Religions > Atheism > Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 09:25:04 PM |
| Object: |
Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5351&department=CFI&categoryid=family
Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment
Reason #1
The people oppose same-sex marriage.
This is a government by the people, for the people.
a.. Support for legalizing "gay marriage" in Massachusetts has dropped by
12 percentage points, from 48% in an earlier poll to 35%, according to a
Boston Globe poll released February 21.
b.. At the same time, opposition to the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC)
November 18 ruling increased by 14 percentage points, from 38% to 52%.
c.. Some 71% of Massachusetts citizens said voters in a statewide
referendum should decide the issue.
d.. A December 2003 Zogby poll conducted in Massachusetts shows that 69%
of the state's voters believe it is best for children to be raised in a
household with a married mother and father.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #2
Same-sex marriage violates freedom of conscience.
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
a.. Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to endorse behavior that
they recognize as contrary to their beliefs.
b.. The state would drive a wedge between children and parents as the
public schools would teach that religious objections to homosexuality were
hateful and bigoted. That is wrong.
c.. Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate
homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs. Some companies and at
least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms
"husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead.
That is wrong.
d.. Many non-religious people also believe that homosexuality is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #3
You cannot redefine a timeless institution.
Marriage is what it is.
a.. Marriage is not just a legal reality, but also an anthropological and
sociological reality. It is under attack precisely because radicals want to
legitimize their own lifestyles.
b.. In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,"
Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will
change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a
world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down
the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. ."1
c.. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should
seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather
to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Richard Goldstein, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Village Voice,
September 3-9, 2003, p. 34.
2. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January
1994, p. 161.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #4
Every adult citizen already has equal rights.
It's never been about benefits.
a.. Same-sex marriage activists claim that homosexuals must be allowed to
"marry" in order to have the benefits and protections that only marriage
provides. Wrong. The mayor of San Francisco and thousands of homosexual
couples have defied that state's marriage laws and clearly exposed that it's
never been about benefits. It's about destroying the definition of marriage.
b.. The results of a December 2003 Zogby poll indicate that 73% of
registered Massachusetts voters understand that homosexuals can provide for
one another with arrangements already permitted in the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #5
If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
a.. Marriage is not discriminatory. Regardless of their sexual
inclinations, men and women have equal rights to bond with an opposite sex
spouse in matrimony. Removing an entire sex from the equation creates
something other than marriage.
b.. Marriage-the joining of the two sexes- is available to all, subject to
age, blood and opposite-gender limitations. Removing such requirements
removes the significance and uniqueness of the acquired status.
c.. If homosexual "marriage" is permitted, there is no logical stopping
point at which to deny marriage to any combinations of people who want to
"marry."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #6
Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.
Creating fatherless or motherless families by design hurts children.
a.. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that
married, mother-father households are best for children. Homosexual
"marriage" denies children a mother and father. Even male/female
cohabitation is dangerous for children - and homosexual "marriage" does not
offer even this basic necessity for children.
b.. "Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades. are more
likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school." ±
"Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on
children's physical health and life expectancy. The health disadvantages
associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into
adulthood." ± "Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy
better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms."
± "Young teens whose parents stay married are also the least likely to
experiment with tobacco or alcohol." Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One
Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values, 2002,
pp. 10-13. Emphasis added.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #7
Same-sex marriage would weaken an already fragile institution.
Marriage needs protection, not redefinition.
a.. Adultery, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and
absentee fathers and mothers have already weakened marriage. Adding
homosexuality to the mix will only further destabilize marriage.
b.. Married mother-father families best allow children to thrive. If we
want to help the next generation, we must strengthen and protect marriage,
not attack its core principles of a lifelong, faithful commitment between a
man and a woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #8
Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.
Let's help people overcome harmful behavior.
a.. Many practices associated with homosexual activity are physically
dangerous. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" with the intent of promoting
fidelity will not reduce health risks. Most "unsafe" sex acts among
homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
b.. A University of California study shows that human papillomavirus (HPV)
is epidemic among homosexual men - 93% of HIV-positive men, 61% of
non-HIV-positive men.
c.. Studies in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying and the International
Journal of Epidemiology indicate that homosexuality can take decades off
men's lives.
d.. Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence. "The
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the
heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who
Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #9
The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.
A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.
a.. The words of the Massachusetts Constitution, on which the Supreme
Judicial Court relied to declare the Commonwealth's marriage laws
unconstitutional, have not changed. The marriage laws limiting marriage to a
man and a woman have not changed.
b.. The question is: At what point did the laws suddenly become
discriminatory?
c.. The Supreme Judicial Court apparently expects every Member of the
Legislature and every citizen of the Commonwealth to accept without question
that the great discovery occurred on November 18, 2003, when the Court
issued its edict in Goodridge. Please don't fall for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #10
Same-sex marriage hurts everybody.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
a.. Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued.
Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts
us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from
thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining
marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what's
happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage
has disappeared.
b.. When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children
are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.
c.. Americans tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion -
but not all are officially promoted in law. Where does the devaluing of
marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age,
sex, blood or number of partners? Please don't let that happen. Future
generations will thank you if you will stand up for what's right today.
