Vermont - Gay Marriage - Is it Right?

Grab some Maple Syrup, a Vermont Teddy Bear, and maybe marry another man. Yes, Vermont has it all folks.

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override

Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, beyond the moral implications regarding gay marriage, I think it is simply unnatural, and purely indulgent to sexual appetites. Sex can be, and is a source of great pleasure. Pleasure aside, sex is also the only natural means of procreation. Biologically a man and a woman need each other to have children. Biologically men and women’s sexual organs fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. In other words, there is real biological need of copulation between a man and a woman. Biologically it makes sense for a man and a woman to marry, and mate for life; multiplying, and raising children together.

In a homosexual relationship, there is no biological function. Sex between two people of the same sex is purely physical and emotional, it fulfills no greater purpose, and leads to nothing but bonding between the two, and the release of sexual energy. Because there is no greater biological purpose, there is no need for marriage for a homosexual couple; besides perhaps insurance, and inheritance, which could be achieved through a legal contract, and wouldn’t really require marriage.

When marriage becomes solely about desire, passion, and lust, it loses it’s connection to it’s true purpose, creating future generations. This attack on marriage is just another way the liberals are trying to destroy the family, and redirect the emphasis from the family, to individual freedoms. This is no different than the debate on abortion, or divorce. I believe the family must be defended at all costs, as it is the single greatest strength a child can have, as it prepares to face the struggles of the future.

Back to Vermont. "...The bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws." This whole issue in Vermont isn't about equal rights, as there are no additional rights granted. It is about marriage, and how it should be defined. And again I'll state, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.


Joey said...

Exactly why adoption is an option. To create future generations, in a loving home, truly married.

"The bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws."

Oh, but yes-it-does. Hospital visitation, wills, estates, medical power-of-attorney, etc.. All these things that can be done, even if it's outside of marriage. It's just outside of marriage, they are challenged. It does quite a bit.

Joey said...

"When marriage becomes solely about desire, passion, and lust, it loses it’s connection to it’s true purpose, creating future generations."

Exactly why many children in up for adoption, people getting married in Vegas, getting married when they don't love, just because someone got pregnant.

Vermont has chosen to defend marriage, by encouraging people who love to get married, instead of people who just have babies who don't love each other, cause harm to the children, end up divorced, and create a whirlwind of pain for the child. Go Vermont!

Jack said...

what a great day for Vermont and for America! I feel proud to be an American--and I'm Republican! Less concern about who your God is and more concern about your civil rights and we'll all be much better off. Thanks to "Notoriously Conservative" for posting this great update.

Notoriously Conservative said...

"Less concern about who your God is and more concern about your civil rights and we'll all be much better off."

I think that says more than I possibly could (eye roll). You are welcome for the update.

Kris said...

Very good article. I agree with you. I don't want to step on anyones civil rights, and I don't believe I am with my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Michael R Addams said...

The gay citizens of Vermont already had the exact same rights as everyone else. I couldn't have married a man either. But then again... I have a wife that I love and have children with, as God intended. But why bring God into this? After all, he has no place in America... even though about 80% of Americans believe in God.

Chappy said...

You know the worst part of this is that the courts will soon expand the definition of marriage to include, in this order:
1. Incest: the ability to marry one's close relatives, including your own sons and daughters.
2. Polygamy: the ability to marry multiple women.
3. Bestiality: the ability to marry a an animal, or "non" homo-sapien.

The first response to this is typically, "what? You're crazy! There's no way we'd ever expand our definition to include such things!" On the other hand, we (as a society) never discussed gay marriage until just a few years ago, and it was considered illegal when our parents grew up. All it takes is for a group to come forward and claim they don't have rights, a few years for it to sink in, and PRESTO you get incestual marriage, polygamy, and bestiality.

From a social policy standpoint incest, after legalizing gay marriage, is a shoe-in. One of the main reasons against incest is that the children born from incestual relationships are more prone to birth defects, and that it is a taboo (similar to gay marriage). Now, imagine two gay brothers who love eachother dearly and who want to get married. In most states they would be unable because of the gay marriage ban AND the incestual marriage ban. If gay marriage is legalized then all that impedes them is the incestual marriage ban. The argument against incest that it causes birth defects is irrelevant for obvious reasons, and all that is left is the social taboo. Brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters who love eachother sexually will all cry out with one voice that their rights are being violated and that the laws should protect them equally as they do hetero and homo sexual couples. Similar reasoning would apply as you expand the definition of marriage from incest to polygamy, and to bestiality. Everyone demands equal protection, but no one understands the reprecussions of changing the laws.

Trust me, when you put a crack in the dam the whole thing breaks apart. When you expand the definition of marriage the government will continue to expand it to include any possible variation concocted in the minds of the immoral and evil people of the United States.

That's why I say leave it to the people, not the courts. The people will decide how far it goes, not the courts. The people will decide what the definition of marriage is, not the courts.

Vince said...

Leave it to Vermont and Iowa to be the most progressive states in the nation, shame on us here in California for passing Prop 9. Whether you call it Gay Marriage or Civil Union, the basic premise is that every person should have equal rights. It’s good to see that some states are progressing, I made a list on my site of the states I think will legalize Gay Marriage first:

Chappy said...

Did you read my post above? What do you think about "progressing" ultimately to something like bestiality? Do you think that those people's rights should be honored? They're not hurting anybody. They're an under represented minority in our society, should all rights be honored if all that is holding our society back is some social taboo associated with morality? What do you think because these are real issues that will be smacking us in the face if we alter the definition of marriage.

Yaspar said...

Yo, Vinnie, the PEOPLE of Vermont, California, Massachusets, Iowa, and everywhere else have overwhelmongly rejected "gay" marriage. It's the activist courts that have tried to impose this perversion on those states. Stop trying to impose your trashy lifestyle on everyone else!

Anonymous said...

"Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage" Marriage the Consummated union between a man & a woman. So what is a Gay Consummated union between a man & a woman? Makes no sense to me.As far as I can tell words don't mean anything in particular if your liberal.

Nifty Nick said...

Maybe they think words are too "old fashioned."

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!