What is "the gay lifestyle" in your view?

In many respects, not having a legal marriage can help with taxes. The "marriage penalty" is still in place for incomes over about $75K. As you may or may not know, we have a "progressive" tax system where the first $10,000 for a single person is taxed at 10%, another amount is taxed at 15%, etc. etc. Well for a married couple the first three tax brackets are doubled (e.g. the first $20,000 is taxed at 10% for a married couple) but then the brackets are not quite doubled. To make it simpler it would be like this: if you had two single people: each of them would be taxed at 10% on their first $10K. But if you had a married couple, it would be 10% on the first, say, $17K. The next $3K to round out $20K would be taxed at 15%. Of course this is reason for any two people not to marry, but I have to throw in my two cents. I believe the government, believing itself to be independent of religious judgment and imposition, has no business regulating marriage as solely between a man and a woman. That's the Constitutional basis that should be honored. Religions, such as mine, should have no business in setting a government's policy. Though my religion and even my personal morality does not believe in it, it is wholly abhorrent to the Constitution and the freedoms we are guaranteed as Americans for there to be a discrimination based on sexual preference. Two people who wish to apply for a license of marriage in any state and who apply in good faith to make such a union work should be unimpeded by that state's government in obtaining such license. Case closed.

Nope, but I couldn't come up with a reason why two people who love each other and want to commit to each other shouldn't be able to in the first place. :)

Nope, I can't.

There is no good argument, religious or otherwise against gay marriage. And it's not really a "lifestyle," just part of my life.

I guess the only thing I can come up with is the fact that, in most places here, gay marriage is not recognized (legal)..therefore couples do not have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple. Morally..I have no argument against it, and if I were to use a Biblical reference, the only one I can come up with is.."JUDGE NOT...LEST YOU BE JUDGED". And that is certianly not an argument against it.

As long as we're talking about legalizing gay marriage in the USA, yes: 1. The vast majority of the Americans are totally against it and won't stand for activist courts and judges that have no regard for the will of the people, let alone the history and traditions of the entire human race. The US (supposedly) being a democracy, that's all the argument one needs. But, there's also this one: Marriage as a legal institution is BY DEFINITION AND DESIGN a legal arrangement for the designation of legitimate offspring as opposed to illegitimate ones. That's it. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is the means by which we designate legal offspring and a factory for producing and caring for the next generation of legitimate progeny. That's the only interest and stake the state has in it. As homosexual couples cannot produce offspring - legitimate or otherwise - the term "marriage" doesn't apply, and the state has no interest in such unions as it neither derives benefit from them nor suffers at their disolution. As the state has no interest/stake in such unions, it has no jurisdiction over them and no authority to extend itself in this way in this area. The problem is the homosexual lobby is (deliberately?) confuising marriage as a legal institution and marriage as a religious and social institution. But the government, the courts, and the law can only forbid, permit or require, but have no power or authority to sanctify, bless, reproach, or curse. What the proponents of gay marriage are trying to get from the government, they can only get from the churches (and synagogues, mosques and temples) and from society itself, and they will not force it from them at government gunpoint authorized by court order. As for all the legal privileges of married persons with respect to each other, all of those are already available to homosexual partners and - if they want absolute legal security - they can secure these by executing a few legal instruments, such as a Will, a business partnership contract, and a Medical Power of Attorney. So the truth is, homosexual couples really don't need to enter into a legally recognized marriage to obtain the rights they claim they are being denied by not being allowed to enter into a legal marriage. Now, the question for you is.... Without bringing silly sentimentality that wrongly imagines that two-people loving each other and having sex with each other with the purpose and value of marriage, can you name one good reason WITH FACTS to support an argument FOR gay marriage? Why should we embark on the most radical and extreme social engineering program in history - completely disregarding and indeed spitting in the face of 30,000 years of human history - to please and appease an exceptionally small (about 1% of the population*) and eccentric fringe group, against the will the vast majority of the population? *note: yes, just 1%. Kinsey's infamous 10% figure was actually that 10% of surveyed prison inmates confessed to having had a homosexual experience at least once.

