Gay Marriage?

[Aesop]

Another hot topic right now in the U.S. mainly because it's an election year I think.

For me it's as easy as this: If you aren't trying to marry me, wtf do I care what you do? I realize it's not that easy for a lot of people though. The most heard argument against it is that it will destroy the sanctity of marriage between man and woman.

Now I really don't understand that position at all. How does Tom and Dave getting married destroy what I have with my wife? Or make it less? Only my wife and I can make or break this marriage, nobody else has that power. Do they?

The really seemingly odd thing about it is that it's being pushed by the Republican party, whose credo is and always has been "less government". So they don't want the federal government to dictate how fast I drive in my home state, but they think it's okay to say who I'll marry. Just odd.

Anyway what are your thoughts on the whole thing?

[MsUther]

This is also a hot topic in Norway, allthough it has chilled a lil lately, it always seem to surface and has been more or less debated all the time for the last 5-8 years.

Our previous bishop was pro gay marriage, and pro humanity. Me being an atheist, i highly appreciated this powerfull mans set of thinking and acting. He was very debated and he always was er....cool about it.
Now, on the other hand, they have managed to tear down much of the work he put in for gay peoples rights. The new bishop is very oldfashioned regarding gay marriage and even accepting gay people at all. He wants to heal them from their illness and misguided behaviour with the word of God.

And that enrages me so. What did God try to teach hes minions by putting Jesus on earth if it was not to accept and love all people, be them misguided priests or poor statued custom officers?

Humans have put themself in such an exposed position.

The shady moral you mention, Aesop, we also see here. The government is being watched over so to not govern people life in every little detail. But when people love eachother, the very mission of Jesus, they find it totally acceptable to butt in (eehehe) and with religion and moral in hand slam down the sapling of societys acceptance of differences.

[Silke]

I actually think it's two pairs of shoes you're discussing here. One is the marriage as seen by the state/government...something that is really needed to give the gay couple the rights any heterosexual couple has, like giving the partner the official right to visit and get information when the other partner is in hospital for example, or give the security needed (like inheriting house, money, etc) when the partner dies)...you get the idea. The other end of the story is the marriage in the face of the church and God.

While the former has been legalized in a lot of countries, the latter is a lot more tricky since the church still refuses to give their blessing to homosexual couples.

[Aesop]

I actually think it's two pairs of shoes you're discussing here. One is the marriage as seen by the state/government...something that is really needed to give the gay couple the rights any heterosexual couple has, like giving the partner the official right to visit and get information when the other partner is in hospital for example, or give the security needed (like inheriting house, money, etc) when the partner dies)...you get the idea. The other end of the story is the marriage in the face of the church and God.

While the former has been legalized in a lot of countries, the latter is a lot more tricky since the church still refuses to give their blessing to homosexual couples.

Oh I agree, trouble is (at least in the U.S.) that the government is using religious arguments to push the law so if I want to debate the topic I have to combine them as one. I'm not arguing whether or not any church should sanction it. That's up to the ruling body of whatever church it is and if it were me I'd just not be a member if my church said I couldn't get married. Each church is entitled to believe how it wants, but should the government of a country that was founded on the priciples of seperation between church and state be telling Shirley and Janice they can't get married because one of them doesn't have a cock?

[Weena]

This subject infuriates me.
I believe if two people want to make a commitment to each other, it shouldn't be of anyones concern. What does the sanctity of marriage consist of now? Times have changed.Personal belief and moral system are different for everyone.
If it is a piece of paper thats makes a couple feel secure, weather they are gay or straight, let them marry.
Just my thoughts
~weena~

[MsUther]

What you mentioned, Silke, is so important. I mostly dont think that far, i always react so strong emotionally when this theme comes up, so my brain gets more than a lil clouded

What i forgot to mention is that in Norway we have a fusion between state and church. So if the head of the church and the church community in Norway dont accept gay people, that effect is quite tremendous on the believer.

