Why are homosexuals celebrated and protected while polygamists are reviled and persecuted?\n\nThat is, other than a more powerful lobby in DC of course.
203576
Because polygamy is WRONG.  Marriage is about commitment between two people, not three, four, or five.  And there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.  I think they have as much a right to get married as anybody else, as long as its only to ONE person!
633149
Wow Marcell, You have really demonstrated what is wrong with conservatives. So I assume you mean that giving gays like myself the right to marry is a "special right" because we didnt have that right before. Wow. I think its likely you would be quoting mythology in all your arguments. My firmly held belief is that you cannot explain things rationally to people who believe in an invisible man in the sky who sees everything they do and is waiting to smite them if they step out of line. Its just nonsense, and the sooner more people reject this mythological hysteria about virgin babies and magic boats that hold millions of animals and prophets falling from the sky, the sooner people will adopt reason in its place. But whether or not people are willing to question their dogma, I'm still going to fight for a womans right to choose, for full rights and inclusion for gays, etc. I'm not going to let someones silly mythologies and superstitions stop me...
82025
H-I-B Brilliant man! These simple questions for simpletons, may be too much for them to absorb all at once. It's real hard to decide if it was once, or maybe twice. That is what BI-LESBIANS say about not being a Lesbian. I was BI curious, or maybe SEMI-BI-LESBIAN. So how many HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS concluded that you are a HOMOSEXUAL? My example of NEO_CONSERVATIVE dialog, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! The crying "RIGHT" can't stand up for themselves, and now have to "CRY" to the left for support. BOOO-FUUUUKIN_HOO. My man here is completely right about the semis-ism, so stand up and take your knocks, it's your turn in the barrel. Vote out the TYRANTS in NOVEMBER, free America!
202266
This is a very good question and I don't believe that it can be asked too many times. The more we all think about prejudice and hatred, the quicker it will go away. I also like that you put in the stipulation that there be no reference to religion. In a country that was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, the use of religion as a way to shoot down a political issue just flabergasts me. This is 100% a legal issue and not a religious one. Gays and lesbians know that they cannot force a church to accept them if it doesn't want to. However, they should be able to force the government to accept them. Why else do they all pay those taxes if not for a little acceptance and protection now and again?\n\nThe issue of gay marriage as is brought up most frequently can really be boiled down to the question of does the government offer legal protection to all of its citizens regardless of race, religion, creed, or anything else. The fact that gay marriage has not been put into effect is evidence that, no, the American government does not offer this protection to all of its citizens. This is a travesty. \n\nI will admit that for religious people in America, the word "marriage" does have some very high emotional weight attached to it and this is a big part of the problem. The word "marriage" should be stricken from all legal and official documents and state proceedings to avoid any confusion about the issue. If marriage were really only reserved as a ceremony to be done in a church or other place of worship particular to the participants wishes, and (let's call it this for now) legal partnerships were to be reserverd for the legal and governmental arenas, then this whole issue could be resolved with a little less spit and venom. \n\nThere is no rational reason that anyone can give for discriminating against another human being. Please do this test; the next time you find yourself saying anything negative about a group of people (gay or otherwise) please replace the word Jewish or black into the blank and see if you are still comfortable saying it. If not, then it may be time to reasses your value system and beliefs into one that is more tolerant and loving towards all humanity. \n\nLove and Peace!
76905
Don't believe all the hype.\n\nThe Silent Majority of America still goes to church is very monogamous and does a great deal of voting.  Just because the news media is bombarding us with every wacko that stands up and says up is down and two and two are five, don't you believe it.\n\nSooner or later the people sleeping around end up with some form of VD or worse.  The people promoting secularization have a major personal crisis and turn to God.\n\nJust be patient, let them rant and rave and show their true colors and see how they end up years later.
404788
I won't get into the sin thing, since I'm a Humanist and that's a religious concept, but it does seem to me that, if one of the reasons societies promote marriage is to promote stability, then it doesn't make sense to discourage same-sex couples from marrying.  Denying gay couples the right to marry is not defending marriage.
