What is one technique Raphael Sanzio uses to create emphasis in Marriage of the Virgin?

Gay marriage. How can you dispute this information?

• Topics that are always brought up that are simply just incorrect or misrepresented: 1. Gay couples don't have the same rights of being considered family where hospital issues are concerned. If they really love each other, then they should take the proper steps to get those rights, even if they can't officially marry. The problem of not being able to see each other in the hospital is solved by signing the proper papers ahead of time, which would designate the partners as each others next of kin. Legally you can make anyone your next of kin, giving them the same rights as a family member. With the proper paperwork you can also make anybody your legal guardian. 2. Gay couples struggle with inheritance issues. All the couple needs to do is write out a will. It's no different than what heterosexual couples would do. It should also be pointed out that even in the case of a traditional marriage one spouse can fill out a will that would prohibit everything from being left to the other. A husband can just as easily leave everything to his best friend as he can to his wife. 3. Gay couples also wish to have an official ceremony that friends and family can attend. There is no law against arranging such a gathering. People invite friends and family to second weddings all the time. Many cultures exclusively perform ring ceremonies to bind couples together. There is nothing preventing them from participating in these activities already. 4. Past laws against interracial marriage is also brought up when arguing for gay marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely accepted biblical teaching. 5. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue! Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals any basic civil rights that other citizens have. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia. Societal issues gay marriage would create: 1. Gay marriage would cause problems for employers being required to provide health insurance for both partners. In some cases this would seem like a good thing, but in reality it would be too large a stress on the institution of family health care coverage. Suddenly non-traditional couples would pop up everywhere to reap the benefits of such a situation. Under this plan anybody could become bound to another person simply to supply or gain those benefits. 2. If allowed to be officially married, homosexual couples will more than likely be able to adopt children. I do not doubt the pure love that these couples would show a child, and I do not doubt their pure intentions. But it is a proven fact that children who are deprived of the parenting of one gender have a very strong tendency toward emotional and/or psychological problems. Any reasonably intelligent person knows that a child is better off when raised by a mother and father, who can be examples of love to them, and can offer the best that both genders have to give. Another fact is that nearly all gay men, that were not victims of abuse, came from an unhealthy parenting situation themselves. Many homosexuals couples may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children. Facts that can't be disputed: 1. While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. 2. Studies also prove that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same study found that "committed" gay couples have an average of eight sexual part

• Answer:

  Kevin is correct, Hondo is a paste eating moron. I am all for them having "Civil Unions" But I am NOT ok with re-naming Apples to Oranges because the apples are uncomfortable with their name and jealous of the oranges. Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Gay "marriage" is something different, and should be called something different. I am not saying they can't have all the rights you list, and for years now, smart ones have been enjoying these rights in precisely the manners you describe. just DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE. They say "separate but equal is Not Equal" And they are Right. It IS NOT Equal. What is Equal about Two penises in the same bed? But I don't want that to stand in the way of them having their rights. Just call it something else.