But we are working on it, and the discussions that comes up about this is very much needed.

[Silke]

Yes, Weena...same here, it really drives me up the wall, too!!
And Aesop - yes, I've seen that happen with a lot of political debates in the US...and I have no idea why political issues seem to get merged with religious beliefs so frequently in US politics. Just another thing that drives me nuts, but I'll leave that to another thread if I get to it.

So, my take on this is...if people want to be together and are willing to commit to a vow of marriage...what the heck could be wrong with that??? No matter what gender they are...

[maddie]

My $0.02:

Marriage is a religious institution and ought to remain such. Therefore, strictly speaking, if a church does not wish to recognize gay marriage, so be it. In the U.S., we're supposed to have a separation of Church and State; therefore, I don't think there ought to be any legal rights attached to a religious institution.

I think that any couple, same sex or opposite sex, ought to have the opportunity to have a civil union, which would be binding by law and have the rights currently afforded to married couples. Civil union and marriage could be combined into one ceremony, but they wouldn't have to be. That would, as the religious right so desperately desires, "preserve the sanctity of marriage" while not discriminating against people based on sexual orientation (which, last I checked, is illegal here in the U.S.).

If we're going to have true separation of Church and State, you can't attach legal rights to a religious institution.

When I am Queen of the World, this will all be taken care of.

[cheeseburger]

Marriage is slowly becoming less and less religious, although (I hope) no one disputes that it stems from religious practices.

My stand on all these issues is neutral: I don't give a rats ass what someone else does privately. He can screw monkeys in his basement, I could care less. But its not about that anymore; the issue isn't about people letting others lead different lifestyles, its that gays want more.

Many want a 'gay' (homosexual) marriage to be identical to a 'straight' (heterosexual) marriage. My question is: why?

Silke, you mention some 'rights' you claim only heterosexual partners have. While I don't have enough information to contradict you on this, I personally agree with you (although I strongly doubt this is the case. It seems unlikely that a hospital would deny such information to a partner... but whatever).

If these little legal issues were really the problem, whats wrong with a 'civil union' as they call it? You get all the rights you want, (if you don't then you should, so please don't get into details about exactly what laws on civil unions are in place), but you don't get the recognition.

Thats what (I think) this is all about. Recognition. Acceptance. We want the little paper, dammit, so were gonna make a huge ruckus until we get it!

Although this is probably a kind of silly example, brangelina doesn't feel the need to get a marriage. They see it as a formality, and I kind of agree.

Marriage is supposed to be about having kids. Creating a good environment to raise angsty adolescents. Sure, you can argue, gay couples can adopt (as many straight couples do). But in adoption, you need to be extremely careful when you let someone adopt as child. If one were to create a 'parenting test' that determines if a couple can adopt, my opinion is that a large percentage of families - with biological children - would fail, but thats just my opinion. The point is people don't call homosexuals 'perverts' for no reason; regardless of wether you like it or not. And raising a little kid with two mother figures is great; why don't we legalize polygamy. Now you can have 2 mother figures, and a father figure. Perfect? C'mon.

It would be very interesting to one day just legalize all gay marriages, no debate, no discussion, then watch what happens. My money is on people turning up in record numbers to marry, and then in a few years that number drops to close to zero. This issue is about 94% hype.

Also, I kind of doubt these relationships would work out long term. I mean, so many people are divorcing out of 'normal' marriages, whats the rate going to be among homosexuals?

My last point, if I didn't overstay my visit here yet, is that you need to realize the law is never going to be 100% secular, logical, and shiny. There are some things you just don't do, for example incest. You don't need to read the bible to know thats not so clever, and even with birth control, is that such a good idea? Granted, I don't personally care about this, but wouldn't you say practicing this would be the symptom, for lack of a better word, of a mental disorder? What I'm saying is the law will always contain some common-sense things in it. And it kind of should. If you stand for totally removing anything that isn't 100% logical and unsafe from it, you also stand for all kinds of weird and rather stupid things. Keep that in mind.

