So you're a Duer against same-sex marriage. Explain your logic to me.

[arbusto_baboso]

I mean, presumably you're not a religious zealot, or you wouldn;t be here. And even if you are a person of faith, you've got to know that your own church will never be forced to perform same-sex weddings. So, what's the big deal?

As a married hetero male, I've never seen how having a gay married couple next door to me would affect my marriage.

Plus, I've got to admit, that since my wife came out as bi, I have a lot more empathy for the GLBT community.

Could that be it? Are the homophobes of this world just people who don't have close family or friends that they know are gay, lesbian or bi?

What are your thoughts?

[evil_orange_cat]

1. The sanctity of marriage needs to be protected!

sorry, just kidding ;)

[sangh0]

2. Then I guess I'm a religious zealot

because I don't think the state should be in the marriage business.

[hippiegranny]

3. i agree

and i'm sure you mean that to apply to everyone, not just gays.

[sangh0]

4. I can, and I do

I'm very "equal opportunity" when it comes to "Keep the F*** outta my business"

[terrya]

7. Fine, as long as we get exactly the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

I have no problems with the state getting out of the marriage business. Let the state issue civil unions...for gay and heterosexual couples. As long as they both get exactly the same benefits.

But Bush and company don't even want that.

[arbusto_baboso]

9. Problem is, the state IS in the marriage business....

If I accept your premise that NO marriages should have the sanction of the state, but be purely religious ceremonies, than can you accept my premise that if the state IS sanctioning marriages at all, it must do so equally?

[sangh0]

10. Yes, I can

I am for equal rights.

[arbusto_baboso]

13. Then we're actually in agreement here.....

The thing is, I keep hearing people sounding off on this issue, and saying that there are people both in favor and opposed to marriage freedom in both parties.

From what I'm seeing here, it looks like the pollsters need to frame their questions better. Because in a simple poll, your first reply might have been taken as anti-gay, when in fact, there's a different rationale behind it entirely.

[djg21]

112. For the sake of argument!

How is a law prohibiting same-sex marriages not one of general applicability that would survive equal protection scrutiny? Gays have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals to marry: just like heterosexuals, homosexuals are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Conversely just like homosexuals, heteros are precluded from marrying someone of the same sex. Since there is no disparity in treatment, I fail to see any equal protection issue stemming from the refusal of a state to recognize same-sex "marriages."

Much more important are the benefits and incidences of marriage such as inheritance, survivorship, property rights, spousal privilege, tax benefits, etc. Denying such benefits to gay couples clearly does implicate equal protection, and simply cannot be justified.

In short, while I have no objection to legalizing gay "marriages," I am not a strong supporter either. As a hetero, the legalization of gay "marriages" could not effect me, and could have no impact on the "sanctity" of my "marriage" (a purely legal union performed by a judge, I might add). So long as gay couples are afforded the very same rights and benefits that my wife and I enjoy, I could care less if their unions are called "marriages" or "civil unions." For that matter, I could care less what my relationship with my wife is called. IMO, the distinction between "marriage" and "civil union" is purely semantic and should be utterly meaningless.

That being said, and as a purely political and pragmatic matter, I'm with John Kerry on this one -- pro-"Civil Union." By insisting that gays be allowed the right to "marry" rather than to enter legally indistinguishable "civil unions," we can only increase voter turnout on the right and drive a significant number of otherwise undecided voters to the GOP. I'd rather have a Democrat in the Whitehouse than fight a semantic battle that can result only in a pyhrric moral victory.

Flame away!

[truthspeaker]

29. Why not? Marriage was a state function before religion got involved

[LeftyChristian]

45. Huh?

I think marriage was around long before the state. Either way the state should not be in the marriage business.

[truthspeaker]

50. wrong, marriage was civil first, religious later

In Europe, marriage started as a contract between families. The religious aspect was added later.

[Terran]

94. That's a very broad statement.

Can you cite anything to prove that it's correct? Sounds like you're not considering marriage in pre-Christian civilizations outside of Europe. Plus, you make it sound like "Europe" was just one big homogenous blob of custom for all its population.

[pagerbear]

31. I agree somewhat

I think legal marriage and church marriage should be two distinct things. For everyone, regardless of the sexes of the couple.

[AP]

34. At least you're not a religious zealot. You'd be a consitutional zealot.

Or a separation of church and state zealot.

I am too.

[Alpha Wolf]

76. Totally agree...

and we've got Martin Luther to thank for getting the state in the marriage business in the first place. Of course, Henry VIII took it to the next level-- "the Church won't marry me? Fine, I'll just start my own Church and have it marry me"

[rbnyc]

82. Do you mean that athiests, agnogstics...

...and other non-church-goers should not be allowed to be married?

