Ban on gay marriage doesn't go far enough
According to the Associated Press, San Diego businessman Doug Manchester "gave $125,000 to a group backing a California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage". When threatened with a boycott, Manchester said "that he welcomes gay guests at his properties but as a Catholic believes marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman".
I applaud Manchester for living by his principles and expect him to soon initiate efforts to:
- ban marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics.
- ban remarriage by anyone whose divorced spouse is still living.
Doubters who accuse him of prejudice against homosexuals, instead of being a man of consistent religious beliefs, will then have to apologize for criticizing such a principled saintly man.
On a personal note, such an amendment would dissolve my ten-year marriage to my dear husband Keith (who, unlike me, was baptized), but it is vital in a democracy that couples' freedom and happiness be subordinated to others' religious beliefs.
http://www.jeanscvs.com
Thank you, Ducky.
Gay Marriage
From a Biblical point of view, homosexuality is wrong. Since some Bible believers don't accept this fact, I understand how non believers accept this behavior also. I am voting yes on Prop 8 in CA that denies the right to marry for same sex couples. Not on religious grounds, but rather for clarification of who enters this commitment.
Economics One Oh One
I'm for marriage, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever. I'm not for more taxes nor am I for anything that encourages the barment of more lawyers. Who pays for the operation of our court system in the U.S.? Taxpayers that's who. Court fees paid by litigants don't even come close to covering the actual cost of running the system. More marriages = more divorces. More divorces = more taxes and more lawyers. Who wins? When the final accounting is done, the lawyers.
Hi
Why do wrong things is better than criticize these things ?
yo, anonymous, it was a joke
Yo, anonymous, you mised that this was satire.
She doesn't *actually* believe what she wrote.
-- Ducky
Thank you, Ducky.
Thank you, Ducky.
Sachin
I thing Gay marriages should not be banned. They too have the freedom to be free and gay.
Sachin
Ban on Gay marriage
Hi,
Being in a non religious country, as per its government, I must say I am quite chocked by the religious argument I have been reading a lot in American newspapers.
How can anyone say that couples freedom must be subordinated to others religious belief for the sake of the democracy!? Isn't it totally the opposite? Shouldn't religion be subordinated to democracy for freedoms sake?
Nobody, I hope, is thinking that keeping Gay unmarried will reduce their numbers or turn them straight? Why limit their freedom to marry if anyway they would not have made children? The argument of the marriage being the symbol of making children is stupid. What if in a straight couple one of the partners can not have children? Should they be forbidden to marry?
Now about adoption, how many kids do you think would prefer two parents instead of a life of orphanages? Are americans so self centered that they can't make a difference between real concrete, present sufferings of an orphan and theoretical religious philosophical argument about trying to fit a subjective interpretation of a book???
What if being gay was a religion, then it would probably be more acceptable to amricans, at list more backed by laws.
Applauding people to live by their principles is fine, but isn't it more important to judge those principles? A serial killer also follows its principles. Does being a Catholic come before being human, before all the rest? How can you criticize islamic extremists when in America some catholics have the same kind of narrow minded thoughts, manipulating faith in believers to impose senseless and inhuman laws.
I hope one day America steps down from its superficial sense of superiority and allow its own people to enjoy life without having any extremists impose their way of life.
Gay Marriage:
Though I believe gay relationships are immoral and not normal to humans, I do not object to their assumed right to pursue happiness in a similar relationship with similar rights and entitlements as current married couples. My objection is the meaning of the word will become unclear or changed. The current understanding is between a man and a woman but will become between 2 (hopefully) people, leaving unclear who or what was legally united. So if straights loose the battle of the word as we know it, then perhaps it will be easier to change the word meaning "legal heterosexual union" to "heteroriage" or something else, since gays insist on using the word marriage.
Oh, now I get it!
So we're actually fighting over the WORD marriage, not the actual institution itself. Well why didn't you language fascists just say so? We could have avoided so many headaches! You can keep the word "marriage", and, for that matter, the word "divorce," since heterosexuals seem to do that at a rather alarming rate. You can also keep "bigotry," as we don't have much use for it. What other words would you like to reclaim? How about:
*Bermuda shorts
*Warmonger
We'll start there as I'd hate for anyone to get overwhelmed. Please feel free to add on as your atrophied little minds can bear.
Post new comment