 |
~*~*~ For every rainbow there must be a spectrum of colors, they exist beautifully in perfect harmony with each other. Take a color out and we will not have our rainbow anymore. Just as if we take a gender out of the rainbow of genders that exist we take away individual liberty, the freedom of things about us that are only different. There is nothing wrong about something capable of a consenting caring and responsible relationship. That is Love. One thing that is bad is closemindedness and when we do that we miss alot of the beautiful things in life. ~*~*~ |
Welcome to Rainbow of Equality! Here you can find an empirical look and a rebuttal to untrue claims that have been spread about gay / lesbian / bisexual / transgender people. Along with very important and educational info in them to help anyone out. If you would like to help achieve equality for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender people (GLBT), you can fill out these very quick petitions. This one is made by the Human Rights Campaign and it can be found at, http://www.MillionForMarriage.com This one is by www.Egay.com and will be presented to congress http://www.egay.com/content_egay/EgayMarriage1.htm www.loveisloveislove.com has alot of really great petitions to sign. Thank you so much for your contribution! Other great sites for helping the GLBT community! www.SaveOurConstitution.org www.TheTaskForce.org www.HRC.org www.SoulForce.org www.ForGayMarriage.org If you have a website would you like to link to Rainbow of Equality to spread the word? It would help very much! Checkout these stylish link pics you can use if you want to: Email: RainbowOfEquality@yahoo.com Now here is a list of answers to the claims anti gay people have claimed in order to use as an excuse to deny rights of GLBT people or just to discriminate against them. There is absolutely no excuse to be mean to others though. These are the answers to why they are not true and they can be used as a rebuttal. They were made to be absolutely sure they are based on nonbiased, empirical reason and facts with the leading proffessional scientific organizations. The mentioned organizations are not biased in favor of homosexuality. These are not the opinions of a biased website. They are the opinions are learned organizations who study these cases carefully and proffessionally, without any hidden agenda to either prove or disprove any specific fact. One of the main things scientists do in order to gather empirical data is to make sure it is not biased. Surely, the mentioned organizations cannot be seen as either pro or anti biased. They are simply the experts in what they do that came to their conclusion by reason and fact. Nothing has been shown gay people to be harmful or not any less a form of love than heterosexuality. Love is what is most important in any situation. I hope this will help to enlighten. The spirit of this is not only about GLBT people. As a society it is our responsibility to open our hearts to individual liberty. The freedom and acceptance of things that are only different. Everyone of us are different and special each in our own way and it is important for us to reconize that to get along and love each other as a society. Instead of not accepting someone because they do not fit into someones own tastes. Learning from other unions, religions, races, creeds, etc. would make us a profoundly open (accepting), intelligent, and loving society, which we aren't and this is a very sad thing. I am FOR individuals following their heart, and expressing themselves in ways that dont harm others (slander, abuse, nonconsent etc), but still allows freedom to the invidual to find what is right for them on a personal basis. Please spread this around as much as possible, to help those spreading untrue rumors about GLBT people. It is extremely important to educate the public about the truth to stop innocent minorities from being prejudged or misread. |
(The more than a thousand rights denied to gay couples) Currently same sex couples are irrationally denied basic rights with over a thousand legal protections that conveniently come with a marriage licence. Without it, they have none. Among them: There are some very important questions that need to be asked. Why shouldn't a lesbian or gay person in a committed relationship be able to visit his or her partner in the hospital? How fair is it that lesbians and gay people who pay into the Social Security system their entire working lives don't get the same Social Security survivor benefits as their coworkers? When paying the same amount of taxes and working just as hard as other couples, same sex couples should not be forced to pay higher taxes and high legal fees just because of whom they love. The more than 1,000 basic rights and legal protections denied, are denied to civil unions as well because they only have state level status. With the so called "defense of marriage act" or "doma" created by anti-gay lobbyists in 1996 still would be in place with civil unions, which denies same sex couples federal marriage status benefits. They are all shown at this source: The United States General Accounting Office Defense of Marriage Act: An Update to Prior Report General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 2004 An update to the 1997 GAO report (1,049 Federal Benefits for Married Couples) found that 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status were enacted since the last report, and 31 were repealed or amended to remove marital status as a factor. The new total is 1,138. Download the entire report. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf The report (B-275860) The General Account Office, issued Jan. 31, 1997 ( The first report before the update ) http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf |
