Title: Senate advances benefits bill for same-sex couples; The issue prompted critics to caution against efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.
This is another article from Minnesota. This article deals with a bill that would pass to give same-sex couples more benefits from the workplace and other things like heterosexual married couples enjoy. Those for it think that it is only fair that these couples could share the same benefits that straight people have the opportunity to have. Those against it say it costs to much or it is just building a cornerstone for gay marriage in Minnesota. The bill actually won't cost that much though, which leaves the other argument. Those opposed to it believe that this isn't about insurance... it's about making the relationship more like a marriage, which isn't right. Those for it believe that is alright since they don't have the ability to have a marriage or benefits. They want to help all families in Minnesota, not just the straight ones.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Annotation #7
Title: In the Debate Over Gay Marriage, Many Occupy a Middle Ground.
This article is from St. Paul and deals with a family of six... but it is a very unordinary family. This family has 2 mothers, 2 fathers, and two children. The lesbian couple are the primary focus of the article. They explain their situation and how they have been registered as partners and had a "civil union" celebration, but how Minnesota does not recognize their joining. They bring up the fact that even if other people don't allow them to marry, they are still going to be together and there is nothing the government can do about it. Besides the view points of this couple, it asks a mother of four(maybe) children what she thinks about the marriage. She says her faith is against it and therefore she is too. The only arguments against the lesbian and gay couples in this article are based on what God thinks. One preacher claims that he is no better than the same-sex couples, but that God didn't intend for them to get married, so they shouldn't. The other woman also says that she feels sorry for the gay people because she doesn't understand why God would allow them to be "sinful" if he did not like that. Another man, for gay rights, exclaimed that the constitution and government should stay out of a families business. He was from Holland, where it is legal.
This article is from St. Paul and deals with a family of six... but it is a very unordinary family. This family has 2 mothers, 2 fathers, and two children. The lesbian couple are the primary focus of the article. They explain their situation and how they have been registered as partners and had a "civil union" celebration, but how Minnesota does not recognize their joining. They bring up the fact that even if other people don't allow them to marry, they are still going to be together and there is nothing the government can do about it. Besides the view points of this couple, it asks a mother of four(maybe) children what she thinks about the marriage. She says her faith is against it and therefore she is too. The only arguments against the lesbian and gay couples in this article are based on what God thinks. One preacher claims that he is no better than the same-sex couples, but that God didn't intend for them to get married, so they shouldn't. The other woman also says that she feels sorry for the gay people because she doesn't understand why God would allow them to be "sinful" if he did not like that. Another man, for gay rights, exclaimed that the constitution and government should stay out of a families business. He was from Holland, where it is legal.
Annotation #6
Title: The Gay Glove
(Laws against homosexuality around the world)
America, while not the best with homosexuality, is definetly not the worst. South Carolina recently banned gay marriage. In Detroit, an elderly gay man was killed and this led to increased protection of gay people through anti-hate crime laws. It also mentioned the military general's comment about gay marriage being immoral and how an archbishop supported his idea.
In countries like Latvia, discrimination is not banned at work. In Jamaica, around 200 people tried to lynch four gay men. In South America, one man (maybe more) couldn't give blood because of his orientation and a transgender person was stabbed when entering a store. Many places in Africa jail gay rights activists and people accused of possible "gay activities". They can be stoned if charged with maximum offenses. Women are kicked out of schools if they could be lesbians. In Iran, guys over 15 and girls over 9 can be sentenced to the death penalty for being gay or having any same-sex relations.
Europe is relatively accepting of gay marriage, with Denmark as the first country to allow same-sex couples to register for some sort of marriage.
(Laws against homosexuality around the world)
America, while not the best with homosexuality, is definetly not the worst. South Carolina recently banned gay marriage. In Detroit, an elderly gay man was killed and this led to increased protection of gay people through anti-hate crime laws. It also mentioned the military general's comment about gay marriage being immoral and how an archbishop supported his idea.
In countries like Latvia, discrimination is not banned at work. In Jamaica, around 200 people tried to lynch four gay men. In South America, one man (maybe more) couldn't give blood because of his orientation and a transgender person was stabbed when entering a store. Many places in Africa jail gay rights activists and people accused of possible "gay activities". They can be stoned if charged with maximum offenses. Women are kicked out of schools if they could be lesbians. In Iran, guys over 15 and girls over 9 can be sentenced to the death penalty for being gay or having any same-sex relations.