.
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 03:46:03 AM |
|
|
And here's our self-loathing closed gay in action again...
J Young, here's a deal: let's make a poll and check what people think
of nazi turds like you, OK? If a majority wishes you to disappear, will
you stop posting your lying nazi propaganda?
Besides, why do you care so much about same-sex marriage? If you're
gay, you should be happy about it and if you're not, you should think
"so fucking what"... Of course, that'd be impossible for a
pseudo-christian like you because it's obviously in your genes to put
your nose in other people's life... probably because you don't have
any...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 09:46:35 AM |
|
|
Attention-craving loon "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fM6dnS3qJcxxGT7eRVn-uw@giganews.com...
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
Bwahahahahaha!
"CWA is built on prayer and action.
We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich
25-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical
principles into all levels of public policy."
A "very reputable source" if you're a fundy nutbar of a troll, you mean.
<IJon Getiner's propaganda dumped>
LC~ Wager's even insane schizo-troll "J" knows he's full of it.
"I myself would rather see my own daughter take a chimpanzee than to be
mated with a black."~ "IJon Young", mixing incestuous fantasies with his
beastiality obsession.
Subject: Re: OT: Can jigs be jews?
Date: 15 Dec 2005 01:42:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1134639732.978575.145810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 01:48:47 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=3D5351&department=3DCFI&categor=
yid=3Dfamily
Biased site, and very untrustworthy. A very UNreputable source. I
cannot think of a time when you posted something that was from a
reputable source, in fact. You do not seem to frequent reputable sites
or use much in the way of reputable sources.
Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendme=
nt
Reason #1
The people oppose same-sex marriage.
Not a concern. People oppose a lot of things.
This is a government by the people, for the people.
And that includes homosexuals. Therefore, the government is supposed
to protect homosexuals rights as well.
a.. Support for legalizing "gay marriage" in Massachusetts has dropped =
by
12 percentage points, from 48% in an earlier poll to 35%, according to a
Boston Globe poll released February 21.
b.. At the same time, opposition to the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC)
November 18 ruling increased by 14 percentage points, from 38% to 52%.
c.. Some 71% of Massachusetts citizens said voters in a statewide
referendum should decide the issue.
d.. A December 2003 Zogby poll conducted in Massachusetts shows that 69%
of the state's voters believe it is best for children to be raised in a
household with a married mother and father.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #2
Same-sex marriage violates freedom of conscience.
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Morality is nothing but an opinion. There is no such thing as
"objective morality". What's more, denying homosexuals equal rights
violates the Constitution as well as the "morality of millions of
people". And since the Constitution supports homosexuals having the
same rights as heterosexuals, that means that the right to marry for
homosexuals trumps the opinions of the millions of people against it.
a.. Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to endorse behavior th=
at
they recognize as contrary to their beliefs.
No, they would not. They do not have to endorse anything. They will
not be forced to perform homosexual marriages. They will not be forced
to accept homosexual into their congregations. Marriage is a CIVIL
contract and law. It is registered with the civil government, and it
does not require any religious recognition or ceremony for a marriage
to be legal and recognized.
b.. The state would drive a wedge between children and parents as the
public schools would teach that religious objections to homosexuality were
hateful and bigoted. That is wrong.
Religious beliefs have no place in a public school to start with. It
is wrong to try to force others to accept you religious beliefs in
contradiction of your own, especially when those beliefs are as hateful
and discriminatory as your are. The school is there for ALL the
students, including the homosexual ones. The schools are suppose to
discourage discrimination and hostile educational environments, not
encourage them.
What's more, religious objections to homosexuality are hateful and
bigoted, practically by definition. The schools are telling the truth
when they teach that. If the parents do not want their children to
hear the truth, they can always move them to a private school or
home-school them.
c.. Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate
homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs.
So what? They should keep their personal beliefs out of the office if
it prevents them from doing their jobs and creates a hostile working
environment. Creating such an environment can get a company sued for
harassment.
Some companies and at
least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms
"husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead.
Good for them.
That is wrong.
Actually, that is the more correct thing to do.
d.. Many non-religious people also believe that homosexuality is wrong.
That does not make it wrong, bigot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Reason #3
You cannot redefine a timeless institution.
Marriage is what it is.
And homosexual marriage as been around as long as heterosexual
marriage. That is why the Catholic Church as at least two homosexual
saints, Saint Bacchus and Saint Serge, a homosexual couple that were
promised that they would be together in heaven, as well as a marriage
ceremony for homosexuals that invokes those saints, the Office of Same
Sex Unions.
And by the way, those two saints were friends of the Roman Emperor and
successful generals or the Roman army. Which also debunks the opinion
of some people that homosexuals cannot make good soldiers.
Marriage is the formal commitment of two adults to stay together for
the rest of their lives. The genders of the couple do not matter.
a.. Marriage is not just a legal reality, but also an anthropological a=
nd
sociological reality. It is under attack precisely because radicals want =
to
legitimize their own lifestyles.
