Forget Your Morals: Why the Gov't Cannot Allow Gay Marriages

I know there are already many topics on this, but I want a serious discussion. PLEASE, PLEASE, Please do not give me your moral opinion about gay marriages being wrong for society. I do not want to hear them, there are other threads you can discuss that in. I would like to know the REAL negatives to allowing SAME SEX Marriage and btw I support equality of all but I think there are additional issues involved.

Why The USA govt cannot allow Gay Marriages to be Legal.

If Gay marriage becomes legal, there would be rights given unto same sex couples that will affect policies of this which would threaten the security of this country.

any American man/woman could marry any other man/woman from another country and basically give them entry and citizenship to the United States.

just think of all the possibilities of terrorist and criminal activities that could occur from this. (hope I don't need to give examples)

I am sure there are many additional intelligent reasons as how the stability of this society could be affected negatively by allowing these same sex unions.
I don't know about the tax benefits, maybe someone can clarify if the govt would gain or lose money in the allowance of the same sex marriages?

If Gay marriage becomes legal, there would be rights given unto same sex couples that will affect policies of this which would threaten the security of this country.

any American man/woman could marry any other man/woman from another country and basically give them entry and citizenship to the United States.
just think of all the possibilities of terrorist and criminal activities that could occur from this. (hope I don't need to give examples)

...what is to stop someone from doing that now with hetereosexual marriages? Any man could marry a woman from another country and any woman can marry a man from another country...I don't get why allowing homosexual marriages would lead to terrorism. And I think (not 100% sure) that marrying doesn't give someone immediate citizenship.

I am sure there are many additional intelligent reasons as how the stability of this society could be affected negatively by allowing these same sex unions.
I don't know about the tax benefits, maybe someone can clarify if the govt would gain or lose money in the allowance of the same sex marriages?

The benefits provided by marriage are paid for by the taxes. Homosexuals do pay/would pay those same marriage taxes, so the amount of money would scale evenly. No problem here.

they call them unions instead of marriage because marriage is defined as something between a man and a woman

Originally posted by Cutwolf
And I think (not 100% sure) that marrying doesn't give someone immediate citizenship.

it doesn't. you have to be married a certain amount of time before the spouse gets full citizenship. if the INS thinks there's some reason to be suspicious about your marriage (say, you married a Russian mail-order bride), they can even check in on you every so often to make sure you're actually living as a married couple.

no citizenship isn't given immediately, there is a procedure and what makes you think terrorist don't make long term plans??

Currently, John the terrorist would have to convince some female to take the chance, probably have to pay her, and get her to marry Bob the terrorist living in Canada, to get him legally into this country in order for them to do whatever.

if same sex marriages are allowed, John the terrorist could marry Bob the terrorist in Canada and legally get him into this country.

do not be so close minded to try to think it's only going to be arab looking terrorists and the usa would catch on it, think of the lawsuits that will follow if same sex marriages were legal and the country discriminated against one couple because they are arab looking.

death tax...a single person can leave his money to whomever he chooses, however that money is more heavily taxed, than that of a married person leaving it his or her spouse.

Most people can't digest the fact of allowing the word 'marry' apply to gays, but what if we allow them to get only legal rights.

Most of them want legal rights, if the gov't gives them that in the name of 'civil union' rather than marriage, this won't be such a big deal.

Why this is such a big deal? Bush's plan of winning re-election through Iraq has failed and he is now using Gay-Marriage issue to win re-election.

Same Sex Marriages or Unions, i don't care about the political correctness... forget gay, lesbian......

ANY male/male or female/female would be able to establish a union and find ways to cheat the system.

repeat this is not a moral issue, forget what Bush thinks, this is regarding how this government and policies would operate.

I think that it should be legal when you are looking at it from a political view. It is a human right, if two gay people wanna get married, why not let them?? Why would the government stop them?? Because its against the Christian religion which is practiced by vast majority of people in the US. Its frowned upon by alot of people. Well, the government should seperate church and state. Let them do what they want, its their life.

I'm not sure that the security reason is all that valid. The border is more of a security risk than gay marriage is.

Personally I don't know if gay marriage is the right thing to do or the wrong thing for the country now and in the future.

You lost me on this one worldwatcher, whats to keep jane the terriost from marring john the terriost?

I think she is sayin that Al Jabeeb Musashareef (an american citizen) could be bangin Osama on the side, gay marriage becomes legal, they get hitched, and now Osama is a US citizen, and we cant kick him out. That sort of thing.

I think she is sayin that Al Jabeeb Musashareef (an american citizen) could be bangin Osama on the side, gay marriage becomes legal, they get hitched, and now Osama is a US citizen, and we cant kick him out. That sort of thing.

uuuuuuuuuuhhhhh...........OK, I think this is kinda streaching it.

i am technically not gay but i still disagree with bush he wont win his votes back by doing this he so sooo f-ing stupid more gays and lesbians wont vote for him....god what a dumbass

i am technically not gay

Dude I got to ask what does that mean?

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
i am technically not gay but i still disagree with bush he wont win his votes back by doing this he so sooo f-ing stupid more gays and lesbians wont vote for him....god what a dumbass

How can you technically not be gay?

BTW, im not a lesbian, I know gay people, and I think they should be able to get married if they want. Why not?

First, there are female terrorists. So Bob and Bard the terrorists can marry.

Second, cheat the system? So a guy and girl marry it ok, a guy and guy mary it cheating the system? I am gonna have to do some deep thought and meditation on that one.

And the main arguement is "Call it civil union, not marrige". Um, I think we tried this before, but it was found unconstitutional due to the fact we are all equal, not seperate but equal, but equal. And if you did decide to persecute gays for being gay, I can see years down the road another civil rights war would begin, for while now it would be accepted, like blacks being second class citizens was accepted at the time, in the future people will realize nothing is wrong with gays and fight for their rights.

But hopefully we can skip the civil rights war, cause last one had christians(White Anglo Saxxon Protestants were the members of KKK, not a WASP, not aloud in the KKK, and White Knights of Christianity were basically WASPs, but catholic instead of protestant) bombing churches, the people who were suppose to be better having a after lynch picnic(there are photos of the whites in their sunday best having picnics with a black man hanging from a tree, hell, some have more than one black hanging)and people fighting for the rights of the persecuted "dissapearing".(Civil rights workers being kidnapped and killed by groups like KKK, White Knights of Christianity, and other religous groups)

Originally posted by MorningtonCrescent

Originally posted by Cutwolf
And I think (not 100% sure) that marrying doesn't give someone immediate citizenship.

it doesn't. you have to be married a certain amount of time before the spouse gets full citizenship. if the INS thinks there's some reason to be suspicious about your marriage (say, you married a Russian mail-order bride), they can even check in on you every so often to make sure you're actually living as a married couple.

but if you adopt a child here, you become a citizen. heres an example, my friends mom remarried this british dude. his moms dying, and if she dies within the next 2 years they will ship the brit back to britain, unless he adopts her son.

Wait let me get this straight.... so your reason for gay's not too marry is because it would threaten national security....



This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! OMG This is hilarious.

[Edited on 26-2-2004 by Ocelot]

no offense worldwatcher but of all the arguments I've heard against gay marriage, yours is the most ridiculous I've heard..... original..but still ridiculous.

legally, the only reason its "illegal" it because of WORDING. depending on your interpretation of the constitution and such (concrete or loose) gay marriage could be legal or illegal. its as frivolous of a "threat" or "issue" as designated pooper scoopers.