I don't believe in gay marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

So don't get gay married.

GLBT form families. They have children. Gay marriage just allows them legal protections for their families. Every family deserves the protection of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here, ok, I'm sorry, I really don't care one way or the other about gay marriage. I have 3 gay friends/family members (one married in VA), one in OH wanting to get married and one in TX happily living in sin.

I just need some comebacks for my holier-than-thou, Chick-fil-a supporting, impossible to get along with mother. Please tell me why gay marriage should be allowed, and why it isn't the path to Sodom & Gomorrah.

I would turn it around on your mother and ask her why her beliefs should control the actions of two other, grown, voting adults?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

So don't get gay married.

GLBT form families. They have children. Gay marriage just allows them legal protections for their families. Every family deserves the protection of the law.

EDIT TO ADD:

Gay people have kids. Lesbians can get pregnant and do. Gay men can hire a surrogate or adopt or have a baby with a female partner, and they do. Gay families with kids exist all over the place.

It's an extremely conversative position to say "IF you're going to have a kid, you should be married. The kid deserves the stability of married parents."

Gay people also form long term relationships all the time. They act as spouses to each other. It's an extremely conservative position to say "If you're going to live together, you should get married. You should take legal responsibility for a person that you are in a long term relationship with."

You don't have to approve of people being GLBT to recognize that some people are going to be GLBT no matter what society says and if they're going to be GLBT, then we should give them the same legal responsibilities and same legal rights as everybody else.

[Anonymous]

Well, to be fair and equal, if gay marriage is legally permitted, then bigomy and polygomy should also be permitted. If a family of 4 wives/1 husband love each other then (and I am taking quotes from previous posters defending gay marriage) polygamist-Americans are harmed by being unable to marry the persons of their choosing, their families are harmed by not being afforded the protections that marriage allows other American families. It is a right that others are offered that they are not- which is fundamentally unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, to be fair and equal, if gay marriage is legally permitted, then bigomy and polygomy should also be permitted. If a family of 4 wives/1 husband love each other then (and I am taking quotes from previous posters defending gay marriage) polygamist-Americans are harmed by being unable to marry the persons of their choosing, their families are harmed by not being afforded the protections that marriage allows other American families. It is a right that others are offered that they are not- which is fundamentally unfair.

Cousins too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, to be fair and equal, if gay marriage is legally permitted, then bigomy and polygomy should also be permitted. If a family of 4 wives/1 husband love each other then (and I am taking quotes from previous posters defending gay marriage) polygamist-Americans are harmed by being unable to marry the persons of their choosing, their families are harmed by not being afforded the protections that marriage allows other American families. It is a right that others are offered that they are not- which is fundamentally unfair.

Cousins too.

I support gay marriage, and I have no problem permitting polygamous or cousin marriage. Of course, I don't exactly see hordes of polygamists lobbying for state-recognized polygamous marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

So this means that I can also look at things in your life that I don't approve of or agree with and legislate that I can do it, but you can't because I don't like you. Good, I'll start by saying that I don't like people like you procreating and tainting children. So I think that people who base their thoughts and way of life on a book of mythology should not be allowed to procreate.

[Anonymous]

i support gay marriage if both chicks are hot

[Anonymous]

If gay marriage had been put on the ballot in DC, I would have voted against it. Some may argue it's a civil rights issue, but they shouldn't change thousands of years of human legal/social arrangements without letting the people decide. Besides, if gay marriage is legal, why should polygamy be illegal? There's no principled difference. (Guess that would be an interesting question for President Romney).

[NotSoAnonymous]

Strawmen. How unique.

Homosexual monogamy and polygamy are inherently different. One would require relatively little change, simply allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples. The other would require a complete overhaul of our tax code, domestic abuse laws, and has comparatively weak research background supporting it as a viable situation for raising children and its effect on the psychological and physiological state of the spouse(s).

But hey, if the polygamy lobby wants to give it a go, I'll listen.

[Anonymous]

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Strawmen. How unique.

Homosexual monogamy and polygamy are inherently different. One would require relatively little change, simply allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples. The other would require a complete overhaul of our tax code, domestic abuse laws, and has comparatively weak research background supporting it as a viable situation for raising children and its effect on the psychological and physiological state of the spouse(s).

But hey, if the polygamy lobby wants to give it a go, I'll listen.

Yes. There are numerous civil - not religious, not moral, civil - reasons to prohibit polygamy, many of which are identified by the PP. Other include inheritance laws, medical rights/responsibilities, and custody issues, and there are a lot more of them. So, bigamy and polygamy are not comparable to same-sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

Dear MIL,

You are old and will be dead soon. Gay people will marry and have the same rights as the rest of us and you'll just have been on the wrong side of history.

The end.

[Anonymous]

Tell your mom, "So you think the life partner and loving companion of a national hero like Sally Ride shouldn't have the same access to Federal benefits that are available to Larry King's seven ex-wives?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Strawmen. How unique.

Homosexual monogamy and polygamy are inherently different. One would require relatively little change, simply allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples. The other would require a complete overhaul of our tax code, domestic abuse laws, and has comparatively weak research background supporting it as a viable situation for raising children and its effect on the psychological and physiological state of the spouse(s).

But hey, if the polygamy lobby wants to give it a go, I'll listen.

Yes. There are numerous civil - not religious, not moral, civil - reasons to prohibit polygamy, many of which are identified by the PP. Other include inheritance laws, medical rights/responsibilities, and custody issues, and there are a lot more of them. So, bigamy and polygamy are not comparable to same-sex marriage.

Wow, this is interesting. So, because it would require more work (rather than "relatively little change") you would deny someone the basic fundamental right to marry? Isn't that the whole point of the gay-marriage movement from the get-go? That you're being denied a civil right? what if the legislation thought allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples was just too much work? is that enough reason?

And on the second point - background supporting a viable situation for raising children? Wow! Since when did we require research saying that something was a viable situation for raising children before we "allowed" it? What about unwed single parents? teen parents? parents on drugs (typically not removed from home unless there are severe neglect issues)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell your mom, "So you think the life partner and loving companion of a national hero like Sally Ride shouldn't have the same access to Federal benefits that are available to Larry King's seven ex-wives?"

I don't think that Larry King was a Federal employee.

And why shouldn't the "sister" wives of a Federal employee also have access to benefits. In a society where men in so many cases are absent fathers, there are good, social reasons why bigamous and polygamous marriages should be legal. Certainly seems more "natural" to me than a couple of fellas.