Same-sex marriage would be detrimental

Focus on your own marriage and relationship and stop worrying about John and Frank or Mary and Molly....

Brad Messer believes that "fewer people would marry or remain sexually faithful. More children would be raised without married mothers and fathers. Taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. And freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened." Reaalllly? Brad, when you've O.D.'d on the pap that is printed in your bible you apparently begin to hallucinate, rant and lose control of logical thought. Too much of any mind alternating substance can be extremely dangerous. Be careful, lad, you might eventually O.D. to the point that you will never recover. GGpap

Absolutely zero data to support his claims., but then facts and data don't mean anything to Bible thumpers. BTW, whom did Jesus marry?

BTW, who did Jesus marry? Who knows? The bible doesn't say either way.

To some, there are no social perversions. With no parameters, how can there be a society?

OK, lets say gays can get married. How about muslims marring there four wives? Freem of religion and equal protection should apply, you want to pay for the health care insurance as an emplyer for four wives and 16 kids? If a man can have four wives what about group marriage? 3 women and four men? No paternity just communal life? In a Divorce who decidess, can the mom keep the kids or are they better off with the group? This is endless maddening nonsense! Of course the lefties never think anything through, it is all kumby! All of these groups are waiting to see how the gay marriage thing goes before starting thier legal battles but these folks are waiting, are we going to destablize America so some perverts can get married?.

sorry about the spelling, no coffee yet!

Gay people are not perverts. It is relatively easy to define marriage as between two individuals, thus obviating the problems some foresee with group marriages. The Letter Writer doesn't even try to offer a reasoned, cogent argument, much less support his wild suppositions. I think people who are foaming at the mouth over gay marriage should ask themselves why they're so threatened.

Even of LGBT marriage is legal, BIGAMY and POLYGAMY would still be a criminal offense. So the argument that legalizing LGBT marriage would soon cause polygamy to be legal is an outright lie and that argument must cease at once!

Hotfoot, How can you do that? Equal protection and freedom of religion. It will take court challanges but give me the legal argument that says polygamy etc should not be allowed? Based on what merit can you exclude multiple marriage? Marriage between a man and a women stablizes society and is for the good of the family and children, establishes paternity and a whole slew of other issue like entitlements to health care etc. We are oopening a can of worms, but I will weait for your legal basis to exclude any form of coupling after gay marriage is accepted!!

Carcraft, we have managed to deny this right to gay couples, using legal arguments that were based upon narrow religious interests. I don't think it will be a problem to define marriage as between two PEOPLE. I mean, you're basically asking how it's possible to do what we've already been doing since the Republic was born. And look back to when interracial marriage was prohibited...once those legal arguments were struck down, did people suddenly say, "Well, if black and white can marry, why can't humans and animals? Why can't I marry my dog?" ?? (Of course, I'm not saying they're commensurate.) I agree that society is stablized through marriage between two people--I just don't see why gender matters. The only argument against it is religious and in this country, we're supposed to have freedom of religion (and yes, freedom FROM having others' religions imposed upon us through legal institutions).

i dont buy this argument. regardless, this issue should be left up to the STATES.

Gays aren't perverts? LGBT marriage is fine but bigamy and polygamy and bestiality and pedophilia isn't? Well, I guess that's some sort of standards. Not very consistent though. With the door thrown open, wouldn't denying other perverts their "rights" pose an end to "diversity"? If you're not going to have "diversity", why grant gays favored status to begin with?

Hotfoot, so basically, your saying that you can deny the constitutional rights of Fundamentalist mormans, muslims etc because you want it that way? There will be court challanges and the uniqueness of one man one women is out the door. Your argument about black and whites doesn't hold water because historically blacks and whites married (there were a number of such marriages in the south immediatly after the civil war (good old Augusta to be exact) that produced some prodgeny of note. So historically there was a basis for black white marriage. There has never been gay marriage in the history of mankind. And legally you can not deny other forms of marriage based on just because you say so. Once we have done away with the uniqueness of the marriage institution of one man and one women there is no constitutional reason to deny other forms of marriage. period! The reason for one man and one women isn't just religious, it establishes paternity, proveds for the care of children, limits employer liablity for health insurance etc etc etc. This is not just religious there are economic advantasges to one man one women.

I still have not figured out how gay marriages will affect heterosexual marriages. I, personally, do not have a problem with gays being married, it will not affect my marriage one bit besides it is none of any body's business if the marriage participant's are over 18. I think people should stop shoving their religion down every one's throat.

BTW, did you know that republicans can support gay marriages? Well they can and I am

Since Obama's leadership is resulting in a surge in economic performance, the right-wing must come back to issues that failed in the election. It's a different world forever. This new generation just doesn't care about the gay marriage non-issue.

The fear mongering right has used this same tireless tactic to oppose almost all civil progress through time. Whether it be voting rights, employment rights, marriage rights etc. I don't know anyone in a hetrosexual marriage simply because homosexual marriage wasn't a legal option. As for population growth, so what if it slows down. We are definitely not at risk of going exstinct. And the arguement that legalizing same sex marriage will result in more unwed pregnancies and children being raised in single parent homes....... I don't think the unwed, including teen, pregnancy rates in this country can be blamed on same sex relationships.

Stop saying that all the people on the right oppose homosexual marriage. They don't. I support homosexual marriage and (gasp!!) abortion and I vote Republican.

And in response to the statement "And freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened." How? How does imposing your religious belief on others legislatively not threaten the freedom of others? And if same sex marriage is legalized, how will that impact your religious freedoms? Will your Church close it's doors? Will public libraries remove all bibles? Will the government issue you a new same sex partner? If you really believe that same sex marriages will threaten your beliefs, how rooted are your beliefs?

champagne, you must be pretty lonely. I admire some of the Republicans of old, who were truly moderate: Fiscal conservatives, but social libertarians (at least, to some degree). But I challenge you to find those people now in your party leadership.

Champagne - I will gladly do so when those on this board stop assuming every Democrat to be uneducated, unemployed, unreligious and of a specific race.

carcraft, where are those court challenges you speak of now? Same-sex marriage in no way legitimizes polygamy, in the same way that interracial marriage does not...or marriage between two people of differing religions. I fail to see your logic.

Martinez on Mon May 11, 2009 7:05 AM The civil rights act would not have passed without Republicans. A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act than did Democrates!

Martinez on Mon May 11, 2009 7:05 AM The civil rights act would not have passed without Republicans. A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights act than did Democrates!

Ha--you said it, Martinez. In this Comment Wonderland, we are all "uninformed", "easily led", "ignorant", and perpetually have our hands out asking for what we have not earned.

Some of those who voted against the civil rights act, Al Gore's dad, Senator Fulbright, Sheets Byrd of WV there is a long list of illustreous DEMOCRATES that voted against the civil rights act. That is probably the reason Martin Luther King was a Republican!

HotFoot, when I see a dog covered with feathers, having a bill instead of a muzzle, having only two webbed feet instead of four paws and making a quacking sound instead of a barking, I mistakenly call it a duck and will continue to do so until it shows more signs of being a dog. (re: your 7:20 post)

Got your message both times carcraft..... it doesn't change the fact that Republicans are using religion and fear to justify discrimination today, as has been done historically in the past. For those steadfast in their beliefs, those who are also confident they have instilled those beliefs in their own children - no legislation will threaten it.

Martinez, if you feel we aren't influenced by our surroundings, you're naive.