(Gay people do have the right to marry........people of the opposite sex!) What if they said that about interracial marriage? "People of different races can marry! People of the same race!" That means they don't have the right to equally be themselves. Things that are harmless and a form of love deserve equality. If we deny them that it goes against individual liberty which is what this country is about. Also talk about destroying the sanctity of marriage! The divorce rate and damaged families would sky rocket. By creating loveless marriages. |
( We Can Just Make Them Separate But Equal ) °°They are "seperate and unequal"°° Couples that have marriage licenses can have their marriage performed in any state and have it reconized in every state and country in the world. In the state where gay civil unions are legal, Vermont, they have no gurantee that their its protections will travel with them in any other state. Also while civil unions receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage. Marriage: Civil Unions: °°Irrationally discriminating gay marriages°° The Massachusetts Supreme Court addressed this issue directly: ‘‘The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.’’ Then added, ‘‘For no rational reason, the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain.’’ There is no point to having two distinct legal institutions if they are going to have identical sets of rights and responsibilities. The only rational purpose for having two distinct legal institutions is if you plan to treat them differently. This is about equality. It holds ones beliefs above another. Sending a message that peoples beliefs with gay marriage are not valid and second class. It would be discriminating to anyone who believes marriage is between two people that love each other. So not only are civil unions not "separate but equal", instead "separate and unequal" but also in this case, separate is unequal, whether they are going to have identical sets of legal protections or not. |
(How this effects institutions of marriage) °°Marriage isn't that sort of institution°° It doesn't matter how many people, or what sort of people get married - they don't affect the situation of any of the others who get married.
Not reconizing gay marriage will not stop gays from forming relationships, marrying without a marriage license and making families as they always have been. All it will do is keep it difficult for them to support their families. Where is the morality in that?
There are so many different beliefs about marriage in this country. The government doesn't define marriage for everyone. It only gives marriage benefits to different types of marriages they see as rationally harmless. No matter their beliefs on marriage. If gay marriage were legally reconized the American people will be able to choose. So it does not effect beliefs of those that do not believe in it. However if it were not legally reconized it does effect beliefs that of those who believe in gay marriage because it will treat them like second class citizens by irrationally denying them basic rights with over a thousand legal protections needed with a federal marriage license. A very obvious point is Muslim marriages and Christian marriages are treated equally with the government and have been for a very long time. Yet both of their institutions of marriage do not agree with each other. Have either of them effected each others institution of marriage by being equal? No, gays just want they same equality. Also civil marriage is something regulated by the state and does not require any religious involvement. It seems like they are the ones trying to destroy other peoples institution of marriage that do believe marriage is about two people in love. Also taking away individual liberty, of the freedom of religion, the very thing our fore fathers were trying achieve when they came to this country. Human Rights Campaign 2. No religious institution would be required to perform a ceremony. Just as no religious institution can be required by the government to marry an interfaith couple, no religious institution could or should be told to marry a same-sex couple. Right now, the government fails to ensure religious freedom when it refuses to honor the unions of same-sex couples performed by one religion the same way it honors those of opposite-sex couples. From HRC's Understanding The Issue. The claim of arm twisting and denying your rights is an old trick. In the south during segragation, white people claimed that their rights would be violated if they had to sit at a lunch counter next to a black person and that no amount of arm-twisting could allow such a forced change. This will distroy the sanctity of racial purity, so went the argument. Today we are told that a same-sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of straight marriage.
