Gay Marriage

[Danoff]

Call it Civil Union, introduce your friend as your life partner, what ever works but it would not be marriage.

...as defined by YOUR religion. Legally? It could be marriage. As defined by HIS religion? Maybe so. As defined by your religion, it is not. It doesn't extend farther than that.

You could say it isn't a Christian Marriage. Maybe it's a Legal Marriage, or a Spaghettien Marriage, but it isn't a Christian Marriage.

 

[Sureboss]

Famine would indeed be shocked if his fiancé had male genitalia.

 

[Zrow]

First of all, congrats to Famine.

But that's a great question. If athiests marry and make no mention of God at their wedding, why is that acceptable but not two people of the same sex? Why is the line drawn there?

 

[Tornado]

A single point:

2.) He doesn't have different beliefs, he will tell you he has no beliefs.

Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no God, or rather, the belief that there is no omniscient power. It can even be viewed as the belief of science over philosophy.

 

[Famine]

First of all, congrats to Famine.

But that's a great question. If athiests marry and make no mention of God at their wedding, why is that acceptable but not two people of the same sex? Why is the line drawn there?

There's a beautiful irony there.

Two atheistic, God-deniers of opposite genders = fine by God.
Two devout, God-believers of the same gender = wrong to God.

 

[Pako]

...as defined by YOUR religion. Legally? It could be marriage. As defined by HIS religion? Maybe so. As defined by your religion, it is not. It doesn't extend farther than that.

You could say it isn't a Christian Marriage. Maybe it's a Legal Marriage, or a Spaghettien Marriage, but it isn't a Christian Marriage.

I'm sorry, legally, a marriage is between a man and a woman. Ever wonder why the law was written that way? Homosexuality has been around for a long, long, long time. Why the need the change the legal term now? Let me answer that for you. There is no need to change the term because a marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, not a woman and a woman.

It thought we had come to a fair compromise 20 posts back? Shame on you danoff.

 

[Tornado]

I'm sorry, legally, a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Then how have gay marriages come about then? Shouldn't that be some kind of tear in the space time continuum?

 

[Pako]

A single point:

Atheism is a belief system. It is the belief that there is no God, or rather, the belief that there is no omniscient power. It can even be viewed as the belief of science over philosophy.

This is discussed at great lengths in the Creation vs. Atheism thread. I grow tired saying this, but save this discussion for another thread.

 

[Zrow]

But the point of this thread is asking, "why is the term defined as between a man and a woman?"

I can tell you every homosexual person in the US certainly isn't content with just leaving the term "as it is", and frankly I'm not either.

So let me answer your question: We need to change it because homosexuals are being denied to the right to legally marry, and that is discrimination.

 

[Danoff]

It thought we had come to a fair compromise 20 posts back? Shame on you danoff.

We did. I'm still fine with that compromise. But you still have to argue with other religions as to what the definition of marriage is. My point is that you should be explicit when you say what marriage is defined as, because it's currently defined differently in different contexts.

So when you say "marriage is between a man and a woman", just do us all a favor and say "Christian marriage is between a man and a woman" so that we know you're not claiming that the law should be based on Christianity.

BTW - This country defines marriage as being between a man and a woman because it was founded by Christians with Christian morals. That doesn't mean they got it right - afterall they enslaved black people, refused to allow women to vote, and burned witches alive. But that's the history behind the law... which is precisely why it needs to be changed.

 

[Omnis]

Why wouldn't God look on someone favourably for choosing a life long, monogamous promise with someone of the same gender?

Because God made penises to go into vaginas. It makes everyone happy. (Well... except the gays.)

 

[Duke]

As for explaining why it's a perversion, it's pretty simple. Sex is for procreation. Period. The species is not served by homosexuality. No genes get stirred, no offspring produced. Adoption is not an answer to that question, even if it was as involved as to take each "parent's" gametes and produce a cloned mix somehow and implant into one of the women (or for guys, a surrogate).

Let's make two hypothetical cases here:

1) Heterosexual couple has a child. For whatever reason, they are not prepared/able to support it. Child dies at an early age through abuse, neglect, or simple lack of resources to let it thrive despite parents' best efforts.

2) Homosexual couple with means and desire to support a child adopt said child from couple above.