Oh and,

Another hot topic right now in the U.S. mainly because it's an election year I think.

The kind of obvious (I dunno, it is to me) reason this was brought up was because Bush realized he was getting bashed about everything he talks about; gay marriage is something he thinks he can use to divert attention away from all the bashing. I think at least.

[Aesop]

Many want a 'gay' (homosexual) marriage to be identical to a 'straight' (heterosexual) marriage. My question is: why?

And mine is, "Why not?"

Silke, you mention some 'rights' you claim only heterosexual partners have. While I don't have enough information to contradict you on this, I personally agree with you (although I strongly doubt this is the case. It seems unlikely that a hospital would deny such information to a partner... but whatever).

If these little legal issues were really the problem, whats wrong with a 'civil union' as they call it? You get all the rights you want, (if you don't then you should, so please don't get into details about exactly what laws on civil unions are in place), but you don't get the recognition.

Thats what (I think) this is all about. Recognition. Acceptance. We want the little paper, dammit, so were gonna make a huge ruckus until we get it!

Even if you are right (and I don't think you are) so what? Acceptence isn't something just lightly brushed off. I can't help but put this in a bdsm context. I would love the freedom to walk down the street with my sub on a leash, but that ain't gonna happen for a loooong time, if ever. Because that has been labled as unacceptable. Don't folks have a right to acceptence if they aren't hurting anyone?

Marriage is supposed to be about having kids.

I can't disagree with that more as an overall statement. My marriage is about my wife and I. The kids give me a family, not a marriage.

Creating a good environment to raise angsty adolescents. Sure, you can argue, gay couples can adopt (as many straight couples do). But in adoption, you need to be extremely careful when you let someone adopt as child. If one were to create a 'parenting test' that determines if a couple can adopt, my opinion is that a large percentage of families - with biological children - would fail, but thats just my opinion.

Hmm...in another thread you seem to think there are just thousands of qualified couples out there ready and willing to adopt unwanted children, but here you stress how careful a body has to be when allowing adoption. A contradiction or did I miss something?

The point is people don't call homosexuals 'perverts' for no reason; regardless of wether you like it or not. And raising a little kid with two mother figures is great; why don't we legalize polygamy. Now you can have 2 mother figures, and a father figure. Perfect? C'mon.

That doesn't seem all that different than extended family living arragements. Seems to me the more love and guidance a child has the better. And you're right. They don't call them perverts for nothing. They call them perverts because they are ignorant, biased folks who have a narrow view on life. You do realize these same kind of people would love to have places like this shut down, don't you?

It would be very interesting to one day just legalize all gay marriages, no debate, no discussion, then watch what happens. My money is on people turning up in record numbers to marry, and then in a few years that number drops to close to zero. This issue is about 94% hype.

Of course they would show up strong at first. Everyone jumps the gun when it's new and these people would probably be the same. But I don't think it follows that the issue is 94% hype because of that. Some people want to get married. That's all.

Also, I kind of doubt these relationships would work out long term. I mean, so many people are divorcing out of 'normal' marriages, whats the rate going to be among homosexuals?

Well now to this I can't speak with any real accuracy, but I don't think it would be any worse than man-woman marriages. Might even be a little better. After all, you wouldn't have those cross sex issues to deal with.

Granted, I don't personally care about this, but wouldn't you say practicing this would be the symptom, for lack of a better word, of a mental disorder?

Practicing homosexuality is a symptom of a mental disorder? Or were you speaking of incest? I really just don't know what to say to you if you meant the former....

What I'm saying is the law will always contain some common-sense things in it. And it kind of should. If you stand for totally removing anything that isn't 100% logical and unsafe from it, you also stand for all kinds of weird and rather stupid things. Keep that in mind.

But there is no federal law (in the U.S. anyway) against gay marriage so I don't see what your point is here. The president and his lackeys are trying to get it passed into law.