[truthspeaker]

87. that's exactly what they mean

[seabeyond]

5. after the initial battle a couple months ago

i am to, this is so not a big deal and all the woes of the world, simply this just does not matter. leave em alone. let them be.

i have bigger issues, like world hate, our government murdering people raping and torturing children in front of their parents, people raising their children in hate, religions creating such lines of hate

[ClassWarrior]

6. In the spirit of the newest MEME MEMO...

...why don't we say, "So you're a DUer against marriage rights," or, 'So you're a DUer in favor of marriage discrimination."

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1797328

[the Kelly Gang]

8. if 2 people want to commit..it's none of my f***** business !

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Yeah, Some folks seem to be of the opinion...

That the state shouldn't get involved in marriage whatsoever. Others think that the state should offer "civil unions" to everyone, and leave "marriage" up to whatever religious institutions, ship captains, or delusional homeless people who have decided they are qualified to perform them.

Then there are people who think that marriage in general sucks, and no one of any gender should get married in any fashion. Period. But that still doesn't explain to me why gays shouldn't have the same right to be as miserable as us heteros. (Just kiddin', honey!)

I have come across Democrats- on other forums- who think that gay folks "shouldn't be pushing the marriage issue right now" because presumably it alienates potential voters and could hurt Dem. chances in November. But I'm sort of at the point, of, if something is right, it's right... and it shouldn't matter whether it's an election year or not. Many gay couples have been waiting decades for the ability to get married- asking them to "pipe down" and "wait" is like telling them to stay the back of the bus, just a little longer-really- IMHO. Anyway, "gays" aren't monolithic. Stopping a wholesale social phenomenon isn't a terribly easy thing to do, and like it or not, the gay marriage ball is rolling. I happen to think it's about damn time.

I also agree, the state should broaden marriage to include same-sex couples, or -failing that- get out of the business entirely in one of the fashions listed above.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. I am a religious (ummm Zealot?)

I am fine with Gay marriage. I am fine with the state doing marriages too. Not everyone wants to be married in a church. I am fine with whatever churches want to marry gay people and I am fine with those who will not. Eventually people will start attending the churches who will minister to their gay friends and loved ones.

[AMD_CPU]

14. The government should get out of the marriage business completely.

that is all

[TexasSissy]

90. But it's a group asking for the government to sanction their

union. That's why the government is involved.

Gay people can currently get "married" in some churches around the country. But they are not sanctioned by the government and so are not civil marriages.

So when a group asks that the government sanction something, the government then has been given the authority to make decisions about it, etc.

[Yupster]

15. How's about this?

When such a major change to the laws we've been living under for 200 years is proposed, it should only be made by the group that the Constitution gives the power to make laws to -- the congress, or at least the state legislatures.

Major changes to the law should not just happen by magic without any vote to make the change by any lawmaking body.

On edit, I'm not against same sex marriage, but I don't think laws, especially important laws should be changed without a vote to do so.

[MAlibdem]

55. How can those that are voted in by pluralities...

...be reasonably expected to look out for the needs of the minorities?

The courts must protect minority rights to prevent the "tyranny of the majority."

[Q3JR4]

81. Each branch

of our governement is a coequal one. The constitution gives a certain group power to make laws, this is true. But that same document also gives the court system the right to interpret those laws.

One sight I looked at made a statement to the effect that when the first court case came down on the side of marriage rights for interracial couples 80% of the U.S. population was against it. So if interracial couples had waited for a popular vote, they would still be unable to marry one another.

I think that certain issues, by the nature of our constitution, are in the hands of the legislature until they make a decision that goes against what the constitution says. Once that happens, it is the obligation of the court to step in and correct the mistake, with or without a popular vote.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

16. Theoligically, I find gay marriage completely incompatible

with most world religions.

But as a citizen of the U.S., I find the logic tortuous at best to deny gay citizens basic rights/infringement of rights the rest of us enjoy/suffer through.

In other word, and to completely compartmentalize, there is NO theolgical foundation for gay marriage (some rabbis, some Christian churches, some Buddhist groups being the exception, though they all MUST ignore tradition--tradition being inherent to each of the traditions named above ; how's that for a parenthetical???). But there are obvious legal rationales for gay marriage. Heck, it really ought to be a constitutional, prima facie argument easily won.

I could make an ethical, human rights argument for the pro-life cause on legal grounds (though the legal precendents now make it pretty tough), and this is without a doubt the most contentious issue of our day. But the gay marriage issue seems iron clad. The ONLY reason dems. fall back on a state's-rights-issue argument is for pure electoral college politics.