Marriage begets children. otherwise, why get married? Is that factual enough? Get incorporated if you want some secure legal mutual foundation.

you have to bring religion in to the argument because all the secular arguments add up to either gay sex is icky or i don't want to pay for gay civil employee benefits. if you take religion out of the mix the whole argument will take 2 min. and bore the hell out of everyone!

One could argue that if more gays were married, U.S. tax revenue would decrease because filing as "married filing jointly" is a lower tax bracket. I don't know of the "marriage penalty" is gone yet, though. It might actually increase tax revenue if it isn't.

I could not give you any legal example on any way it could or does have an adverse affect on society.I once knew a female gay couple that adopted a girl,and bringing her up like any other child.With all the single parents,male and female,what should the difference be if they are both of them are of the same sex as long as the child is brought up in a good home.

our insurance rates will rise because of it...

Nope.

The only effect it would have that could be considered adverse is that it would melt the brains of the conservative, close minded, extremists. Hmm, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

The last-naming of the children.

No...it's strange, no matter how much I search and search for it I can't find one reason that meets all of your criteria....hmmmm

LEGAL, NO! The only logical problem to me is the failure to reproduce offspring, which is why we are male and female. If we all were gay we'd become extinct. But that's not illegal..:)

Playing devil's advocate for a moment (no pun intended), allowing gay marriage also means socially legitimizing family units based on gay couples, and having children raised by gay couples is bad for them. However, there is no evidence that that is true. Any speculation that gay couples are any more or less capable of raising psychologically healthy children is just that - speculation. It may turn out that future studies will show that gay couples are, statistically, inferior, superior, or equivalent to straight couples at rearing children, but until such studies are conducted, we cannot condemn gay marriages or gay couples' adopting children on assumptions.

Eventually humanity would cease to exist through attrition people dying and not being replaced.

The divorce rate would increase. I pesonally think divorce is a negative thing for society (although sometimes profitable for me)

It dont. In Denmark and Sweden where they have legalized homosexual unions, the rate of heterosexual marraiges increased and the divorce rate decreased. Just the opposite of what most predicted.

society would procreate at a much lower rate due to more females being less interested in men and men being uninterested in women. this would result in an unstable society in that60 years down the road there would be a smaller work force to pay social security, medicare and taxes for the retired. the possibility of AIDS could increase exponentially which would have nagitive effects on the mental state of society resulting in more hospitals and currently there is a great shortage of nurses. in the long run it could negitivly effect the average lifespan of the group. the issue of legal sir name would also present itself, as when most people marry they adopt a single sir name, whose to adopt in a heterosexual marriage is socially defined, however there is nothing that defines which names is used in a homosexual marrage. there would also become an issue of taxing domestic partnerships verses marriages. and how to go about it.

Learn from history. Every civilization that has allowed this has collapsed within 100 years. Coincidence?

Let's see, two people marrying that are not really queer, just for state and federal money and benefits. How does the state set a standard on how queer a person is? Freaks wanting to marry their pets. Their defense will be if you allow a man and a man to marry, how can you say that I can't marry my dog?