Which one of these is better for the species and the gene pool?

But I do not accept the "modern" view that it's a normal, understandable, and even acceptable behavior. I don't care how many gay characters show up on prime time TV, I don't care how many dolphins or whales participate, it's not an acceptable behavior, and it does not warrant legal recognition as such.

It's not acceptable TO YOU. By what right to you claim authority that it should be unacceptable to everyone?!

Famine would indeed be shocked if his fiancé had male genitalia.

Indeed, since he's a lesbian!

 

[Omnis]

Indeed, since he's a lesbian!

LOL! Good points, Duke.

 

[Swift]

The basis of our country is democracy, capitalism and human rights. How is the "family" a basis for our nation? Are single people not part of the country? Do they not contribute? The "one parent" business has nothing to do with the gay discussion - not that you should be passing judgement on one-parent households.

No, that's the basis of the government system. The basis of the country, the people of the country, is the family. You can twist this anyway you want. But it's a statistical fact that children that come out of stable home situations do better, pound for pound, then children in unstable situations.

I think figuring that out is the least of their problems. I don't see any rational reason why gay people cannot raise kids.

Are you serious? They have to figure out why they have two moms and all their friends have a mom AND a dad?

How is our nation's idenity based on the stereotypical family?

People are willing to fight, die, bleed for their country. So that their family, and everyone else's family. I don't see how the family isn't the nations identity. Our entire society is based on it.

BTW - This country defines marriage as being between a man and a woman because it was founded by Christians with Christian morals. That doesn't mean they got it right - afterall they enslaved black people, refused to allow women to vote, and burned witches alive. But that's the history behind the law... which is precisely why it needs to be changed.

Then what elses didn't they get right? The bill of rights? separation of powers? the Representative congress? Or maybe they actually knew, being the smart men they were, that homosexual marriage will not bode well for society.

Seriously, how does this work? Every time we don't like the something is we have to change the laws?

You know what though, you prove to me, genetically that gay people have NO CHOICE. Like people have no choice in gender or race, then they can do their marriage thing.

BTW, burning witches has nothing to do with the constitution. I'm not defending it, just making a point.

 

[Danoff]

No, that's the basis of the government system. The basis of the country, the people of the country, is the family. You can twist this anyway you want. But it's a statistical fact that children that come out of stable home situations do better, pound for pound, then children in unstable situations.

What makes a gay marriage less stable than a heterosexual one? Heterosexual marriage doesn't exactly have the best statistical track record in this country.

Are you serious? They have to figure out why they have two moms and all their friends have a mom AND a dad?

How is that a rational reason why gay people cannot adopt?

People are willing to fight, die, bleed for their country. So that their family, and everyone else's family. I don't see how the family isn't the nations identity. Our entire society is based on it.

How? In what way is our society based on a family? People are willing to fight and die for lots of things, not just family. And there are family memebers that I'd think twice about fighting for - I think I'd be more likely to fight against them. <- That's not a joke.

Please explain to me how our country is based on the family.

Then what elses didn't they get right? The bill of rights? separation of powers? the Representative congress? Or maybe they actually knew, being the smart men they were, that homosexual marriage will not bode well for society.

Seriously, how does this work? Every time we don't like the something is we have to change the laws?

The concept of a bill of rights, or separation of powers is rooted in logic and rationality. The concept that marriage is ordained by god is based on religious zeal - which many people who subscribe to a different religion would disagree with. Rationality is the only thing we can base our social structure on in a country that advertises freedom of religion.

You know what though, you prove to me, genetically that gay people have NO CHOICE. Like people have no choice in gender or race, then they can do their marriage thing.

What difference does it make?

 

[wfooshee]

I conclude my remarks to this thread with the following. My views have been severely criticized, about which I make no complaint. That's what these forums are for! What I hope to accomplish is to explain my thinking, and how I come to feel the way I do. Please note that not a single religious word is present in the essay. My view is not religious, or even moral. It's practical, to my way of thinking. I don't hope to change anyone's mind, but I do hope to help you think in a manner unaccustomed, to see another viewpoint.