It is a historical fact that most cultures throughout history have
recognized same sex marriage. And our lifestyles are already
legitimate, since they harm nobody. What's more, those lifestyles are
not radical at all. You just don't like people that ignore your
narrow-mindedness and beliefs.
b.. In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,"
Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will
change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a
world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down
the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. =
.."1
Sounds like an letter to the editor by a homophobe. It is to something
that has any weight to it. It is just the uneducated opinion of
someone that should be ignored, much like you.
c.. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should
seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rat=
her
to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." 2
Sounds like a good idea. Your myths need debunking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
1. Richard Goldstein, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Village Voice,
September 3-9, 2003, p. 34.
2. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January
1994, p. 161.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #4
Every adult citizen already has equal rights.
Except homosexuals. They do not have the right to marry the person
that they love as heterosexuals can.
It's never been about benefits.
It is about love, equal rights, equal protection for the same types of
relationships, as well as about the benefits and responsibilities.
a.. Same-sex marriage activists claim that homosexuals must be allowed =
to
"marry" in order to have the benefits and protections that only marriage
provides. Wrong.
Then how are they supposed to get those benefits and protections? They
are only available to married couples.
The mayor of San Francisco and thousands of homosexual
couples have defied that state's marriage laws and clearly exposed that i=
t's
never been about benefits. It's about destroying the definition of marria=
ge.
No. It is about extending the right to marry to a group that is denied
that right. The definition of marriage has TRADITIONALLY included same
sex marriages. That is why cultures throughout history have recognized
same sex marriages as being equal to opposite sex marriages.
b.. The results of a December 2003 Zogby poll indicate that 73% of
registered Massachusetts voters understand that homosexuals can provide f=
or
one another with arrangements already permitted in the law.
However, if it is just like marriage, including having ALL the same
rights under the law, then why call it something else. It is a
marriage. There is no need for a separate name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #5
If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.
Which same sex marriage does not do.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
Same sex marriage is not a "counterfeit marriage". It is the real
thing.
a.. Marriage is not discriminatory.
Yes, it is under the current laws.
Regardless of their sexual
inclinations, men and women have equal rights to bond with an opposite sex
spouse in matrimony.
Which is discriminatory against homosexuals. They have no interest in
bonding with someone of the opposite sex, since they bond with someone
of the same sex. You should they marry someone that they cannot bond
with, and be prevented from marrying the person that they have bonded
with?
Removing an entire sex from the equation creates
something other than marriage.
No, it does not. It remains a marriage.
b.. Marriage-the joining of the two sexes-
Or two people of the same sex.
is available to all,
No, it is not. It is not available to homosexuals, since you are not
allowing them to marry the person that they love, and yet allowing
heterosexuals to marry the person that he or she loves. Currently
marriage laws in the USA except Massachusetts excludes homosexuals,
since forcing a homosexual to marry someone that he or she does not
love of the opposite sex is as if a heterosexual was forced to marry a
person of the same sex that they could not love.
subject to
age, blood and opposite-gender limitations.
Only the opposite gender limitations need to be removed. That is what
makes it discriminatory.
Removing such requirements
removes the significance and uniqueness of the acquired status.
No, it does not. It extends it to an irrationally excluded group,
homosexuals.
c.. If homosexual "marriage" is permitted, there is no logical stopping
point at which to deny marriage to any combinations of people who want to
"marry."
That was the same argument used 40 years ago against inter-racial
marriages. There is no logic or reason in evidence that suggests that
other combinations of marriage will work their way into the laws.
Letting homosexuals marry remains one person marrying one other person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Reason #6
Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.
And yet, it still offers them two loving parents, and a more open
minded environment than you would have them grow up in. Having the
children grow up in a household where both same sex parents are married
is better than the alternative, which is likely a single parent home.
If the parent is homosexual, you will NOT get both genders for parents
no matter what you do, unless you force the single parent to get
married to the person of your choice in violation of his or her rights.
But then, you have never shown any concern about the rights of others,
as long as they do what you tell them to do.
Creating fatherless or motherless families by design hurts children.
You would rather the children live in a loveless marriage where both
parents have outside lovers since neither is interested in the other as
a sex or life partner? That sounds worse to me, and that is what you
are advocating. Growing up in a loveless home is worse for the
children than growing up in a single parent home where that parent
loves them.
It helps children to have parents that love them, and it does not
matter if the parents are the same sex or opposite sexes.
a.. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show th=
at
married, mother-father households are best for children. Homosexual
"marriage" denies children a mother and father.
But still gives them two loving parents.
Even male/female
cohabitation is dangerous for children - and homosexual "marriage" does n=
ot
offer even this basic necessity for children.
It offers two loving parents for the children. That is better than
many heterosexual marriages can offer. And it is better than what you
offer them, a single parent that wants kids but no a husband or a wife
since that parent is homosexual.
b.. "Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades. are more
likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school." =
=B1
Has nothing to do with homosexual marriages.
"Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on
children's physical health and life expectancy.
Nothing to do with homosexual marriage.