Sorry, I know I didn't answer the request of your initial post.

G.U.

[truthspeaker]

37. but were talking civil law, not theology

What does theology have to do with it? In the United States, the government makes civil laws and churches are free to make whatever rules they want. Theology is irrelevant to the same-sex marriage debate, because the government does not involve itself in theology or tell churches how to marry people.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

42. Gee, a legal issue, no kidding.

Perhaps that's why I wrote: "But there are obvious legal rationales for gay marriage. Heck, it really ought to be a constitutional, prima facie argument easily won."

But thanks for the lecture anyway.

[truthspeaker]

51. I just don't understand why you brought up theology when discussing

a civil matter.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

54. I suppose I was responding to the entire thread.

That's all. I was attempting, moreover, to create the same church/state divide that you emphasize. Rhetorically, I was throwing a bone to world religions, acknowledging their right to include/exclude. Perhaps I spent more time on the theological question of gay marriage because it's a trickier argument than the legal argument--which seems to me to be pretty cut-and-dry.

We're both saying the same thing, truthspeaker. I've reread my first reply to you and it seems a bit snippy. I was trying to be sardonic but crossed over into the snippy realm. Just about everything I do here is tongue-in-cheek. I hope you took it in that spirit.

Finally, my apology at the end of my original reply to the thread already provides my explanation for bringing up theology: "Sorry, I know I didn't answer the request of your initial post." It seems that I again preempted your criticism of my post. :-)

Cheers.

[Misunderestimator]

56. Why do I hear the voice of Tevye in my head....

Tradition... tradition... tradition... tradition
TRADITION... TRADITION... TRADITION... TRADITION

Oh, for cripe's sake. I suppose preserving any and all traditions should be the standard for everything we do... yep. Even when it has nothing to do with religion.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. Slavery was also a tradition

And women without the vote or any rights of citizenship was a tradition. Some traditions just stink.

[Misunderestimator]

72. Exactly.... and isn't it oh so tiring...

to continue the same old arguments? I guess it boils down to "walking in someone else's shoes" ... I guess.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasMexican]

20. Gracias...

all done.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[David Zephyr]

22. Why Is It That You "Generally Don't Like Them"?

How do you feel that society should deal with homosexuals?

[TexasMexican]

24. Not easy to explain.

Its probably a combination of various reasons why I generally dislike gays.

As for how I think society should deal with them, I think the status quo is sufficient.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

28. and those various reasons would be? nt.

[kevinhnc]

64. Grrrr...

Status quo is sufficient?

So you are happy that a hugely disproporionate number of gay teens commit suicide than non-gay teens?

You like the fact that gay teens are more likely to be psychologically disturbed, not because they are gay, but because they are universally rejected by family, church, and nation for being WHO THEY ARE?

You like the fact that people who have loved another person for years and years should be barred from the funeral, hospital room, etc., of their partner?

I could go on for hours. My supposed friend, the status quo is NOT SUFFICIENT.

Oh, and I love the fact that you dislike me already when YOU HAVENT EVEN MET ME!

Gotta love some of these people....

Edit: sp.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. you generally dislike gays?

Did you really say that? Wow, I generally dislike bigots. Small world isn't it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. Finally a tombstone on the fucker

[Cheswick2.0]

85. yup, he's fertilizer

I wonder if he ever read your tombtone poetry thread.

[WilliamPitt]

92. That's one of the few 1000+ tombstones I've seen

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. Here lies the body

of a slimy troll
his mouth and his ass
used the same smelly hole :hi:

[quinnox]

18. My problem is

logically, if society accepts gay marriage and condones it as normal, then if you take a long term philosophical perspective, it might hurt the promolgation of the human race because it is dependent on reproducing, and if there is not enough "stock" if you will, then the human race may eventually go extinct. A weird and eccentric point of view I know, but it is something I have thought about.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

23. i really don't think there will be a problem with reproduction.

you are suggesting that the acceptance of gay marriage will turn enough potential heterosexual people gay and therefor cause a decline in human reproduction?

logically, do you feel yourself turning gayer already?

that's the gay agenda! the demise of the human race!

[quinnox]

25. I said it was a strange point of view

And anyone is free to disagree with me. I am a sci-fi fan, and this scenario has entered my mind, maybe it is far-fetched. My argument is purely genetic in nature. But I said nothing about a gay agenda, so not sure where that came from.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

27. the 'gay agenda' thing was a joke

as people claim there is a gay agenda a foot.

and yes your scenario is far fetched, if not out right impossible.

a. we have loads of people on earth already
b. i seriously doubt the majority will "turn gay" because gay marriage is legalised.