441763
There is no compelling *state* reason that anybody has listed here ... or anywhere else that I've seen.\n\nReligious reasons, by Constitution, are prohibited from being a basis for making laws.  (Thank God for that ... or we'd be no better than the Taliban.)\n\nProcreation is not a state interest.  I'm always baffled by people who raise "procreation" as a reason ... Are they saying that the government should be in the business of ensuring procreation of new Americans?  Are they saying that marriage should not be sanctioned except for purposes of procreation ... so heteros who are unable or do not wish to have children should be prohibited from marrying?  Are they saying that lesbians who *do* undergo AI to procreate, should be OK?  Are they saying that two gay men who love each other, should instead just forget all that "gay" nonsense, and each find "a nice girl" and settle down like "normal" people and have a family?  Seriously, someone please tell me what is the logic behind the government insisting on "procreation" as a requirement for marriage?\n\nOh, and I love 'Oh-Tami's answer: "Because I don't want to see two of a kind pawing each other in my kids park where they play. "  So it would be OK for a hetero couple to be "pawing each other" in front of your kids?  And are you saying that prohibitions against marrying are what is somehow preventing gays from going to the park and "pawing each other"?   You tell me ... is that logic, or just bigotry?\n\n...\n\nNo, here's the real reason we have seen these laws passed in the last three elections.  Ask yourself, are these laws being passed by state legislatures?  No.  They are public referendums and state propositions.  Why?  Because Karl Rove and the Republican leadership found that this was an effective way to get social conservative Republicans to the polls.  However, as we have found out, his tactic only works, if people don't realize that there are actually a lot of closeted gay men in the ranks of the Republicans and religious leaders who were whipping them to the polls.  Evangelicals have a low tolerance for hypocrisy.\n\nTen years from now, all these "defense of marriage" propositions that passed ... will all get repealed or declared unconstitutional by state or federal courts.
49852
I am a straight man.  I have had many gay friends due to my involvement in theatre.  I do not hate homosexuals.  I am also a Christian and I know lots of people who hate homosexuality.  I don't understand why it is singled out as THE sin to hate.  I have told Fat christians that I think gluttony is a sin.  I have told rich Christians that greed is a sin.  I have then asked them why their sin is less of a sin then a homsexual's sin.  I have asked these questions many times in many adult Sunday School classes.  Needless to say it doesn't make me real popular.  So now to your question.  I think a lot of people hate homosexuals simply because they are told they should.  The Christian right is constantly bombarding us with the message that homosexuality is the number one threat to the family unit.  Of cours this is stupid.  Divorce, infidelity and not spending time together are the biggest threats to the family units I know about.  When a Christian tells me that homosexuality is a sin.  I always agree that the Bible does say that a man shouldn't lay with another man.  So by the letter of the law it is a sin.  But then I ask them if they have had to fight off strong urges to sleep with members of the same sex?  They always respond NO!  Then I say isn't it odd that most of the other sins in the Bible hold some temptation for us, but this one, if we are heterosexual holds none?  I then ask them if gay marriage was legal and the gay couples got the same tax breaks and property rights as straight couples would you be tempted to turn homosexual?  Of course they say NO!  Then I zing them with "So why do you suppose that of all the sins listed in the Bible we straight Christians spend so much time and energy focusing on the one that doesn't tempt us and never will?  Isn't it possible it's a convenient way to not deal with issues that DO effect us?  Isn't it possible that it's just a way to feel superior and holy without ever having to do anything but look down on others who are different than us?  100% of the time they then answer: "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin."  This one issue is truly one of the reasons it is hard to stay active in church.  When you KNOW people are judging and being blind and feeling so secure and right about it, it can drive you crazy.  Even when I tell them that I have watched gay friends die horrible deaths of AIDS without adequate medical care because their life partner of many years could not get them on a "family" insurance plan, it makes no impact.  Now having said all of that I would like to share with you some things about the current attitude in our society that makes me dislike the Gay Rights movement.  As a heterosexual Christian male, I am judged and hated before I even have an opportunity to share who I am.  As a straight male, I get sick of being told by effeminate men what is style.  I resent being almost always portrayed in the media as not as smart as gay men, not as in touch with our feeling, not as capable of expressing emotion.  I think on any given night on television there is a lot more straight male bashing then there ever was gay bashing.  There I got it off of my chest.  This is the longest answer I've ever written.  I wonder if anyone will actually read it all the way through?
562635
HE he he !  Have a lookie at my anser to your question!  I drove the local preachQ -- What are your views on Christian Polygamy. It seems OK because the\n Bible does not prohibit it.\n\n\n((((A -- A difficult question to answer in a few words. Let me answer your question by \nsupplying with a short research paper that is downloadable to paper.)))) \n\n\n\nHistorical Polygamyers out of their tree showing them my research!
543622
A simple reading of the English language words of the American Constitution and those of the various 50 states indicates that government is barred from establishing laws governing religion.  Why is this bad?  Do you want government telling people where and how to or not to worship?  Worked great in the Soviet Union and Iran.  Why not here?  \nAs to the second component of your question, I don't see government sponsored ads on tv telling people to be gay, so can you clarify this "cramming" that you might make a better case for the media or Hollywood doing, but certainly not any government where I hail from.
237788
I wish polygamy was an accepted practice. Who does it hurt anyway? Nothing bad can come from it. Just more people loving each other.