I expect this answer will be downrated by hypocrites that only support tolerance when it benefits them, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t respond. There is a VERY good, nonreligious argument against homosexuality and the redefinition of marriage: children. I know statistics can be manipulated till we’re all blue in the face, but it’s not hard to find study after study showing that the average child living with an actively homosexual couple fairs more poorly than children of single parents (who already fair significantly more poorly than children in two-parent homes). Crime rates are higher, imprisonment is higher, drug abuse is higher, etc.; just Google it and you’ll find more information than you could ever hope to read. More directly, Harvard’s Craig Cardon points out: “Human beings learn who they are by experiencing themselves in relation to others who are the same sex and those who are the opposite sex. Children’s young minds are in particular shaped to understand the world this way, in black and white first, before they learn of the possibilities for shades of grey. The particular sex roles of a culture may vary (although women do more care of young children than men, and men are warriors, in every known culture). But human beings are born with an innate longing to experience their gender as socially significant. Which means children long to know themselves not just as people, but as boys and girls who will grow to be men and women” (“Defined by Opposites”, Meridian Magazine, 25 February 2004). Cardon continues by stating that having opposite-gender parents fulfills “another deep social need” of young children. He then cites the Commission on Children at Risk, a panel of leading children’s doctors, research scientists and youth service professionals sponsored by Dartmouth Medical School: “For the child searching for the meaning of his embodiment, both the same-sex-as-me parent and the opposite-sex-from-me parent play vital roles” (Hardwired to Connect, The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities. ©2003 Institute for American Values, p.24). Many claim that there is no difference, but even pro-gay social scientists Judith Stacy & Timothy J. Biblarz state: “Evidence … does not support the ‘no differences’ claim. Children with lesbigay parents appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relationship. In addition, evidence suggests that parental gender and sexual identities interact to create distinctive family processes whose consequences for children have yet to be studied” (Stacy & Biblarz, “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review 159, 176 (April 2001)). In short, if we remove the couple from society and view marriage as nothing more than a means to fulfill the selfish needs of the parents, then you’re right: this life includes very little (if anything) that makes homosexuality inherently detrimental. However, if we’re trying to create a better world than the one we have now—a goal I think pretty much all of us share—then the situation *does* become inherently detrimental, and both society and government have the responsibility to discourage such situations.

One reason the gay lifesytle is wrong is that it disturbs the process and ballance of the human reproduction cycle. if the gay movement were to exceed the reproduction cycle, coupled with the diseases caused by the lifestyle, populations would decline, with fewer people there would be less social security, higher medical cost, depression would ruin many lifes, i could go on and on, but the main reason its wrong is because it is selfish, that person is only cocerned with what they feel or what they think they were ment to be.

Well... queer lifestyle was always meant to be underground and punk... different from the norm - perhaps gay marriage is legitimizing the assimilation of a species. So if heterosexuality is the Borg amd gays are Jean Luc Picard, then one day we will all overcome our need to be like the rest of you. I love reverse racism! :)

not one civilization or empire that has ever been since the begining of time is still around....I wonder why ? are we next to disapear ?

Insurance or tax fraud between people two buddies "faking" a homosexual marriage for the sake of medical coverage, life insurance pay offs, or tax breaks? Not that that fraud doesn't already exist, it would just be yet another avenue for it, with no way to disprove it. The only other "fact" that I could dream up would be the development of AIDS that has surfaced from the gay community. This fatal disease is heavily linked with the new gay lifestyle movement in the last 25-30 years (Rock Hudson timeframe). Those are the only things I could see *might* be considered legit non-religion based arguments? Most of our country's laws were based on religion to begin with. Being as this simply IS a moral issue more than a legal issue, it's hard to come up with much legal stuff.

Well, yes, based on cultural morality I can. But that too has its roots in religion. But while I can give good reasons. I cannot justify the reasons or say that gay marriage would not be beneficial to society.

Its not normal, to see same sex marriages. Its perverse to me..

Without bringing religion into it? That's a little unfair. I personally don't have a problem with gays getting married. However, I know others who are opposed for religious reasons. I think it is very unfair to ask anybody to compromise religious beliefs. It is also unfair to start calling people bigots for their religious beliefs.

there is no reason, with or without religion. as far as I see, Christians who think its wrong because of the bible finds there evidence where it says "Sexually Immoral", and that term evolved in homosexuality. I cannot find a spot in the Bible where it specifically points out homosexuality as wrong, and if it does let me know cause i am Christian. but its unfair. you can't help who you are attracted to. so obviously it was God who made you attracted to your own sex.

Yes, absolutely.

Sure, Marry who ever you like!

Not really.Its not for me. But if you adopt innocent children and thay grow in your enviroment how can they think foe themselves what is right for them

i cud, but they would all be contrived and rediculous. The gay life style is perfectly natural and if gay people wish to show there commitment to their partner via a ceremony like marriage thn tht is perfectly acceptable. I would argue it is not needed to show ones love, but it is ones free choice.

