Just want to share with everyone this most recent research finding:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06112905.html

Here are two findings from this research:

- Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships — particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

- Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage “were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father.”

The result of – Men who marry homosexually are more likely to have been raised in a family with unstable parental relationships — particularly, absent or unknown fathers and divorced parents.

- Findings on women who marry homosexually were less pronounced, but were still associated with a childhood marked by a broken family. The rates of same-sex marriage “were elevated among women who experienced maternal death during adolescence, women with short duration of parental marriage, and women with long duration of mother-absent cohabitation with father.”

We could only pray that God could heal all these broken hearts from so many broken families here in the States.

“What is impossible with men is possible with God.” – Luke 18:27

Do you not believe that this is an outright attempt to co-mingle Church & State? This country was founded on a principal of keeping Church & State separate! I think it is high time that American politicians divorce themselves from religion and work towards a common good for our citizens. Judge not, that ye be not judged. [Matthew 7:1] People are so concerned with Religious Values that they have become the hypocrites spoken of by Jesus: This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me [Matthew 15:8]Do we help or better yet, do our politicians look at the weak, the poor, the hungry, the sick? How can they when they are far too busy creating laws that judge others?

All available studies from around the world and here in the U.S., give ample evidence that redefining marriage is a huge social experiment that will be detrimental to America’s society.

It’s astonishing that we have come to a time where people don’t actually know what marriage means.

The only studies with data that support homosexual “marriage” are done by homosexuals and their supporters and are all flawed studies.

On the other hand, former supporters of homosexual “marriage” have concluded from their own studies, and that of many others, that advocating homesexuality is unhealthy mentally, physically, and spiritually. Tolerating is one thing. Advocating is another.

I am fortunate. 2/3 of my homosexual friends don’t advocate it and think that homosexual advocates are off the wall.

Writing discrimination into the constitution is abominable.

Surely we are better than that.

How is it discrimination? Homosexuality is unnatural and preverted…It is an abomination against God and this great nation…

The law doesn’t recognize God.
And before you freak out, remember: it doesn’t recognize Yahweh, or Buddha, or Allah either. Think about it.

I can not beleive all this that I read! Are we hypocriticals or what? We have been a country that discriminated for centuries. Look at civil rights movement, womens equality and all that. Now we propose a bill to discriminate against homosexuality! IT’S INSANE! When is enough, enough! Let the GLBT community have their rights, just like any human being should. We are quick to preach to others, specially foreign nations but look at us hypocriticals. It’s a shame!

Discrimination is based on how a person is born…Race, gender, national origin…Homosexuality is chosen just like a man who murders or molest children…And no, your are not born with it…Too many have turn from homosexuality and live normal lives…Don’t cheapen the african Americian fight for Civil Rights by saying its the same as Homosexuality because it’s not.

wow. you are whack. i can’t believe you compare my life and consensual partnerships to murderers or child molestation.

Most of my homosexual friends are not christian. So I have to assume that most homosexuals are not christian either. I may be wrong in thinking this, but it comes from my experience. The question I have is, why would someone who does not believe in God want to enter into a union before Him and blessed by Him. My friends want the same tax breaks and the same titles as married people, and I do not see a problem with some kind of civil union between people of the same sex to achieve that recognition. I believe Christ wanted us to teach people, He wanted us to show them the way to our Father, and He wants us to let people make their own decisions. If people of the same sex feel compelled to be homosexual for whatever reason, it is not our place to judge them. Let them have the tax breaks. Let them call each other husband or wife. Let God judge them.

I applaud your relative open-mindedness.

However, I’ve thought about it, and I don’t think the “civil-union” solution is valid. Marriage IS a civil union which can, in addition, be a religious union. Basically, the government considers a church wedding an acceptable substitute for a civil wedding.

With the logic you are suggesting, anyone who didn’t get married in a (Christian) church— that is, anyone who didn’t “enter into a union before [God]”— could not be called “married.” But of course people get married in civil offices all the time. For example, interfaith couples may choose not to have a church wedding (or even to have two church weddings!)

Marriage is a Religious Act, and as such should not be legally recognized by the government.