Obviously the fact that I grew up in the 60's instead of the 90's has completely destroyed my ability to perceive the realities faced by people in a modern world. Apparently the contribution of the gay community to modern life, whether it be art, music, dance, or women's tennis, requires that I accept their lifestyle as an inevitable consequence of modern life, and furthermore that I accept the need to identify the community as a legal entity, alongside the historic rights movements for gender and race, those also being genetically determined for the individuals affected, with no choice for them in their acceptance of or influence over their state. "He can't help being black." "She can't help being female." "They can't help being gay."

Disney, ABC, the film studios, et al have gone out of their way to show me my errors; to demonstate that a gay lifestyle is a normal lifestyle, hoping against hope that I don't spot the gay community using its resources to portray itself in a "new light." Celebrities coming out of the closet every day, proudly proclaiming to the world, "Look! It's OK. If even I can be gay, and happy about it, then how can there be anything wrong with it?"

So with this "new" information at hand, I'll have to sit down sometime, spend a few moments with my thoughts, turn off the TV, turn down the music, and examine the conclusions I've so mistakenly drawn.


Isn't gonna happen. Homosexuality is an abnormal, useless-to-the-species, genetically end-of-the-line behavior. There is no justification for its use as the basis of a household union. It has no place in the upbringing of our children. It is inconceivable that its acceptance into mainstream society can produce useful results for humanity as a whole.

Comparing contraception to homosexuality is more ludicrous than my comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. My wife and I are a VERY happily married couple, but beyond the years for starting a new life. Contraception is an important part of our ability to continue to enjoy each other intimately. We NEVER assumed that any given sex act would, or even should produce a child. Yet somehow three have come through our household, and one of those has two of his own. There is no desire on our part to cease our sexual activity because we've played our part to the species. We earned the right to the continuation because we've played our part to the species.

You see, contrary to popular belief, sex is not merely an act of pleasure to be sought for its own sake. It's not something you hope to find under the bleachers after Friday night's ball game. It's not something you should expect after an expensive date just because, after all, you put up the big bucks. It's a commitment to your partner, a demonstration that you are willing to form a partnership which will last long enough to properly care for the result of the sex. If it's treated as anything less, then there is no meaning in it to either partner, and neither partner should count on anything from the relationship beyond the physical gratification. If the touchie-feelie is all you're about, the two of you have no future together.

That last is the only level a homosexual relationship can achieve. Oh, they may carry on about love, they're so happy together, blah, blah, blah. It serves no purpose, and creates no basis for the commitment to each other required by caring for their young. It cannot be recognized as such a commitment by society as a whole, or society will have accepted its own lack of a future.

 

[Zrow]

What about the heterosexual couple that doesn't have any kids, and haven't wanted any from the start? By the way, they screw like bunnies.

 

[Duke]

I conclude my remarks to this thread with the following. My views have been severely criticized, about which I make no complaint. That's what these forums are for! What I hope to accomplish is to explain my thinking, and how I come to feel the way I do. Please note that not a single religious word is present in the essay. My view is not religious, or even moral. It's practical, to my way of thinking. I don't hope to change anyone's mind, but I do hope to help you think in a manner unaccustomed, to see another viewpoint.

Well, I'm glad you make no complaint. However, I do hope to change your mind, or at the very least, help you think in a new manner. I hope this truly isn't your last post, because it seems to me that many of your supposed practical points are based entirely on assertions you've made by fiat rather than true logic.

Obviously the fact that I grew up in the 60's instead of the 90's has completely destroyed my ability to perceive the realities faced by people in a modern world.

I was born in 1965 to an unremarkable, largely conservative American couple, so I am not a product of modern political correctness in any way. My opinions are derived directly from my logical analysis of human and civil rights.

Apparently the contribution of the gay community to modern life, whether it be art, music, dance, or women's tennis, requires that I accept their lifestyle as an inevitable consequence of modern life, and furthermore that I accept the need to identify the community as a legal entity, alongside the historic rights movements for gender and race, those also being genetically determined for the individuals affected, with no choice for them in their acceptance of or influence over their state. "He can't help being black." "She can't help being female." "They can't help being gay."

I make no apology and demand no special consideration for anyone on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. No particular group should have additional inherent rights over any other. The corollary to that is that no particular group should have FEWER inherent rights than any other. We'll exclude criminals from this discussion because they are a subset who voluntarily forfeit rights by choosing to harm others.