Oh and,

The kind of obvious (I dunno, it is to me) reason this was brought up was because Bush realized he was getting bashed about everything he talks about; gay marriage is something he thinks he can use to divert attention away from all the bashing. I think at least.

I agree.

[MsUther]

Drawing somekind of similarity with this subject and abuse like incest is very far fetched. Thats my opinion.

[DungeonMaster6]

Bush got reelected on the anti gay marriage vote, so it's obvious he's bringing this up now to boost his overall rating, so his Republican friends won't get tossed out of Congress come November.

I disagree that marriage is a religious institution. It might be to some, but not necessarily so. Two people could get married by a Justice-of-the-Peace, with no religious input at all. What marriage is for sure is a legal institution in all cases. Therefore, what difference does it make what gender the two people are?

Personally I could care less if two men or two women want to get married. That is there business and the Government should keep their noses out of it!

[Silke]

lol, cheeseburger...you like using stereotypes to paint your picture, right? No offence, I know exaggerating gets the message across, but I think your thoughts on gay couples and the stability of their relationships are a little too much.

Of course there's a lot of hype about this, and yes, maybe there would be a large number of couples lining up for marriage that might not have thought this the whole way through. But on the other hand there's a great number of couples that live in stable relationships and they want all the rights and the recognition that heterosexual couples have had for ages. What's wrong with that motivation? Besides...how many straight couples rush into marriage only to get divorced after a year or so? It's not a mark of sexual orientation...

Oh, and at least in Germany (don't know about the States) it makes a huge difference whether or not you're married legally. There's all sorts of things that are really complicated if you don't have the official recognition...and that's what everyone's been fighting for - to have the same rights when you commit to a relationship, regardless of sexual orientation.

[chattel69]

I heard a comment this evening on the news which made me smile... A middle aged man said his opinion of marriage was a man and a women yet his mother said she just wished the government would stay out of her bedroom...

My opinion is that constitution has nothing to do with what I do in the privacy of my house. It's not the constitution but "Freedom and Justice for all"... so let me be free to do what I want in the privacy of my house.

[_ID_]

This debate, regardless of where you are, and how your country weaves religion and law into the rights of it's citizens , is a multifaceted subject, much like a dice used in many gambling games (craps for instance). Let me get to what I mean.

Since I am from the USA, I will use my knowledge of this country and what I know, and my opinion about it all.

The USA was founded on puritan values when the pilgrims started coming over and creating a government to guide the people that resided there. Due to this, the USA is always having this issue with it's religious freedom, and its deep roots in religion. The pilgrims came to the USA to practice religion how they wanted without being told how to do it. So they created laws to prevent the government from telling them what to believe. This very basic legal building block has been eroding away on a very constant basis for quite sometime. With the two sides taking an ever increasing side to the religious implications to each subject. Take for instance the thread on Abortion that has been going on here on the boards.

So on with what I am getting at. You have people in the USA that do not want to be told what to do, what not to do, or how to live their lives. Yet these same people will jump up and down hold protests, have political rallies to convince whom ever is in power at the moment that what they believe should be forced on others. Gay marriage being the one we are talking about at the moment. On the one side you have people who think the legal coupling of two people is a religious institution. On the other side, you have those people who believe that two people who simply love each other should have the same legal rights as everyone else. Let's flip this entire box inside out. Let's say that Men and Women were not allowed to be married, and that them having any kind of relationship were simply for the procreation of mankind. Let's say that the legal coupling of people didn't have any roots in people aligning a civil matter very often conducted before a legal judge, and not a priest, was the only way to do things. That if a man and woman did fall in love, and wanted to get married, have legal rights to visit them when bedridden in a hospital, or during the untimely death, they felt should be entitled to any finical dependence they had grown to become accustomed to during their relationship.

