’t believe that they actually made that add
I wish my 2 dads were like that
The Brits are quite liberal. No surprise here.
Straughn,
“Your decision to marry someone of the opposite sex benefits the state because it can produce children who ensure the state continues. Also, your stable family helps raise kids that will benefit society; or the opposite is true; unstable abusive family producing criminals or burdens for society.”
The assumption you make here is that homosexuality, unchecked by law and policy, will spread like a disease. To believe this, you would also have to believe that everyone has the ability to “catch” homosexuality. Is it really believable that far less offspring will be produced if gay marriage is legalized? It’s not as if traditional marriages will suddenly be annulled because of legalization, or as if droves of people will suddenly decide to be gay. Legalizing gay marriage does not have an affect on population. People do not simply choose to be gay when they wake up in the morning. If you are supporting marriages between a man and a woman where one party is gay, you have a point. There is childbearing where there otherwise wouldn’t be. But I do not believe this is a healthy situation at all, and I have a hunch you will agree.
SoFlyG35 says…
“I like your response particularly ” foundation of human society; man + woman + children = family” which is so true but…”
I think we have to note here that the structure of human society was CREATED by us. The societal order where a man is the head of the family and legal owner of wife, children and all other properties was created for the monetary benefit and tracking purposes of the state. Yes, this order has been the foundation of our societies, but it does not make it the right way or the only way.