Europe is relatively accepting of gay marriage, with Denmark as the first country to allow same-sex couples to register for some sort of marriage.
Annotation #5
Title: Making Vows for Equality
This article is about straight couples who are for the equality of gay couples. It talks about a specific couple who think that this battle is comparable to the one of different races being unable to get married. They talked about how the gay and lesbian people needed support since no battle for civil rights has been won by just the ones being discriminated against. Many people join to support the lesbian and gay people while Bush and other politicians pass laws against gay marriage. It explains the unfairness involved because of the basic rights that are being taken away. It also addresses the issue that says gay people are immoral when a lot of heterosexual people are often into some "hanky panky" themselves. The religious debate comes up a little bit. It says that the government is trying to bring in Christian morals that should not be used.
This article is about straight couples who are for the equality of gay couples. It talks about a specific couple who think that this battle is comparable to the one of different races being unable to get married. They talked about how the gay and lesbian people needed support since no battle for civil rights has been won by just the ones being discriminated against. Many people join to support the lesbian and gay people while Bush and other politicians pass laws against gay marriage. It explains the unfairness involved because of the basic rights that are being taken away. It also addresses the issue that says gay people are immoral when a lot of heterosexual people are often into some "hanky panky" themselves. The religious debate comes up a little bit. It says that the government is trying to bring in Christian morals that should not be used.
Annotation #4
Title: Procreation Center of Gay Marriage Debate
This article questions the argument that procreation is what marriage is about. It points out that with newer technologies, artificial insemination can be used. It also points out that no matter what, gay people will not make more children if they don't want to. Why would lack of gay marriage promote procreation when it is not adding to the amount of children? It also shows Minnesota's point of view. According to Minnesota, procreating and rearing a child in a family is what marriage is about. It however is denying couples the rights to children in many cases... which makes one wonder how, if they can’t control whether they have children or not, it can be banned. In all the states that the question of if gay marriage should be allowed was on the ballot, it was banned.
This article questions the argument that procreation is what marriage is about. It points out that with newer technologies, artificial insemination can be used. It also points out that no matter what, gay people will not make more children if they don't want to. Why would lack of gay marriage promote procreation when it is not adding to the amount of children? It also shows Minnesota's point of view. According to Minnesota, procreating and rearing a child in a family is what marriage is about. It however is denying couples the rights to children in many cases... which makes one wonder how, if they can’t control whether they have children or not, it can be banned. In all the states that the question of if gay marriage should be allowed was on the ballot, it was banned.
Annotation #3
Title: The Judicial assault on the Family
This article looks at a ton of different things that "ruined" marriage as it "should have been". Some were unbelievable (and even offensive) such as interracial marriages, which are accepted. According to this article, it has gone too far. It criticizes heterosexual couples who don't have children. It criticizes divorce, polygammy, same-sex marriage, interracial marriages, single mothers, and much more. Relating to my topic is the issue of gay marriage. This article says it weakens the constitution of marriage. It basically says that since they cannot have children, they should not be allowed to be married. It seems to disagree with the statement that marriage is a basic right of man, which was said in the article. It says it gave marriage a minimalist view. It disagrees with marriage to even be a friendship as it denied that marriage was an expression of emotional support and commitment. Many of these arguments were meant to be against gay people, but also applied to many heterosexual couples.
This article looks at a ton of different things that "ruined" marriage as it "should have been". Some were unbelievable (and even offensive) such as interracial marriages, which are accepted. According to this article, it has gone too far. It criticizes heterosexual couples who don't have children. It criticizes divorce, polygammy, same-sex marriage, interracial marriages, single mothers, and much more. Relating to my topic is the issue of gay marriage. This article says it weakens the constitution of marriage. It basically says that since they cannot have children, they should not be allowed to be married. It seems to disagree with the statement that marriage is a basic right of man, which was said in the article. It says it gave marriage a minimalist view. It disagrees with marriage to even be a friendship as it denied that marriage was an expression of emotional support and commitment. Many of these arguments were meant to be against gay people, but also applied to many heterosexual couples.