Disney, ABC, the film studios, et al have gone out of their way to show me my errors; to demonstate that a gay lifestyle is a normal lifestyle, hoping against hope that I don't spot the gay community using its resources to portray itself in a "new light." Celebrities coming out of the closet every day, proudly proclaiming to the world, "Look! It's OK. If even I can be gay, and happy about it, then how can there be anything wrong with it?"

I have to say with some pride that I am about as immune to hype and pop culture as it is possible to be without being actually antisocial. If I was readily influenced by everything I see and hear I would most likely be A) religious, and B) a Democrat - I am neither (nor a Republican, for that matter).

I don't understand your insistence that contribution to society (be it art, entertainment, athletics, or monetary) is related to sexual preference at all. Why would someone's achievements be any more (or less) valid based on if they're gay or not? In my mind the equation returns a null - the criteria does not relate to the issue being evaluated.

So with this "new" information at hand, I'll have to sit down sometime, spend a few moments with my thoughts, turn off the TV, turn down the music, and examine the conclusions I've so mistakenly drawn. Isn't gonna happen.

That's a true shame. I wish I could understand your dead-set closed-mindedness on this issue. You're making an earnest attempt to explain and justify it, but all of your argument rests on the simple assertion that homosexuality should not exist in the first place, therefore it shouldn't be tolerated to exist. That makes no logical connection that I can see.

Homosexuality is an abnormal, useless-to-the-species, genetically end-of-the-line behavior. There is no justification for its use as the basis of a household union. It has no place in the upbringing of our children. It is inconceivable that its acceptance into mainstream society can produce useful results for humanity as a whole.

Instead of simply saying "it's inconceivable", can you demonstrate why it's inconceivable? Because I can easily conceive how acceptance of homosexuality would benefit mainstream society as a whole:

• Decreased tension/violence between social groups
• Increased pool of households willing/able to adopt unsupported children
• Decreased waste of effort/thought on an irrelevant subject
• Increased equality of inherent rights among individuals

...and that's just off the top of my head.

You're simply declaring that homosexuality has no place in society and that it is a genetic dead end. That's not necessarily so. Remember, natural selection cares not a bit about the survival of the individual, but of the species. So it could be that having some portion of the species be homosexual serves a purpose - adoption is only one possibility. It should be noted that homosexual behaviour is widely prevalent and documented in the animal world, so it is NOT simply a fatal genetic trait that is disasterous for a species.

There is nothing in natural selection or genetics that mandates monogamy, either, yet you seem to believe that permanent heterosexual pair bonding is the highest form of mating behaviour possible for a species. This simply is not true. Permanent pair bonding is not necessarily bad for the species, but it is not automatically the best course for the species to take.

Thousands of animal species practice non-monagamous mating and successfully raise young; there is no clear evidence that this system offers any disadvantage compared to paired parenting. Additionally, consider the Canada Goose - these geese mate for life. If one partner dies, the survivor will not re-mate, ever. Therefore, the most genetically superior Canada Goose can be lost to the gene pool if its mate is killed, even though it may have had years of reproduction still available to it. Certainly this trait is counter-productive to the species as a whole - yet it exists. Again, there's no clear evidence that lifelong monogamy is of benefit to the species, yet your assumptions rest on an imagined genetic mandate dictating that there is.

Comparing contraception to homosexuality is more ludicrous than my comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia.

Please explain why, because I truly do not understand. You stated that "sex was for reproduction, PERIOD". It follows directly from that statement that the only reason to have sex is with the anticipation of conceiving a child.

My wife and I are a VERY happily married couple, but beyond the years for starting a new life. Contraception is an important part of our ability to continue to enjoy each other intimately. We NEVER assumed that any given sex act would, or even should produce a child. Yet somehow three have come through our household, and one of those has two of his own. There is no desire on our part to cease our sexual activity because we've played our part to the species. We earned the right to the continuation because we've played our part to the species.

So, apparently, sex IS NOT only about reproduction after all, which is in contradiction of your earlier assertion that it IS. I suppose I'm glad that my wife and I have earned our "right" to continue having sex, since we have reproduced ourselves for the good of the species.