[skippysmom]

39. not to mention

that there are more and more assisted reproduction techniques that divorce intercourse from reproduction.

I don't think you have anything to worry about if two men or two women marry. It's not like if you banned marriage that they would go straight. They would still be a couple -- just not one that is legally recognized.

[Change has come]

26. And God knows.....

There aren't nearly enough people on this planet. Have you ever considered homosexuality may be evolution's way of stabilizing over population?

[Sapphocrat]

97. Hey, I think we have a new marketing slogan...

Homosexuality: Environmentally-friendly since 4,500,000,000 B.C.E.

[Change has come]

104. I Like it ! eom

:P

[smirkymonkey]

113. A decline in human reproduction would be a GOOD

thing - for the planet. Overbreeding is going to be the death of us. Maybe homosexuality is God's answer to population control.

[msmcghee]

30. " . . it might hurt the promolgation of the human race?"

I have wondered why people sometimes say that they are concerned about the continued existence of "the human race". Do they cheer when they hear that India's latest population census has broken all records again? Do they wear T-shirts that say "Go Humans"? When they hear about the 1500 species of insects disappearing from the Amazon rain forests last year, are they happy that there's now more room for "us"?

I can understand being concerned about some catastrophe or rampant virus that would cause a lot of human pain and suffering as our species fell away to extinction. But extinction itself? That seems like the responsibility of DNA. And that stuff doesn't think, is not aware of anything. So how can DNA worry?

Biologists estimate that 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth, have gone extinct. We will probably end up in that 99% sooner or later.

So I say, let's spend our time, our species time and our personal time on earth, making it a better, happier place. Let's try to make sure that wanted children are born to familes that can afford to feed them and that adequate health care is available for those who need it. Let's promote an International Bill of Rights for all people, all genders, all orientations and all ranges of skin pigment.

And most important, let's try not to make such a huge mess for our replacement species. They are going to have to clean up after us.


B-)

[Liberal Veteran]

32. Red herring and illogical.

No one is become gay simply because gay marriage is allowed.

There will still be in the neighborhood of 90 percent heterosexuals in the populace.

[msmcghee]

38. That percentage has been . .

. . remarkably consistent through time, across all the major cultures in history. People who think it's some kind of a personal choice are plain nuts.

:eyes:

[Kinkistyle]

40. God I wish more guys would "go gay".

That means more straight women for me :D

[indigo32]

46. I don't think it's all that eccentric

I think it's probably buried behind alot of the basis for homophobia. And no I'm not calling you homophobic. You are being honest and I appreciate it.

I actually caught a bit of a South Park episode last night where the men were intentionally turning Gay to prevent the human race from continuing (long story)...

But really, I think that the instinctive urge to reproduce is extremely strong. I have 0 fear of this issue.

[Chovexani]

58. Dey tek er jebs!

I love that episode. :)

[Misunderestimator]

61. Oh why, oh why did I enter this thread?

You've GOTTA be kidding... Right, somehow, since I'm not allowed to be married, I'm gonna go find a man to have a baby with, cause that's what I am supposed to do. But... you have a point there... the human race is DEFINITELY approaching extinction, what with such a low birth rate around the globe... /sarcasm

[Cheswick2.0]

71. What a fabulous idea...especially for the USA

where each child born place a larger burden on the world environment than a child born anywhere else.
For the sake of the world we should definately support gay marriage and conversion of straight people to the gay "lifestyle". As an added bonus all my gay friends coud collect enough toasters to cover us all in the wedding gift department for years to come.

[Sapphocrat]

96. Not weird so much as...

...the fact that it simply doesn't work that way. If there were any basis to that theory, there would be no gay people at all.

What you're suggesting is something akin to this: Let's say you decide you want Irish setters without tails. You can breed them that way -- or you can simply cut the tails off every pup in every new litter, and hope that one day, you'll start getting Irish setters born without tails. Obviously (and barring genetic mutation), you're never going to get an Irish setter born naturally without a tail.

In other words, you can enforce what you decide is the norm, and have absolutely no effect on physiology.

Ditto society. With a few notable historical exceptions, society has always tried to do away homosexuality, through pressure, "ex-gay" programs, prayer, torture, execution... and far too many gay people have conformed to a heterosexual "lifestyle" for the sole sake of conformity. And what has the longterm result been? People are still gay, no matter how society tries to convince them they're not.

Or no matter how many times society cuts off their tails.

So, turn it around: If society accepts heterosexual coupling and condones it as normal, then if you take a long term philosophical perspective... Now finish the sentence.

