Life, liberty and justice for ALL

[furman628]

While this phrase may have been one of the founding ideas of our country, apparently George W. Bush no longer believes in what it stands for and with the help of some of our good far right friends will prevent it from being true in this great nation of ours. Gays are not evil and are not going to ruin our culture if allowed to marry. I'm not

Comments

[anonymous]

dude,
I think the debate here is about the idea of not changing marriage. Homosexuality may have been a part of many cultures, but gay marriage has not. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman is no more discriminating to gays than it is to polygamists. Gays can still be gay, but marriage has and always should be something reserved for one man and one woman. If not, then I should be allowed to marry my dog and my sister at the same time.

You are right that the divorce rate is too high. Many of us do not take marriage seriously enough to keep it's promises when things become difficult. Culture has changed in that regard, and there is no use complaining about that change unless you are willing to protect what marriage stands for.

[furman628]

Maybe you should be allowed to marry your dog or sister since this is supposed to be the land of the free but the point is that homosexuals should be allowed to be able to have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple.

[mattman1]

having the same rights is one thing, being a sanctified married couple is another

morality of gay marriage

[anonymous]

Marrying your dog is immoral because a dog is not sentient. Marrying your sister could be considered immoral because of the high likelihood of producing a handicapped child (i.e., causing harm to another living being). One man marrying another causes no harm to anyone, so aside from faith-based religious arguments, what's immoral about it? Nothing.

Whether a union is blessed by God is up to Him, not to man. Given the doctrine of separation of church and state, the government has no business codifying holy matrimony for anyone; so let's abolish the idea of civil _marriage_ entirely. Then, logically, the rights currently accorded to heterosexual couples certainly must apply to homosexual couples as well.

By the way, in reading the Bible, I see that polygamy has a longer historical foundation than exclusive two-person partnerships. If we're to base a civil definition of marriage on history, I'm afraid you'll have to grant the Mormons a second chance too :o)