Again, however, imagine we had been unable to conceive. Does that mean we would forfeit our "right" to continue having sex, because we had not contributed genetically to the species in any way?

You see, contrary to popular belief, sex is not merely an act of pleasure to be sought for its own sake. It's not something you hope to find under the bleachers after Friday night's ball game. It's not something you should expect after an expensive date just because, after all, you put up the big bucks. It's a commitment to your partner, a demonstration that you are willing to form a partnership which will last long enough to properly care for the result of the sex. If it's treated as anything less, then there is no meaning in it to either partner, and neither partner should count on anything from the relationship beyond the physical gratification. If the touchie-feelie is all you're about, the two of you have no future together.

That last is the only level a homosexual relationship can achieve. Oh, they may carry on about love, they're so happy together, blah, blah, blah. It serves no purpose, and creates no basis for the commitment to each other required by caring for their young. It cannot be recognized as such a commitment by society as a whole, or society will have accepted its own lack of a future.

This simply doesn't follow, logically. Recreational sex strengthens the bond between you and your wife, as you have stated above. Why is it impossible that it does the same thing for homosexual couples?

Your own young have, by your own admission, left the nest and begun their own families. What need is there for you and your wife to remain a couple, by your own definition? What biological imperative demands that you stay together? None. Therefore, biological imperative is not the root cause of your desire to remain a sexually active, monogamous couple.

Given the marked success the human species has had in reproducing itself and dominating its environment, you'll also be hard put to prove that homosexuality constitutes a complete "lack of future" for the species. You seem to think that acceptance of homosexuality would be akin to deliberately exposing ourselves to the bubonic plague - deliberately starting an epidemic that would eventually infect every member of the race and make us extinct. Given the human population history of the Earth since the dawn of recorded time (say, the last 4,000 years) there is absolutely ZERO evidence that homosexuality jeopardizes the existence of the species as a whole.

 

[Famine]

...and both the Greeks and Romans, source of much of the Western world's culture today, engaged in high- to military-grade homosexuality.

 

[Sureboss]

If everyone's role in life is to reproduce then wouldn't the worlds population be beyond control? (And I don't mean chinese type of control).

 

[Duke]

No, that's the basis of the government system. The basis of the country, the people of the country, is the family. You can twist this anyway you want. But it's a statistical fact that children that come out of stable home situations do better, pound for pound, then children in unstable situations.

Sure, that's true. Yet you've given absolutely no evidence that homosexual relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual ones. There is no evidence that heterosexual relationships are inherently MORE stable. And you can't say that homosexual relationships are less stable when they are damaged by forced application of the heterosexual norm, because that is NOT an inherent trait of homosexuality, but of rigid application of an arbitrary norm.

Are you serious? They have to figure out why they have two moms and all their friends have a mom AND a dad?

You keep claiming this as some insurmountable issue that children will never be able to comprehend. Before they were 10 years old, we explained the concept of homosexuality to our children. They had not the slightest difficulty in comprehending it, and still don't. If I was gay, and married, I imagine the conversation would have gone something like this, when my kid came home from his first day of kindergarten:

Child: Daddy, why do I have two dads and no mom?
Duke: Well, son, since your other dad and I thought we could be good parents but we couldn't make our own baby, we adopted you from some people who could make a baby, but were worried they couldn't be good enough parents.
Child: Oh, OK. Kind of like my friend Jessica. She has a mom and a dad, but they couldn't make their own baby either, so they adopted her.

End of story. Why does it have to be more complicated than that?

The only reason it has to be more complicated than that is when I have to explain why some people don't tolerate homosexuality. And as I've said, problems that arise from forced insistence of the norm are NOT the problem of the non-normal behaviour; they are a problem of misapplication of the norm. As I've done with Gil in the past, let me impose on your good nature a little to make a point:

How are YOU and your fiancee going to explain to your children why they have a black dad and a white mom, when all of their friends have two black parents or two white parents?

If you say that this is no longer an issue (which it is still an issue in many groups), imagine you are living 50 years ago, and then try to explain it.

People are willing to fight, die, bleed for their country. So that their family, and everyone else's family. I don't see how the family isn't the nations identity. Our entire society is based on it.

