Thank you. Finally a Catholic gets the constitution.
No marital “rights” in constitution. That is a matter of ambiguous interpretation of the broad “right to privacy,” which taken to its ultimate would also mean that you can be a polygamist, marry under-age, etc. The unspecified assumption of “rights” is subject to the specified restriction on rights by several layers of court systems, and/or by laws passed and not successfully challenged by states or the federal gov’'t.
To add on to this, why does love become “evil” just because the body parts are similar? How does love become different when its with the same or opposite gender? Anyone who has a mature understanding of love knows that when it comes to marriage its about devotion, fidelity, commitment, and sharing what little life we have with another human being.
No. That can also be applied to maternal and paternal love.
These have nothing to do with gender.
But in this country, marriage grants you parenthood rights, and parenthood has very much to do with gender. A ‘single parent’ defines only a household reality. The opposite-gender original parent is still the the other parent if alive. If one parent is deceased, the remaining parent is single presumably not by choice, and if there ends up being no remarriage, frankly the surviving children are indeed affected (hurt) by having only one parental gender as the primary relationship, despite how many secondary and tertiary relationships develop with adults of the other gender.
Anyone with a mature sense of love knows its not about the mechanics of sex. If it was just about sex than people would just do away with the marriage.
Millions have done anyway with it: It’s called cohabitation, and it’s about the mechanics of sex.
And yet I hear you guys go on on like that’s what’s most important and that’s what makes marriage sacred to you. Which just goes to show what your truly immature concept of marriage really is.
And for you guys to say “Well its just not natural,” is completely absurd because the scientific evidence shows the contrary. Then you say its all about procreating children but what then do you say to the thousands of heterosexual wives and husbands that can’t give their spouse’s children but still love each other all the same? Gay couples could adopt and try to relieve our foster care system which is overwhelmed with unwanted children. Then you say, “Well gay couples can’t possibly raise children as well as heterosexual couples can!”, then you’d be wrong again because numerous psychology studies have shown gays are equally as capable at raising children as straights are.
Capability does not make for desirability from the aspects of an identifiable family unit.
What it usually comes down to is people just don’t like the idea that a couple of gays can have an equal relationship as the one they have with their husband/wife. That is what the ultimate issue people have with gay marriage when we boil it down. Pure bigotry if I ever saw it. NoMoreGames, you are dead right. Gays being denied the right to marry is unconstitutional. Marriage should be an unalienable right, no matter the sexual preference, but yet it is being alienated
You may think it “should” be, but the Founders disagreed with you, because if it was such a clear “right,” as important as the ones their countrymen left other lands and shed blood for, I guarantee you it would have been specified in the Founding documents.
Gay marriage would not degrade your own or even the values of marriage and it wouldn’t harm your marriage either. So why fight to deny a right, you easily receive, to those who rightfully deserve it?
Because language is loaded with meaning and gender is profound and primal. And anybody who really cared about equality and equal rights would care not to deprive children of the formative and irreplaceable complementariness of both genders as full partners in that formation. Because children raised in such households have been deprived of something that dual-sex parents provide, by their very being/nature, before one even begins to talk about quality of parenting. In seeking to create new rights and then celebrating them, you have removed rights from a dependent child. Roles may be a social contruct, but gender is not. Men and woman are essentially and profoundly different, and children have a right to experience directly and from birth, those differences, because the patterning of their identity and personhood is derived from the people they identify as parents.
Think About It.
