Help me to understand please.

[Alizaryn]

Why does it matter how marriage is defined? Especially to those who can already participate in it and will not be affected by any change?

I'm not being sarcastic, I consider myself an extremely empathetic person and cannot for the life of me figure out why it matters to so many?

(I need to stop watching this confirmation hearing....)

[cynatnite]

1. Marriage should be defined by the people entering into it...

Not the states or the fed govt.

[Alizaryn]

2. Why does anyone have a problem with that?

[cynatnite]

5. The best I can come up with is...

they think they know what gawd wants and will do everything in their power to force it on the rest of us.

When I used to go church a very wise preacher told me one of god's greatest gifts was the gift of choice.

[Alizaryn]

6. My understanding of Christ would leads me to believe

that he would be the LAST person to judge anyone. He was also inclusive to any and all.

I can't see him caring. Where does anyone get the idea he would?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. I have never understood

how the gay couple across the street affects ME if they take vows and sign a paper. They keep their yard nice. They smile and wave. I don't get it, either.

I think maybe one of the big sticking points is simply semantics, and the limited nature of language. We have got to come up with a better word than partner or spouse.

But it reminds me something I read once by a mother who was scolded by her daughter's pediatrician for allowing the little girl to suck on a pacifier at age 2. The child looked at him, sucked on it in the corner of her mouth and asked "Hurts YOU?"

[Az]

3. It is the nature of the culture war before us

Those on the right believe there is a definable truth and that it just happens to be theirs. They no longer believe in working within the social contract of cooperation and tolerance of differing beliefs. Instead they have decided to become champions of the things they believe to be right and good.

[Wapsie B]

4. Because those in charge now

want the definition to be a very narrow one to the exclusion of groups not in their favor. Anything but the traditional man-woman nuclear family is an abomination to these people. They see the future and it scares the shit outa them.

[erinlough]

7. IMHO follow the money

Spouses get to collect on insurance payments and social security. Partners do not. I know it isn't only this, but I suspect it has a great deal to do with the insurance industry and the government coffers.
Then again I could be wrong.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. Ding...Ding..Ding.... give Erinlough a cigar....

... the 'god' of the group who would deny the freedom of any consenting adult to marry any other consenting adult is MONEY.

Civil unions are equally disagreeable to them for the exact same reasons.

Sad, sad excuse for any kind of moral high ground.- which Jesus would detest- he spoke more about the love of money and the evils of that than any other shortcoming.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Marriage is a legal contract

and, as such, has certain definitions, such as the age at which people can enter into this contract. This varies from state to state, of course, but no state would allow an infant to be married, for example. I believe that most states also have in their definition of marriage that it cannot be coersed. And of course, all states outlaw polygamy in their definitions.

These definitions were decided upon, sometimes arbitrarily (such as age to get married). No reason why the definitions cannot be amended to include, for example, same sex couples.

[bryant69]

10. It depends on whether or not you belive in a moral climate

Or if the private choices of individuals could have long reaching spiritual consequences. If you believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin, one that will cause grave problems for individuals who practice it and society as a whole, you might oppose homosexual unions because such woudl give governmental sanction to a sin or a bad behaivor.

Consider gun control - many on here would argue that the harm that allowing people to have guns outweighs any imposition on individuals liberties. This follows the same priniciple - the spiritual damage caused by gay marriages outweighs any imposition on their rights.

I'm not defending this, incidently, just giving an answer to what I assume is an honest question.

Bryatn
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com