Annotation #2
Title: Q: Would the Legalization of Gay Marriage Benefit to Heterosexuals?
This article describes both sides of this argument. For the argument of yes, it claims that homosexuals would become more socially accepted if there were a law legalizing gay marriage. It would help prevent gay people from marrying a person of the opposite gender due to pressure to fit in. The largest part is that fraudulent marriages result from homosexual people discriminated against and the wanting of a child and marriage, but the inability to receive that with a member of the same-sex. Gay couples, if allowed to marry, might also be allowed to adopt children who need homes from orphanages. They also argue that many gay people also have heterosexual people related to them or around them who are affected by this discrimination.
The article also states the reasons gays should not get married. It argues that sex is not private because there is life (babies) and death (like AIDS) involved. He also states that marriage is used to bring children into the world. It claims homosexual behaviors are typically brief and sometime in public. It relates gay people to sex, multiple partners, drugs, and molesting children. It accuses homosexuals of requiring too much medical care.
I know this isn't part of my annotation, but it's a little bit about my stand point on this issue. I think the last argument has some fairly... well, dumb arguments. When it says that marriage is for children, how come people who don't want children are allowed to be married? Should their rights be taken away? Or those who are physically incapable to procreate? Should they be forced to separate? If marriage is for children, then in theory, the gay couples could bring up children by artificial insemination or by adoption. Biological mothers and fathers are better for children, so what about the orphaned children? They won't have their biological parents no matter what... so why does it matter if it is heterosexual or straight? And then they'll say "They are 12x more likely to be gay" or some crap like that... well how to people with straight parents turn out to be gay? Then the argument about it being brief... well, tell that to those couples who have been together for 50 years, waiting for some form of acknowledgement that they even exist as a pair. Is that too brief when some heterosexuals marry after months of knowing each other? 'Gay relationships can be short." I know plenty of couples at school who fail after a week or less. I know a lot of you will argue with that... but it's just how I feel. I think everyone is equal and these attempts to say otherwise do nothing to change my mind. I don't really know what to say about the drugs and multiple partners... I guess they are just making it harder on themselves and for those innocent people who don't do those sorts of things. I just don't think it should mean injustice and inequality for all because of those unfortunate people.
This article describes both sides of this argument. For the argument of yes, it claims that homosexuals would become more socially accepted if there were a law legalizing gay marriage. It would help prevent gay people from marrying a person of the opposite gender due to pressure to fit in. The largest part is that fraudulent marriages result from homosexual people discriminated against and the wanting of a child and marriage, but the inability to receive that with a member of the same-sex. Gay couples, if allowed to marry, might also be allowed to adopt children who need homes from orphanages. They also argue that many gay people also have heterosexual people related to them or around them who are affected by this discrimination.
The article also states the reasons gays should not get married. It argues that sex is not private because there is life (babies) and death (like AIDS) involved. He also states that marriage is used to bring children into the world. It claims homosexual behaviors are typically brief and sometime in public. It relates gay people to sex, multiple partners, drugs, and molesting children. It accuses homosexuals of requiring too much medical care.
I know this isn't part of my annotation, but it's a little bit about my stand point on this issue. I think the last argument has some fairly... well, dumb arguments. When it says that marriage is for children, how come people who don't want children are allowed to be married? Should their rights be taken away? Or those who are physically incapable to procreate? Should they be forced to separate? If marriage is for children, then in theory, the gay couples could bring up children by artificial insemination or by adoption. Biological mothers and fathers are better for children, so what about the orphaned children? They won't have their biological parents no matter what... so why does it matter if it is heterosexual or straight? And then they'll say "They are 12x more likely to be gay" or some crap like that... well how to people with straight parents turn out to be gay? Then the argument about it being brief... well, tell that to those couples who have been together for 50 years, waiting for some form of acknowledgement that they even exist as a pair. Is that too brief when some heterosexuals marry after months of knowing each other? 'Gay relationships can be short." I know plenty of couples at school who fail after a week or less. I know a lot of you will argue with that... but it's just how I feel. I think everyone is equal and these attempts to say otherwise do nothing to change my mind. I don't really know what to say about the drugs and multiple partners... I guess they are just making it harder on themselves and for those innocent people who don't do those sorts of things. I just don't think it should mean injustice and inequality for all because of those unfortunate people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
