Gay Marraige
 

I know I most likely misspelled marraige. I just hope this topic is allowed.

Now as you know besides the election the other thing to vote on was an ammendment saying that a legal union can only be between one man, and one woman. Please state your opinion on this matter but a few simple rules. No gay bashing, or gay basher bashing. Dont flame just say what you believe and why and leave it at that.

Now I believe that the amendment shouldn't have passed (it did in spite of my vote). My main problem is that after two centuries of equal rights battles when the USA has gotten closer then any other nation to being truely fair...we pass this and take a step or two backwards. I simpley feel this infringes on a bisexuals/homosexuals rights and that is a step in the wrong direction

I've got a feeling this is going to go the way of the attempts to stop blacks from voting. People will be fighting it for now, slowly getting more and more pissed off until finally there will be drastic action and the law is changed.

Well, the idea of marriage has pretty much been the same (in relaion Christianity, which is the major branch of religion in America) for over a thousand years. However, hatred against blacks didn't become wide-spread until the 1700s, and was originally implemented by the big plantation owners as a way to keep black slaves in line while making disgruntled indentured servants and freedmen feel better about their own place on the socially ladder.

It's actually under a thousand years... it was integrated in the Church about 800 years ago.

Anyway, marraiges, if you want to be all technical and use the dictionary, are indeed "between a man and a woman", but I do not think that this is the case here. If people want to call Gay Marriage something else, fine. But at least give them the same rights as "married" couples (e.g. Emergency Room visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

I think marriage is between a man and a woman.
The reason we have benfits for marriage is because the government wants to encourage such relationships.

///

The government encourages this behaviour because it promotes stability in our nation so that we don't have pregnanted women staying at home and men running around having sex willy-nilly. The union of a man and man or a woman and woman still helps to promote our national stability, and thus should be legal in all 50 states and territories.

Dr Edit now approves this post!

But if the government gives benefits to married couples, why can't gay couples have those same benefits as well? If you ask me, most of America's mind set is still stuck in the past and extremely concervative. In the past, gay marriage might have been difficult to even comprehend, but people need to recognise that times have changed and the world has gotten less biased overtime.

All religious and personal reasons aside, does the passing of this as a amendment to the constitution scare anyone else? I mean that is WAAAAY too much power in the hands of the government! Next thing you know they'll be enacting unlawful search and seizures and issuing arrest warrents that violate the constitution... *cough-PATRIOT ACT-cough*

Yeah.

First off, no gay marriages has been the mind set of America for a long time. This is just a written record of the already pre-understood law against gay marriages. If you're worried about the government having too much power, then look at it like this: The government has always been making laws affecting people's lives; back then, though, more of them were social laws and ideals rather than actual written laws back (e.g. Same Sex Marriages). (NOTE: I fully support gay marriages)