Gay marriage soapbox

It is silly that two consenting adults who love each other may or may not be able to get married depending on their sex and the state they live in. I really have no idea what goes on in the heads of folks who are against equal rights based on sexual orientation. People need to mind their own business.

Disclaimer: for the longest time I did not support gay marriage. As I have gotten older (not necessarily wiser ) I have become more tolerant and open minded. Yeah, I know that's ass backwards. I don't particularly care if someone is gay or whether that person wants to enter into a lifelong relationship with another gay person. It's none of my business. FWIW: a long ago friend of mine just got married to his boyfriend of many years. I wish them all the best. That marriage started a E36 M3storm down here, man I'd hate to be in their shoes right now. But regardless:

Marriage has long been assumed to be a legal union between a man and woman for the purpose of starting a family. That's deeply rooted in human tradition and history. Perhaps the real problem is that the stone age simpletons of the world perceive use of the word to describe anything other than the traditional marriage as an attack on the alleged 'values ' attached to it. Yeah, I know, I know: Newt et al have pretty much tore that up.

In the interest of achieving things incrementally, I'd suggest that the LGBT community perhaps choose another word for such a union which would give all the rights etc but only be called something different ('A rose by any other name smells as sweet'). Get that written into law, then work over time to merge it with the traditional hetero definition. It's like the old saying 'How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time'. Trying to make the huge leap all at once is bound to meet with opposition from the stone age simpletons.

Plus, gays who get married now have the 'luxury' of having to get a divorce. Used to not be that way. Now we straight guys have nothing to envy them for.

Fletch1 wrote: I love all people, including gay's, but sorry can't support the act. You guy's are defending it, so I have the right to represent the truth. It's also not natural. If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years. http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html I will not join the bandwagon on this issue. I guess I'll just live in the "stoneage" and be a "simpleton". I think that's what some people call my kind.

Personally, I've never known anyone who "turned" gay. I don't know about stoneage simpleton, but you are being illogical. Tell me how two guys /two girls being hot for each other - deprives you of your rights to life, liberty, or property, and I'll support the idea that there should be a law agaist it.

Oh, and on "gotquestionsdotorg," I tried finding the answer to the question "What's an appropriate place to stone my neighbor or slave to death for shopping on Sunday?" but couldn't find squat? Can you help me?

I applaud everyone here for the intelligent argument going on.. well done.

I am not gay (but have been accused because I am the forever single guy) but I see no reason to deny anybody the right to get married. I find it amusingly ironic that the "state" of Marriage in the US is in the decline, yet the same people who bemoan that fact, do not want to see same sex marriage.

Give it up.. if it is not hurting anybody or anything.. let it be. Let them get married and be just as miserable as the rest of the people

poopshovel wrote: I tried finding the answer to the question "What's an appropriate place to stone my neighbor or slave to death for shopping on Sunday?" but couldn't find squat?

Squat is in aisle 6.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

poopshovel wrote: I tried finding the answer to the question "What's an appropriate place to stone my neighbor or slave to death for shopping on Sunday?" but couldn't find squat?

Squat is in aisle 6.

Ahhhh. I was looking in the men's restroom. All I found was this poor dude with restless leg syndrome.

Fletch1 wrote: I love all people, including gay's, but sorry can't support the act. You guy's are defending it, so I have the right to represent the truth. It's also not natural. If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years. http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html I will not join the bandwagon on this issue. I guess I'll just live in the "stoneage" and be a "simpleton". I think that's what some people call my kind.

Question: How does legalizing gay marriage suddenly leap to the conclusion that everyone will turn gay?

Legalizing gay marriage won't "make" any more gay people than already exist, so i'm afraid i don't understand that particular piece of logic. If you weren't making that statement as a "next step" sort of scenario, and just by itself, it's still largely irrelevant, but it is logical in itself.

"If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years."

Well... yeah. Humanity would end. That's what happens when a species doesn't reproduce. Luckily, i don't think the 6.8 BILLION humans on this planet are in any danger of all turning gay overnight.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Salanis wrote: We do not live in a theocracy.

There are those who would change that.

That part always scared me. As a non-christian, people always look at me funny when the subject of religion comes up and I get asked what I am. They almost look shocked when I reply that I am a Taoist. Surprisingly, the person who was most accepting was my Mother, a woman who for the longest time, walked lockstep with whatever the church told her to do. Like above, she has gotten more liberal in her encroaching age

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Salanis wrote: We do not live in a theocracy.

There are those who would change that.

Leave the Muslims out of this............

There is a lot of talk and propaganda from the religious right who argue the generally accepted "separation of church and state" is not what the founding fathers meant and they strongly push for laws written with a bible-based slant.

