The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. It continued to say that:. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Somaliland. Baker says the absence of specific legislative action prohibitive of same-sex marriage does not mean that the federal constitution authorizes them.
Retrieved 8 August Nelson reviewed the merits of a same sex marriage case and it did not regard same sex marriage as comparable to racial equality under the federal Constitution.
Although the Church of Ireland does not currently offer marriage or blessing rites, the guidelines allow priests to offer pastoral prayers on behalf of the newly reasons why same sex marriage is bad in Canterbury couples. Retrieved 17 September Many believed that a group with more serious aims for the LGBT community should be established, and meetings began taking place in the late s, with GALZ being officially established in September The letter says that clergy cannot perform or bless a same-sex marriage, but that clergy can offer prayers for a couple who have married in a civil ceremony.
It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy.
I am willing to grant, at least for the sake of argument, that there is something wrong with not allowing a person to visit someone he loves in the hospital and participate in decision-making regarding his care. Certainly this is the testimony of Scripture in which we learn that God established the institution of marriage in the Garden long before there were any civil governments Gen.
However, given that legalising same-sex marriage overturns the laws of nature, this means the laws of nature preventing same sex couples from reproducing are now null and void, reasons why same sex marriage is bad in Canterbury maybe same sex couples can reproduce. Similarly, we could go back to the situation in and prohibit inter-racial couples from marrying in some states.
SSM should remain forbidden. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
Your article used loosely has went into the pro's but not the cons of the study. And as has been pointed out, the SCOTUS has refused to hear the case, which you seem to have grievously assumed to have been a verdict in your favor. For it is so improbable that any sane, normal person would deliberately choose a lifestyle exposing him or her to so much vilification, opprobrium and physical abuse, even death.
For the rest of my argument, please see my counterpoint on page five. Looks like you and the other commenter are related. Archived from the original on 5 June