Then you have the other side of this coin. You have the people who feel that not only should the government not tell us who to marry, but they feel that in no way should people and communities that want to observe the religious background of this country and say the pledge of allegiance be allowed to do so freely without offending some person that didn't live in their community. The people who want to remove any mention of god or religion in any form of government whatsoever. Do they have the right to remove your communities desire to have the ten commandments on the courthouse lawn?

So, it now becomes one of religious beliefs rather than legal basis. It actually has nothing to do with the sanctity of the marriage between man and women. It has nothing to do with marriage being of what is right or wrong. It simply comes down to the ability of others to accept people for who they are.

It has nothing to do with the stability of the realtionship, or basis in the tendency of a certain social group to abuse another. For we have many short term marriages, and far to many abusive fathers or mothers in an established marriage.

Let us ask one final question to those who should say that two people who love each other should not have the ability to get married. Are you going to be that person who throws the first stone, and judge your fellow man? Are you going to be that person who determines the happiness of another human being simply because of how you “think” god would want things? My question to you is, would you want this same judgment passed on you if the situation were reversed?

V/R
ID

[maddie]

DungeonMaster6: Marriage is traditionally a religious institution. Because not everybody is religious, there have been a great number of weddings performed by people who are not ordained, including my own. But the basis is religious and the primary arguments against gay marriage are religious ones. That's why I make my case for civil unions. It's a legal agreement, not a spiritual one.

[DungeonMaster6]

While I agree that marriage is a religious institution to a lot of people, which is the basis for being against gay marriage. But, there are people, and I'm one of them, who get married in a civil ceremony with no religious observance whatsoever. I married my wife because of love. Why can't two gay people do the same?

[katie_21]

Well here are my thoughts...if two PEOPLE want to get married, who are we to stop them? Religiously (yeah Christian here lol) the bible says not to stand in someone's way of what they believe is right, we are not here to judge others or put obstacles in people's way. So really all these Christians that are against it and fighting against it...are (dare I say it...) hypocrits.

And I agree that if two men (or women) decide to get married, it's not going to hurt the marriage that I have with my husband at all. And really I don't see how it's going to hurt ANYTHING.

They also say that it will lead to people marrying goats and animals, well...I know a lot of homosexuals and not one of them has any interest in marrying animals...I asked lol.

[mina]

They also say that it will lead to people marrying goats and animals, well...I know a lot of homosexuals and not one of them has any interest in marrying animals...I asked lol.

Wouldn't that be awesome though? I'd so marry my cat, Darth Vader. And together we would rule the galaxy. *sigh* if only...

But seriously, back on the subject here... I agree with maddie, why can't they call it something else besides marriage? It might make all the religious people happy and the gay people would get the rights and such that they want. Or am I missing something... do they just want the right to be able to say they're 'married'? Either way, doesn't affect me much.

[cheeseburger]

And mine is, "Why not?"

Not a very convincing reason to make a huge deal out of it.

Even if you are right (and I don't think you are) so what? Acceptence isn't something just lightly brushed off. I can't help but put this in a bdsm context. I would love the freedom to walk down the street with my sub on a leash, but that ain't gonna happen for a loooong time, if ever. Because that has been labled as unacceptable. Don't folks have a right to acceptence if they aren't hurting anyone?

What 'right' are you talking about? Walking down the street with a sub on a leash isn't something you want minors to see, so you are in effect hurting someone. However, I understand your main point. I believe that, for better or worse, that will happen eventually; at one point being gay was something you couldn't tell anyone for the same reasons.

I can't disagree with that more as an overall statement. My marriage is about my wife and I. The kids give me a family, not a marriage.

Maybe you are right there; I just don't see the difference between your kind of marriage and a bf/gf relationship.

Hmm...in another thread you seem to think there are just thousands of qualified couples out there ready and willing to adopt unwanted children, but here you stress how careful a body has to be when allowing adoption. A contradiction or did I miss something?

There are thousands of qualified couples that are willing to adopt. A small percentage of millions of couples is a pretty big number. The difference is there aren't that many gay couples, so a small percentage of those actually isn't all that big anymore.