Sign me,
100% Lifelong Lesbian
Product of a VERY Long Line of Heterosexuals
Immersed in Heterosexual Culture Since 1961

P.S. All this talk about population control is fine with me -- but to the worrywarts, I suggest this: If something in the balance were to go haywire and the majority suddenly turned gay, it seems logical that nature would compensate, and procreation between opposite-sex members of the gay majority would become a necessary chore (perhaps a biological urge, apart from emotional attachment) in order for the species to survive.

To paraphrase Michael Crichton: Nature (always) finds a way.

[abburdlen]

98. Okay I get it.

Gays can't marry because marriage is about reproduction.
So if you're past your reproductive years you can't get married? If you don't plan on having kids you can't get married?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. Let it go Quinnox...the human race hasn't always been here and one day

it won't be..the question concerning our extinction is "how will it happen?" People ceasing to reproduce is the LEAST likely presumed cause given all the instruments we have to destroy all life this moment...if only people would have those concerns when it really counts.

[marshall]

33. Government's role in marriage

I also don't think government should be in the business of giving its blessing to marriages. That's something that belongs to churches. On the other hand, I do think two adults, regardless of gender or any other factor, should be allowed to form a household and receive the benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive in marriage. I am against "gay marriage" because I don't think it is inclusive enough. If anyone remembers the old tv show "Kate and Allie", or for that matter the new show "Two and a Half Men", why shouldn't those "families" be allowed the benefits government gives married couples, even though they aren't sexual partners? Families come in all types and any benefits given to one group should be given to the others.

[msmcghee]

35. Right on, Marshall!

Welcome to DU.

Great perspective.

It would be nice to know a lttle more about all you newbies. Like where you live, hobbies, etc. I get curious when I read your posts.

:hi:

[AP]

36. If any two people could form a business relationship (partnership, corp.)

I don't see what logic says that two people can't form patnerships in their private, non-corproate life to enjoy the 200 plus legal benefits the federal government grants married people.

Why would we make it harder for private citizens to form units that give them the ability to amass wealth, reduce red tape, and make them happier and wealthier citizens?

We shouldn't treat business entities better than we treat people just trying to make it through life.

[Used and Abused]

41. I don't care either way but

I think both sides have very compelling arguments. The anti-marriage stance uses the logic that past societies that have allowed gay marriage have all gone extinct. Also, psychological research shows that kids do best when raised in the traditional style family. What we've been doing all along as a society has worked, and changing things only risks destroying our society as we know it.

[msmcghee]

43. You said "The anti-marriage stance . .

. . uses the logic that past societies that have allowed gay marriage have all gone extinct."

What past societies would that be? just curious.

[marshall]

47. Past societies?

I've never heard of any past socieites that had state santioned gay marriage. I have heard about Native American and Asian societies that have some kind of recognition for individuals who live outside the heterosexual "norm" but I've never seen it to include marriage.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

44. Huh?

'The anti-marriage stance uses the logic that past societies that have allowed gay marriage have all gone extinct.'

Details please.

[AP]

48. Sort of tautological. All past societies have gone extinct.

I'd need a little more theory, evidence and argument about why there'd be any link between gay marriage and extinction (and, by the way, what are these societies that allowed gay marriage and have gone extinct?).

Usually, it's societies that concentrate a lot of wealth in the hands of a few people who get rewarded only for being rich (and not for working or making socially valuable contributions to society) which tend to fail. And that doesn't have much to do with gay marriage.

And I've never seen the traditional marriage studies you're talking about, but it's eems to me that people do well when they live in families which are happy, wealthy and healthy, and that's sort of what you encourage when you let same sex couples marry, and get job benefits, and health insurance, and survor rightts, and all the other hundrends of benefits the government confers on married people. And subjecting married couples to some of the burdens probably helps kids too, like, say a same-sex couple gets divorced, it probably helps the kids that the government will make both parents responsible for supporting the child of that relationship. That could mean the difference between going to college and not going to college.

[Cheswick2.0]

74. Exactly what "past" societies haven't gone extinct?

:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

79. BTW, all past societies which did not allow gay marriage have gone extinct

I think we best allow gay marriage right away.

[Q3JR4]

83. I seem to remember that

the American Psychiatric Society did a study so many years ago that said that children of gay couples are more healthy and more open minded to different ways of living.

It always makes me wonder where the right wing fundamentalist groups get their "study" reference from.

[silverpatronus]

89. oh for god's sake...

both arguments are prepostrous. to say that gay marriage will send human reproduction grinding to a halt is absurd. hello, gay people are already gay, straight people are straight. marriage will change that how? not to mention that marriage is NOT a requirement for reproduction! nowadays, not even SEX is a requirement!

in addition, the 'traditional' (lord how i hate that word) style nuclear family, which is technically not a long-standing tradition (the nuclear family is a relatively new, and western, construct) is NOT the most effective family environment for raising children...the 'village' or extended family structure is actually better.