The reason people marry for love is when they meet that special person that they know no one else can ever measure up to romantically and intimately and want to spend the rest of their lifes together supporting each other in many, many ways. Emotionally, romantically, intimatley, mentally, etc. The list goes on and on. Would we rather people seeking romantic and intimate support to be in non-commited and careless "flings" with people? That is no support at all. People that marry for love do not think so as well. The body naturally needs these things. They feel they are more supported with some one that is commited to them. Marriage is the ultimate commitment. Which helps their mentality over all, including helping them in their work, which helps the economy, society, etc. They also can do that while choosing to have children, so the children can be raised in a loving and secure environment. Which is something else that is just as much a fundamental part of society. There is no reason to deny anyone that right because of there gender. As it is thoroughly shown on this website. If two gay people adore each other and want to make the lifelong commitment to each other, then that is truly great...and we should all be very happy for them. There is no reason why a group of people in this country, The United States of America, have to fight so hard for a right that the rest of us so freely enjoy, and may I add, that many take for granted. Who's right is it to proclaim one relationship more important that another? Who's right is it to point their finger at a gay couple and say, "Your love is not valid, your love is not important, the fact that you and your partner wish to make a life together and have it be recognized by law does not matter to us, YOU don't matter to us." Sound a bit dramatic? Good. Because that is exactly the message that is being sent. Gay people can vote, they can pay taxes, all very important things in this country....but they can't be married. The right to marry is one of our society's primary markers of adulthood, citizenship and community participation. To be deprived of the right to marry the person you love is to be told that your love is second-rate and your commitment worthless. It is to be told that you are not mature enough to take responsibility for your own life. It is to be told that you do not belong. I do not understand why some people feel so strongly against the happiness of others. Love encompasses many things. It encompasses closeness, shared interests, common bonds, etc and those make up aspects of love which lead people to want to marry. Saying someones physical standards is love is like saying true beauty comes from the outside of a person, when actually it is what comes from the inside that makes someone beautiful. True love doesn't see physicality but it sees the heart. It is unconditional, that includes gender. If someone is able to love someone of the same sex then more power to them. Love is Love no matter what form it may come in. Being gay is capable of a responsible consenting and caring relationship and it doesn't effect others in any way. So who are any of us to tell someone else what to do in something that has no bearing on us or our life? As long as it is a harmless form of love there is no right to constrict others of equality.
The following text is a transcription of the amendments to the Constitution in their original form. The first of these amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights." Amendment I (1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV (14) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"). [FN14] Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714 (1948) ("There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means"). [FN15]" http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html The Supreme Court has examined the rights which accompany being an American in cases like Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education, where prohibiting racial intermarriage was determined to be unconstitutional, as was the practice of separate public schools for blacks and whites. These cases both stand for the proposition that withholding rights from American citizens because of their race is unconstitutional. It would not be an illogical extension of these cases to say that withholding marital rights from American citizens, based solely on gender, is unconstitutional. The Federal Marriage Amendment would write discrimination in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect and ensure equal treatment for ALL. This amendment would destroy that equality by rewriting the Constitution to treat one group of people different from others. Since the Bill of Rights was passed, there have been only 17 amendments to the Constitution, and these amendments have expanded people's rights—such as giving African-Americans and women the right to vote. The Federal Marriage Amendment would be the first time in history that the Constitution was amended to restrict the rights of a group of people. To irrationally deny equality to an innocent minority. |
