I believe marriage is a legal institution. If same sex couples want to have legal recognition of their relationship. I believe we should allow it. I do not see how same sex unions affects the heterosexual population. If someone is straight, s/he will always be straight. and vice versa.
this is why i call evangelicals subhuman. because not only are they hateful, they are hateful to no personal benefit.
argue with that uccisore. where are you?
oh god please send an evangelical to this thread to argue so that we may impart his first taste of humanity through hilarious unmitigated name calling followed by irrefutable logic dispensing.
The first time you swear or call me a name I don’t appreciate, I will not longer reply to you, Future Man. That said, here is my cordial reply:
I don’t think gay marriage should be legal in the United States, simply because it’s clear that the vast majority of Americans don’t want it to be, and that’s how such things ought to be determined in this country. [/i]
uccisore,
at one time a vast majority of americans thought it was okay to own slaves, at one time a vast majority of bible belt americans felt it was okay to persecute blacks, and push “equal but seperate”.
At one time women were not allowed to vote because of the majority.
The majority is not always right.
Future Man,
you need to stop calling people sub-human it’s really distasteful.
Pinnacle of Reason,
I thought you were anti gay marraige? what the hell? now your saying it’s ok if they marry? You’ve got me all confused. maybe intentionally? who the hell knows.
There is one crucial reason that homosexual marriage is being denied.
Adoption rights.
That’s certainly true. However, a dictator is sometimes wrong, and a constitution can be wrong as well.
In a dictatorship, things go the way the dictator wants.
With adherence to a constitution, things go the way a piece of paper ‘wants’,and under our system, things go the way most people want. The point is, you can’t eliminate the possibility of error from any system, so saying majority rule is a bad idea because the majority can be in error is irrelevant- that’s true of any method, as long as humans are at the helm. What makes the difference is this: a system that allows the majority to determine their own fate and the nature of the society they live in is an inherent good, even if it’s not perfect.
Some issues are deeply controversial and problematic. Whether either of us wants to admit it, homosexual marriage is one of those issues, with many intelligent and well meaning people on both sides of the fence. No matter which side was in the minority, they would be claiming that the majority was wrong. Any attempt to say “The majority is wrong because…” should be phrased as an attempt to get the majority to change it’s mind, not to directly undermine the will of the people.
homosexuality is the current slavery, women equality issue. right now the fundamentalists are calling it immoral, but 50 years from now they’ll come around.
and I’m not saying majority rule is bad, I’m saying that all the inequalities that were and are in america were and are caused by fundamentalist beliefs.
you really feel that way about the issue?
my god.
deeply controversial and problematic.
my god.
We are talking about BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS here. can you see the connection and the chain?
slavery, to women voting, to blacks being “seperate but equal” to homosexual marriage.
it’s the current hot button human rights issue, that ONCE AGAIN, the right wing is reluctant to let be equal.
Well, this is the kind of argument you could make to try to convince a fundamentalist to chang their mind. It’s only when you conclude “…therefore, Christians shouldn’t vote their conscience” or something similar that you go off the tracks. Always keep in mind that the goal is not to defeat the majority, but to become the majority.
No. Truth be told, I find it extremely simple and straight forward. So do you. And yet, we disagree. The only reasonable conclusion, is that the issue is more complex than it first appears to either of us.
I’m so glad we live in a democratic republic instead of a plain old democracy.
It doesn’t matter what the majority wants. It’s what the Constitution says and what the law of the land is that’s important.
I believe in homosexual marriage. I also believe in a separation between church and state.
That means I don’t believe the state should define marriage to a church. And a church should not be able to define a civil union to the state. Churches should be able to define and perform marriages. Civil unions should be done by the state. If you want to get married then you have to agree to the definition of marriage by your choice of church.
Marriage (civil union) is a good thing. It’s a good thing for heterosexual couples. And for the very same reasons, it is good for homosexual couples.
All we have to do is look at situations where marriage (civil union) is discouraged in the heterosexual community. And we see exactly the same problems we see in the homosexual community. There’s more drug use, alcohol is the gateway drug. There’s more STDs because of the promiscuity. There’s higher rates of suicide, more depression, etc. If you don’t believe me look around a military base or a college town.
I approve of homosexual union as a legal institution. Not religiously. I am 100% against homosexual adoption, or any form of adoption.
five to one, all the opposition to gay marriage comes from economic logic dealt out by big companies.
