Story comments - Reporter-Times.com/MD-Times.com

Hot topics » Obituaries - May 23, 2013 Wilson family reunion is Ju ... Amy Hanna to perform at Apo ...

Is marriage amendment really necessary?

read more recent story comments Reader comments

Liberty
Monday, February 14, 2011: 12:41 pm
More from Liberty

Is marriage amendment really necessary?

Yes,

Married couple receive tax breaks and insurance premium benefits that single people don't have and for a good reason.

A homosexual legal marriage put an un-due and unwarranted burden on the taxpayers and their insurance premiums that give preferential financial benefits to cover the extra cost of Pro-creating. To give these incentives meant for those who need them to someone just because they enjoy certain sex-acts causes the taxes and insurance premium to go up on the families who need this money most for having and raising families. That isn't fair nor needed because those wanting marriage based on the thrill of certain and particular sex act don't have the same needs and while they also cost society for the medical cost associated with the severe damage caused by anal sex. Our tax dollars already pay for that and the mental issues that's caused by choosing this unhealthy lifestyle.

The right of a society first and foremost to creat rules ment to sustain itself is both right and fair. Any promotion of a system that not only burdens society with it special needed healthcare expenses but has no possibility of sustaining itself should not place any burden of taxes or insurance cost onto those who contribute to sustaining the society.

To give any incentives to a system that, in and of itself, would eliminate the society as a whole is not only illogical but must be considered most threatening to the society existence as a whole.

This would be an atheist logical analysis of this matter.

For those of us who follow Christ and His Commands, we may have other opinions and voting requirements to follow.

Arse
Monday, February 14, 2011: 6:48 pm
More from Arse

Civil Union should be the "legal" definition for two people, regardless of gender, that want to be "legally" joined. This would be the status when a couple obtains the government's blessing in the form of a license, thereby entitling said couple to whatever government regulated benefits or penalties.

Marriage should refer to one's own personal spiritual/religious recognition of that "legal" union.

Currently, "marriage" is voluntary, but a requirement if one wishes to gain access to certain government controlled programs & benefits. In the same breath, we deny a certain portion of our society equal access to those same programs & benefits. That is inherenlty wrong.

Either remove all the perks that come along with marriage in it's current definition, or open up the process so every citizen can benefit from it.

I'd guess 99.9% of those opposed to same-sex marriage are so due to religious beliefs and that discrimination has no place in determining who receives government benefits.

Homosexuality is a sin by my personal religion. But no greater sin than lying, stealing, adultery, or speeding and I don't see anyone trying to keep those heathens from tying the knot.

David
Monday, February 14, 2011: 7:12 pm
More from David

Liberty said:
To give these incentives meant for those who need them to someone just because they enjoy certain sex-acts causes the taxes and insurance premium to go up on the families who need this money most for having and raising families. That isn't fair nor needed because those wanting marriage based on the thrill of certain and particular sex act don't have the same needs and while they also cost society for the medical cost associated with the severe damage caused by anal sex.

Is your marriage defined only by the sex you have? Is the marriage of all heterosexual couples defined only by their sex lives? No.

Why would you assume that the relationship of all homosexuals is defined only by their sex lives? That's quite an ignorant assumption to make. Just like heterosexual couples, homosexuals are involved in loving, caring relationships based on much more than sex.

Marriage, as viewed by the government, is a civil institution. It offers benefits to married couples that unmarried couples do not have. There are no requirements made that heterosexual couples who marry procreate, many do not. Some choose to adopt, just as many homosexual couples do. I have yet to hear a valid LEGAL argument against allowing homosexuals to marry. Not doing so is nothing more than government sponsored discrimination.

You have your views, based on religion, that tell you it is wrong. You're entitled to those views. If you wish to define your marriage based on your religious views, that's your choice - for many people, their marriage has religious significance. It's not a requirement. Many homosexuals are married (where legal) in churches in religious ceremonies, others are not - same for heterosexual couples. Our government does not dictate any religion (or a lack thereof) over another.

You made a statement about homosexuality being a "mental illness". I think I'll take the word of organizations such as the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, among others, who quite clearly state homosexuality is not a mental illness.

For those who claim allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage, I feel sorry for you. It must be horrible to be in a marriage that is so shallow and unstable that what two complete strangers do can reduce the significance of your marriage. In a time where people marry and divorce almost as often as they change clothes, where people marry for trivial things such as citizenship, money, benefits, etc., instead of for love, I think it's safe to say that marriage, when viewed as a collective whole, is not a sanctified institution. On the scale of the individual or couple, maybe, but not as a whole.

For those who argue that it goes against tradition, look back at what's happened in the history of marriage. In most cases, marriages are no longer arranged. Women are no longer considered the property of men, they have equal rights in a relationship. Interracial marriages are allowed. It seems to me the institution of marriage is constantly changing and evolving for the better.

It all comes down to something very simple: If you don't like gay marriage, THEN DON'T GET ONE! Everyone is entitled to their views as an individual, but passing an amendment to the constitution (state or federal) to legalize discrimination is wrong.

Have your views, it's your choice. Don't help the government force them on others.

A Hoosier
Monday, February 14, 2011: 8:11 pm
More from A Hoosier

Keep religion out of legislation. Same sex couples should have equal right to the pursuit of happiness.

Sunny
Monday, February 14, 2011: 9:52 pm
More from Sunny

Hoosier,

If you look at history, it would show that politics and religion are hopelessly intertwined. The U.S.S.R. tried it and it that failed experiment wasn't exactly the wave of the future.

I believe what you want to happen, will happen when the Jews forgive Hitler.

5 comments found