Sorry, this simply doesn't logically follow. There's nothing inherent to the concept of "family" that our entire American society springs from.

Personally, I'm willing to fight and die so that all individuals who choose to be Americans (and all the good that implies) can be free to do so.

 

[Pako]

Since when is supreme entitlement healthy for an individual, group, or society? We have guys that want to be on womans tennis teams, we have guys wanting to work at Hooters, we have woman wanting to play in Men's League sports. Now we have homosexuals wanting to play husband and wife. I'm sorry but we are NOT entitled to certain things, unpopular to politically correctness. Don't you dare compare the Womans Rights movement or the freeing of slaves to what we're talking about here. What we have is a bunch of whiny, spoiled brats stomping on the ground, throwing these temper tantrums like little kids. Well I gotta tell ya, sometimes life just isn't fair. You were born a guy that wants to play womans tennis, sucks to be you, deal with it. Why should the ideals of a family unit be compromised just because it will make someone else feel better about the choices they have made, or more so, just for a tax brake or better insurance? Family values matter! It's the same people crying for civil rights for gay marriages that also have devalued relationships and family responsibilities. If it feels good, do it. If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem? Take a look at the moral decline of our country in the last 30 years alone. There's a lot more to the issue than just gay marriages. It's just one more notch against the moral fabric that this country was founded on. If you think that every one is equal in everything and is entitled to everything you are gravely mistaken.

Christian or not, a marriage is the public union of a man and a woman. If you want to change that then just get rid of 'marriage' all together because once you compromise that, it is no longer 'marriage' but something entirely different.

 

[Pako]

...and both the Greeks and Romans, source of much of the Western world's culture today, engaged in high- to military-grade homosexuality.

How did trying to satisfy every hearts desire help the Greeks and the Romans? It eventually lead to the fall of a once great culture.

 

[Famine]

I'm curious...

If a guy has "gender reassignment surgery", he can have his birth certificate amended to reflect her new gender. If she then marries a guy, is this okay? She's a woman (though originally a man), he's a man...


Thank goodness this debate doesn't involve anyone from the Dominican Republic...

How did trying to satisfy every hearts desire help the Greeks and the Romans? It eventually lead to the fall of a once great culture.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - the Greeks and Romans liked a bit of everything and, eventually, their cultures fell apart. Did it fall apart because they enjoyed fornicating with everything, or through some other means, or did it just fall apart? Since it was ingrained in their culture, one might equally opine that their cultures were built on sexual liberty - though equally inaccurately.

I can't imagine any situation where putting it in the wrong 'un would cause the fall of a civilisation spanning a third of the planet. Though the Romans did believe that buggery caused earthquakes.

 

[Mark T]

I'm curious...

If a guy has "gender reassignment surgery", he can have his birth certificate amended to reflect her new gender. If she then marries a guy, is this okay? She's a woman (though originally a man), he's a man...


Thank goodness this debate doesn't involve anyone from the Dominican Republic...

She (he?) would still be a man. Everything has been changed cosmetically or through hermone treatment. It's still a man no matter what the birth certificate says. I believe marriage should only take place between a "real" man and woman.

 

[UnoMOTO]

This subject is I think just part of a bigger problem. The problem of acceptance&#8230;is our country a better place now then 100 years ago because we have become more acceptable. Sure you might have a nice house, car, cell phone or any other material thing. Are you happier because someone tells you how you should be accepting of someone else&#8217;s behavior? We have so many problems in the country right now that we are beginning to lose our identity. We are not able to celebrate our heritage because what they did isn&#8217;t kosher with today&#8217;s pc thinking. In turn we now our being invaded day by day from our southern border. And we are told that we must accept them with open arms. We are told that we must accept that the gay lifestyle is ok and good for the country. If you don&#8217;t agree you are labeled racist, intolerant. I think piece by piece we are washing away the foundation that created the this great land that everyone continues to say that it isn&#8217;t good enough and must change any and every law that makes someone feel uncomfortable. We vote in our political leaders thinking that they have a certain view and then come to find out that they end up voting other then how they campaigned. History has proven over time that most great societies end up having a revolution due to government getting out of control and I believe that we are creating a situation to cause a need to repeat history. It may take a hundred years or so but I would make a bet in Vegas that it will happen in this country. We need to stop trying to make small percentages of the country happy and focus on the greater good of the masses. As for this topic I believe that 30 some states have voted down any law that would make gay marriage legal. We have spoken and It would be nice if the rest would listen. Theres my

.