624676
I support governmental recognition of all marriages performed by recognized religious group, adn that is the secret about the gay marriage question.\n\nThe gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.\n\nOne of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.\n\nOf course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.\n\nOn the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faiths, which say it is ok to marry same sex couples?\n\nThe first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.\n\nEveryone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.\n\nSince I do not believe the government should be used to control religious belief -- I think that the government should recognize gay marriage, when performed by members of clergy -- and should create a civil union equivalent for those interested only in secular marriage.\n\nOtherwise we should stop saying we don't have an establishment of religion.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com
360206
It was on the ballot when I voted this morning and I am proud to say I voted against it.  Sure I read some of your answers and those who say I voted for hate and so on are the ones who are wrong.  I voted for what I believe in.  If God wanted two men together he would have created Adam and Paul, not Adam and Eve.  Same thing for two women.  So to all the gays out there, you have already made a life choice not to fit in, what does marriage gain you?  How is a child affected by being raised by a gay couple?  Marriage is the sacred act of 1 Man and 1 Women.  You say we are discrimminating toward you?  How does this compare to black people or immigrants and so on.  Black people did not choose to be black, back in the day do you think a black person would have turned down the option of being white so that they could fit in?  Gay people choose to be gay, you are not born gay.  I don't hate gay people but feel they should not show any public affection and not push being gay on other people.  Kids learn from watching and this is just not a message that I want my kids to be forces to see.
597265
It's always amused me to hear people argue for laws protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, completely forgetting that anything that "sanctity" is an inherently religious issue.\n\nThe Marriage Protection Amendment is designed to enforce one particular religion's definition of marriage, just because that religion happens to be in the legislative majority at the moment. \n\nEvery single argument in favor of limiting marriage boils down to a religious disapproval of certain types of relationships. And for some reason, the religious majority doesn't see any problem with enforcing their moral beliefs as a matter of law, because they happen to be in the majority.\n\nIf they really want a uniform definition of marriage, I've got one that will make everyone happy. How about  a Constitutional Amendment that (1) eliminates the term "marriage" from any secular laws, making "marriage" only a religious term, and (2) converts all of what used to be marriages to "civil unions", and (3) allows any two consenting adults to register their civil union with the state, and get all state benefits that would otherwise be provided to people who were married.\n\nAny two consenting adults who want to get a civil union can do so, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation. I'm not going to get into a debate over whether incest should or should not be allowed, so let's just say not allowed for purposes of this proposal.\n\nIf people want to get married, that's between them and their church. The "sanctity of marriage" is thus forever protected against government meddling, since "marriage" no longer has any legal meaning under the law. \n\nAnd gay couples now are treated no differently under the law than anyone else, since everyone 'only' gets a civil union, as far as the law is concerned.\n\nIf the big issue is regarding terminology and the sanctity of the term "marriage", then religious folk should be completely in favor of this amendment. It guarantees that they can have the term "marriage" all to themselves, based on whatever their religion defines it to be, without any trouble from those equal protection advocates.\n\nAnd if this doesn't solve the problem, then their argument isn't really about protecting the "sanctity of marriage" at all. It's just that they don't like certain behavior because it is against their religious beliefs, and they want to be able to enforce those religious beliefs as a matter of law.
610889
I have no earthly idea why people keep insisting on defining marriage!  Why is this such a big deal?  There are so many things that are truly imporant that we can put our energy into solving rather than someones desire to marry someone of the same sex.  You certainly wont stop them from having a relationship.  What are you doing that the government will decide to ban next?  Frankly, whatever goes on in my underpants is none of the governments business.  All of those who are in support of BIG GOVERNMENT telling you how to conduct your private lives had better watch out, you may get more than what you bargained for.  Obviously, since this question keeps coming up over and over, there are more people out there that have little else to do but worry about this nonsense.  If this has to do with Christianity, divorce, partner swapping, adultery, sexual abuse, spousal abuse, etc. have already made a mockery of marriage so who cares if homosexuals want a part of it.  I think there is something in that big Bible that you all are thumping that says that we have all have free will....Please stop trying to legislate morality and personal decision that have absolutly nothing to do with you.  If you dont want to marry someone of the same sex, DONT.  And no, I am not gay, I am just not so hypocritical that I feel I need to impose my lifestyle on others.
641308
The word "marriage". Just because these few people are divorced under circumstances which obviously bother you doesn't change the fact that the word "marriage" means the union of one man and one woman.\n\nIf you want the state to recognize other unions, then call them that - unions. Call them ALL unions. "Marriage" is a religious term anyway.\n\nAnd why does it matter if these people divorced? Mr. Clinton made it alright for anyone to commit adultery, and you're worried about people getting legal divorces and remarrying?
571498
The compassionate person says: "Who is the government to say who can and can't get married? No one can control who they fall in love with!" \n\nThe logical person realizes that one can use that exact argument to justify gay unions, polygamy, incest and a whole host of other non-traditional unions. \n\nI'm NOT comparing gay people to to polygamists or anyone else, but all of those groups use the exact same logic to make their case.\n\nInstead of calling this a "Gay Marriage" amendment, it should be called the "One Woman One Man" amendment.\n\nLimiting the inclusion of the other minority groups into the realm ov civil unions prevents a whole host of unwanted side effects. Just imagine a custody dispute when a polygamist and his wives get divorced, or the incredible burden placed on the health insurance industry when a person can marry their entire extended family to get them on their health plan....