The health disadvantages
associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into
adulthood." =B1 "
Nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Especially since you are
supporting preventing people from getting married in the first place.
Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy
better physical health, on average, than do children in other family form=
s=2E"
That is a positive thing for homosexual marriages, since both parents
would be married.
=B1 "Young teens whose parents stay married are also the least likely to
experiment with tobacco or alcohol."
Again, an endorsement for letting homosexuals marry. You want to
prevent the parents of some teens from marrying.
Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One
Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values, 2002,
pp. 10-13. Emphasis added.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #7
Same-sex marriage would weaken an already fragile institution.
No, it strengthens it.
Marriage needs protection, not redefinition.
It does not need protection from homosexuals that want to marry,
however. And letting homosexuals marry does not redefine marriage at
all, since traditionally marriage has included homosexual marriages.
a.. Adultery, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and
absentee fathers and mothers have already weakened marriage.
Which is completely the fault of heterosexual marriages, since
homosexuals are prevented from getting married.
Adding
homosexuality to the mix will only further destabilize marriage.
How?
b.. Married mother-father families best allow children to thrive.
And loving married same sex couple are just as good for the children to
thrive in.
If we
want to help the next generation, we must strengthen and protect marriage,
Which means that we should allow homosexuals to marry.
not attack its core principles of a lifelong, faithful commitment between=
a
man and a woman.
Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman. They all have lifelong
faithful commitments that are the core principles of marriage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #8
Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.
Homosexuality is not deadly. No more so than heterosexuality.
Let's help people overcome harmful behavior.
There is nothing harmful about homosexuality. However, bigotry and
discrimination does harm others, and you do need help overcoming those
harmful behaviors in yourself.
a.. Many practices associated with homosexual activity are physically
dangerous.
And heterosexuals practice ALL the same activities. In actuality,
there is nothing physically dangerous about homosexuality. Homosexuals
do the same things in their relationships that heterosexuals do in
theirs.
Legalizing same-sex "marriage" with the intent of promoting
fidelity will not reduce health risks.
Yes, it does. It encourages fidelity and monogamy.
Most "unsafe" sex acts among
homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
You mean the same acts that heterosexuals perform in their steady
relationships?
b.. A University of California study shows that human papillomavirus (H=
PV)
is epidemic among homosexual men - 93% of HIV-positive men, 61% of
non-HIV-positive men.
That is a misleading stat. What was the percentage of each group that
was homosexual, and how did the percentages compare to the regular
populations? How where the numbers collected?
c.. Studies in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying and the Internatio=
nal
Journal of Epidemiology indicate that homosexuality can take decades off
men's lives.
A biased source again, and worthless journal. The study was a
"meta-study", which is suspect to start with. That particular one has
been debunked and shown to be worthless, I believe. There is no
indication what there could be other reasons for the decreased
lifespan. Reasons such as long term stress, depression, lack of a life
partner, and other symptoms that result from dealing with
discrimination their entire lives. All those things take years off
your life. Fighting and conquering the discrimination and bigotry that
you espouse, and letting homosexuals marry their loves as they should
be able to would remove those differences in their lives and see their
lifespans become the same as other men and women again with no change
in their life style.
d.. Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence.
Because those households are subject to increased levels of
discrimination and stress.
"The
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the
heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men =
Who
Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
Since when, for what reasons (such as more accurate reporting), and
what has it done in the last dozen years?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #9
The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.
A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.
The Massachusetts Constitution did not need to change. It was what
secured the rights of marriage to homosexuals in the first place.
a.. The words of the Massachusetts Constitution, on which the Supreme
Judicial Court relied to declare the Commonwealth's marriage laws
unconstitutional, have not changed. The marriage laws limiting marriage t=
o a
man and a woman have not changed.
There is nothing in the Mass. marriage laws that prevents a man from
marrying another man, or a woman from marrying another woman. Chances
are those laws are among the laws that were repealed. Feel free to
show where in the Mass. marriage laws that homosexual marriages are
forbidden. By the way, it is Chapter 207 that deals with marriages.
b.. The question is: At what point did the laws suddenly become
discriminatory?
When they limit the rights of a group of people for no reason except
that they belong to that group. For example, limiting people rights
because of gender, religion, race, and sexual orientation are all
discriminatory.
c.. The Supreme Judicial Court apparently expects every Member of the
Legislature and every citizen of the Commonwealth to accept without quest=
ion
that the great discovery occurred on November 18, 2003, when the Court
issued its edict in Goodridge.
As they should by State Constitutional law.
Massachusetts' State Constitution, Part Second, Chapter 1, Section 1,
Article IV
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm
"Article IV. And further, full power and authority are hereby given and
granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain,
and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws,
statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with
penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to
this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare
of this commonwealth, and for the government and ordering thereof, and
of the subjects of the same, and for the necessary support and defence
of the government thereof; ..."
The judges' ruling was completely constitutional for the state and
within their rights according to that same constitution.
Please don't fall for it.