 

[Danoff]

Since when is supreme entitlement healthy for an individual, group, or society?

There's a difference between entitlement and wanting the equal application of the law guaranteed by our constitution. Wanting others to provide you with something is borderline criminal. Wanting to force someone to hire you against their will, or allow you into their sports league against their will, is force, and it's morally wrong.

Wanting the government to stop discriminating is the same thing that women and blacks have been fighting for for decades.

Again, I'd ask you to stop monopolizing the term marriage. You don't have the final say in it's definition. Perhaps you're an authority on Christian marriage, but the rest of us (and logic, rationality, and the constitution) have a say in what stands as "Legal" marriage.

 

[Swift]

What makes a gay marriage less stable than a heterosexual one? Heterosexual marriage doesn't exactly have the best statistical track record in this country.

...well not anymore. But 50 years ago, people actually stayed married. Go figure. Then that stupid "no fault" clause came about and people get married out of lust and get divorced out of boredem.

Please explain to me how our country is based on the family.

I already have. What else is the literal basis for the VOTERS in this country. When people vote, whether they have children or not, the vote for the people they think will do the best for them and the following generation. Why does almost every politician use the term "family values" or something similar? Because they understand that a vast majority of the populous is concerned with their family's well being. Why do politicians show off their spouses and children? Because people want to see they can have a healthy family. Why did slaves fight against slave owners? So them and their families wouldn't be in bondage.

Families are what make up this country. Yes it's an ideological concept that can't be "proven" but that doesn't make it invalid.

The concept of a bill of rights, or separation of powers is rooted in logic and rationality. The concept that marriage is ordained by god is based on religious zeal - which many people who subscribe to a different religion would disagree with. Rationality is the only thing we can base our social structure on in a country that advertises freedom of religion.

I could EASILY point to the bible for separation of powers and the basics of the bill of rights, easily. Whether or not you agree it came from there is a different story.

Again, I'd ask you to stop monopolizing the term marriage. You don't have the final say in it's definition. Perhaps you're an authority on Christian marriage, but the rest of us (and logic, rationality, and the constitution) have a say in what stands as "Legal" marriage.

This is amazing. We (Pako and I) talk about Christmas being about Christ and you point to history saying that it's not and in today's society it is not. But the HISTORY of marriage in this country has been very much between one man and one woman and been a spiritual bond.

The term for marriage is monopolized because that's what it is. It is between a man and a woman.

@Duke: I know you explained homosexuality to your children and that's fine. But my point is if you were with a guy and had two daughters, I doubt it would be so easy for them to understand.

I really can't believe we're getting into this again...oh well.

 

[Zrow]

It's the same people crying for civil rights for gay marriages that also have devalued relationships and family responsibilities.

Um, what? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that danoff, Duke, Famine and certainly I don't have "devalued relationships and family responsibilites". What does this even mean?

It's just one more notch against the moral fabric that this country was founded on.

You know what I think is immoral? Deciding for others that they can't have the same right every other person has because it doesn't fit "tradition".

By the way, as someone pointed out earlier, this country was also based on high concepts such as slavery and a lack of women's suffrage.

 

[Mark T]

There's a difference between entitlement and wanting the equal application of the law guaranteed by our constitution. Wanting others to provide you with something is borderline criminal. Wanting to force someone to hire you against their will, or allow you into their sports league against their will, is force, and it's morally wrong.

Wanting the government to stop discriminating is the same thing that women and blacks have been fighting for for decades.

Again, I'd ask you to stop monopolizing the term marriage. You don't have the final say in it's definition. Perhaps you're an authority on Christian marriage, but the rest of us (and logic, rationality, and the constitution) have a say in what stands as "Legal" marriage.

I believe that men/women should be able to commit to each other. I don't believe it should be considered marraige. Marraige by definition is a religous or legal commitment between a man and a woman.

There should be a another ceremony for the marriage of two people of the same sex. Why? Simply because traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. Although I suppose that would be considered discrimination.