That doesn't seem all that different than extended family living arragements. Seems to me the more love and guidance a child has the better.

That means you're for legalizing polygamy. Nothing strictly wrong with that, just some people don't realize what they're implying.

And you're right. They don't call them perverts for nothing. They call them perverts because they are ignorant, biased folks who have a narrow view on life. You do realize these same kind of people would love to have places like this shut down, don't you?

I disagree. Ridiculous numbers of child abuse cases you see on TV are homosexual; even though there are plenty of heterosexual people that abuse children, the numbers are out of proportion with the population of this country that is homosexual. Calling someone 'ignorant' or 'biased' adds nothing to the discussion, and I can't figure out what that has to do with closing down this site.

Of course they would show up strong at first. Everyone jumps the gun when it's new and these people would probably be the same. But I don't think it follows that the issue is 94% hype because of that. Some people want to get married. That's all.

Yup, some do just want to get married. But if you take an issue that obviously isn't hype, like say hunger in Africa, people aren't going to stop eating, or eat less after a few years is an abundance of food magically materializes. There is a pretty big difference between this 'issue' and other issues; the label 'hype' is unimportant.

Well now to this I can't speak with any real accuracy, but I don't think it would be any worse than man-woman marriages. Might even be a little better. After all, you wouldn't have those cross sex issues to deal with.

But, you do have the issue that some gay couples might decide they aren't homosexual after all. Take your pick.

Practicing homosexuality is a symptom of a mental disorder? Or were you speaking of incest? I really just don't know what to say to you if you meant the former....

I don't know if you're deliberately misquoting me here, but what I meant was practicing incest is a symptom of a mental disorder.

But there is no federal law (in the U.S. anyway) against gay marriage so I don't see what your point is here. The president and his lackeys are trying to get it passed into law.

And they'll never get anywhere, because the whole thing is a gimmick. Just like everything else this president is doing.

This may just be me, but I like it when things are done for the right reasons. Going on and on about gay marriage just so you can wear a badge that says "I'm married and everyone loves me" is pretty dumb.

Keep the discussion calm

[Aesop]

Not a very convincing reason to make a huge deal out of it.

Perhaps, but we see the people as making a huge deal out of it on different sides. Had everyone just said, "Oh they want to get married? Sure." there would be no big deal.

What 'right' are you talking about? Walking down the street with a sub on a leash isn't something you want minors to see, so you are in effect hurting someone. However, I understand your main point. I believe that, for better or worse, that will happen eventually; at one point being gay was something you couldn't tell anyone for the same reasons.

Oh the 'right' I was referring to was your opinion that the people who want this are only doing it to make a ruckus. And you know, I really wouldn't care if my kids saw someone with a leash. I'd take them aside and explain it as best I could. Same as I do when they see a hundred other things they don't understand. I'd probably use a wedding ring analogy.

Maybe you are right there; I just don't see the difference between your kind of marriage and a bf/gf relationship.

Yeah I remember when I thought it wasn't any different too.

There are thousands of qualified couples that are willing to adopt. A small percentage of millions of couples is a pretty big number. The difference is there aren't that many gay couples, so a small percentage of those actually isn't all that big anymore.

So because there aren't that many and those few there are would have to be put under a microscope because....? I still don't get the because. Your earlier statement seems a tad biased. Almost as if because they are gay they are going to make bad parents.

That means you're for legalizing polygamy. Nothing strictly wrong with that, just some people don't realize what they're implying.

I'm not against it.

I disagree. Ridiculous numbers of child abuse cases you see on TV are homosexual; even though there are plenty of heterosexual people that abuse children, the numbers are out of proportion with the population of this country that is homosexual. Calling someone 'ignorant' or 'biased' adds nothing to the discussion...