Come on!
Get off the hypocrite thing. That gets old. By even using Matthew 7:1(Judge not, that ye be not judged)in your context you are doing exactly what your saying not to do.
As far as Matthew 15:8 goes, read the next verse then understand the context. Jesus was rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for practicing the “traditions of man” and pretending it was from God. God is clearly against homosexual relationships. Homosexuality is a tradition of a fallen sinful man, but we are all guilty of sin. Sin is sin, there are no “degrees” of sin. Jesus Christ said “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
I love my neighbor no matter his color, gender or orientation and regardless of the fact that he is a sinner because we all are sinners. However, we shouldn’t go around condoning things that God dislikes.
So get off the hypocrite thing and it’s not discrimination because the same rules apply to everyone regardless of race, gender or orientation.
Blessings.

You said: “We shouldn’t go around condoning things that God dislikes.”
I wonder: Whose God? What if it’s not your God? Do you want Mormon, or Hindi “rules” driving the Constitution?

Hindu, not Hindi. Hindi is a language, Hindu is the religion. Good valid point tho. Too bad it never gets through the skulls of people who would like to collapse the government with one, of many, religious expressions.

Are they insane? I’m not even gay and this offends and frightens me. A marriage license is a civil thing and should be available to everyone. Churches don’t have to honor the license, and nobody better even think of forcing them to (I’d be against that too). God may not like homosexuality, but unfortunately, the Constitution cannot care about that. I’m sorry, the government cannot discriminate.

What next? I don’t like serial divorce-remarriage-divorce, but does it make sense to adjust the definition of marriage to specify only previously unmarried people? Maybe we should adjust the definition to specify only virgins? Or only Protestants? Or Baptists? Or…?

Be careful what you wish for. Next thing you know, it’ll be YOUR rights being defined out of the Constitution. Or more importantly (to me) MY rights. Your kids might grow up in America where THEY can’t get married because… fill in the blank.

another fantastic point!

Marriage as defined in this bill is only a legal definition and NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE. Any religious arguments against gay marriage are invalid from a legal standpoint. The only arguments that can be made are ones that speak from a purely legal standpoint, or we risk violating the separation of church and state. Besides the fact that not all religions have a problem with gay marriage (mine does not, nor gay relationships of any kind).

In regards to the research posted above, that has no bearing on whether gays should be allowed to be married or not. It fails to indicate causality, and besides has no bearing on this argument. Please refrain from using erroneous or unrelated material to support your side. It only harms your credibility.

I find no compelling reason for the government to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they wish, provided they can sign a marriage contract and have proper legal standing (ie. are an adult and human). I see no reason to deny gay marriage, bigamy, or any number of other relationships provided it is all done by consenting adults.

As a corollary, I also find good reason for allowing these types of marriages. There are many rights couples are given in regards to the continuance of wills, hospital visitation, and the like, that would be denied to the partners of gay, bigamous, etc. couples that can and often do result in suffering and unhappiness for the involved parties. I believe the government has a vested interest, and in fact a duty to maintain and provide for the marriage rights of all couples, no matter the gender of persons involved.

I thank you for reading this and hope that you will give it the full consideration it merits,
Thank you.

If we don’t add a definition to marriage what is to prevent it from being expanded to include more than 2 people. How about age of consent restriction? The list can go on and on as to how we can “expand” the traditional definition of marriage to encompass anything we as individuals would like to. The point is we need a definite definition that will not be subject to change without a consensus of our population agreeing to it.

I see nothing wrong with same sex marriage.. BTW a person doesnt need a Church to get married.. The christian religion did not start the marriage, when in many history the ones who gets divorce the most are Christian hypocritics of USA. The Consitution Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights

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.

And since many of these GLBT people are Americans, these church hypocritics needs to learn the Bill of rights, cause this is going against the separation of church and state and well maybe a new law needs to be passed and enforced that all churches who trys to pass a law based on their religion that destroys the right of other americans their tax exempt needs to be remove and their bible needs to be abolished for spreading HATE SPEECH.

The second that we as a country establish a second class marriage intended for gay people, I will divorce my husband and remarry him in a civil union! Give me a break!

Personally I do not believe the government has any business getting involved with this issue. Whoever or whatever a person wishes to marry is personal, not governmental. To allow the government to legislate how to conduct our personal lives is a dangerous step in the direction of authoritarianism.