right4life, I’m amused that you think I’m either liberal or gay, since I’m neither. My leftist friends would find such a thing very amusing. I’m arguing on a moral and philosophical level, but if it’s an article that you demand, then how about this one? This is a link to an actual study by actual doctors, not just a letter by 5 researchers who haven’t scientifically researched the issue.

Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Legal recognition of a spouse can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents.

You carry on this idea that gay marriage undermines marriage as a whole, but you offer no reasoning for that. You think that if gay people can get married, then suddenly heterosexuals will stop getting married? Why? Then you make the absurd claim that if gay people can get married, then it will be against the law to be Christian. I’d love to hear why that’s the case.

And englishqueen01, you talk about the black and Hispanic voters as though they are separate from the religious voters. I contend that they voted as they did because those communities are more influenced by religious beliefs. And I think you failed to understand my comparison to sharia law. Of course I’m not saying that your beliefs are as bad as sharia. Far from it. But they do have the same root: applying religious beliefs to secular law. If a Muslim says that wives can be beaten because it says so in the Koran, then surely you can see the similarity to a Mormon saying that gays can’t get married because it’s in the Bible. The laws, while having different applications, are rooted in religion. You say that this will limit your freedom of religion. How? How will allowing gay people to be married by the state prevent you from practicing and believing your religious beliefs? And for what it’s worth, I never said anything about dissent and Obama. If anything, I was fearful of free speech when you have a power-hungry executive voted in by a doting populace.

I’m also amused that I’m being called arrogant and condescending. I fail to see how. I’m trying to conduct myself without anger and respond in a positive manner. I’m sorry if that’s condescending. Maybe if I throw around words like “bozo” and “fascist” I’ll get more traction.

…

If this were really about “equality” under the law, civil unions – which would provide those legal benefits – would be equal without taking away marriage.

Is it fair to say then, that you support “civil unions” that would be equal to marriage in everyway EXCEPT they would be called “civil unions.”

Further, would you support removing the word “marriage” from legal and state use entirely using only the word “civil union” for both hetero and homosexual couples?

You’re not doing your cause any favors by being vitriolic and hyperbolic.

Neither are you, with your holier-than-thou attitude and “I know you are but what am I?” smugness.

Note to all Leftists: Countering an opposite viewpoint doesn’t have to be a contest of condescension.

The crappy AP covers the recent Miss USA pageant, and it seems like they can’t keep themselves from focusing on the political slant that shouldn’t have been allowed or addressed following the winner’s crowning. When Miss California was being intervi…

Then you throw around the word “sharia law” when it’s you that wants your religious belief to be put into law. If it sounds a bit contradictory, that’s because it is. But I’m the facist, right?

Your premise is false on its face because if it was ONLY religious people voting for traditional marriage, it wouldn’t have passed in any state, let alone heavily blue-leaning states like California and Wisconsin.

There are those who hesitate to redefine marriage from all across the spectrum. But the people who always bear the brunt of the blame is religious people. I didn’t see any Prop 8 protesters have the guts to go to East LA and condemn the black or Hispanic communities for voting for Prop 8.

And, the fact that you can’t tell the difference between shari’a law – which says it’s okay and necessary to KILL gays – and those of us who want to protect the traditional definition of marriage is telling.

If this were really about “equality” under the law, civil unions – which would provide those legal benefits – would be equal without taking away marriage.

But this isn’t about equality. If it were, Prejean could say what she please without the backlash. It’s about forcing those of us who don’t believe marriage should be redefined into accepting a redefinition. And this includes religious institutions.

Because no liberal here can honestly argue and get me to believe it won’t hamper the religious freedoms of me, and others who believe in the religious definition of marriage. You are the same people who said dissent would be okay if Obama was elected, and a scant three months after his inauguration, we’re all “right-wing extremists”…

Sorry, right4life, categorizing your attacks as ad hominem, noting your stance on individual rights, and pointing out your poor typing are not personal attacks. Certainly not at the level of you calling me “bozo” and “facist.”

oh of course not!! you can do no wrong after all..

And they may have been five Dutch researchers, but they have not done any research into this issue. They merely wrote a letter expressing their opinion to the government

how do you know? where do you come up with this BS? you’re lying..but its no surprise, thats the MO of the gay rights movement.

Getting published to a website is nice, but if those are sufficient credentials to earn respect

you have offered no rebuttal either with an article, or with any logic, you merely dismiss what they say. you’re a typical liberal. unable to argue the issues, only able to parrot talking points. On top of that you’re arrogant about it.

laughable.

This is social ’science’ you cannot reduce human behavior to a mathematical equation. but what they say makes perfect sense. if you make marriage meaningless then you reduce the occurance of marriage. which leads to more broken homes, more fatherless children. but really thats one of the things you gays want. you have to get those new recruits, don’t ya??

And I’m not deciding who’s equal, but you sure are deciding who’s unequal. I happen to think that all men should be treated the same under the law, and that’s all I’m advocating.

thanks for admitting pedophiles and polygamy should be legal too. after all they’re just ‘alternative lifestyles’ right?

Orwell understood people like you ALL too well…

You, however, are saying that there should be special allowances for some folks, and special restrictions for others.

uh yeah polygamists, pedophiles, and gays should not be allowed to marry. and when they do its a sham, which denigrates marriage. the family is the bedrock of civilization, and we’ve seen what happens when families are broken up. crime, gangs, drugs, etc. a whole host of pathologies…and what does gay marriage do FOR society? nothing, no benefits.

Then you throw around the word “sharia law” when it’s you that wants your religious belief to be put into law. If it sounds a bit contradictory, that’s because it is. But I’m the facist, right?

thats exactly what gays want. to silence all who dare disagree with them. Gay marriage will criminalize christianity, which is one of the main goals of the gay movement. you are unable to argue this, or even acknowledge it. because all you can do is parrot the gay line.

as we’ve seen in CA the gays are a bunch of violent brown-shirted thugs. the label FASCIST fits very well.