Well now I'd be interested to know where you are getting your information from. I have a large number of both female and male friends. Almost all of my female friends were at one time or another sexually abused or almost sexually abused by a trusted male. One of my male friends was. And even if you take into account that they don't want to talk about it, that still puts the number of hetero abuse higher than homosexual abuse. Besides something this country really should understand is that homosexual does not equal pedophile. I think the words I used are fair words for people who generalize without looking at the situation. I wasn't calling you those things. You stated you have no personal interest in this topic and I took that at face value. If you were insulted I do apologize.

...and I can't figure out what that has to do with closing down this site.

Well it's been my experience that people who are ready to slap a label on someone because of their sexual preference are also (generally speaking of course) the same kind of people who assume moral authority. It isn't that far a leap for me from no gay marriage to no kinky sex at all.

Yup, some do just want to get married. But if you take an issue that obviously isn't hype, like say hunger in Africa, people aren't going to stop eating, or eat less after a few years is an abundance of food magically materializes. There is a pretty big difference between this 'issue' and other issues; the label 'hype' is unimportant.

Is there a reason we have to choose between issues? Yes I agree that hungry people take precedence over this issue as far as resources are concerned, but it doesn't take any of my resources to say, "Go ahead, get married if it makes you happy."

But, you do have the issue that some gay couples might decide they aren't homosexual after all. Take your pick.

So they would get a divorce I assume. Same as any straight couple.

I don't know if you're deliberately misquoting me here, but what I meant was practicing incest is a symptom of a mental disorder.

Nope. Not misquoting, just clarifying.

And they'll never get anywhere, because the whole thing is a gimmick. Just like everything else this president is doing.

Lol. Well we agree on something at least.

This may just be me, but I like it when things are done for the right reasons. Going on and on about gay marriage just so you can wear a badge that says "I'm married and everyone loves me" is pretty dumb.

I'm sorry my friend, but that really seems like a trivialization of something very important to a lot of people.

Keep the discussion calm

I couldn't be calmer cheeseburger.

[Masters_lilone]

i read cheeseburgers opinion on gay marriages and he is so closed minded and his opinion on this subject is so off base..there is nothing wrong with gay marriages... or with gays raising kids as long as the kids are loved by there dads or moms. and i think that gay mariages should be leagel be cause gays have the right to have all the normal things that go with being married.. i have gay friends and feel strongy about the gay rights things

[cheeseburger]

Oh they want to get married? Sure." there would be no big deal.

I guess if I could dictate a policy on gay marriage it would be that. Which is why I can't say I'm convinced this is a big deal.

Oh the 'right' I was referring to was your opinion that the people who want this are only doing it to make a ruckus. And you know, I really wouldn't care if my kids saw someone with a leash. I'd take them aside and explain it as best I could. Same as I do when they see a hundred other things they don't understand. I'd probably use a wedding ring analogy.

You're treading in the deep end now. Every parent has the 'right' - I mean that very strongly - to choose how he raises his children (within accepted boundaries, of course.) If he chooses to explain to his kids what sex is when they're 16 (good luck), then thats his choice. By walking around with a sub, you would be making that choice for him, and that is infringing on his 'rights'. I understand that in todays world sex is pretty much everywhere; still it isn't as blatant as walking around with a sub.

Yeah I remember when I thought it wasn't any different too.

I guess i'll learn someday and get back to you

So because there aren't that many and those few there are would have to be put under a microscope because....? I still don't get the because. Your earlier statement seems a tad biased. Almost as if because they are gay they are going to make bad parents.

You can bash me for this, but I actually think they would make bad parents. Most people are not gay, and as far as I know its not a hereditory trait. If a kid saw that his parents were gay, s/he might want to be gay too (the whole 'be like daddy' concept. you know what I mean). And imho, quite a few gays are only gay because they want to be different, or whatever. Don't immediately quote me as saying there are no 'actual' homosexuals - there are - but I think you get the point. And it just... doesn't seem fair to the kid.

I'm not against it.

Then you're hypocritical, and here's why:
If you think that two mommy's or two daddy's is fine, then why wouldn't 2 mommy's and 1 daddy (be fine too)? I don't understand that one leap of faith.

