The love a gay couple feels for each other is no different from the love a hetero couple feels.
If you believe marriage between gay people is wrong, by all means don't marry someone of the same sex. There's no reason to take away that choice from other people, IMO.
My family is Jamaican. Jamaica is one of the most homophobic societies on earth. Someone who comes out as gay is likely to be murdered or even sent to jail. There are songs against homosexuality; they had to pull Brokeback Mountain out of the theatres due to complaints.
I have nothing against gay people; they can sleep with and marry whomever they like! A dear friend of mine passed away from AIDS. As a gay man, he told me "Don't ever think that because you are a straight woman, this cannot happen to you!"
Marriage is a legal contract between two people, that is why it requires going to the courthouse to get a license.
Almost without exception the opponants of gay marriage base their arguement against it's legality on religous prohibition. This is a moronic argument. If it was a valid argument your minister/imam/priest could perform a legal marriage with out the State's consent.
Personally, I am 100% behind the legalization of gay marriage & am constantly amazed that this is actually still an issue in this day & age. I go to a Protestant church (United Church of Christ) that is completely supportive of the right for gays to marry.
The state does have a vested interest in heterosexual marriage. Strong marriages are the launching pad for children. The government depends on a certain number of future taxpayers and warfighters. Taxpayers are left with the enormous costs of kids who don't receive adequate care/training/supervision. Taxpayers pay through the nose to support illegitimate kids and to help support many single mothers with kids. Strong heterosexual unions simply save taxpayers money. Aside from that, every spouse supported by a spouse or who receives basic healthcare assistance from a spouse saves taxpayers money. You can take religion completely out of the equation. The state would still have a legitimate interest in healthy, strong marriages, especially between child producers. Whether one holds to intelligent design or Darwinism, the best arrangement for the rearing of small humans is the union of a man and a woman. If two guys were a superior arrangement, evolution would have enabled them the capacity to reproduce.
But unbelieveable, marriage is not about making babies in our society. What about people who choose to remain childless or adopt? Besides, with over 40% of children in the US being born out of wedlock, well, I think that ship has sailed.
Besides, on a personal note, no taxpayer money has ever gone to support my illegitimate children. My husband & I have paid our share as well as all the taxes required of us to support our society's "entitled" classes. It is never black & white, you know.
If gays were allowed to marry, they would be subject to the same responsibilities as hetero couples. They could adopt some of those burdensome children we who pay income taxes support. The healthcare savings would be taken care of, too.
The argument that hetero marriage has the potential to be any healthier or stronger than a gay marriage does not hold water. Who is talking about superior? I am just interested in gay people being given the same chances as heteros to marry. If it is not a big deal, make civil unions available to straight couples.
As to intelligen design & Darwinism, well, I don't see how that has anything to do with how people in this country choose to live their lives. Marriage is a human invention. Besides, Darwin claimed to be a thiest, so intelligent design & evolution are not opposites ends of a spectrum, or even really competing theories.
The best arrangement for the rearing of small humans may indeed often be the union of a man and a woman, but that is never going to be an absolute.
If it is really all about supplying future taxpayers & war fighters, the government should encourage wealthy citizens to have more children, as they will be the ones who supply most of the tax money our society consumes. The war fighters seem to come from the less wealthy in a society that has an all volunteer military. I think we will always have plenty of them.
You miss my point. The assertion was made that the state has no interest in marriage. My point was to prove that it certainly does. It'd be more difficult to say what interest the state has in childless unions. I did not argue that heterosexual unions were stronger than homosexual unions. My argument was that heterosexual unions were apparently nature's ideal platform for raising kids. The state certainly should use policy and the tax code to encourage married, heterosexuals (especially college graduates) to reproduce and to discourage illegitimate births. We know through numerous studies which unions produce the smartest, most law-abiding, and most productive citizens. We should invest in such unions. Welfare policies that penalize families with a present father are counterproductive.
Who loves whom isn't an issue for the government. What's best for society is. Gay marriage and gay adoption are two different issues. Speaking solely about gay marriage (which is the topic), such a union represents two potential taxpayers and two potential voters. That is the only legitimate interest of the Federal and State governments. If they own a home (which they are free to do, married or not), the union represents government interest in terms of property tax for the county.
A family with kids represents a multitude of government interests. That union significantly impacts our education system, health & welfare, defense, criminal justice, corrections, labor, IRS, etc.
If any union between consenting adults is a valid marriage, there is no logical reason for polygamy to be illegal.
If you are opposed to same sex marriage then change all the laws regarding child custody, probate and wills, insurance, tax deductions, property trusts, health care proxies, elder care, bank loans, social services benefits, power of attorney, veterans care, public housing
Is all. Your call. The other thing seems easier to do, in my mind.
Anyway, isn't 'gay' who you love, not who you screw? Otherwise 4 our of 5 hookers (since they're mostly trannies) would be out of job.
If your state wants to declare the union of a toaster oven and a dishwasher a legal marriage, that's the business of your state legislature. That's the beauty of the Federalist system. If you don't like the laws in your state, you can vote with your feet. Meanwhile, any two (or twenty) men or women may legally cohabitate and engage in pretty much any non-lethal sexual practice with one another in all 50 states.
The business of deciding what is and isn't a legal marriage has always been the purview of the states and that's the way it should stay. It's my opinon that governments can claim only a very limited interest in family business and almost all of those interferences pertain to child development. I can link up with another adult, go inside our home, and do pretty much anything and it's hard to imagine how our activities impact society as long as we're not violating the law and we're paying taxes, showing up if drafted, paying our bills and mowing our lawn. We can call ourselves a married couple or a tossed salad. Our impact on civil society depends on our production, our obedience to the law, our military service, and any liabilities we impose on fellow taxpayers. Once we create a human life we are caretakers of the future survival of society and the government has a far greater legitimate interest in us.
If your state wants to declare the union of a toaster oven and a dishwasher a legal marriage, that's the business of your state legislature. That's the beauty of the Federalist system. If you don't like the laws in your state, you can vote with your feet. Meanwhile, any two (or twenty) men or women may legally cohabitate and engage in pretty much any non-lethal sexual practice with one another in all 50 states. The business of deciding what is and isn't a legal marriage has always been the purview of the states and that's the way it should stay. It's my opinon that governments can claim only a very limited interest in family business and almost all of those interferences pertain to child development. I can link up with another adult, go inside our home, and do pretty much anything and it's hard to imagine how our activities impact society as long as we're not violating the law and we're paying taxes, showing up if drafted, paying our bills and mowing our lawn. We can call ourselves a married couple or a tossed salad. Our impact on civil society depends on our production, our obedience to the law, our military service, and any liabilities we impose on fellow taxpayers. Once we create a human life we are caretakers of the future survival of society and the government has a far greater legitimate interest in us.
This, 100%. This is a state issue & the Fed Gov needs to shush.
We know through numerous studies which unions produce the smartest, most law-abiding, and most productive citizens. We should invest in such unions.
Maybe I am missing your point, which unions are these exactly? Heterosexual unions? By the way, last time I checked, all of the homosexuals I know had a mother and father at conception.
Of course we need procreation, but to rally that as why heterosexual unions are superior becomes a mute point for many reasons. One huge one is - children far outlive the marriages themselves these days.
Re: Same sex marriage - your thoughts. 
Helping couples recover and reconcile after an affair or keep their marriages affair-free at 