I saw a for real scientific study somewhere that said that children who grow up with same-sex parents tend to be more homophobic. I'm trying to find where I saw that, but I can't.

Because the next logical step is marriage to animals, robots, and inanimate objects...?

Without bringing yeast or flour into it, can you bake me a loaf of bread?. This can be broken into two separate questions. The first is Gay Marriage. the second is the "Gay lifestyle"..and for that No. because agreeing with another's lifestyle is subjective, based on morals which for most are based in their religion. That is like asking, "using only scientific fact and no opinion, tell me why a yellow rose is pretty?." Gay marriage is more like asking "using only scientific fact and no opinion, is it beneficial to put a yellow rose bush in a vegetable garden?" I will answer the first. Studies show without a doubt that chilren raised in a home with BOTH mom and dad, do better in every way to those children who are not. Her are some stats for you. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control] 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26] 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools] 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes [U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, ] 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide, Here are some more facts as to the odds of the following happening to children not raised with both parents, Mom AND Dad 6.6 times to become teen aged mothers (if they are girls, of course), 24.3 times more likely to run away, 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders, 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions, 10.8 times more likely to commit rape, 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school, 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager. The results are in. The last 30 years of social experimentation have produced failure in evry level when it comes to our children. The decline of the two-parent(Mom and Dad), married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children. So do we now , knowing what we know keep weakening marriage by laughing at Britney for her 5 day marriages, or allow no fault divorces, or introduce gay marriage into the mix, thus confusing our children more. No, I say we fix marriage as it was meant to be...Then there is always....... Telling the polygamist no, or the cousins no, all consenting adults they are!!!!

Ummm ill be basic here - its really gay and that puts a lot of people off what they're eating.............. so gay people. but unless ur beautiful which many of you arent and thats why ur gay, its not nice

I cannot, nor would I want to, do I truly understand why many people do (other than archaic superstitions).

From a biological point of view, homosexuality does not perpetuate the species. So, from Darwin's theory, "survival of the fittest", the gay lifestyle is doomed to extinction. This may become apparent after gays and lesbians no longer need to have heterosexual marriages (and children) to cover up their lifestyles, especially if homosexuality is genetic, as many are now claiming. The homosexual genetic code, if that theory is correct, would not be passed on since there would be no offspring.

No, because I'm not against gay relationships One of my best friends is bi

there is no reason...people say gay marriage is ruining marriage. but aren't people that get divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried...ruing marriage? gay people can only get married in a few states, so you know there aren't very many that are married.

Because it's "procreation" not "recreation". Or does that count as religous?

This question isn't worded correctly. The word "marriage" itself stems from the French "marrier" (which means to marry), which takes part of its root from the Latin word for Mary, the mother of Jesus. In my opinion, all free people are entitled to a civil union with someone they love regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. But, to me at least, the word "marriage" itself implies religion, so I would have to leave the option of performing gay marriages up to each individual church/religion.

There's nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle. Most gay people are very nice people. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether or not they're good people. As for gay marriage, I think the facts are pretty clear: A man can only get a woman pregnant, not another man. If two men were meant to be together, they'd be able to breed and make kids. This could only be the case if it were a "genetic" trait meant for the ongoing survival of the human race. And since it's not, gay marriage was clearly never meant to be.

There are plenty of non religious reasons, but I doubt (m)any of them are 'good' ( which is subjective). To me, in its most basic form, humans are not ready to openly accept a significant portion of society being gay ( and the resulting societal ramifications). We can argue forever with those that believe this, how is not 'right', or moral - but in the end, unless we can change their minds, it is futile. In other words, facts and reason are no match against traditional dogma.

Simple answer, Sex was made for procreation, nothing more. So being gay is worthless. If love is the reason for being gay then think of this, a person loves killing, people loves beasts, should those be right too? A guide line for relationships should be set, just as a guideline should be set on everything. Without guidelines you have chaos.