( The definition of marriage is a union of a man and a woman. It even says so in the dictionary ) °°Language evolves°° Instead of only being based on preconcieved thought. Even the word "gay" is a good example. The dictionary is a living, breathing document that changes as word usage changes. If you doubt it, look up the word "dot" in a current edition. We the people get to decide what's in the dictionary. The dictionary doesn't get to dictate our societal conventions. Your hair isn't going to catch on fire if the definition of marriage is eventually changed to read, "two consenting adults" instead of "man and woman." It will just be two people happy and in love. However if they do call it something else it will be irrationally discriminating towards the people that do believe in gay marriage. °°Sacred definitions°° One claim has been it can't be changed because some people consider the definition of only a man and a woman sacred. While their is no rational reason behind that definition as explained on this website, they are always permitted to believe that if they want to, but they are not seeing the people that consider marriage between two people that love each other, no matter what gender, sacred. If gay marriage were reconized, everyone's belief will be reconized. If the straight only definition is only reconized it is holding one belief above another. Which is not the governments decision to make. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves. That is why we have freedom of religion. It goes against the first Admendment in the Bill of Rights. For example when the dictionary defines religion, it doesn't just explain one religion because it is the majorities view, etc. It gives a definition to fit every religion. Does that mean it is saying anyone believing in a specific religion is not true? It doesn't and the issue is the same with legally reconizing gay marriages because with the first Admendment in the Bill of Rights saying that no law shall be made on the establishment of religion. It means the government doesn't define marriage for everyone on belief, sacredness, religion, etc. It gives marriages to every different type of marriage with different beliefs that they see as rationally harmless. Covering everyones belief, just as the definition of religion in the dictionary. Just as Hindu and Christian marriages are equal. °°Dictionaries do say marriage can be between gay couples°° Here is the relevant definition from the 11th edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, published in 2003: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage". And in case you think that only M-W's lexicographers have noticed the change in meaning, let's visit again what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) has to say: "a union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage" (example provided: "same-sex marriage"). They have good reason to call it marriage because, as explained, gay couples have the same qualities and purpose as straight couples getting married. Commiting to each other and/or having children. |
( It is not traditional! ) °°Tradition just means what society has been doing for a long time°° If we only followed what is traditional blacks and women wouldn't have any rights. We would all still be living in caves by now. Society evolves and that is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with tradition itself. Just using that alone as an excuse does not work because there is nothing wrong with change. That is the same excuse they gave when they were trying to make inter-racial marriages legal or for women to achieve rights. If what society has been doing for a long time is mean and illogical then that tradition needs to change. Above all people need to know the reason of traditions instead fo blindly following them. That is the same type of thinking that made women second class citizens for so long and people being pro slavery. We also need to look at how society evolves. We have improved in technology and we know more about the world around us. If we come across something that is better than what has been the "tradition". Then it is better to move on to that. Just as we have been and it has improved society incredibly. °°At the same time gay marriage is historical°° If one has the time, and willingness to learn, a colorful history of homosexual marriage unfolds before them. John Boswell (a Yale Historian) also notes that the Gay ceremonies were in the same fashion as Heterosexual ones. "Indeed, for nearly two centuries after Christianity had become the state religion, Christian emperors in Eastern cities not only tolerated but actually taxed gay prostitution. In 7th century Visigoth Spain, a series of six national church councils refused to support the ruler's legislation against homogenital acts. By the 9th century almost every area in Christian Europe had local law codes, including detailed sections on sexual offenses; none outside of Spain forbade homogenital acts. Buy the High Middle Ages, a gay subculture thrived, as in Greco-Roman times. A body of gay literature was standard discussion material at courses in the medieval universities where clerics were educated. Opposition to homosexuality, as in Augustine and Chrysostom, rested on reasons unacceptable today: "natural-law" arguments based on beliefs about supposed sexual practices among hares, hyenas, and weasels; a philosophical Stoicism that was suspicious of any sexual enjoyment; a sexism that saw a degrading effeminacy in being the receptive partner in sex. All-out Christian opposition to homosexuality arose at a time when medieval society first began to oppress many minority groups: Jews, heretics, the poor, usurers. A campaign to stir up support for the Crusades by vilifying the Muslims with charges of homosexual rape also played a part in Christian Europe's change of attitude toward gay and lesbian sex. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies: Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece. The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek. An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic" "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century" by John Boswell, 1980 Christianity has always contained a mix of pro- and anti- homosexual elements. Periods of oppression of homosexuals and celebration of love, homosexual or not, have came and went. Finally, Gay Marriage is not purely dependant on early Christianity - it has existed quite freely in other cultures and civilizations. For example a Four Thousand year old Tomb belonging to gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep exists in Saqqara, Egypt. Checkout a copy of John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. A Spartan puberty ritual speaks of the love of Agido and Hagesichora. The women were choir leaders that the girls adored. In their songs they praised the love of one another ( let me have Astaphis; may Philylla look at me, and lovely Damareta and Vianthemis) and the love of their enchanting leaders. These accounts date back to the 7th century BC. Anthropologists studying Native American cultures know that at least 150 different tribes accepted and held in esteem both male and female born individuals who were considered to be 3rd and 4th genders. These individuals sometimes married members of their own biological sex. There are numerous books documenting these facts including Changing Ones by Will Roscoe. Perhaps one would like to go father back than that? Ancient Egypt is well known for its mummies. We look to them, and their burial tombs, to provide pieces to the puzzle of gay marriage. The Tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/ In their enteral resting place lie two men, joined together in life and death. The walls of their tomb depict scene after scene of love and affection between the two. In fact, the highest signs of affection that were allowed to be put on tomb walls were found in theirs. Catholics Blessed Same-Sex Couples, New Study Says The Guardian reports a study by Alan Bray, a Catholic scholar, has unearthed evidence suggesting that churches in Britain -- specifically the Catholic Church -- blessed gay and lesbian relationships from the 13th century for over 500 years, often burying partners together. Bray said. "The evidence on tomb markers of memorials in the churches dating from the 14th to the 19th centuries is incontrovertible". Some speculate it could have even been for a 1000 years. For more info visit www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4235995,00.html HOMOSEXUALITY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE http://www.uwm.edu/People/jmerrick/hbib.htm#Cross-dressing http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/marriage/Historys%20view%20on%20gay%20marriage.htm " As for marriage as a legal institution, the ethnographic record makes clear that law expresses the dominant ethics of the group. Our history reflects the evolution of our values, and we as Americans are most proud of our deepening tradition of civil rights. To deny marriage to same-sex couples, as President Bush proposes, expresses a rejection of this civil rights tradition and a regression to a politics of exclusion. " - John Borneman, a professor of anthropology at Princeton University |
( Marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution! ) While it's true that marriage is a fundamental institution of society. It's not true that marriage is an unchangeable institution. Not only do different societies differ in their institutions of marriage, but even in Western society marriage has changed a great deal. Perhaps the biggest change is that marriage is now a partnership of equals, which was not the case originally... "The inequality of men and women was intrinsic to the traditional family. I don't think one could overstate the importance of this. In Europe, women were the property of their husbands or fathers - chattels as defined in law." Professor Anthony Giddens, BBC Reith Lecture 1999Some ways in which marriage has changed:
The history of the evolving of marriage http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=historical_look# |
( Legally reconizing gay marriages will open the door for other things like pedophilia, bestiality, pologamy, etc. to be reconized! ) All this is doing is lumping it with other things. They are completly different and as so will be treated as different things in the court. Things that are harmless and a form of love deserve equality. Like for instance if someone was trying to make pedophilia legal and reconized. The questions that will determine the final ruling will be about the childs safety and the psychological effects of such a relationship. Which have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being legally reconized. Homosexuality is two consenting human adults capable of a caring and responsible relationship. The same with other things that are different. The reason gay marriages will become equal is because they are a harmless form of love not because they are allowing anything (including bad things) to be legallized. |
( Its is not normal! ) °°Not normal or deviant only means original°° Normal simply means more common. Period. Whether something is different isn't the question of whether something is bad. The question is does it go against its doing good to each other, LOVE. Being gay doesn't since it is capable of a caring, consenting and responsible relationship. Lets look it up in the dictionary, Abnormal Main Entry: [1]ab·nor·mal Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-Function: adjective Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal Date: circa 1836 : deviating from the normal or average : UNUSUAL, EXCEPTIONAL Deviate Main Entry: [3]de·vi·ate Pronunciation: -vE-&t, -vE-"At Function: adjective Date: 1929 : departing significantly from the behavioral norms of a particular society Different Main Entry: [1]dif·fer·ent Pronunciation: 'di-f&rnt, 'di-f(&-)r&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French, from