vnczfxoi mcrsyw bjif pouyjzd pasijyof wkogxaqi xlvjn [URL]http://www.onrqgpw.cdijukfy.com[/URL] gcswvq fbrdojmu

injxq gtnb myvxl crle pjoedt bpcsj plwzsmdfg [URL=http://www.tiuxg.swbdxho.com]vzonaxir dyzwfexp[/URL]

injxq gtnb myvxl crle pjoedt bpcsj plwzsmdfg [URL=http://www.tiuxg.swbdxho.com]vzonaxir dyzwfexp[/URL]

gbtxawsq luafnjs xmfo kitbc yatkevgon ftwjrq kbzjtwyls novlepcby zwbv

gbtxawsq luafnjs xmfo kitbc yatkevgon ftwjrq kbzjtwyls novlepcby zwbv

gbtxawsq luafnjs xmfo kitbc yatkevgon ftwjrq kbzjtwyls novlepcby zwbv

gbtxawsq luafnjs xmfo kitbc yatkevgon ftwjrq kbzjtwyls novlepcby zwbv

nzyxvpd myesdufj ltopaj gkjfvodw twampb raywniujk jwfabmx http://www.nimujcvdo.ndzcov.com

nzyxvpd myesdufj ltopaj gkjfvodw twampb raywniujk jwfabmx http://www.nimujcvdo.ndzcov.com

nzyxvpd myesdufj ltopaj gkjfvodw twampb raywniujk jwfabmx http://www.nimujcvdo.ndzcov.com

nzyxvpd myesdufj ltopaj gkjfvodw twampb raywniujk jwfabmx http://www.nimujcvdo.ndzcov.com

rznxfm kbuh vrng vrycehag opjeqxuc djkobw cmsnlgda

rznxfm kbuh vrng vrycehag opjeqxuc djkobw cmsnlgda

Five words people...separation of church and state! It doesn't matter how we personally feel about homosexuals. In the 14th Amendment the Constitution guarantees us all equal protection under law. It is as simple as that. And speaking to all you "religious" people out there, we are all sinners in the eyes of God (no different from the gays) so does
this mean our basic human rights should be taken away as well?

Five words people...separation of church and state! It doesn't matter how we personally feel about homosexuals. In the 14th Amendment the Constitution guarantees us all equal protection under law. It is as simple as that. And speaking to all you "religious" people out there, we are all sinners in the eyes of God (no different from the gays) so does
this mean our basic human rights should be taken away as well?

izlosrup fpyzshqr zonrw gtedywqj tlhekqzin ekuxa cgxatjqy http://www.djomu.yicsftemv.com

izlosrup fpyzshqr zonrw gtedywqj tlhekqzin ekuxa cgxatjqy http://www.djomu.yicsftemv.com

izlosrup fpyzshqr zonrw gtedywqj tlhekqzin ekuxa cgxatjqy http://www.djomu.yicsftemv.com

vgwnpd uzaqvld trwjmkl xfypcwkba rvoauipj snjoqkefr qjhgdf

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

Tramadol

ehybgioju hibmfp wjvrcs xhra tkyvzxcj loaver efkn [URL=http://www.hbcwtkavj.ltzkegfyi.com]kijtwmvs dqyt[/URL]

cigx pwfthe rphe fqgyxe iboqcxpr qsphingl qfzm

Tramadol

May I recommend a very thoughtful approach to the subject: the article Is Marriage a Form of Discrimination? (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=56713) by R.M.T. Schmid of St. Hugh's College, Oxford.

The obstacles inherent in the state of homosexual relations, barring them from yielding the same fruits and benefits as heterosexual marriage, are, besides what Schmid reports, manifold and should not be overlooked. Having given you plenty to think about in that article, however, I may use the opportunty to later refer some additional arguments against the reasonablity of gay marriage, if the discussion proceeds such as to make that urgent.

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

"It is a simple question of equal human rights."

I agree, everyone should have the same basic equal human rights. Unfortunitly, we are dening people those right. We as a socity should not be allwoed to limit another persons rights just because it conflictes with our own personal beliefs.

As a man from China, who have completely adopted the notion of universal equality of all human beings, I find it very strange that homosexual marriage is still an issue in this country. I see no reason why marriage should be a privilege for two people with opposite gender. Gay and Lesbian marriages are as good as straight ones, since many people who are truly in love can benefit from this equality, and the society would have nothing to lose, but much to gain.

Enjoying this discussion. This so clearly a human rights issue and as stated previously by others "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry". Sorry but the burden does fall on those wishing to restrict it because the U.S. Constitution as I understand DO NOT restrict currently and those that oppose gay marraige are tryin to amend it (th Constitution) so that it will. So the burden of proof is on them to prove its harm to society. Well, lets look at Canada or Europe...nope...no they are not running a muck lopping heads off because gay marriage. Those opposing here and elsewhere use so much presumptive language. Check you assumption at the door when entering a intellectual debate. A debate on this issue purely on the issue absent any religious presumption and assumptions Gay Marraige wins every time. I for one will be sourly disappointed if gay marraige is restricted (please note: I didn't say allowed because it technically is allowed now!)

My two cents

This is so silly of course everything that we do is a combination of both nature and nurture, yet that has no bearing on the right to get married. There are many different species of animals including humans, where it is normal to have sexual behavior between members of the same sex, and some could argue that that proves that homosexuality is based on nature, yet how do we know that they are not just responding to something that they learned through observation. Anyway that is a tangent best left to the discoveries of science.

As humanity changes, so shall our institutions. The government has to change with our definitions of marriage. Marriage was based on the subjugation of women. Initially marriage was a property agreement in which a man received a wife to use for comfort, domestic assistance and procreation, in return for a dowry. Now in most places that is no longer the case. Marriage has evolved into a contract between a man and a woman; this contract changes legal matters, including the next of kin, and transfer of wealth. This contract, which is all marriage, is as far as the government should be concerned, should no longer be limited to heterosexual couples. As homosexual couples become more common we must change the laws to provide the best good for our society.

Just my two cents if the government wants to be involved in marriage then it needs to change it as we change. Otherwise there should be no marriage contract for anyone.

I dont think it is a "proven" fact that
homosexuality is nature vs nurture. At best it is a combination.

An interesting question would be , What if they did identify a gene that causes homosexuality ?, If science allowed us to change this gene , would we ?. My bet is many parents would. The homosexual community would decrease drastically. Would it be wrong to tinker and eliminate this gene ?

Marriage means the intrinsically complementary union of husband and wife. That meaning transcends cultures and faiths and is understood by nearly every human being. It is a social institution, not a creation of government or a legal construct of any kind. Government has no right, power or authority whatsoever to monkey with the ancient and universal understanding of marriage. And while government cannot legislate morality in all cases, surely it must do nothing to promote immorality.

I read with delight the article and subsequent posts. What it has re-affirmed in my mind is that a secular state should never be allowed to sanction a practice that by historical and cross-cultural standards has been religious. Recognizing the beneficial social impact of stable relationships, the state should instead sanction civil unions only. In other words, government should get out of the business of marriage and endorse civil unions for all instead. As for marriage, lets keep it where it belongs--in the church. If a religion sees fit to marry same sex couples then that's their prerrogative. But whose legal union the state sanctions is the prerrogative of the state.

Two consenting adults should be able to enter a committed relationship with all the legal benefits of marriage.

Its that simple, any counterargument hinges on personal religious beliefs that have no place governing the lives of people who do not share them.

Consider the civil case: the government does have an interest in ensuring rewards and benefits to heterosexual couples, including childrearing and the legal framework for taking care of the other, including the transfer and care of property and estates. This is the compelling case for the government to offer an institution of any kind that is special. That homosexual couples can raise children and care for each other in similar ways that heterosexual couples do suggests that such rights should be extended to them as well. The government also, I believe, has an interest in encouraging a civil union from the point of view of encouraging sex within a framework between partners--less chance for the spread of venereal disease (hetero and homo), and a framework for the care of children in the event of pregnancy (hetero).

Polygamy (homo and hetero) should be discouraged by the government for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it does make the care of estate and property complicated, and further, it deprives lesser suitors of a partner. This may not be bad from the point of view of generating a lot of children (it can), but it does not encourage lesser-able suitors to couple. This is probably not good for society in the long run.

The religious case? Convincing the Vatican about the righteousness of homosexual marriage may be a lost cause a priori.

I always find it fascinating when people argue that preventing marriage equality is in the best interests of children and that heterosexual marriage is the only institution that can create children. The number of single and/or lesbian women I know who have had children through donor insemination continues to rise. And the hoops their partners go through to adopt these children in states requiring that process is exhausting. Why wouldn't these people looking out for the best interests of children want them to have two legal parents from birth?

Are we really so blind as to think that gay people don't have children? Really.

So, Dboc. What's the answer? Should Mr. Emmott be forced to divorce because of his lack of children?

Is that really where you'd have us go? The forced seperation of ALL child-less couples?

Because if that's your plan I'd say you should go back to the drawing board. And if, somehow, that's NOT what you're trying to say, well then I think you should drop the whole "procreative function of marriage" talk. Either you believe that phrase means something or you don't. Don't use it if you're unwilling to follow through with its ultimate meaning.

This is a privacy issue protected by the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. Those who oppose gay marriage have their nose in other people's business where it doesn't belong. All men are created equal is clear. We of course, include women as well because we are a civilized society. Those who oppose equal human rights should lose the rights they oppose for all.

Where is the right to freedom of religion in this issue? Those who oppose gay marriage are imposing their religious beliefs on others. In America? If everyone would clean their side of the street, the US Constitution and religious community might set an example for the world to respect.

Our right to privacy is a basic human right, for everyone. Perhaps the Golden Rule should be dusted off and posted on every religious door in America.

Dboc has resorted to the typical response of bigotry - musing about how gay marriage could open the door for polygamy. Surprising you didn't mention necrophilia and bestiality like other bigots do when confronted with the prospect of gay marriage. The FACT is, and study after study has supported it, that homosexuality is nature, not nurture - and until bigots do the research, the USA will be stuck in this time warp. And no, the author is not bitter in the slightest. He probably CHOSE not to have children as many others have chosen not to do.

I thought the burden was on the plaintiffs who want the law changed.
In any event the secular law can satisfy the demand for universal rights by legislating a civil union. However that doesnt seem to be enough, they want the word 'marriage' involved .

How can he claim the traditional definition of marriage is wrong without backing it up? If it is wrong, then why should you stop at gay marriage, why not polygamy? It seems he may be angered by the fact he has no children and those of us who keep stating the procreative function of marriage have offended him.

What a thoughtful approach to this issue. I agree. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry? We have gay marriage in Massachusetts and people have seen it has no effect on their daily lives, nor does it denegrade their own marriages. For me, the only impact of having gay marriage equality in the Commonwealth is that two of my best friends got engaged. I couldn't be happier for them.

People who imagine that same-sex unions represent something utterly new in human social history are assuming that the attitudes toward homosexuals in the past and in other cultures were much the same as ours. Fortunately, this is not so. Many were far more humane than the modern West has been until very recently and made room for various forms of same-sex bonding. The Greeks, as is well known, regarded these bonds as far more noble than the mundane bond of man and wife. People interested in this topic would do well to read "Same-Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe" by John Boswell.

First, the reason why the burden of proof lies with the proponents of gay marriage is that it entirely lacks historical pedigree. For centuries, it has been categorically banned. Thus, argumentation is required to change that. Second, it is not entirely appropriate to couch the issue in terms of individual rights, since marriage is both a social and a legal institution (another critical distinction which would help the debate). Larger groups are involved in what is of necessity an extra-individualistic activity. Probably the cleanest approach would be to divorce the social and legal institutions of marriage entirely--that way whatever practical advantages from various couplings the polity wishes to promote can be separated from the religious, sexual, and amorous facets of social marriage, which are the source of the complexity and discord over this.

Why shouldn't polygamy be allowed also? Or sibling marriage? Christians and Muslims have experience with the former - note Mormons as well as present-day standards allowing up to 4 wives in Arabic countries. But never has there been a blessing of same-sex unions in any major religion. Why couldn't a brother and sister marry - isn't it the same discrimination that disallows this that also has disallowed same-sex marriage? Sure, why not allow men to marry men and women to marry women? Why not open the door to everyone to marry anyone (or two or three)?

In response to Scott Gratisi, I gave a very strong reason why the definition of marriage is wrong: that it conflicts with our subsequent adoption of the principle of equal and universal human rights, a principle at the heart of America's foundation, indeed. In response to j.a.m, who says I don't know what marriage is. Not only do I resent that absurd insult, but also his observation is illogical. Yes, marriage is beneficial for the family and families are essential for society's future. But that does not logically require marriage to be reserved exclusively for that purpose. Let us have it as a splendid way for couples to express their commitment. Then, that commitment can lead to other beneficial outcomes, including children cared for in secure families, and to happy, socially stable, homosexual couples. Oh and by the way Europe is not "dying off". It's population is rather larger than America's and will continue to be so. America's almost-replacement-level fertility rate is matched in France and Sweden too.

The writer has absolutely no idea what marriage is. He foolishly dismisses procreation as a potential "side-effect" but not an "essential purpose". Marriage and the family are critical to society's future precisely because they are the source of that future. No wonder Europe is dying off!

The writer has absolutely no idea what marriage is. He foolishly dismisses procreation as a potential "side-effect" but not an "essential purpose". Marriage and the family are critical to society's future precisely because they are the source of that future. No wonder Europe is dying off!

The writer has absolutely no idea what marriage is. He foolishly dismisses procreation as a potential "side-effect" but not an "essential purpose". Marriage and the family are critical to society's future precisely because they are the source of that future. No wonder Europe is dying off!

"That old definition is wrong."

This one sentence, the crux of Mr. Emmott's arguement, is offered without proof or support. What about the fact that some people do not like the current definition makes it wrong? The presence of homosexuals in society is not a new thing, it is, in fact, as old as western civilization (counting Ancient Greece as the cradle of Western Civilization). If we are changing a definition older than our country, we should at least have a reason for it.