New Hampshire recently joined Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont in legalizing same-sex marriage.
This is obviously a big victory for gay and lesbian advocates.
Maine is also looking good in the fight for same-sex marriage, and may make it legal as soon as next week.
There is also a group called Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a group of lawyers who led the legal fight for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, who have set a target of bringing same-sex marriage to all New England states by 2012. Maine could make them only one away from their goal.
What do you think? Do you think they will reach their goal?
How long until same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the whole country?
Not at all. I respect that in the eyes of many, marriage is a religious institution. I also acknowledge that in the eyes of the government, marriage is a legal proceeding. Due to the fact that the government runs the country and not Christianity, I believe it should be up to the representatives whom the people have voted into office to decide the fate of gay marriage. Or, if the state wishes to do so, leave the decision to the people themselves.
If too many people are uncomfortable with the term "marriage" being used, that's fine with me. What's not fine with me is that civil unions deny so many legal benefits and federal rights that marriage provides for many straight couples. If you look a few pages back you'll find a site that I provided which lists all of these rights, total over 1,100.
Personally, I believe there is nothing wrong with either homosexuals or gay marriage. Intolerance as seen through some people who have posted before me in this thread however, is unacceptable if our nation wishes to progress forward as an advocate for freedom and prosperity.
Not at all. I respect that in the eyes of many, marriage is a religious institution. I also acknowledge that in the eyes of the government, marriage is a legal proceeding. Due to the fact that the government runs the country and not Christianity, I believe it should be up to the representatives whom the people have voted into office to decide the fate of gay marriage. Or, if the state wishes to do so, leave the decision to the people themselves.
If too many people are uncomfortable with the term "marriage" being used, that's fine with me. What's not fine with me is that civil unions deny so many legal benefits and federal rights that marriage provides for many straight couples. If you look a few pages back you'll find a site that I provided which lists all of these rights, total over 1,100.
Personally, I believe there is nothing wrong with either homosexuals or gay marriage. Intolerance as seen through some people who have posted before me in this thread however, is unacceptable if our nation wishes to progress forward as an advocate for freedom and prosperity.
That's not what I said. And there you go being defensive again. I said gay marriage is immoral, not gay people, if being gay was immoral, then we wouldn't have them would we?
I don't follow that. How would we 'not have' gay people if they were deemed immoral? Prostitution, adultery still exist, yet they are immoral activities. To expand on that, morals are subjective. Who is to say what is morally right and wrong? Being gay used to be illegal and was deemed morally wrong by many. Things change.
If too many people are uncomfortable with the term "marriage" being used, that's fine with me. What's not fine with me is that civil unions deny so many legal benefits and federal rights that marriage provides for many straight couples. If you look a few pages back you'll find a site that I provided which lists all of these rights, total over 1,100.
Governmental acknowledgement of any marriage is a violation of the separation of the church and the state. The whole issue of homosexual marriage does nothing but further embed religion into politics.
Flag None..find it odd? two people together...same gender? Really, have you no shame? what makes people want to be gay? Call me whatever you want, but I know everyone in the forums knows theirs something odd or weird about gay marriage. He had a gay kid in our school once...kept trying to get weird with one of my friends...so me and a few others took him and beat him up until he admited he wasnt gay. He never did, and a week later he transfered out. Im the only one out of the 4 who feel guilty about it...but then they were all hicks and they tend to stick with their old fashioned ways lol...you can take the hick out of the barn...but he'll eventually get back in ther and get er dun!
I didn't think I could respect you any less but then you go and say something like that. What part of it is shameful? Like what is it about it sepcifically that you have a problem with?
I don't follow that. How would we 'not have' gay people if they were deemed immoral? Prostitution, adultery still exist, yet they are immoral activities. To expand on that, morals are subjective. Who is to say what is morally right and wrong? Being gay used to be illegal and was deemed morally wrong by many. Things change.
None..find it odd? two people together...same gender? Really, have you no shame? what makes people want to be gay? Call me whatever you want, but I know everyone in the forums knows theirs something odd or weird about gay marriage. He had a gay kid in our school once...kept trying to get weird with one of my friends...so me and a few others took him and beat him up until he admited he wasnt gay. He never did, and a week later he transfered out. Im the only one out of the 4 who feel guilty about it...but then they were all hicks and they tend to stick with their old fashioned ways lol...you can take the hick out of the barn...but he'll eventually get back in ther and get er dun
You know, this post makes you sound a bit like a hick. Prejudice, belief in a state of normalcy, complete ignorance of 90% of what homosexuality is. . .research is gooooooooooooood.
I addressed that in my previous post. What you have yet to explain is why morality is a pre requisite for existance.
Firefly, everybody knows that he's too stupid to have an answer for that. What you're doing now is like getting the school bully, pushing him over and kicking him in the face every time he tries to get back up. While hilarious it serves no real purpose.
Thisisnotanalt- You call other people ignorant, however, do you contemplate that by making that statement you are in fact yourself being ignorant, you must consider the other person's point(s) rather than keep repeating the phrase that everyone is ignorant.
As for the gay marriage laws, Maine, where I live, Baldacci has signed them into law. Personally I do not belong to a religious faith, hence I am not following along with a religious doctrine, but this still does not mean that I am for gay and lesbian unions. My initial response is WHY!? what is wrong with a man liking a woman or a woman liking a man. Homosexuality does just not make sense, if someone would elaborate upon why two people of the same sex should like each other, please do. Second of all two sexes cannot produce children because two sperm do not result in an zygote, nor do two eggs. And frankly homosexuality is most likely not a trait passed on in genes, rather it is something that the mind grows into.
Thisisnotanalt- You call other people ignorant, however, do you contemplate that by making that statement you are in fact yourself being ignorant, you must consider the other person's point(s) rather than keep repeating the phrase that everyone is ignorant.
Actually, I choose my arguments and words rather carefully-and I call the person ignorant after pondering and examining his or her point. Also, I almost always provide refutations along with my accusations-please, cite times where I've simply thrown around the phrase with no other argument, and I will concede point and discontinue. The very presence of an actual argument long with the accusation justifies the accusation itself-and ironically, your own point would apply to yourself, in that you are calling me ignorant without pondering my points. (of course, whether either of us ponders the other's points is an inference , and throwing around inferences isn't exactly a debate, so I'll stop here. ----------
Homosexuality does just not make sense, if someone would elaborate upon why two people of the same sex should like each other, please do. Second of all two sexes cannot produce children because two sperm do not result in an zygote, nor do two eggs. And frankly homosexuality is most likely not a trait passed on in genes, rather it is something that the mind grows into.
1st. There is no state of normalcy; therefore, neither homosexuality OR heterosexuality would make sense by your logic. (I use that word apprehensively in this case.) 2nd. By that thinking, any hetero couple that marries but does not have children would be just as bad. Marriage isn't about children, it's about union and federal rights. Also, by that thinking, the missed opportunity would also apply to every masturbation and missed period ever, because it is denying children when children could be had. 3rd. Homosexuality is not entirely a choice. Homosexuality is not entirely innate. I posted a link in this thread (actual evidence! Something very rare here) to an article by the American Psychological Association, detailing that 'both nature and nurture play a part in sexuality.' Support you statements here:
And frankly homosexuality is most likely not a trait passed on in genes, rather it is something that the mind grows into.
Unbiased source, of course, and here:
Homosexuality does just not make sense,
------------ It is not a question of 'should.' Emotion is not a rational thing-when have you ever rationally pondered whether you should have a crush on someone or not? It is a matter of attraction, not ration.