[abburdlen]

99. Maybe kids do best

when raised in a tradition style family. So we can't allow gay marriage or straight couple with kids to get divorced.

[livinginphotographs]

49. I don't care what it's called...

whether it's "marriage" or "civil unions."

For example: both my parents are atheists, and were married by a judge. They were never married by a church, so technically had a civil union. But since they were heterosexual, they were afforded all of the rights and protections by both the state and federal government that "marriage" provides.

As far as homosexuals being married, the government can't force a church to accept the marriages. What they can (and should) do, is make it so that homosexual marriages are legally recognized at both the federal and state level, exactly as heterosexual marriages are.

That way, once the legal aspect is taken care of, the couple can find a church that is willing to marry them "in the eyes of God," or whatever. My main concern, though, is making sure that same-sex couples are afforded the EXACT same rights as heterosexual couples. I don't particularly care what it's called or which church's accept it, as long as both state governments and the federal government recognize it.

A sidenote: whenever my mom argues against same-sex marriages, I always counter by calling her marriage to my father a "civil union." }(

[AP]

53. Here's the crazy thing about how your parents were married. They

filled out a license. Then the municipality made them stand in front of a judge and have a "civil" ceremony. They had to have a quasi-religious ceremony, without religion.

Why isn't it enough just to fill out the paperwork. Time is money. How much money do we waste of judges' times and our own time with these ceremonies?

The civil union should be triggered by filling out the paperwork. That should give you all the rights AND BURDENS of being married. The government shouldn't waste our or their time and money doing the ceremony part at all. If you feel you need one, go to a church. If you don't, then don't.

[livinginphotographs]

63. Makes sense to me...

Like I said, I don't care what it's called or who administers it, as long as all couples, both same-sex and hetero, are afforded the exact same rights.

My reasoning is this: gay people pay taxes just like everyone else, why should they be excluded from protections and benefits that are given to heterosexual couples?

[AP]

65. And they shouldn't be excluded from the burdens either. You get divorced,

you should be responsible for the children you were raising. You can't escape obligations to your children just by leaving the family home.

That's how to protect society and make it wealthier and happier and allow it to reproduce itself in ways more importantly than just biology.

[GumboYaYa]

52. Marriage is a religious institution.

Government should be in the business of guaranteeing people's rights, not promoting religious institutions. All couples regardless of sex should be able to avail themselves of the same rights. Marriage as an institution of government or status conveyed by government should be abolished regardless of te sex of the couple.

If people want to get married, let them do it in their church or wherever else they want.

[truthspeaker]

59. No it is not!

Marriage is a civil institution. I would like to get married someday, and there will be nothing religious about it.

By saying marriage is a religious institution, you are saying my parents aren't married.

[GumboYaYa]

66. Marriage should be a civil institution.

Unfortunately, the legal definitions of marriage import religion into the civil concept. How else can you explain marriage defined under the law as a union beween a man and a woman in a country that gurantees equal rights for all? We need to remove religious aspects of marriage from the business of the state.

Of course, I'm not saying your parents are not married. That's absurd. I am saying that the legal concept of marriage in the US does include a religious aspect that while not important to your parents' marriage, is a very important aspect of marriage to many. IMO, the separation of church and state dictates that the religious aspects of marriage not be practiced by the state. The state should guaranty civil rights and not legislate morality.

[truthspeaker]

70. Actually most state marriage laws DON'T say that

and the ones that do were passed within the last few years as a "defense" against same-sex marriage. I don't think US marriage laws, in general, have any religious aspect at all, other than allowing clergy to perform marriages.

[GumboYaYa]

73. Actually, 39 states already DO prohibit gay and lesbian couples

from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Missouri is about to adopt a constitutional amendment prohibiting the same and at least six other states are considering the same.

[silverpatronus]

91. historically, marriage is a civil institution

the church borrowed marriage from the state and adapted it for their own purposes.

[greekspeak]

57. Bless your heart for being sensitive to your wife!

I think that if most men learned that their spouses were bisexual, it would create feelings of hatred toward the LGBT community. But that you have become more accepting of the LGBT community takes a lot of courage and self sacrifice on your part. Kudos to you, sir!

[arbusto_baboso]

75. Yes, well, it's not all sensitivity and altruism on my part....

I'm benefitting from this somewhat, too. But that's a story for off-line.