I love my mother dearly, but some of the political stuff she gets scares the crap out me.

Hungary Bill wrote: A friend of mine once used the argument: "...but then people are going to be getting married to their dogs and...

So what's wrong with marriage to dogs?

(I'm only doing it for the vet benefits.)

Fletch1 wrote: I love all people, including gay's, but sorry can't support the act. You guy's are defending it, so I have the right to represent the truth. It's also not natural. If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years.

By that logic, so is celibacy. If everyone became monks and nuns, humanity would end in about 100 years. Does that mean we should outlaw clergy?

You know what isn't natural? Wearing clothes, driving cars, and constructing buildings. Arguably homosexuality is more natural since animals have been observed to engage in homosexual practices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

The only, ONLY issue I have is with wording.

Why is marriage a "right:" for the LGBT, or for the matter, anyone?

As mentioned, marriage for millennia has been between man and woman. The word MARRIAGE means a union between man and woman. I take offense to the fact that anybody feels they have the "right" to co-opt something that isn't theirs to begin with. As is typical with a minority view, they want to take something from others. A civil union can give a LGBT couple the exact same "rights" as a married couple. But noooooo, that's not good enough!

It's like if I adamantly stated that I am black, and it is my legal "right" to be seen/declared as such, even though I am NOT, I am white/Caucasian. THAT is ludicrous. This opinion has nothing to do with religion on my end. I have no problem with LGBT, but I don't typically associate with many (I also don't distance myself from somebody if I find out they are, unless they are a flamer as I don't hang around any attention whores).

Edit- Any club that excludes people based on certain standards is the exact same thing. And I would not support people trying to use the judicial system to join any club. Not that marriage is a "club", but you understand the analogy. And finally, I will NOT debate with anyone who picks apart the "analogy" portions of this whole post. It is well worded, and quite clear to it's intent. It is not a "right" to be defined as being married.

The one thing I hate is that people are acting like Homosexuality is a new thing developed in the 70's or some BS. Hate to tell them, it's not. Homosexuality has been around as long as man has, it's been recorded throughout time.

When my uncle came out, my grandfather (hardened WWII Vet) told him about how there was a lot of gay officers in the Navy back when he was in the Pacific. No one talked about it, but it was there and you knew who was.

Did anyone have an "Aunt" or "Uncle" that was eternally alone or lived with another "friend"? A lot of people have and it was very common because being gay was "embarrassing" or looked down upon by their peers.

My point is that it's nothing new and people need to get over it. It's not going anywhere.

Ian F wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

Salanis wrote: We do not live in a theocracy.

There are those who would change that.

Leave the Muslims out of this............

There is a lot of talk and propaganda from the religious right who argue the generally accepted "separation of church and state" is not what the founding fathers meant and they strongly push for laws written with a bible-based slant. I love my mother dearly, but some of the political stuff she gets scares the crap out me.

Ian, please turn-on your sarcasm detector or at least get a sense of humour. - See what I did there?

Then again, there are some in this country who would willingly apply Sharia law which views homosexuality in ways (at least) as atavistic as Bible-pounders. Fortunately both are in small numbers and very unlikely to gain enough political power to implement their particular moralities - I hope.

HiTempguy wrote: Why is marriage a "right:" for the LGBT, or for the matter, anyone?

I think you are mostly correct with this, "marriage" doesn't strike me as a "right" for anyone, but having the union of two people be recognized legally is a privilege that is extended to one group of people but not others. So instead of saying they want the same "rights" they want to receive equal opportunities.

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Being able to use public transportation is a privilege too. I see this as being like telling a woman that she doesn't need a drivers license because her husband, father, or brother can drive for her. Or telling someone they should ride a different bus or sit in a different portion of the bus because of their color.

As mentioned, marriage for millennia has been between man and woman. The word MARRIAGE means a union between man and woman. I take offense to the fact that anybody feels they have the "right" to co-opt something that isn't theirs to begin with. As is typical with a minority view, they want to take something from others. A civil union can give a LGBT couple the exact same "rights" as a married couple. But noooooo, that's not good enough!

No. Marriage has not always been defined as an equal covenant between one man and one woman as it is now. The definition has changed over time with marriage being a matter of politics or property. There was a time when women were the chattel of their husbands and marriage was the contract that passed ownership of them from their father to the husband.

They don't want to "take" something from anyone else. They want the same opportunities that another group has. Homosexuals getting married doesn't prevent others from getting married.

What you are suggesting is that the civil unions homosexuals can enter now are "separate but equal". Our own history has proven that concept to be false. Being separate is inherently unequal.

