RateItAll: The Opinion Network

The obsession of so called 'immoral' behavior is just that - an obsession that betrays insecurity. You do not live in a theocracy. At best, civil unions will stand up in court (eventually) because redneck-we-don't-want-fag-couples-in-our-state is a legal loser when Constitutional issues are concerned. So one state says a couple can have a will, kids, and legal status while another can't? It's a legal loser on several levels- hence the obsessive push at the state-level. . .keep spinning your wheels, kids. . .keep obsessing over others' pee-pees. . .you'll eventually lose. . .at least the Taliban didn't pretend to care about my rights and life when they attempted to impose theocracy on what they considered their domain. . .gay-bashing is the by-product of fear, ignorance, and victimization of some sexual disappointment unresolved. . .

OK, here is another comment that is not politically correct. For the squeamish, please look elsewhere.

Forget about tradition, religion, or any man made laws. Throughout the history of the human race, the human carnal relationship has been man and woman. That is the basis of society, has been in the past, and for the race to continue, it must be the future.

All societies that became shaky about this, including Sparta, other Greek states, and Rome "went out of business," so to speak.

I think that such is in the future with Europe and the USA if present trends hold true.

I wonder how the Mohammedans who will be in the majority in Europe soon and the Hispanics who will be the same here, will think of same sex marriage and the rights of those who wish to make their lower digestive tracts sex organs?

If you want a civil union, plenty of laws exist now to do so. Make a contract with each other. Make a joint will leaving everything to each other. Establish guardianships and conservatorships for each other in case one or the other is disabled.

You can use the law to establish trusts, galore, and I'm sure you can find other legal institutions for your benefit.

A SANE person's platform? I think not. Let me tell you something about traditional marriage to begin. The family has been the foundation of society since the beginning of civilization. The institution that begins the family is marriage, whether it is under that name or something else. When we allow a movement or group of people to undermine marriage and what it stands for we are essentially undermining the very foundaion our country rests upon. I see no reason to allow a CHOICE behavior to change what society has accepted for nine thousand years of recorded history. (Yes, it is a choice, saying it is inhierited is giving a fact with no scientific evidence to back it up.) Now, when people bring up slavery and womens' rights as a answer to this argument, I have one response. Skin color, race, and gender are benign inhierent traits that cannot be changed nor chosen and therefore we should not be allowed to base rights on those facts. Now, I, for one, would not like to see the foundation of society crumble because a tiny portion of the country is making some noise, would you?

Not the best idea with the Bible thumpers representing a high percentage of voters.

Sure why don't you legalize polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia and incest while you're at it? Oh wait, you want to outlaw incest? On what grounds? This should be the insanity platform. UPDATE ps. One should look at all the data before blurting it out on RIA: Massachusetts also has one of the lowest marriage rates as well. That study only takes the number of divorces per capita not the number of divorces per marriage. And even if the rate of divorces per marriages were to reflect a disparity what the hell does that prove? There are numerous other factors that affect the divorce rates and marriage rates. None of which reflect reasoning for tossing out the cultural traditions that formulate the structures of ordered liberty and enables us to self govern. UPDATE******* TANGIBLE REASON: Civilizations are structured predominantly upon the cultural traditions that embed themselves in the positivism of active government. The existence of government is to promote the common good for the elevation of mankind less we be mere animals absent reason. The discussion upon which each action exists- the essence of each action empirically can be categorized as reasoned virtue or animalistic prurient desire- vice. A civilization through its culture and traditions promotes the former and structures the application of its laws upon the understanding that liberty shall be ordered in manner of how we best OUGHT govern ourselves freely. The latter is simply societal masturbation leaving us no greater than dogs. The empirical universal principles formulate a Natural Law whereby a society promotes the public good through a reasoned discussion upon these principles. This discussion is inclusive of tolerance yet respectful of natural institutions for the greater good of the society on a whole. A procedural creation of government that claims neutrality on protected ie. chic PC behavior not in conflict with equal claims on fabricated natural rights beholds no claim on any behavior inclusive of that tacitly despised. I suggest some people do some reading before promoting the intellectually weak position that everything is okay so long as you're not hurting anyone philosophy- it's simply untenable.

I honestly could not care less, and I'm not losing any sleep over this issue. Let gay people get married if that's what they want. Marriage isn't that sacred anymore anyway. A lot of straights remain married just a few years before throwing in the towel.

this is a non-issue. any two people in love or whatever it is, should be able to get married. and that's the truth. let me add, two CONSENTING people, for all of you that think homosexuality is linked to moral decay and will start in on men marrying tween girls or people marrying their dog, or whatever else Jesus told you to hate this week.

The history of marriage (look it up in the dictionary) is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. It isn't a generic definition. It isn't gender neutral. It never was. The US Constitution doesn't address it, it isn't a federal issue. Each state issues marriage licenses according to custom and its own particular unique statutes (a good example is Nevada's very liberal statutes about who can be married and who can be divorced) and changes to the respective state laws are approved through the appropriate legislative process, and approved (or vetoed) by the state governor. When a state changes its criterion for recognizing people eligible to marry each other (vis-a-vis: two men) all of the other states will be required to decide (legislatively) whether they will offer reciprocity (recognition of the marriage) to the state which allows homosexual marriqage. A few will, most will not would be my prediction. But today, it is illegal, ILLEGAL for two men to marry each other, just as it is illegal for a man to maintain two wives simultaneously, in most states. So who is this sane person who wants to change the law in all fifty states when he runs for president?

I love the people that say that if legalize same sex marriage, it'll open the doors to all kinds of other stuff (ie, polygamy, beastality, etc...). If you think that, you're wrong and you obviously have no idea how to form a logical argument. It's called a slippery slope fallacy. Look it up, educate yourself a little instead of listening to what Jerry Fallwel told you. Now if someone can give me a tangible (instead of emotional ones) reason why we shouldn't allow this, please leave me a message. Otherwise, keep your ignorance to yourself.

It's funny that all those against same sex marriage claim that it will ruin the family, blah, blah, blah. Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Where are the highest? Just take a look at those good, solid, red states with their focus on conservative values.

I think this qualifies as INSANE. Just my personal belief, don't persecute me for beliefs, just as I won't persecute you for yours.

Please don't use same-sex and marriage in the same breath, because they are mutually exclusive terms. Marriage has always been a commited relationship between *one* man and *one* woman, and nothing else. Two of one and none of the other is as immoral as two or three of one with one or more of the other. Now legally, you could make a civil union out of any combination for tax purposes and the like, but don't call it marriage unless it meets the above definition, period.

MoBiBu, Yes, some of us read the studies...what's your point here? Studies generally show same relative take up of marriage by gays and similar 'divorce' patterns. I don't think it is such a big issue in Denmark any more, but at least the availability is there. Anyone from Denmark on the site might be able to advise if the law is up for review.

Actually, coincidentally, I HAVE read some of such studies, as mentioned below by another user--somehow, people blame homosexual marriage for the increase in . . . teenage pregnancy? Say what you want about it, but to blame the actions of HETEROSEXUAL individuals on homosexual relationships is ridiculous. Gee, my neighbors are gay, I think I'll go out and get pregnant while I'm still fifteen. That makes absolutely no sense. Homosexual marriages are also blamed in these studies for the increase in divorce in heterosexual couples. How does that make any sense? Those studies are laughable, whether you're for or against the idea. I'll post the link to the article as soon as I find it again.

Really, does anybody ever READ the studies done re:same-sex marriage?? (i.e. Denmark) No, I'm not talking about religious views on this - I'm talking simple -objective- scientific inquiry.