Marriage is not procreation. What people decide 'oh s/he looks like a good mate to bring children in the world' and get married then have sex? No, people fall in love and children take place afterward. Marriage takes place because two individuals want to commit completely to each other. The bondage of marriage is a sign of deep committed (most temporary I fear) love between two people and is the ultimate expression of that love *outside of the bedroom*. Anyway you slice it there is no logical reason to ban gay marriage. It teaches the children.... Nothing - YOU teach your children your moral codes... or you don't. Acceptance of Gay Marriage by society does not mean you or your kids have to accept it. No more than letting interracial marriages or the Muslims to practice (or Jew, or Christian or Witches). Adoption, two gays raising children - I'm sorry you worried about kids? The truth is that abuse of all sorts takes place more often with the biological parents than any other parenting source. The Truth is also known when it comes to the balance and tolerance within the adult child of two gay parents over the average bi gendered household. The truth being that the children raised by gays are less likely to enter into faulty relationships attempting to live up to an ideal of marriage that straights have foisted unsuccessfully to the tune of 50%. Gay Marriage will mean less failed straight marriages by closet cases who marry the opposite gender attempting to be 'normal' (an abused and over used meaningless word). It also means that fewer people will be out there spreading STDs - Gays are of the belief that monogamy is a sham simply because YOU don't allow them to marry who they love. Monogamy is really a fiction that is only supported by the concept of marriage - take marriage out of the picture and over 50% of straight people would not seek it. already 50% are not monogamous, how many are on their second marriage +.

wait. against it? no. no i can not. love is love, in any form. can you givve me some good reasons? (im not a jerk, im really curious.)

that was a response to the total bullshit answer provided, both times. there are no studies available on how homesexual relationships affect the children, this is because there has not been enough time for someone to have completely grown with homosexual parents being married. it hasn't been legal long enough for an offspring to have grown. lurking variable: no marriage. bias.

I suppose if you were a fundamentalist Darwinist you might argue that it's destroying the fabric of evolution.

Ummmm, if we let gay folks get married, then the next thing you know, folks are gonna want to allow polygamy or multiple spouses (spice?).

There aren't any. Not having marriage equality for a LEGAL STATUS given by the STATE is discrimination, pure and simple.

medical reasons. The lifestyle brings on many sicknesses.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/families/a/ParentStudy.htm Anybody can find studies.

AIDS and death.

No I can't. Wear a condom.

Nope.

I think 'with facts' it would be impossible to support any argument on this matter. There is plenty of evidence, but we are still stepping into unchartered territory with legaslative changes. All stats and information relating to this are relative. I don't personally have any issue with people making personal choices that don't effect others. However the issue that does concern me is there are children to consider and I ASSUME (maybe incorrectly) that reports would show that children are better off being raised by a member of each sex. That said, I'm sure there are many well balanced and well educated children raised by single sex parents, I'm just considering percentile differences and the accumulative effects from that. However I personally feel that you could argue by the same reasoning, possibly to a larger extent, that single parenting can have similar detrimental effects on raising children.

its extremely disturbing and why would you not want children of your own. ummm if everybody was gay there would be no kids and man kind would cease to exist. that just shows why homosexuality is wrong