Salanis wrote: What you are suggesting is that the civil unions homosexuals can enter now are "separate but equal". Our own history has proven that concept to be false. Being separate is inherently unequal.

And society is not equal. Your point? Like I said, I can't be black, whether I want to be or not. They can't be "married", whether they want to or not. But they can get a civil union (which I do understand that each state is different and obviously not all have this, but that's why I suggest a change). And I can be white, which is perfectly apt for my situation.

As for your other statements, I do not disagree with them. The point is, it has been viewed for a LONG time, and has become accepted as, between man and woman whether it was a contract, a passing on of, or whatever is irrelevant. Once again, THEY ARE DIFFERENT. As such, different terms get applied to them. I can't be a doctor, because I don't meet the requirements. They can't be married, because they don't meet the requirements. This really isn't that difficult, and to say that because the wording is different their "rights" will somehow be impacted is, again, absurd. I'm wondering if there is a nazi reference coming from the liberal side of the fence, I get a feeling a comparison is being made somewhere...

This is sort of like the political correctness with words that have man and woman in them, and people would like to make them gender neutral. Get over yourself, is my opinion. I could care less that some dude likes taking it in the ass, but there is no need to co-opt marriage so he then feels like he is more "accepted". Feelings aren't rights the last time I checked...

You're making some strange analogies, man...

You can choose to be a doctor.
You can choose to be married.
You cannot choose to be black.

HiTempguy wrote: And society is not equal. Your point?

That equal opportunities in life is an integral value of our society and this is an opportunity to give people an opportunity they have previously been denied.

They can't be "married", whether they want to or not.

Why not? What is so significant about "marriage" that it can not be entered into by a same sex couple? Other than the argument that "that isn't how it's been in the past", which I don't buy. In the past interracial couples couldn't get married in this country. We realized that was so absurd.

Why is it important that marriage be between members of the opposite sex?

but there is no need to co-opt marriage so he then feels like he is more "accepted". Feelings aren't rights the last time I checked...

In what way is homosexuals getting married co-opting it?

Feelings aren't rights the last time I checked...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

In reply to oldsaw:

That was my point. I understood your sarcasm, but there are many who take this subject very seriously and I do not underestimate their numbers. My personal opinions on the subject are generally more offensive to them, so I'll keep them to myself.

Salanis wrote: It pisses me off when religion is used as the primary argument for a particular political position. We do not live in a theocracy.

We don't live in a theocracy yet, but there are many groups who are trying to change that.

I belive in God and try to live my life according to the teachings in the bible, but I still think that organized religion is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.

Maybe I shouldn't have taken those comparative religion classes in college.

I'm opposed to government recognition of gay marriage. I'm opposed to government recognition of all marriage, actually. Because it's an inherently religious institution, the government shouldn't be using it as a metric at all.

Everyone should have to legally have a civil union. If you want to call it marriage that's fine, but when you do your taxes it's "Civil Union, filing jointly."

I also don't have a problem with churches being unwilling to marry gays. It's their field, they can control who gets the ball. Churches should pay taxes, though.

poopshovel wrote: Personally, I've never known anyone who "turned" gay. I don't know about stoneage simpleton, but you are being illogical. Tell me how two guys /two girls being hot for each other - deprives you of your rights to life, liberty, or property, and I'll support the idea that there should be a law agaist it.

Agreed 100%

The same logic should also apply to many other things.

I would have to say we've defined marriage in our society less as a privilege and more as a right. A privilege can be taken from you, but a right cannot, and as far as I know nobody in this country has ever been denied a marriage as it is legally defined at the time - currently one man getting married to one woman.

So long as you meet the current legal definition of marriage - two consenting adults of opposite genders - nobody can stop you from being married. That sounds less like a privilege, and more like a right. You can't earn the privilege to get married, nor can that privilege be taken away from you.

We used to restrict that right to those who were the same race, but we don't any longer. I'll be glad when we extend the same right to homosexuals.

Fletch1 wrote: I love all people, including gay's, but sorry can't support the act. You guy's are defending it, so I have the right to represent the truth. It's also not natural. If everyone turned gay, the world would end in around 100 years. http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html I will not join the bandwagon on this issue. I guess I'll just live in the "stoneage" and be a "simpleton". I think that's what some people call my kind.

I appreciate your candor. The point of my essay was that it doesn't matter whether or not you approve... or whether or not you think God approves.

The point is this - Religions trying to ban same-sex marriage in government is like you trying to ban me from eating a donut just because you're on a diet. Freedom of Religion is still in the Bill of Rights, so just because one religion condemns it doesn't mean it should try to impose that on someone else.

Don't the hardcore fundamentalist Christians want sharia law? I fail to see the difference, except for maybe a level of personal hygiene.

Joey