Fall for what? Following the law? Ending discrimination? Seeing that
EVERYONE has the same rights and that nobody is excluded for stupid
reasons? Sounds like something that people should "fall for" since
that improves the world around up. What they should not fall for is
your ignorance and bigotry.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
----
Reason #10
Same-sex marriage hurts everybody.
Same sex marriages hurt nobody. I have never seen any evidence that it
does.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
And same sex marriages are not counterfeits. They are as real as
heterosexual marriages.
a.. Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued.
Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts
us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept fr=
om
thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide.
However, homosexual marriages are not counterfeit marriages. Your
strawmen do not change the fact that homosexual marriages are not
"counterfeit marriages".
Redefining marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage.
What do you mean? You have already redefined marriage so that it does
not include same sex marriages, which it traditional does. And
marriage has not ended.
The best example is what's
happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marri=
age
has disappeared.
First, marriage has not disappeared. Second, the reduction in the
number of people getting married started long before they legalized
same sex marriage, and is completely unrelated to same sex marriage.
So therefore the reason for the reduction in the number of marriages
has nothing to do with the legalization of same sex marriages.
Therefore, you have raised a point that has nothing whatsoever to do
with your argument.
b.. When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children
are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.
Your personal opinion without a shred of evidence to support it.
Homosexual marriage is just as real as heterosexual marriage, and
deserves exactly the same rights and protections.
c.. Americans tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion -
but not all are officially promoted in law.
Beliefs and opinions are protected by law, and lifestyles that do not
harm others are also protected. Since homosexuality harms nobody, it
too should be protected against discrimination until bigots like you
start treating it the same as heterosexuality.
Where does the devaluing of
marriage stop?
Why you stop pretending that homosexual marriages are something bad.
Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age,
sex, blood or number of partners?
Marriage is not imposed in the western world to start with, and
homosexual marriages would not start imposing marriages on anyone.
Please don't let that happen.
We will not let your short-sightedness and bigotry rule. We will
secure the same rights for homosexual as heterosexuals currently enjoy.
Future
generations will thank you if you will stand up for what's right today.
Which means standing up for homosexuals and seeing that they live with
discrimination, bigotry, and decreased rights. Which means standing up
for their right to marry the consenting unrelated adult of his or her
choice, including when that choice is for someone of the same gender.
Future generations will thank us for fighting against your bigotry, and
making the world a happier place. Just as we thank those that fought
against racism and sexism and discrimination against religions today.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
16 Dec 2005 09:48:50 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
Do you want the age of consent lowered to seven, across the board?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank ODwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 03:07:32 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Can and do. I don't live in America.
All of your "arguments" are irrelevant. Reciprocal arrangements with
other countries and other states, whereby their marriages are
recognised by each other, will sooner or later force you to recognise
the right of people to marry the person of their choice regardless of
sex, orientation, religion or race.
After all, you wouldn't want to turn your back on such a long legal
tradition.
- Frank
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and ProtectionAmendment |
17 Dec 2005 06:36:14 PM |
|
|
Frank O'Dwyer wrote:
J Young wrote:
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Can and do. I don't live in America.
America: The nation with the highest percentage of civilians in prison...
Morality?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and ProtectionAmendment |
18 Dec 2005 12:08:44 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Frank O'Dwyer wrote:
J Young wrote:
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Can and do. I don't live in America.
America: The nation with the highest percentage of civilians in prison...
Morality?
The United States: The nation with the highest number of journalists
in prison and the highest number of judicial murders [executions] after
China!!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
19 Dec 2005 04:06:05 PM |
|
|
Marriage is a 'legal' term, it can be obtained from a church or a
courthouse. Only allowing opposite sex couples this 'right' is simple
discrimination. Marriage allows for tax savings, property rights, and
other civil rights. As far as the religious institution... Same sex
"marriages" in many mainstream religions is already recognized and
practiced. However, this is purely a governmental and civil issue.
There is only one good reason to oppose gay marriage and that is to
make homosexuality unligitimate and keep homosexuals as second class
citizens who aren't allowed the same rights. Pure unadulturated
bigotry.
Marriage ultimately makes relationships more stable. The two
individuals are less likely to 'cheat' or split quickly with problems
arise. But, then again you know that - and that is why you are opposed.
Nate
The Q-Spot at Out Support
http://www.outsupport.org/qspot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
19 Dec 2005 04:06:41 PM |
|
|
Marriage is a 'legal' term, it can be obtained from a church or a
courthouse. Only allowing opposite sex couples this 'right' is simple
discrimination. Marriage allows for tax savings, property rights, and
other civil rights. As far as the religious institution... Same sex
"marriages" in many mainstream religions is already recognized and
practiced. However, this is purely a governmental and civil issue.
There is only one good reason to oppose gay marriage and that is to
make homosexuality unligitimate and keep homosexuals as second class
citizens who aren't allowed the same rights. Pure unadulturated
bigotry.
Marriage ultimately makes relationships more stable. The two
individuals are less likely to 'cheat' or split quickly with problems
arise. But, then again you know that - and that is why you are opposed.
Nate
The Q-Spot at Out Support
http://www.outsupport.org/qspot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 11:43:20 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:25:04 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <fM6dnS3qJcxxGT7eRVn-uw@giganews.com>
wrote:
What does this have to do with abortion or the Freedom of Choice?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
16 Dec 2005 11:08:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 22:25:04 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5351&department=CFI&categoryid=family
Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment
Reason #1
The people oppose same-sex marriage.
This is a government by the people, for the people.
If that were the only consideration then the emancipation proclamation
would never have passed. Why do you support slavery, Young?
a.. Support for legalizing "gay marriage" in Massachusetts has dropped by
12 percentage points, from 48% in an earlier poll to 35%, according to a
Boston Globe poll released February 21.
b.. At the same time, opposition to the Supreme Judicial Court's (SJC)
November 18 ruling increased by 14 percentage points, from 38% to 52%.
c.. Some 71% of Massachusetts citizens said voters in a statewide
referendum should decide the issue.
d.. A December 2003 Zogby poll conducted in Massachusetts shows that 69%
of the state's voters believe it is best for children to be raised in a
household with a married mother and father.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #2
Same-sex marriage violates freedom of conscience.
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything with SSM. Why do you lie,
Young?
a.. Christians, Jews and Muslims would be forced to endorse behavior that
they recognize as contrary to their beliefs.
b.. The state would drive a wedge between children and parents as the
public schools would teach that religious objections to homosexuality were
hateful and bigoted. That is wrong.
c.. Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate
homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs. Some companies and at
least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms
"husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead.
That is wrong.
d.. Many non-religious people also believe that homosexuality is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #3
You cannot redefine a timeless institution.
Marriage is what it is.
Marriage, for the best part of its existence, has meant kidnapping
your 'bride' while her relatives try to kill you before you rape her.
So much for 'timeless'.
a.. Marriage is not just a legal reality, but also an anthropological and
sociological reality. It is under attack precisely because radicals want to
legitimize their own lifestyles.
b.. In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage,"
Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will
change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a
world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down
the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. ."1
c.. Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should
seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather
to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
1. Richard Goldstein, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Village Voice,
September 3-9, 2003, p. 34.
2. Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT magazine, December/January
1994, p. 161.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #4
Every adult citizen already has equal rights.
It's never been about benefits.
Wrong. No homosexual couple has been 'equal' in the US.
a.. Same-sex marriage activists claim that homosexuals must be allowed to
"marry" in order to have the benefits and protections that only marriage
provides. Wrong. The mayor of San Francisco and thousands of homosexual
couples have defied that state's marriage laws and clearly exposed that it's
never been about benefits. It's about destroying the definition of marriage.
b.. The results of a December 2003 Zogby poll indicate that 73% of
registered Massachusetts voters understand that homosexuals can provide for
one another with arrangements already permitted in the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #5
If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
What, like Britney Spears and 'The Bachelor'?
Get over yourself.
a.. Marriage is not discriminatory. Regardless of their sexual
inclinations, men and women have equal rights to bond with an opposite sex
spouse in matrimony. Removing an entire sex from the equation creates
something other than marriage.
b.. Marriage-the joining of the two sexes- is available to all, subject to
age, blood and opposite-gender limitations. Removing such requirements
removes the significance and uniqueness of the acquired status.
c.. If homosexual "marriage" is permitted, there is no logical stopping
point at which to deny marriage to any combinations of people who want to
"marry."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #6
Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.
Creating fatherless or motherless families by design hurts children.
Better outlaw single pregnancy, then.
Not on side with that? Fuckin' hypocrite.
a.. Human experience and a vast body of social science research show that
married, mother-father households are best for children. Homosexual
"marriage" denies children a mother and father. Even male/female
cohabitation is dangerous for children - and homosexual "marriage" does not
offer even this basic necessity for children.
b.. "Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades. are more
likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school." ±
"Divorce and unmarried childbearing appear to have negative effects on
children's physical health and life expectancy. The health disadvantages
associated with being raised outside of intact marriages persist long into
adulthood." ± "Children who live with their own two married parents enjoy
better physical health, on average, than do children in other family forms."
± "Young teens whose parents stay married are also the least likely to
experiment with tobacco or alcohol." Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One
Conclusions from the Social Sciences, Institute for American Values, 2002,
pp. 10-13. Emphasis added.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #7
Same-sex marriage would weaken an already fragile institution.
Marriage needs protection, not redefinition.
Marriage is fragile because of what hets have done to it.
a.. Adultery, pre-marital sex, no-fault divorce, co-habitation, and
absentee fathers and mothers have already weakened marriage. Adding
homosexuality to the mix will only further destabilize marriage.
b.. Married mother-father families best allow children to thrive. If we
want to help the next generation, we must strengthen and protect marriage,
not attack its core principles of a lifelong, faithful commitment between a
man and a woman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #8
Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.
Let's help people overcome harmful behavior.
Yes, I can see how monogamy is 'harmful'.
