So gay marriage may be legalized in michigan?

[Who Knows]

And well.... though I have voted against this a few years back, it seems that this rising issue is once again at debate and apparently soon to be. And i mean i get it, they're human and deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect as any person. they deserve all the legal rights that I as a heterosexual man enjoy...not because of sexual preferences....but simply because they are human beings. But why on God's earth are people trying to redefine what "marriage" is. And why is it that i'm constantly hearing both in the media and in person that "this is normal"? I mean no disrespect to anyone that is homosexual, i dont. but in what way did nature design for a thriving species to propagate the same sex? we all know that natural selection (as some beleive) chose the species that is most likely to survive and thus its gene pool is carried into future generations....but same sex negates this....naturally. two males nor two females are not able to "natually" reproduce and carry on their genes. its "naturally" impossible. but at any rate i'm not here to debate the morality nor immorality of homosexuality....but my point is this... at what point do we as a society finally put our foot down and stand up for some of the things we beleive to be dear to us? although divorce is really high in this country and so on... there are still some of us that up hold marriage to be sacred and dear and a beautiful union between ONE man and ONE woman. a covenant with God.
i respectfully disagree Elliot. Marriage is more than that...because if it werent than gays would fight for equal civil rights... but thats not the underlying reason for this big debate is it? They want the whole shebang.
And its that kind of thinking Suzee that makes the divorce in this country between hetero couples so high... the romance has been completely taken out of marriage and people now see it as "legality" or a "legal union"... but as i said before its more than that. If it werent so, than gays wouldnt be fighting so hard for it. I too respect your opinion as I strongly disagree.
Congrats Suzee on 45 years. And you're right, divorce has been high for decades in this country....but why is that? because people stopped seeing "marriage" as something special. 45 years or more ago, when your husband proposed to you, you werent thinking "oh I'm so excited to be your legal partner/ roommate!" were you? No you were excited to become something more to him... you were elated to be an extension of him. and its THAT which marriage provides. its not just "legal jargon"

[Elliot]

Marriage is a legal institution, not a religious one. Try again.

[melodicoatmeal649]

I will remain in the minority opinion when it comes to homosexual marriage. I won't think it's proper ever in my simple little mind.

[Jimmy]

the USSC has already ruled that the "full faith and credit clause" negates any state attempt to allow gay marriage

[Stuart]

tea party congressperson busted with cocaine. family values

[Suzee]

A marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults..A license is issued by the state. Neither God nor religion have anything legally to do with it.. I think that too many people are hung up on the word 'marriage'. It is a legal term.. I agree that neither two men nor two women can reproduce, but a gay woman is just a capable of conceiving and giving birth as a straight woman is.. A gay man produces sperm and can contribute to conceiving a child.. Marriage between two consenting adults is not just about having children.. It is about love and wanting to be together..


You are certainly entited to your opinion and many people agree with you.. but life moves forward.

I think that a gay couple be allowed to use the word 'marriage'. Civil rights just doesn't cover enough to make a gay union the same as a 'marriage'.

Divorce in this country has been high for decades.. long before gays were out of the closet.. I have been married for 45 years and we still have plenty of romance, but marriage is a legal contract.. Try and see how legal a religous marriage is without the license from the state..

[Jack]

Detroit already f@cked itself....big blue does it seemingly every year now...you guys should be getting used to getting bent over and f@cked in the out hole!

[Professor Freedom]

As many people understand it, marriage is an institution with a procreative and familial purpose: it serves both as a means to organize of familial life and to control birth. This is reminiscent of the familial ideal-type of the American family of the early 20th century. The man works, the woman cares for the household and both are, of course, married and either have or plan to have children. It is not to say that the argument rests on such a radically conservative ideal-type; it's rather a comment meant to contextualize the idea in the course of our history.

As you have put it -- and as many others have put it -- the legal concession of homosexual marriage condones a different view of marriage: homosexual marriage only makes sense once you detach it from the familial purpose and once you understand the couple as more of a form of companionship. The argument goes that taking that step legally threatens marriage because then marriage would become something entirely different. In at least its great lines, this argument is perfectly correct. Indeed, legalizing homosexual marriage constitutes a political and legal endorsement of a new ideal-type of couple.

However, you likely noted the surprise of a substantial number of people when you warned them that they are about to change the institution of marriage. If they talk strictly about the legal existence of heterosexual marriage as an institution, it is not out of ignorance. It reflects their genuine beliefs: in their view, there is no such thing a social institution of heterosexual marriage -- and, within some groups of people, they are perfectly right to say so. Furthermore, other people view your comment as grounded in religion when it is not a logical necessity. Furedi makes the same argument with even more subtlety without invoking religion and while being a self-proclaimed atheist. I'll go a step beyond Furedi, however, and I'll try to interpret this insistence on associating a religious doctrine -- or indeed sometimes a political doctrine -- with this position regarding gay marriage. I believe that this falls in line with the previous observation about their surprise: they insist on making this link because, in their view, marriage as become sufficiently malleable to be molded to fit personal, indeed individual, aspirations and preferences.

In your view, the solution is for companions to live as companions and for married couples to live as married couples -- they are both distinct as a matter of concept and not simply as a matter of law. However, that distinction is no longer held by a majority of people in North America -- or at least so do I think. This hypothesis puts us in a rather different position when we proceed with an argument such as yours. If indeed a substantially large proportion of the population views marriage as a form of companionship even before the government acts, the legal change is not genuinely a threat: it would be the consecration of something that became a fact of existence for most people.

This is one thing that we can reply to your argument. Another one involves the proper role of government: admit hypothetically that the government could do something about it and that the outcome of this intervention would be highly preferable. I must concede that, in many ways, going beyond the simple fulfillment of our short-lived desires might be something worthy of our consideration, especially in the light of our contemporary incompetence in defining a purpose for our lives. Is it the State's role to provide people with a purpose, or indeed with any of the means to ensure everyone a chance to succeed in such a quest?

Personally, I would grant this question a conditional yes. But most people who root for a traditional conception of marriage cannot say the same without contradicting everything they believe about politics. How can someone oppose taxation on the grounds of its coercive nature when they're about to prevent some people from being recognized as legally wed by the use of law? Of course, this is not necessarily your position, but regardless of your thoughts, you have to talk about the appropriate role of the State before you claim that it is your duty to legally prohibit certain forms of marriage.