Think of it this way, we do not allow public urination because we think it is disgusting. We do not allow marriages of homosexual couples because we think it is disgusting. What you do on your own time is your business, but showing it to the world is just stupid. Why would one feel the need to marry one of the same sex? WHAT ARE YOU GETTING OUT OF IT!? If you want to have sex with the same gender, thats fine, just don’t tell the world about your sex habits!
P of R,
In this country there are, because of a high divorce rate, many single parent homes. In a good number of these homes fathers are raising daughters, and they’re occasionally by themselves - alone!
For some unknown reason, our society deems this acceptable. Perhaps not the best parenting model, but acceptable. In short, our society will accept almost any sort of child raising scheme, but only if it begins in a heterosexual arrangement. Consider: mother-father, mother, father, aunt and uncle, aunt, uncle, grandparent(s), total stranger foster care. Anyone who will take responsibility for child raising (other than known pedaphiles) is accepted.
In light of this, please provide us with a rational explanation of your objections to homosexual adoption.
JT
Well, he said he’s against any form of adoption, so presumably your references to “what society accepts” don’t impact the consistancy of his argument.
if gay guys adopt a gay son, and the son learns how to talk and feel emotions like them, i dont think it would actually make him gay, seems like thats a difficult thing to do. what i think it would do is confuse him, i mean the kid is definetely going to learn to say some effeminate things.
whether or not its politcally incorrect for me to say this, i think any guy who acts like a girl could at worst be doing something that confuses their body and doesnt work right for some reason, or at best will alienate him from the shallow people among us.
i think gay people would agree that being gay as a kid while you still care about the shallow people’s opinion isnt exactly enjoyable. i think this is the main opposition to gay adoption, the adopted kids could act gay, alienating them just the same.
as for my hatred, it is a hatred of equal rights withholders. in ohio, gay people could get together, call themselves a civil union and get a tax break. now they cant. subhuman. also i want to insult them into responding here at which point i will very politely make a fool out of them.
ucci, you make a good point about the majority. the problem is, those of us with brains know that there is a moral standard that supercedes some out of context quotes from that wonderful source of overflowing wisdom and love, the bible.
we could tell them that eventually every moral issue in the past has been resolved by first us realizing that we have violated somebodys rights, and then second, we have to spend time and money convincing them to stop hating them. they cause this hassle every time and will always be a footnote in americas history as the haters that annoy all the smart people. christians. thanks a lot.
So heterosexual couples are allowed to tell the world about their sex habits but others arent?
I think you need to rethink this position.
Well, heterosexuals are universally accepted, I don’t need to rethink anything. Heterosexuals can have a child, a balanced parentage, and thats the WHOLE point of being heterosexual (That and different you-knows 
). Maybe YOU should rethink my position 
‘we’? I think it’s disgusting that legal recognition (and marriage) of same sex couples isnt permitted. And I dont find homosexual relationships disgusting.
Well according to this argument, we could raise the same question over what ANYONE ‘gets out of’ marriage. What exactly do heterosexuals get out of it??
The unfortunate assumption of this post is that all homosexuals are incapable of providing a balanced home life for children, whereas all heterosexuals ARE. This isnt true.
Nobody is discussing what is marriage?
Perhaps the very concept of marriage itself makes gay marriage a contradiction, and this issue irrelevant. So is marriage meaningful only if it is between male and female? And what has children, natural or adopted, got to do with marriage?
If it is legal recognition of two persons as a single entity, and all the social benefits and obligations that follows, then I think it can be done without calling it marriage, maybe enhanced civil union or whatever.
Also, this argument completely misses the core of the problem. There are people who think homosexuality is immoral, disgusting, dangerous, or otherwise not the sort of thing that ought to be promoted or endorsed in society. There are also people who think that homosexuality is a valid display of love, and should be celebrated just as other sorts of love are celebrated. Won’t two people who disagree on this fundamental thing just continually talk past each other on an issue like gay marriage?
Both sides of the issue think they are right, and the solution isn’t going to just appear that easily. To all you think that homosexuality is fine, and fundamentalism is dangerous: Your incredulity is not an argument. You can say as loudly and as often as you want that religious fundamentalism is the scourge of the earth, and that fundamentalists are crazy or dumb or whatever, and none of that gives the fundamentalist any reason to listen to you- it’s no more compelling than a fundamentalist quoting bible verses back at you.
I think that gets us too caught up in semantics, chan. We can define 'marriage' in such a way to exclude gays if we want, and then come up with this other thing that's exactly like marriage except gays can do it, but isn't that just a lot of redundancy?