Oh, wait. It's not?
a.. Many practices associated with homosexual activity are physically
dangerous. Legalizing same-sex "marriage" with the intent of promoting
fidelity will not reduce health risks. Most "unsafe" sex acts among
homosexuals occur in steady relationships.
b.. A University of California study shows that human papillomavirus (HPV)
is epidemic among homosexual men - 93% of HIV-positive men, 61% of
non-HIV-positive men.
c.. Studies in Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying and the International
Journal of Epidemiology indicate that homosexuality can take decades off
men's lives.
d.. Homosexual households are more prone to domestic violence. "The
incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the
heterosexual population," according to D. Island and P. Letellier in Men Who
Beat the Men Who Love Them (New York: Haworth Press, 1991).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #9
The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.
A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.
UN UDHR.
a.. The words of the Massachusetts Constitution, on which the Supreme
Judicial Court relied to declare the Commonwealth's marriage laws
unconstitutional, have not changed. The marriage laws limiting marriage to a
man and a woman have not changed.
b.. The question is: At what point did the laws suddenly become
discriminatory?
c.. The Supreme Judicial Court apparently expects every Member of the
Legislature and every citizen of the Commonwealth to accept without question
that the great discovery occurred on November 18, 2003, when the Court
issued its edict in Goodridge. Please don't fall for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reason #10
Same-sex marriage hurts everybody.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
Only if you have the self-esteem of a slug, Young.
a.. Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued.
Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts
us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from
thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining
marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what's
happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage
has disappeared.
b.. When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children
are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.
c.. Americans tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion -
but not all are officially promoted in law. Where does the devaluing of
marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age,
sex, blood or number of partners? Please don't let that happen. Future
generations will thank you if you will stand up for what's right today.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "• Ninure Saunders" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 08:15:30 AM |
|
|
The Marrying Kind
Why social conservatives should support same-sex marriage
by Jonathan Rauch
......
Last year the Census Bureau reported a statistic that deserved wider
notice than it received: during the 1990s the number of unmarried-partner
households in the United States increased by 72 percent. Cohabitation has
actually been on the rise for decades, but it started from a small base.
Now the numbers (more than five million cohabiting couples) are beginning
to look impressive.
Marriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The annual number
of weddings per 1,000 eligible women fell by more than a third from 1970
to 1996. A lot of factors are at work herefor example, people are marrying
laterbut it seems clear that one of them is the rise in cohabitation.
Couples are simply more willing to live together without tying the knot.
Whether this is a bad thing is a contentious question, but it is almost
certainly not a good thing. Cohabitation tends to be both less stable and
less happy than marriage, and this appears to be true even after
accounting for the possibility that the cohabiting type of person may
often be different from the marrying type. Research suggests that marriage
itself brings something beneficial to the table. Add the fact that a
growing share of cohabiting householdsnow more than a third of themcontain
children, and it is hard to be enthusiastic about the trend.
Whom to blame? In part, homosexual couples like me and my partner.
Cohabitation used to be stigmatized. "Living in sin" it has been called in
recent memory, even among the educated classes. Today cohabitation is
often viewed as a different-but-equal alternative to wedlock. Although the
drift toward cohabitation would no doubt have happened anyway, the growing
visibility and acceptance of same-sex couples probably speeded the change.
As one gay activist told the Los Angeles Times last year, "Just the term
'unmarried partner' gave it a dignity and social category."
So (conservatives say) it's true! Homosexuals undermine marriage! To the
contrary. The culprit is not the presence of same-sex couples; it is the
absence of same-sex marriage.
The emergence into the open of same-sex relationships is an irreversible
fact in this country. Traditionalists may not like it, but they cannot
change it, so they will have to decide how to deal with it. The far
right's plantry to push homosexuals back into the closetis not going to
work; the majority of Americans are too openhearted for that. Indeed, the
currents of public opinion are
running the other way. An annual survey of college freshmen found that
last year 58 percenta record high, and up from 51 percent in 1997thought
that same-sex couples should be able to marry.
Seeing those numbers and others like them, conservatives are desperate to
stave off same-sex marriage. For that matter, many moderates remain queasy
about legalizing gay marriage; they are sympathetic to homosexuals, but
not that sympathetic. Liberation-minded leftists, who spent the 1970s
telling us that our parents' marriages were outdated and stuffy, were
never crazy about matrimony to begin with. As for gays, the vast majority
want the right to marry, but most agree that domestic-partner benefits and
other "marriage-lite" arrangements are a lot better than nothing.
The result is the ABM Pact: Anything But Marriage. Enroll same-sex
partners in the company health plan, give them some of the legal
prerogatives of spousehood, attend their commitment ceremonies, let them
register at city hall as partnersjust DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. In America,
and in Europe, too, ABM is rapidly establishing itself as the compromise
of choice. Gay partnerships get some social and legal recognition,
marriage remains the union of man and woman, and everybody moves on. A
shrewd social bargain, no?
