Difference between revisions of "Same-sex marriage"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Unprotected "Homosexuality and Marriage")
(Fact checking and correction.)
Line 1: Line 1:
In regards to '''homosexuality and marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships.
+
In regards to '''homosexuality and marriage''', the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of (Britney Spears' 48-hour) marriage by using (democratic) political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly (ignorant, prejudicial, or) religious-based criticism, of [[homosexual]] relationships.
  
The rationale goes like this:
+
The (perceived) rationale goes like this:
 
*Marriage is good.
 
*Marriage is good.
 
*No one can criticize what is good.
 
*No one can criticize what is good.
*A [[same-sex union]], defined as marriage, is good.
+
*A [[same-sex union]] (or [[interracial union]]), defined as marriage, is good.
 
*Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.  
 
*Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.  
  
 +
The much improved and fixed-up rationale goes like this:
 +
*Marriage is afforded to every adult human of age to give consent.
 +
*Except people the conservatives don't like.
 +
*Maybe we should fix that.
  
 
__TOC__
 
__TOC__
  
Combined with [[hate speech]] rules and [[hate crime]] laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]).  
+
Combined with [[hate speech]] rules and [[hate crime]] laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see [[fighting words]]). (Despite these objections, the same occurs today in the opposite situation, particularly when a married woman or man attempts to cultivate an opposite-sex friendship outside the marriage - "How dare you accuse me of having an affair!  We're just friends!" or "How dare you assume I'm married just because I wear a ring!" )
  
Such laws will open up a new wave of militant homosexual violence. Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge.
+
Such laws will open up a new wave of militant violence (against) homosexuals (which really won't change much). Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an [[assault]] charge (although you'll likely lose your case).
  
Attempts to refer to [[civil union]]s as "marriage", or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions.
+
They will also lead to attempts to refer to [[civil union]]s as "marriage" (the horror!), or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions. (I don't agree with interracial marriage, therefore I don't need to honor such unions.)
  
It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually all other established religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.
+
It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral (they also regard sex, black people, and women as immoral), and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations - and virtually (okay, many) (okay, just the monotheistic ones) all other established <s>cults</s> religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement (delivered by a priest) along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony (note: not legal, just holy)." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996. (U.S. federal law also (still) forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes and didn't allow women the vote until the 1920s.  I think we all agree that U.S. federal law changes over time.)
  
Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage&mdash;civil as well as religious&mdash;is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>
+
Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage&mdash;civil as well as religious&mdash;is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits." (Unfortunately, if something is counterfeit, it means "illegally reproduced", which is often an inaccurate reproduction.  I believe the word "Dr." Dobson was looking for was "fascimile".)<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>
  
Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists.  In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.
+
Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago (so were unsegregated bathrooms and girls and boys entering schools through the same door), however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] (and civil rights) activists.  In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "[[civil union]]s" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government (because it is filled with commies.  Wait, commies are liberals.  I meant fascists.  Wait, Nazis were socialist.  I'm at a loss).
  
 
== Background ==
 
== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state&mdash;even though it prohibits gay marriage itself&mdash;must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.
+
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in (all but) some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state&mdash;even though it prohibits gay marriage itself&mdash;must (not) honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. (It does not, however, forbid civil unions.  Clinton was reluctant to address the issue, regarding the volatile climate surrounding the issue.  He instead focused on saving our economy.  But them darn commies never stop complaining, do they?)
  
In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions.  Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples.  <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>  In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>
+
In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to (want to) allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey (most of) the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions.  Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples.  (However, this union is rarely recognized by other humans, and hate crimes still happen, so maybe it's not a great solution?)<ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref>  In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses (legally or morally), making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses (and subsequently treat gays like (gasp) people).<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>
  
The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.
+
The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple. (Unless one of them happened to be a Catholic priest, which I hear is fairly common.)
  
Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>
+
Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition. (Funny, so is average IQ.  I mean most people falling below average.)<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>
  
 
== Issues ==
 
== Issues ==
Line 35: Line 39:
 
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>
 
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>
  
The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref>  [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref>  According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples.  The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>
+
...I'm sorry.  I can't even make any snarky comments here.  This is just ridiculous.  I give up.  Obviously it is impossible to drive home the point that HOMOSEXUAL DOES NOT MEAN PROMISCUOUS KTHNX.
 +
 
 +
The ''Defend Marriage'' organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."<ref>  [http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref> (Your sources are so impartial.) According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples.  The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>
 +
 
 +
Another concern is that homosexuality is catching.  This is proven because I touched a gay man in his naughty parts and now I'm a lesbian.
  
 
In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law.  The  Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules.  The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam.  <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>
 
In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law.  The  Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules.  The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam.  <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>
 +
 +
And there are no gays in Iran.
  
 
==Homosexual domestic violence==
 
==Homosexual domestic violence==
Line 44: Line 54:
 
A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.   
 
A particularly worrisome factor among [[gay rights]] [[activist]]s is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.  One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.   
  
Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse.  While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse.  Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."  This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are ''at least'' as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."   
+
However, the rate of domestic abuse in heterosexual relationships is even higher, and there is a push for the ban of these unions as well <ref>[http://www.google.com Very reliable source recommended by Pope]</ref>.
 +
 
 +
Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse.  While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies <ref>[http://www.google.com Very reliable source also recommended by Pope]</ref> indicate a much higher level of abuse.  Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."  This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are ''at least'' as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."   
  
83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref> One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships.  Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse.  Morality cannot be legislated.
+
83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners (who were raped by their priests as children). <ref>[http://www.springerlink.com/content/r130ql0471892435/ A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample], The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482 </ref> One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships (because Gods know that it's abuse to pressure someone to reveal their relationship to their families - "TELL YOUR PARENTS WE'RE ENGAGED!  NOW!).  Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse.  Morality cannot be legislated. (As is evidenced by the complete nonacceptance of black people.)
  
Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships.  Several studies have been made, and more are ongoing.  However, it is safe to say at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well studied incidence in heterosexual relationships.
+
Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships.  Several studies <ref>[http://www.google.com Yet another very reliable source also recommended by Pope]</ref> have been made, and more are ongoing.  However, it is safe to say (because gays can't own guns) at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well-studied incidence in heterosexual relationships. (Are they counting S+M in these "studies"?)
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 57: Line 69:
  
 
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
 
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]
 +
OH NO HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!

Revision as of 21:01, 25 October 2007

In regards to homosexuality and marriage, the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of (Britney Spears' 48-hour) marriage by using (democratic) political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly (ignorant, prejudicial, or) religious-based criticism, of homosexual relationships.

The (perceived) rationale goes like this:

  • Marriage is good.
  • No one can criticize what is good.
  • A same-sex union (or interracial union), defined as marriage, is good.
  • Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions.

The much improved and fixed-up rationale goes like this:

  • Marriage is afforded to every adult human of age to give consent.
  • Except people the conservatives don't like.
  • Maybe we should fix that.

Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality. "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words). (Despite these objections, the same occurs today in the opposite situation, particularly when a married woman or man attempts to cultivate an opposite-sex friendship outside the marriage - "How dare you accuse me of having an affair! We're just friends!" or "How dare you assume I'm married just because I wear a ring!" )

Such laws will open up a new wave of militant violence (against) homosexuals (which really won't change much). Just as "He insulted my wife" can be used as defense against an assault charge (although you'll likely lose your case).

They will also lead to attempts to refer to civil unions as "marriage" (the horror!), or to require people who disagree with homosexuality to honor such unions. (I don't agree with interracial marriage, therefore I don't need to honor such unions.)

It is also referred to as "gay marriage" or "homosexual marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral (they also regard sex, black people, and women as immoral), and argue that use of the word "marriage" is a misnomer, because the marriage services of Christian denominations - and virtually (okay, many) (okay, just the monotheistic ones) all other established cults religions - define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,[1] a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996. (U.S. federal law also (still) forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes and didn't allow women the vote until the 1920s. I think we all agree that U.S. federal law changes over time.)

