Would gay marriage really make gays happy?
Gracie - Proud Conservative
2012/08/07 23:34:46
It seems to me that gays think it's the ultimate key to happiness...marriage! While I love my husband I must admit that I'm not happy with him because we're married, I'm happy because we have a great relationship and are happy together. If I didn't have that piece of paper, we'd still be together and living our lives just as we do now. I haven't heard anyone gay say that they need to be married because cohabitation is immoral and without marriage, they can't live together and have sex together. That seems to be reserved for the Christian heterosexuals.
So, are married gay couples that much happier than unmarried couples or is it the job and tax benefits that married couples get that make them so much happier? Or is it nothing but the grass is greener and I need you to say I'm normal thing?
I personally think that many Liberals in general think they're only one piece of legislation away from utopia and it's Conservatives keeping them from it!
So, are married gay couples that much happier than unmarried couples or is it the job and tax benefits that married couples get that make them so much happier? Or is it nothing but the grass is greener and I need you to say I'm normal thing?
I personally think that many Liberals in general think they're only one piece of legislation away from utopia and it's Conservatives keeping them from it!
Top Opinion
-
ilstarwars 2012/08/07 23:41:33
+12I don't think it's so much about them wanting to get married, I think they are just mad that they aren't allowed to do it if they so desire. I'd be angry too if I weren't allowed to have something that everyone else is allowed to have just because of a sexual preference.
of the impending election, and the Feds have done nothing but lip service.
Meanwhile, perfectly decent citizens are being shafted while the filibustering continues.
I don't believe that necrophilia hurts anyone, either-- but I'm pretty sure it will never follow gay marriage into the mainstream. The point, of course, is that polygamy is a whole new can of legal worms to contend with, and the feds (through DOMA) have actively avoided addressing the legal implications of the comparatively simple issue of gay marriage yet.
If there are enough polygamists out there to get such measures to pass, I suppose that's how democracy works. We'll just have to continue living our lives unimpeded by those who live differently than we do.
I've not yet seen anything credible that indicates the feds will require churches to marry gay couples. If you know of an actual policy statement to this effect, I'd like to read it. As I understand it, the State only agrees to recognize such marriages in an administrative sense-- which the federal gov't does not.
This is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are arrived at that stretch the Constitution beyond comprehension. A simple phrase in a majority decision lays the foundation for the next step in the next decision. These things are planned out years and even decades in the future. They pick and choose cases to make the point they want to achieve. For example, abortion isn't based on whether you're taking a life, it's based simply on the point that you have a right to privacy, taking the Griswold case that came before it. Now, you don't have the right to kill a person in the privacy of your own home but because they said that a couple had a right to use birth control, rightfully so, and based it on a privacy issue, they concluded that you had the right to abort your baby with the privacy of the physician or medical facility doing so.
That, my friend, is how you do things that people never saw coming. To say that changing the definition of marriage won't open a can of worms is probably hopeful to you because you believe in it, but to a Chri...
This is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are arrived at that stretch the Constitution beyond comprehension. A simple phrase in a majority decision lays the foundation for the next step in the next decision. These things are planned out years and even decades in the future. They pick and choose cases to make the point they want to achieve. For example, abortion isn't based on whether you're taking a life, it's based simply on the point that you have a right to privacy, taking the Griswold case that came before it. Now, you don't have the right to kill a person in the privacy of your own home but because they said that a couple had a right to use birth control, rightfully so, and based it on a privacy issue, they concluded that you had the right to abort your baby with the privacy of the physician or medical facility doing so.
That, my friend, is how you do things that people never saw coming. To say that changing the definition of marriage won't open a can of worms is probably hopeful to you because you believe in it, but to a Christian community that doesn't, this is a problem. Haven't you seen all the private businesses that aren't being allowed to deny their services to gay marriages? How about this case?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
Abortion *should* be legal... so, good job to the Supremes. :O)
Notice that I said "...a whole NEW can of legal worms" by which I meant that both polygamy and same-sex marriage are indeed cans of worms unto themselves... but that one falls distinctly short of paving the way for the other. I mentioned necrophilia to highlight the absurdity of your claim that we're on a slippery slope to other 'lifestyle choices'.
If you have a link to specific policy statements regarding churches being forced to perform gay marriages, I'd like to see it. Something that ends in .gov would be good. No blogs or op-ed pieces-- bona fide fact is what we should be dealing with, rather than conjecture.
You're concerned about polygamy and incest... way off topic. If I'm off-topic, I guess I don't understand the very core of the gay marriage debate.
If you don't believe that there will be a legal attack on the churches you're wrong.
What, exactly, is it that's such a threat in this issue, and who is (possibly) going to be hurt by it?
I'm no fan of single parenthood AT ALL, but I'd rather live in a society that permits it than one that... does whatever a society would have to do in order to prevent it. Forced sterilization? Forced marriages? Child abductions by the State?
care in the slightest how they feel about anything much....