Latin different-, differens, present participle of differre Date: 14th century 1 : partly or totally unlike in nature, form, or quality : DISSIMILAR 2 : not the same: as a : DISTINCT 3 : UNUSUAL, SPECIAL synonyms DIFFERENT, DIVERSE, DIVERGENT, DISPARATE, VARIOUS mean unlike in kind or character. DIFFERENT may imply little more than separateness but it may also imply contrast or contrariness In other words it soley means not following what mostly everyone does. There is nothing wrong with that with that by itself. It depends on what it is that is deviant. When something bad happens and it makes the group feel down and one person acts cheerful to cheer others up, that is deviant or abnormal. When Rosa Parks decided to sit at the front of the bus for a political statement, because blacks couldn't sit their, that was deviant or abnormal to that society. When someone does a survey on which of the two flavors cherry or grape do they like to eat the best and most of America picks the cherry one while only 10% of the America picked the grape that is deviant or abnormal. There is nothing wrong with any of these forms of deviancy. Deviant and abnormal are only forms of different that society hasn't reconized. A bad form of deviancy would be if something bad happened and everyone felt down. Then one person decide to laugh at them and rub it in their face. Now think, what makes the bad form of deviancy, bad?..............Because it goes against doing good to each other. He is trying to make them feel more down. So that is what distinguishes whether something is wrong or not. If it goes against loving one another. Not if its deviant or abnormal. Being gay is a form of Love. Being left handed is abnormal. Is that an excuse for there rights to be taken away? So therefore, normal, is irrelevent. Everyone is born an individual and is different in some way, unless you are a robot. That doesn't mean anything bad infact it is a great thing. What we have is a wonderful rainbow of people. Lets embrace it! We are here to carry each other. There is no normal. So therefore if there is no normal, there is no abnormal. In 1958 -- the first time interracial marriage polling was conducted -- opposition was far greater than it is to same-sex marriage today. Ninety-four percent of whites disapproved of interracial marriages (Gallup). Being pro-interracial marriage was not normal at that time but that didn't make it wrong. Logic shows it is only a harmless form of love. |
( It goes against my religion! ) °°Gay marriage being legal doesn't effect anyones religion°° A very obvious point is Muslim marriages and Christian marriages are treated equally with the government and have been for a very long time. Yet both of their institutions of marriage do not agree with each other. Have either of them effected each others institution of marriage by being equal? No and gays just want they same equality. Also civil marriage is something regulated by the state and does not require any religious involvement. This has nothing to do with religion, only freedom of religion. °°It does effect others to base laws on religious beliefs°° Everyone has the right to believe what they like but forcing beliefs on others is a whole different story. Like, denying people there civil rights based on there religious beliefs is not right because a Christian wouldn't like a Muslim to take away their rights based on the Muslims religious beliefs or to discriminate or to be mean to them. Also vise versa with any religion. That wouldn't be right would it? That is the same thing they would be doing to gay people because of there religion. What about people of other religions, wiccans, buddhists, deists, hindus, that have different beliefs about marriage? Everyone has individual views of what a marriage is. America is not a theocracy. There are many religions (That range inside Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, etc.) who believe in gay marriage. They deserve the freedom just as anyone else. Things that are harmless and a form of love deserve equality. Would you like someone of a different belief to deny you civil rights based on there religion? That is the bottom line The legal definition is for people of the land that have different religious beliefs so it should be able to be equal as long as it is rationally harmless. Government laws need to be made on fact not belief. With belief no one can be sure of if the laws we are making are right, with it effecting millions of other peoples lifes with some of them not even believing in it. With facts you know what is what. It is not a law for the people of the land, only for the church. It is the same logic the people did back then when they said inter racial marriage is condemmed by God. Like the judge in Virginia who made this ruling in 1959: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." That judge was overruled by the Supreme Court in 1967, and interracial marriage was finally legal throughout this country. °°Legally allowing gay marriage is for religious freedom°° We are not talking about what someones religion is. This is a matter of religous liberty for everyone. To freely and equally express it as long as it doesn't go against doing good to each each other (like human sacrifice or something like that) Freedom of religion means freedom of your religion along with everyone elses. If there religion is true they shouldn't feel insecure if they are not in a position to where they can't push it on others. Like making it into laws. Religion is for the church, the law is for all the people of the land to get along. Historical Documents: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html " Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " |