Experts and users discuss same sex marriage, gay rights, homosexuality, gay issues, society: Ending the Marriage Exclusion Helps Family and Business
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Ending the Marriage Exclusion Helps Family and Business
- From Lambda Legal
By Lambda Legal - Making the Case for Equality
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed
This article essentially invalidates the common argument that, "If a homosexual couple wants to be together, nothing is stopping them. It doesn't matter if they are legally married." Legal recognition of a marriage is certainly an important issue because with this recognition comes certain rights and protections that are crucial to a couple. The ability to make hospital visits, to make certain economic decisions, and to guarantee the protection of a partner in the event of death are all examples of rights that a legal marriage provides. It is unfair to tell a man that he cannot visit his dying partner in the hospital when he cares for his partner in the same exact way that a heterosexual couple cares for one another.
- me58
February 26, 2009 11:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ending the Marriage Exclusion Helps Family and Business
Oh baloney, prevents employers from acquiring good talent? How many times has this been thrown in the public face with absolutly to substance to the claim.
I will agree "Civil Unions" should be allowed and this would provide the protections under the Constitution, but not marriage, marriage that has been the way it has been for thousands of years. To change it would be reckless and careless. Avery bad example to provide our younger population and the world that because you feel you are entitled, that you can dismantle what has been put in place for a reason and purpose. A reason and purpose that gets loss from generaton to generation.
- pvtguy
April 29, 2009 1:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Undermining marriage again, what ERA wasnt good enough?
I dont know how one could think that not giving children the benefit of a mother and a father is beneficial in any way. I dont know how one could think that woman and children will benefit from this in our society since woman make less and have less insurance it would only obvious that woman and children will have poorer health , poorer lifestyles, poorer everyting, and the male dominated world would not benefit from this either.
I dont know how you could even rationalize the fact that opening marriage up for a free for all would lead to a stronger society but a much weaker and distorted and psychologically imbalaced one and I hope that they would see that and that realizing that the road to hell is paved in roads such as the one that homosexual marriage will create in America.
It will weaken our family structure and thereby weaken our towns and eventually our country, if you dont think so remember what ERA for woman promised us, better futures more security etc blah blah and what did we actually get? Harder lives, more on our plates, expectations over the limit, family structure that fell apart without the mother role in the house, more money but that lead to more bills, more divorce rates because we allievated some of the mens responsiblities and that opened them up to the wondering eye, woman cheating on their husbands. Woman if we allow a redefinition of marriage we might as well just ask for the short end of the stick cuz thats what well get.
- hallelujahchorus
August 24, 2009 3:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ERA
Equal rights and gays didn't undermined marriage no-falt divorce did.
- mike1948
August 25, 2009 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ERA
The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified.
You have not shown how allowing two people to get married will somehow weaken the marriage of others.
- MrBook
August 25, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1868
The Equal Rights Amendment was ratified July 28, 1868.
- mike1948
August 26, 2009 10:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1923
“The Equal Rights Amendment was ratified July 28, 1868.”
That is the 14th amendment to the constitution . The proposed amendment commonly known as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was first proposed in 1923 and was not ratified by the needed deadline in 1982, it was reintroduced this year.
I surely hope that hallelujachorus was not referring to the 14th, which was part of the sequence of amendments and laws that abolished slavery and granted civil rights to all US citizens.
- MrBook
August 26, 2009 6:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Redundant.
The 14th Amendment gave equal rights to ALL US citizens. Women were US citizens. The Equal Rights Amendment proposed in 1923 was redundant and wouldn't have given them any rights that they didn't already have under the 14th Amendment.
- mike1948
August 26, 2009 10:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
that may be
But the 14th was not "The Equal Rights Amendment"... that is the name for the amendment proposed in 1923.
- MrBook
August 26, 2009 10:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fraud
The movement to pass the ERA was a fraud. All it did was collect money for decades trying to get women rights they already had and accomplished nothing.
- mike1948
August 26, 2009 11:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your argument sounds plastic and not sincere
The LAMBDA argument sounds rehearsed or practiced. I do not support ssm, its wrong on so many levels. But I guess one of many of my concerns with this absurd phenomenon is the fact that we know that NAMBLA has very strong and documented ties to mainstream homosexual organizations and ssm is only a front to their attempts to rape little boys. I know you will deny it but the evidence is clear and it does not support you it supports the fact that children will be put into harms way if ssm is allowed to be normalized by using traditional legacys ie Holy Matrimony for one man and one woman. FBI agent infiltrates NAMBLA and writes book, " THE LAST UNDERCOVER " where he exposes link between homosexual activists and NAMBLA.
I guess the next concern I have which also is documented that ssm if its allowed to take on the name of Holy Matrimony vs Civil Unions would only be an attempt to force Christians into accepting the act of homosexuality as pleasing to Gd and we do not beleive that it is and we beleive that ssm is only about destroying Christian foundations. We only have to look as far as the latest caper pulled by homosexual activists ie the big kiss-in orgy in front of churches to know that they are about destruction not about building anything.
And I guess lastly I would just like to say that you have all the rights you need in a Civil Union so there is no reason to tear down someone elses belief system so you can walk all over them. I join with millions of others to denounce this hypocricy and ask Gd to help us to stop it from destroying other peoples lives so a minority can feel their jollies.
- angelmama
September 7, 2009 8:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
NAMBLA
While this was true in the 80's it is no longer true. Homosexual groups disavowed NAMBLA over a decade ago and The Last Undercover, while true is equally dated. The problem with your logic is that just as allowing gays to be foster parents but not adopt doesn't really protect children , there is no practical difference between civil union and gay marriage . Just as there is are a few bad apples in any group, gays have there share. Allowing gay marriage would further marginalize those few bad examples.
- mike1948
September 7, 2009 2:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I will quote you
quote, "there is no practical difference between civil union and gay marriage .' If there is no difference then my vote is no.
Should marriage for same-sex couples be legal . My answer is no.
You ignore a moutain of evidence that could save some children so a few can say what....they have a marriage which is as you say no different than civil union. I vote no.
I choose to listen to evidence and base my decisions on that overwhelming argument that children are not better off, even in danger if placed in same-sex homes and not listen to the the, " because I want it", pissing and moaning of adults desperately attempting to justify their lifestyle choices by adopting innocent unsuspecting children. I say no.
- angelmama
September 8, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mountains
"You ignore a moutain of evidence that could save some children so a few can say what....they have a marriage which is as you say no different than civil union."
That is a mountain of evidence that you have yet to provide.
- MrBook
September 8, 2009 6:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
nambla?
"But I guess one of many of my concerns with this absurd phenomenon is the fact that we know that NAMBLA has very strong and documented ties to mainstream homosexual organizations and ssm is only a front to their attempts to rape little boys."
Can you document that documentation? Something recent?
"We only have to look as far as the latest caper pulled by homosexual activists ie the big kiss-in orgy in front of churches to know that they are about destruction not about building anything."
Can you cite instances of the Great Kiss In that occurred in front of churches?
"And I guess lastly I would just like to say that you have all the rights you need in a Civil Union so there is no reason to tear down someone elses belief system so you can walk all over them."
I've got to ask... is your belief structure so fragile that homosexuals getting married will destroy it?
- MrBook
September 8, 2009 7:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.