[greekspeak]

77. Well its the thought that counts!

:-) So if you are getting some "extra icing" on your cake and that helps, at least you aren't out beating the crap out of some poor LGBT folk like some people would. I still say kudos!

[LuminousX]

60. Since the gov't isn't getting out of the marriage business

why should homosexual couples be barred from getting married?

I'm waiting for one rational argument how allowing two people of the same-sex commit to each other in a legal fashion undermines all the other legal commitments that have been made between heterosexuals.

[TexasSissy]

62. It might cost us the election.

I'm willing to consider this later, but wish the gay rights activists would drop this for now. Middle America will not stand for gay marriage...and even though they might want to vote for someone other than Bush, some will not vote for the Dem. Party if they think it'll result in same-sex marriage. This is not the right time for this type of activism. This election is too important.

Note: If Dems don't win the election, we can look forward to a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. And that's the name of that tune.

[Misunderestimator]

68. Thanks for that selfish perspective...

Why don't we hold out on trying to improve your kids' education since objecting to "No Child Left Behind" might cost us the election...

Anyone who would vote AGAINST a Dem who supports gay rights, is not going to miraculously decide to vote FOR that Dem if they changed their position on it.

I'm outta this thread... I can't afford the high blood pressure today.

[TexasSissy]

88. That's unselfish...not selfish.

The main goal for the Dems is to win. This is not a normal election. This election is critical to the future of America, in many people's minds. Our right to privacy, our general freedoms, future terrorist attacks, our standing with other countries....everything hangs in the balance.

I didn't say put the issue aside. I said it would be beneficial to put it aside for just a few months. That is, coincidentally, the best way to ensure there will be same-sex marriages in the future in this country. Because if pushing the issue (and the Repubs ARE) costs us votes in what will be a very close election, then same-sex marriage has no chance in the foreseeable future. It's just common sense.

I think maybe some people in more progressive areas of the country don't realize what some people in rural America, small towns, and small cities are like. To some of them, same-sex marriage turns their stomache. I don't feel that way. But to ignore the strong reaction by some who may be undecideds is to ignore reality.

I would be willing to hold off on other issues, as well, in order to win the election. That's called strategy, isn't it? We don't advocate against issues, and then flip flop later. We just don't make some issues "issues" in the election process. I think that's unselfish, looking out for all of us and the main goal.

[Misunderestimator]

93. To say that ANY civil rights issue

...should be back-burnered for any reason whatsoever is a cop-out. There are ALWAYS levels of priorities we put on things. Certainly MY civil rights are important to me, though I'm not planning on getting married anytime soon. Same as abortion rights are important to me, though I have NO intention of getting pregnant. Both are issues that CANNOT be ignored simply because there are more important issues at hand.

It isn't just the presidency at stake here... we could STILL be denied our civil rights with a Democrat in office if we cannot ensure a majority of liberals on the Supreme Court or in Congress. Your argument will not work in my world, but you go ahead and not consider it a worthy cause... that won't affect me in the least.

[kevinhnc]

78. As far as I know

Gay rights activists had most of this shoved upon them by wingnut christian coalition groups.

Gay people are happily marrying in Mass. right now due to a court decision, and no one is the worse for it. That court decision was handed down last year, a very long time before the election!

The only people still making this an issue there are the fundies who are against it, and the repugs who want to divide the electorate. Stop blaming this on gay groups.

Ask yourself: is it wrong to defend your rights from attack at ANY time, even during an important election?

[RetroLounge]

84. I think all will become clear after the great unveiling

eom

[Cheswick2.0]

86. It's too far away

:7

[ieoeja]

100. Uncomfortable

Homosexuality makes a lot of straight people feel much the same as you might feel watching some idiot crawl through a pit of live snakes on Fear Factor. They picture themselves in the same position and start feeling all icky. These are the people who say, "I don't care if you're gay, I just don't want to know about it".

For the record I support the right to same gender marriages. Just don't ask me to play with your snake.

[Brian_Expat]

101. LOL

That perspective always cracks me up, since the heterosexual men who assume we "want" them usually couldn't be further from the truth. :)

It reminds me of a time I was in line with a very campy friend of mine, and some guy behind us in a group of straight men said "this is a really gay part of town, I hope no dude hits on me." To which, John turned around, looked him up and down, and said in a very loud and camp tone "Honey, you have NOTHING to worry about."

