Gay marriage. How can you dispute this information?

[trucker]

Topics that are always brought up that are simply just incorrect or misrepresented:

1. Gay couples don't have the same rights of being considered family where hospital issues are concerned. If they really love each other, then they should take the proper steps to get those rights, even if they can't officially marry. The problem of not being able to see each other in the hospital is solved by signing the proper papers ahead of time, which would designate the partners as each others next of kin. Legally you can make anyone your next of kin, giving them the same rights as a family member. With the proper paperwork you can also make anybody your legal guardian.

2. Gay couples struggle with inheritance issues. All the couple needs to do is write out a will. It's no different than what heterosexual couples would do. It should also be pointed out that even in the case of a traditional marriage one spouse can fill out a will that would prohibit everything from being left to the other. A husband can just as easily leave everything to his best friend as he can to his wife.

3. Gay couples also wish to have an official ceremony that friends and family can attend. There is no law against arranging such a gathering. People invite friends and family to second weddings all the time. Many cultures exclusively perform ring ceremonies to bind couples together. There is nothing preventing them from participating in these activities already.

4. Past laws against interracial marriage is also brought up when arguing for gay marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely accepted biblical teaching.

5. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue! Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals any basic civil rights that other citizens have. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

Societal issues gay marriage would create:

1. Gay marriage would cause problems for employers being required to provide health insurance for both partners. In some cases this would seem like a good thing, but in reality it would be too large a stress on the institution of family health care coverage. Suddenly non-traditional couples would pop up everywhere to reap the benefits of such a situation. Under this plan anybody could become bound to another person simply to supply or gain those benefits.

2. If allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt children. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. But it is a proven fact that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that a child is better off when raised by a mother and father, who can be examples of love to them, and can offer the best that both genders have to give. Another fact is that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. Many homosexuals couples may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.

Facts that can't be disputed:

1. While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

2. Studies also prove that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same study found that "committed" gay couples have an average of eight sexual part

[chiram97]

Jesus knows you are a bigot.

[ardwyad]

People just don't realize that marriage and civil unions are the same things with different terminology except that marriages are recognized nationally while civil unions are only recognized by states with those laws, which in time will be most. It's all in the terminology, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so why should we change a word's definition that we have been using for so long? A homosexual couple in a civil union share the same rights as a heterosexual couple in marriage.

[barclay76]

In terms of one of your points, I wouldn't be surprised that if gay marriage was legalized and business then were obligated to cover more people under healthcare that business would then restrict who they cover to strictly their employees and nobody else.

That part of it could really screw a lot of people.

[calvert]

News flash. You cannot simply declare the earth is flat and deem this "fact" indisputable. It is very much disputable. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between the truth and things you desperately want to be true.

This is about basic human rights. Gay people can jump through a thousand hoops and not even come close to the rights afforded by a federally sanctioned marriage. I know it sucks being on the wrong side of history, but that's where you are. We will speak of you the same way we did of those who thought interracial marriage was "changing the definition of marriage." Hold your hands over your ears if it suits you.