Comments on: 09-05-13

By: Kennypo65

Kennypo65 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 07:25:05 +0000

Gay people can’t destroy marriage. When the divorce rate is as high as it is; to the point that in many states, if uncontested, a lawyer can quote you a flat rate for one, It is obvious to me that straight people have already cheapened it to the point that it is nearly meaningless.

By: Tabatha

Tabatha — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:31:13 +0000

Marriage is a a union that is sanctioned by the law, that has certain rights and obligations. The law should be blind and not discriminate against any individual. Regardless of your sexual preference or religious beliefs, the law should apply equally to us all.

I agree wholeheartedly with the previous comment that gays do have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us… .

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:32:43 +0000

Humour isn’t logical ;-)

By: Angela L

Angela L — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:56:34 +0000

The author said nothing about couples being required to have a baby before they get married. All he said is that it happens frequently in Scandanavia. I love how you just pulled something out of thin air that wasn’t in the article and used it to prove your point. Try to make your argument logical next time.

By: Chris Howard

Chris Howard — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:36:23 +0000

Any time, Rich.
I hope it was usefull to you.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:25:04 +0000

Chris Howard,

Thanks! That response and answer to my question was nicely put.

By: Micheal Kelley

Micheal Kelley — Thu, 21 May 2009 03:06:16 +0000

The article is well done. You did a great job in presenting your case. I agree with the person who distinguished between Marriage as a civil topic vs a religious topic. When religion gets involved in a topic, it tends to cloud the issues. We all do not view reality from the same religious lenses.

By: kennwrite

kennwrite — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:08:35 +0000

Gay marriage … another burden to the court system, primarily because just like heterosexual marriages, so many will come back to the courts as divorce settlements. It’d be easier to stomach gay marriages if we could just clean up the mess with the current state of broken heterosexual marriages. Nonetheless, why shouldn’t gays marry? I agree wholeheartedly with the previous comment that gays do have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us… .

By: Chris Howard

Chris Howard — Tue, 19 May 2009 23:49:19 +0000

Rich,
That’s actually a good question, and I believe there’s a little linguistic skullduggery at work here (by the various interest groups, both for and against).
I think (and I need to verify this, so grain of salt) marriage is a religious institution, whereas a civil union is a secular recognition of basically the same thing. One is sanctioned by God, God’s, Satan, insert deity of choice here, while the other is recognized by the state.
I believe the state is concerned with rights of inheritance, property and taxation which is why they want a record of it, but I’m cynical when it comes to matters of state.
I also believe that married people shouldn’t get special treatment, either, but I can understand, from a certain perspective, the idea of special recognition for families. I think the crux of the argument hinges upon how one defines a family.
The history of the family, and marriage are interesting, form a sociological, historical and political perspective, but that’s another topic all together and I’ve only had one beer so far. ;-)

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:14:46 +0000

Chris Howard,

I have a question. What is the difference between gay marriage and gay civil union?

I agree that since various civil rights have been afforded to couples, that gays, plural, or whatever, should be given the same rights.

This doesn’t change my first post that governments should have stayed out of marriage to begin with. If that means that married people should not get extra benefits for being married then that’s also included.