The whole group burst out laughing! :D

[marshall]

102. Sexual Catharsis

I think the fear is more like the catharsis that Aristotle conjectured was why people enjoy tragedy. They watch Oedipus kill his father and marry his mother and they pity him, then they realize how he isn't that much different than them and it all happened so logically, and they fear the liklihood of something similar happening to them.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[silverpatronus]

106. first of all...

it's not a 'lifestyle', it's not a 'preference', a 'choice' or any other of those ridiculous qualifiers. you're gay or you're not. and i challenge you to satisfactorily define 'natural'. arguments like yours piss me the hell off.

and perhaps if people would foster acceptance and tolerance rather than accepting and perpetuating bigotry with crap 'i'm not homophobic but' arguments like this one, being ridiculed for your sexuality wouldn't be an issue.

[Cheswick2.0]

108. the sad thing is, that if one of her children is gay

she is already ridiculing them.

Congratulations Mom, you could be your own worst fear.

[traco]

109. In answer to your challenge

10 entries found for natural.
nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1.Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2.Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3.Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
a.Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b.Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c.Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5.Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6.Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7.Faithfully representing nature or life.
8.Expected and accepted: 'In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love' (Duff Cooper).
9.Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10.Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
Born of unwed parents: a natural child.

Other than that, I will not get into a name calling match with you. I stated my thoughts, you stated yours. We are both able to have our own thoughts. I don't have to adopt yours and you don't have to adopt mine.

[silverpatronus]

111. using your own definitions...

there is nothing 'unnatural' about homosexuality. gay people are born gay, 'not produced or changed artificially'...'present in or produced by nature'...'not acquired, inherent'...shall i go on?

gay is something you are, not something you do. i think more people need to understand that. i realise more and more that people just DON'T GET THAT! i think it's also a result of being socialised to stigmatise sex and sexual activity...even heterosexual sex is hidden away (unless it's useful to sell something). in this totally repressed culture, we've come right out the other side...thinking on the word 'gay' automatically leads minds to gay sex. like all gay people do is have gay sex.

i don't think i've been very clear, but it's really the best i can verbalise my view right now.

[Cheswick2.0]

107. What a crock of shit

1) gay relationships are natural. Many other animals besides humans also have same sex sex.

2)No matter what you want if your kid is gay there is nothing you can do about it...except preemptively make them hate themselves and cause they to contemplate suicide.

3)I can understand not wanting your kids to be ridiculed. However WTF is it with people who say "I am against the gay lifestyle"? What does that mean? If you aren't gay don't have sex with other women. How can you be against something that has nothing to do with you? How can you be against people being who they are? That has got to be the single most infuriatingly stupid statement homophobic people make. What are you against?

[Zorra]

114. You may find this interesting. Just in case.

DORREEN YELLOW BIRD COLUMN: Time comes for Americans to embrace gay-rights cause

The issue isn't new for me. My son told me years ago he was gay. I took it admirably in front of him but cried as I drove home that day. I wasn't sure why I was so sad, but after a couple of years, I figured the sadness came from a lost dream. I never would have grandchildren from my son.

That was more than 15 years ago, and since then, I have learned a lot more about gay issues. What people seem to find offensive or "icky" is a gay person's sex life. I am not sure why people concentrate on that part of gay life rather than on homosexuals as people. I find gay sexual preferences neither offensive, shameful nor sinful. I also need to say many Native people look at sin differently than non-Natives. Perhaps, alike partners are uncommon or unusual, but certainly, in my mind, not sinful.

Perhaps, you will say, I am looking at the issue from a slanted point of view because my son is gay. Ah, yes, Native women have a special relationship with their sons. That is true, but my son also is a good man. He lives a good life, treats his fellow person well, cares for the environment, is smart and loving - and I have learned a lot from him. I respect him, and I am extremely proud of who he is. He has a good spirit.

I tread softly, however, where those issues are concerned when I'm home because, like any Native mother, I would protect my son with claws and nails if need be, and I know that there are people in the community who aren't as respectful of their fellow men and women.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/6545663.htm

[Ms. Toad]

115. Disconnect..

There is a difference between wanting a good life for your children, which may include acknowledging that in our society it is hard being gay, female, minority, poor, etc. and actively contributing to making it a hard life.

Vocalizing a position against our lifestyle (whatever that is), and describing our relationships as other than natural will make life harder for your children if they are gay. My spouse, who knew she was gay when she was five, was still trying off and on to become straight until she was in her thirties - in part because of her parents very vocal negativity about that aspect of who she is.

But back to the first point, the best life possible doesn't necessarily mean an easy life. Adversity does sometimes build character - and some of the most wonderful characters I know have had very difficult lives.

[jus_the_facts]

110. The institution of marriage as a whole does more harm than good....

....all it does is cost way too much fuckin' money to get into and out of...the statistics indicate it's usually all for nothing anyway...and everyone who isn't married...gay or not...gets screwed in the eyes of the gov't...right along with the childless btw...so personally..I'm against marriage...and having children...for any reason. :nopity: