http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/12/21/mexico.gay.marriage/index.html So Mexico 1, USA 0. It comes as a shock to me as I always thought of Mexico as strictly catholic country with a very conservative attitude. So what's U.S. excuse now huh?
Actually, its U.S. 6 Mexico 1 and thats assuming states are counted the same as a single city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Same sex marraige I agree with. Same sex adoption I do not agree with. For 2 reasons. it screws up the kid not having a mother and a father. And secondly all of the same sex married people having no kids is a good way no help population control. Cause there is no major wars or plagues or famines going on now to keep the population down.
I am s-no I am not sorry. That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. How is 2 people adopting a child against population control? The child is already on this planet. He just moves outside of overcrowded institution into a family with loving parents. How the hell did you come up with that abomination of an argument?
@the8thark Well same sex couples can't "have" kids they can merely look after them so they are not a burden of the state and thus turn into productive citizens, overpopulation is only a concern if these children are not productive and i would be surprised if you found evidence that children from same sex couples become a burden on humanity down the track compared with the rest of societies children. Unless you just want the slaughter of children which i admit is a "ultra" rational approach but from reading from what you said you don't seem the "ultra" rational type. Furthermore the American Psychological Association and The American Medical Association support same sex adoption stating their is no evidence parenting causes harm. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf Interesting read as well It would make "sense" that same sex couples would create a warped child but sense isn't supported by reality (or indeed human knowledge) in this case
Well in the US's federal government's defense. I think they have bigger things to worry about then same sex marriage. I'm not against same sex marriage or adoption in anyway, but at the same time I realize that we have things going on right now that's a bit more important. After we finish the two wars we are fighting, fix our economy, get socialized health care, and boost our foreign relations. Then I think we can focus on things like same sex marriage. No body is going to die if they don't get married. However if we don't finish these wars and fix the US health care system a lot of people will.
It looks like I've presented with a completely illogical argument. Again. Are the US senators and other members of the legislature process busy 24/7 handling the war? Have they been pre-occupied with the Health Care reform for 100% of the time? Just in case you don't understand me this is a rhetorical question to which the answer is no they are not. They have been elected primarily to upheld the Constitution of the United States and that includes the Bill of Rights. There is absolutely no secular argument against same sex marrige (as with any of my beliefs or opinions I am more than happy to re-evalute them if you actually present me with any evidence although I think that everyone in here does agree with me in this sence). The US government has no excuse to not legalize same sex marrige. Definetly not this one.
And here i thought naively that human rights should take priority over things and shouldn't be discounted due to things such as wars but alas, it seems I am mistaken. (/s) Honestly this isn't a simple issue as you portray it and it is a major issue. Many people in the US are gay and due to the law, they are often living a difficult lifestyle and unable to marry.
The problem is most Christian groups are against it, as the term 'marriage' is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. I know most protestant groups, as well as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, are set against ever letting same-sex marriages be allowed. I don't have any major issue with it, but I know my Roman Catholic parents believe same-sex marriages shouldn't ever be legal. As for those protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you seem to forget that many of them have their own agendas, as well as most belonging to religions that don't like same-sex marriages. Thus, according to their beliefs, they would be against legalizing it nationwide. I don't have any secular arguments, but the religious ones alone are enough to stall advancement of same-sex marriages in the US.
We all know the reasons why most people are against it. However this is not an issue of the majority vote.
How is it not an issue of majority vote? If a large majority doesn't want it, the Congress won't see a reason to pass a nationwide law allowing same-sex marriage. Not to mention that whichever party holds a majority of the Senate/HoR will get blasted by the other side as well as receive negative feedback by the public, which would hurt their chances of holding office and control of government in the future. So as of right now, neither side would likely to attempt to pass such a bill will the notion of political suicide as a highly probable result.
I did not make myself clear enough. It is an issue of the majority vote but it shouldn't be. It is simmilar to the references to god in the national pledge of allegiance and bank notes. They are gross voilation of the constitution and always have been and yes McCarthy was still able to push those changed through in the 50s because he scared enough people into supporting him. That does not change the fact that it never should have happened and should be corrected. Of course no candidate is ever going to win an election promise to upheld the constitution and remove all references of god. ^^ So yes you are right I just didn't word it properly.
I would Hope they are this war is taking a heavy toll on the American people, and costing lives. Fighting a war isn't as simple as you obviously believe it requires a lot of effort from all parts of the government. Have you not been watching the news? Correction they were elected to lead our country. The Judicial branch is the one who upholds the constitution. I didn't say there was any argument against it. I just think there are more important things to worry about. Like I said no one is going to die because they didn't get hitched.