[This is my response to XOXMSperfect, in which he stated to me, "A diety is not necessary to set morals. In the middle east they think its moral to cover their wives faces, and christians think it's moral to stone people to death (before jesus died). Morals are based on judgement of what is right and wrong, and we all have our own opinion on it. We don't need some silly book to tell us how to live our lives. Only a weak minded fool would need a book to tell them that killing is wrong."] I will show how you can't possibly believe what you just said. You said that a deity isn't necessary to set morals. How do you know that? In order to know that, you would have to know for certain that there is no deity and that the morals you now hold to were not put there by him. This is not something you could possibly know from empirical observation. If you think so, then show us how you know it. Secondly, you make a huge logical fallacy about how Muslims make their women cover up and how "Christians think it's moral to stone people (before Jesus died)". I have news for ya, no Christian existed before Jesus and those who followed him did not stone anybody. You are confusing the followers of the Christ with those in Judaism. However, stoning or putting someone to death would be justified if the law giver says that it is. Why? Because he has the right to enact the punishment that he sees fit for disobeying him. Since he is the Creator he has the right to decide what is done with his creation. The fallacy lies in the fact that those examples have nothing to do with if a deity is necessary to set morals, nothing at all! This is a play on people's emotions (better known as "appeal to emotion") since most would view those things you mentioned as being "bad" in our society, but "how we feel about something" has no bearing on if a deity exists or if a deity is necessary to set morals. Next you say, "Morals are based on judgement of what is right and wrong, and we all have our own opinion on it." I'm confused by your statements. Are morals "based" on a judgement of what is right or wrong, or are morals "actually" what are right or wrong? If they are based on something, then what are they themselves? Also, how do you know your statement about morals being based on "judgement" is true? How do you test it? How do you know that "we all have our own opinion on it"? You make many 'absolute' assertions that you could never actually know for certain in your worldview. Would you say that "I determine what is moral for me"? If so, then there really is no "right" or "wrong" but merely just opinion. If those things are relative, then I shouldn't be punished for something I may not believe is evil. Infact, any example "you" give of "evil" or "wrong" would also be an example of "good" or "right" because it's merely opinion. This leads to complete absurdity and chaos. If I don't determine what is moral myself, then who does and why should I have to abide by their morals? If it is by some other means (naturalistic or something else), then please state it and how you could know that kind of information through the senses. Basically, how could we test whatever method you give? Finally we get to my favorite ad hominem attack of the day which is, "Only a weak minded fool would need a book to tell them that killing is wrong." What exactly is a "weak minded fool"? Can there be a "strong minded fool"? If so or if not, how do you know that such a thing exists or does not exist. IF you follow your logic then a weak minded fool is a strong minded fool or not even a fool at all since anything can be anything or not anything depending on whose "opinion" it is. How do you know that killing is wrong? Is it merely your opinion? If so, then it really can be "right" or "wrong" depending on each individuals opinion. I am glad you think that killing is wrong, but do you think that it is absolutely wrong? Is there ever a time when it isn't? If so, then why is it "wrong" the other times and not in this particular case? Since you made that statment, I will assume you are consistent and are against war, abortion, smoking, alcoholism, gluttony, etc... since all will lead to death? BTW, the Scriptures say that "murder" is wrong, not "killing". Murder usually has to do with malice or is thought out. You can kill someone and it be an accident but you don't murder someone on accident! Onto the heart of the matter, which really is about why I need to listen to some "book". Here is the thing, you don't need it for basic natural laws like stealing, murder, lying, etc... You know why? Because you have God's law in your heart. It's called a "conscience" (meaning with knowledge). How do you account for the "conscience" or do you think no one has one? If you do have one, what evidence do you have for its existence? Can I touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or feel it? If you don't think anyone has one, then how do you know this? You would have to know what it is and then look for it in each and every person to say that no one has one. We need this "book" because this is the manual our Creator has given to us for us to live a moral and clean life. He would know what is best since he not only created us, but also created the means necessary for our existence. Due to this, he provides the standard of what is right and wrong as he himself would have the right to set the standard. He uses the Bible to not only convey morals, but also to answer lifes questions about why we are here, why do we age and die, what happens when we die, what will happen in the future, etc... It is our selfishness and pride that says "I don't need anyone to tell me what or what not to do". If everyone followed that logic then they would never discipline their children since by doing so you make yourself a hypocrite! I apologize for the long post but these things need to be discussed in depth. There is much more I could say, but I will leave it for your response.

gay lifestyle??? how about aids? And don't pretend it's not more common in the gay areana, because it IS.

No. I cannot, most of the arguments (if not all of them) against gay marriage have a religious origin.

When Sean Penn received the Academy Award for "Milk", what he said about our grandchildren shaming us for voting for Prop 8, still resonates true. Its the obvious next step of the evolution of a truely tolerant America of not only sex, race and belief. In a way all Americans, gay or straight, should be shamed for shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. We actually took away a constitutional right from our own people, which has never been done in the history of America.