• Meet The Gay Muslims Living In Straight Marriages
  • Do Gay Marriages Increase Abortion Rates? | HuffPost
  • Same-Sex Marriage: Supreme Court Rules in Favor, …

Look for Australia, Italy and Germany to follow America's move on Friday to legalize gay marriage. And maybe Colombia, too.

Gay British Asians being 'forced into heterosexual marriages'

Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All …

Census confirms more data problems in sorting out the number of U.S. gay marriages. By D’Vera Cohn
Next, rig the terms. So as not to dignify homosexual love with even the recognition that it is love, the writer calls it “friendship.” The next bit of argument is then easy: we can’t as a society go around giving the status of marriage to any two or three or ten people who get along well enough to live together in the same house.

Gay Marriage in Latin America - Countries with Same …

The first of two huge Supreme Court cases on gay marriage may be heading for a partial victory for supporters of the movement.
Gay marriage wasn't even a topic of discussion in Miami when I was growing up there in the 1980s. Or in the 1990s. Or really, much of the 2000s. I saw friends struggle telling their Hispanic parents that they were gay. With so much historic animosity toward homosexuality and such intense religious fervor in that community, simply raising the issue around Hispanics usually led to a heated, one-sided argument.

 

Voices: Parts of Latin America ahead of U.S. on gay marriage

This article also appeared in print, under the headline
So who is to say the above relationships cannot be included in the forum of the right for two people to get married based purely on loving each other? The promoters of gay marriage (hich includes both gay and straight people, as we all are aware of)? What right do they have to dispute the validity of the very credo that drives them and is the bases for their own fight for their right to enjoy the fruits of the institution of marriage? The answer is 'none'.
I am not up on the laws and benefits of today's 'Civil Union' laws. I do believe, if not already, they should match the rights given to those heterosexual whom are married to each other. To not promote this would be unfair. And with that I add, a marriage should be confined to the union between a man and a woman, exclusively, if not for the dominant religious view, but to prevent the setting a kind of social chaotic precedence where "perverted" has been removed from every dictionary in the world and anything, and I mean anything goes. It is the proverbial Pandora's Box.

I believe that in time, we will recognize gay marriage as a divine manifestation of Christian love rather than as an “ontological” threat.
Supporters of gay marriage seek societal ratification of their monogamous sexual relationships, including the ability to adopt and obtain parental rights for the non-related partner for children brought into the relationship. In a way, supporters of gay marriage agree with his argument – that marriage is essential for procreation. Procreation is not just about sex, it is about creating families for the rearing of children. Gay couples need the same kinds of protection as straight couples in this regard. Marriage and monogamy are also essential for gay and straight couples to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Society has a role in public health, part of which is the establishment of marriage. The alternative to sanctioning marriage is the promotion of promiscuity. Denying marriage sends the message that gay promiscuity is acceptable. Neither the state nor the church should send this message. The Church no longer takes the position that being homosexual is disordered, as it cannot as the evidence mounts that homosexuals are created that way, just as light skinned people are created with a lack of melanin. It also teaches that sexuality is a gift of God. It is a short logical step to conclude that homosexuals do not sin when they use this gift in the way that God meant them to. Only by accepting gay sexual identity and sexuality can we then give them the benefits of the Church’s wisdom on monogamy and so many other things. If the Church does not trust homosexuals when they inform it on the conditions of their sexuality, how can it insist that they trust the Church in matters of salvation?


The Threat of Same-Sex Marriage | America Magazine

Supporters of gay marriage seek societal ratification of their monogamous sexual relationships, including the ability to adopt and obtain parental rights for the non-related partner for children brought into the relationship. In a way, supporters of gay marriage agree with his argument – that marriage is essential for procreation. Procreation is not just about sex, it is about creating families for the rearing of children. Gay couples need the same kinds of protection as straight couples in this regard. Marriage and monogamy are also essential for gay and straight couples to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Society has a role in public health, part of which is the establishment of marriage. The alternative to sanctioning marriage is the promotion of promiscuity. Denying marriage sends the message that gay promiscuity is acceptable. Neither the state nor the church should send this message. The Church no longer takes the position that being homosexual is disordered, as it cannot as the evidence mounts that homosexuals are created that way, just as light skinned people are created with a lack of melanin. It also teaches that sexuality is a gift of God. It is a short logical step to conclude that homosexuals do not sin when they use this gift in the way that God meant them to. Only by accepting gay sexual identity and sexuality can we then give them the benefits of the Church’s wisdom on monogamy and so many other things. If the Church does not trust homosexuals when they inform it on the conditions of their sexuality, how can it insist that they trust the Church in matters of salvation?

Gay Marriage US Supreme Court Ruling: TV Shows …

While I could substantiate my claims in numberous ways, one quite obvious candidate seems telling enough because of its centrality to the case made in the article. Msgr. Sokolowski's article begins by pitting 'those' for and against legalization of gay marriage. Those for, he argues, claim that the abiding issue is "personal commitment and love." This line is quoted throughout the article, and its source is a letter in The Wall Street Journal. In what way should gay and lesbian people, especially the many thoughtful gay Catholics, feel that their best articulation of the case has been heard when 'those' who support legalization of gay marriage are represented wholly by an anonomous letter to a newspaper?