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation marks around the word marriage, to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits." (Unfortunately, if something is counterfeit, it means "illegally reproduced", which is often an inaccurate reproduction. I believe the word "Dr." Dobson was looking for was "fascimile".)[2]

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago (so were unsegregated bathrooms and girls and boys entering schools through the same door), however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by gay rights (and civil rights) activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "civil unions" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government (because it is filled with commies. Wait, commies are liberals. I meant fascists. Wait, Nazis were socialist. I'm at a loss).

Background

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in (all but) some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must (not) honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. (It does not, however, forbid civil unions. Clinton was reluctant to address the issue, regarding the volatile climate surrounding the issue. He instead focused on saving our economy. But them darn commies never stop complaining, do they?)

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to (want to) allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey (most of) the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. (However, this union is rarely recognized by other humans, and hate crimes still happen, so maybe it's not a great solution?)[3] In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses (legally or morally), making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses (and subsequently treat gays like (gasp) people).[4]

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple. (Unless one of them happened to be a Catholic priest, which I hear is fairly common.)

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition. (Funny, so is average IQ. I mean most people falling below average.)[5]

Issues

James Dobson of Focus on the Family suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:

...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.[6]

...I'm sorry. I can't even make any snarky comments here. This is just ridiculous. I give up. Obviously it is impossible to drive home the point that HOMOSEXUAL DOES NOT MEAN PROMISCUOUS KTHNX.

The Defend Marriage organization states, as an issue, that legalizing same-sex "marriage" "would make it more difficult to prevent same-sex couples from adopting children" and says that "Studies show that the incidence of child abuse in same-sex 'families' is many times higher than in traditional families."[7] (Your sources are so impartial.) According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.[8]

Another concern is that homosexuality is catching. This is proven because I touched a gay man in his naughty parts and now I'm a lesbian.

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. [9]

And there are no gays in Iran.

Homosexual domestic violence

For more information please see: Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence

A particularly worrisome factor among gay rights activists is the prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

However, the rate of domestic abuse in heterosexual relationships is even higher, and there is a push for the ban of these unions as well [10].

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, all preliminary studies [11] indicate a much higher level of abuse. Due to the incomplete nature of studies and lack of focus thus far, what is commonly reported is that the incidence of gay domestic abuse are "as prevalent as heterosexual relationships." This on its face is true, but it would be more accurate to declare "the incidence of gay domestic abuse are at least as prevalent as heterosexual relationships."

83% of gays report they have been emotionally abused by homosexual partners (who were raped by their priests as children). [12] One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual relationships (because Gods know that it's abuse to pressure someone to reveal their relationship to their families - "TELL YOUR PARENTS WE'RE ENGAGED! NOW!). Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Morality cannot be legislated. (As is evidenced by the complete nonacceptance of black people.)

Although the studies are decades behind heterosexual studies on violence between men and women, the indications are that homosexual relationships suffer from a much higher degree of physical violence than heterosexual relationships. Several studies [13] have been made, and more are ongoing. However, it is safe to say (because gays can't own guns) at this juncture, that homosexual domestic relationships suffer from violence two to four times higher than the well-studied incidence in heterosexual relationships. (Are they counting S+M in these "studies"?)

See also

Reference

  1. E.g. In Christian marriage ceremonies,the wedding will begin with a statement (delivered by a priest) along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony (note: not legal, just holy)." The Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423
  2. Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions, Focus on the Family's website
  3. Newsday
  4. Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.
  5. Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News
  6. Marriage on the Ropes, Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from Focus on the Family, 15 May 2007.
  7. Defend Marriage
  8. Gay adoption: A new take on the American family
  9. UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London, Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.
  10. Very reliable source recommended by Pope
  11. Very reliable source also recommended by Pope
  12. A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample, The Journal of Family Violence, Publisher Springer Netherlands, Volume 15, Number 3, September, 2000, Pages 281-293. ISSN 0885-7482
  13. Yet another very reliable source also recommended by Pope

OH NO HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!!