No. The last thing supporters of marriage should be doing is setting up an
assortment of alternatives, but that is exactly what the ABM Pact does,
and not only for gays. Every year more companies and governments (at the
state and local level) grant marriagelike
benefits to cohabiting partners: "concessions fought for and won mostly by
gay groups," as the Los Angeles Times notes, "but enjoyed as well by the
much larger population of heterosexual unmarried couples." To which might
be added what I think of as the Will &
Grace effect: homosexuals are here, we're queer, and nowadays we're kind
of cool. ABM, perversely, turns one of the country's more culturally
visible minorities into an advertisement for just howcool and successful
life outside of wedlock can be.
I doubt that most homosexuals would take their marital vows less seriously
than heterosexuals do, as some conservatives insist. Even if I'm wrong,
however, surely the exemplary power of failed or unfaithful gay marriages
would pale next to the example currently being set by a whole group an
increasingly fashionable group among whom love and romance and sex and
commitment flourish entirely outside of marriage. And can you imagine
social conservatives telling any other group to cohabit rather than marry?
Can you imagine them saying, "The young men of America's inner cities
won't take marriage as seriously as they should, so let's encourage them
to shack up with their girlfriends"?
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying should be
much more worried about the example gays are already setting by not
marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of ABM make a mistake
that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support
and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to move beyond
cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons,
the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the
routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead?
Self-styled friends of matrimony.
Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined
marriage in an effort to keep homosexuals out.
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/rauch.htm
--
Pax Christi,
• Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
Jesus is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 PRATTs to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 01:08:14 AM |
|
|
We see again that fundie brat loves the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Oh well. The majority of human beings on this planet are _not_ christians. I
guess we'll have to ban the jebus cult then, so to not offend the majority.
Hurts when your own "reasoning" is turned against you, does it not, fundie
brat?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment |
17 Dec 2005 07:45:16 AM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> posting the following on Fri, 16 Dec 2005
22:25:04 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5351&department=CFI&categoryid=family
This also almost two years old.
Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment
Reason #1
The people oppose same-sex marriage.
This is a government by the people, for the people.
So? If we left civil rights up to a majority vote, Mississippi and
Alabama would still be denying blacks the right to vote. Civil Rights
are not subject to popular opinion.
In the case of Massachusetts, the highest court in the state found
that under the Commonwealth's constitution, same-sex couples could not
be denied the right to marry. Public opinion cannot override the
Constitution of a state or of the US.
Reason #2
Same-sex marriage violates freedom of conscience.
You can't ignore the morality of millions of Americans.
Millions of Americans disagree with smoking, drinking, and eating
unhealthy diets. Yet people are free to do those things.
b.. The state would drive a wedge between children and parents as the
public schools would teach that religious objections to homosexuality were
hateful and bigoted. That is wrong.
Where in the Mass marriage argument do you see this?
c.. Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate
homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs. Some companies and at
least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms
"husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead.
That is wrong.
Private businesses can do what they want.
d.. Many non-religious people also believe that homosexuality is wrong.
So? I can point you to tracts by people who claim that Catholics
should not be allowed to be American citizens since they acknowledge
the Pope as a leader, and he is the Head of State for a foreign
nation.
Reason #3
You cannot redefine a timeless institution.
Marriage is what it is.
Marriage has been redefined many times.
Reason #4
Every adult citizen already has equal rights.
It's never been about benefits.
Nonsense. Since Gary ands Mike could not marry, even though they are
both consenting adults, they are being denied a right.
Go read Loving v. Virginia. This is the exact same argument used by
supporters of the miscegenation laws. The SCOTUS threw it out.
Reason #5
If you eliminate the uniqueness of marriage, you destroy it.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
Except they aren't counterfeit, they are real marriages as defined by
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Reason #6
Same-sex marriage deprives children of a mother and father.
Creating fatherless or motherless families by design hurts children.
I can hand you over 200 studies dating back to the early 1980s that
refute this claim, but you wouldn't read them.
Reason #7
Same-sex marriage would weaken an already fragile institution.
Marriage needs protection, not redefinition.
No evidense given. I'm reminded of the claim that integrating the
armed forces would destroy unit moral and combat effectiveness. Didn't
happen there.
People also claimed that giving women the vote would destroy the
American family.
Reason #8
Government should not endorse a deadly lifestyle.
Let's help people overcome harmful behavior.
Of this ignores the fact that marriage increases stability in
relationships and communities.
Reason #9
The words of the Massachusetts Constitution have not changed.
A "right" to same-sex "marriage" has not suddenly appeared.
The Massachusetts Constitution guarntees "equality before the law" to
all citizens of the Commonwealth. Try reading the Goodridge decision:
http://www.capecodonline.com/special/gaymarriage/sjcdec18.htm
Reason #10
Same-sex marriage hurts everybody.
Counterfeits cheapen the real thing.
Again, the claim that something sanctioned by law isn't real.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Support the Marriage Affirmation andProtection Amendment |
18 Dec 2005 10:23:40 AM |
|
|
in article fM6dnS3qJcxxGT7eRVn-uw@giganews.com, J Young at
youngopinions@aol.com wrote on 12/16/05 10:25 PM:
This is a very interesting article from a very reputable source.
Only if you expect a very large reward from a very phony God.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