Well now I'd be interested to know where you are getting your information from. I have a large number of both female and male friends. Almost all of my female friends were at one time or another sexually abused or almost sexually abused by a trusted male. One of my male friends was. And even if you take into account that they don't want to talk about it, that still puts the number of hetero abuse higher than homosexual abuse. Besides something this country really should understand is that homosexual does not equal pedophile. I think the words I used are fair words for people who generalize without looking at the situation. I wasn't calling you those things. You stated you have no personal interest in this topic and I took that at face value. If you were insulted I do apologize.

Well, I don't have personal interest in this, but one of the things you just don't do is call people names. Nothing positive comes from that, even if you think its deserved.

And I agree, homosexual != pedophile, but you do understand where this idea comes from. I get my information from watching TV sporadically, and i admit thats about as bad of a source as it gets. You may be right on this, its just that until then, if you do that cheesy psychology 'association' test on me, I associate homosexuals on some level with pedophiles; as I suspect plenty of other people do too. Thinking back on it, probably not such a good thing.

Well it's been my experience that people who are ready to slap a label on someone because of their sexual preference are also (generally speaking of course) the same kind of people who assume moral authority. It isn't that far a leap for me from no gay marriage to no kinky sex at all.

That's 100% off the mark. As I said before, I'm not against gay marriage. I could care less. But I don't enjoy getting metaphorically pushed around either. Its not a good thing when anyone that has the revolutionary concept that marriage at some point was between a man and a woman, and deeply religious at that, automatically becomes 'small minded' or whatever. Play fair; I'm not running around calling you a pervert or a freak because you enjoy 'kinky sex', or whatever. Heck I do too. But it irritates me when you have to toe the line, or you get this 9 foot lecture on 'openmindedness' and 'free thinking'.

Is there a reason we have to choose between issues? Yes I agree that hungry people take precedence over this issue as far as resources are concerned, but it doesn't take any of my resources to say, "Go ahead, get married if it makes you happy."

I wasn't making you choose between the issues, only illustrating the difference between a real issue and a fake one. Hunger is an issue because it matters even when you strip away all the hype. If people just said "whatever" to gay marriage, the problem would go away. Its an artificial problem, unlike hunger which is very real.

Lol. Well we agree on something at least.

See, theres this little trick in verbal arguments: if you agree with someone, even if its partially and on something totally unrelated, the person you argue with is much more likely to give your point of view a chance. Only this isn't exactly verbal

I'm sorry my friend, but that really seems like a trivialization of something very important to a lot of people.

I actually am trivializing the issue, because I think it is trivial. This is probably our fundamental difference; I just don't get what all the fuss is over. I'll give you a fair chance at explaining it to me, if you want.

I couldn't be calmer cheeseburger.

Thats always good, its kind of annoying when you can't argue because you're afraid the other guys going to blow up on you any minute.

[Aesop]

You're treading in the deep end now. Every parent has the 'right' - I mean that very strongly - to choose how he raises his children (within accepted boundaries, of course.) If he chooses to explain to his kids what sex is when they're 16 (good luck), then thats his choice. By walking around with a sub, you would be making that choice for him, and that is infringing on his 'rights'. I understand that in todays world sex is pretty much everywhere; still it isn't as blatant as walking around with a sub.

Yep every parent has that right, but a leash isn't sexual in and of itself. It's a leash.

You can bash me for this, but I actually think they would make bad parents. Most people are not gay, and as far as I know its not a hereditory trait. If a kid saw that his parents were gay, s/he might want to be gay too (the whole 'be like daddy' concept. you know what I mean). And imho, quite a few gays are only gay because they want to be different, or whatever. Don't immediately quote me as saying there are no 'actual' homosexuals - there are - but I think you get the point. And it just... doesn't seem fair to the kid.

I won't bash you for it. I will say I think you may need to expand your horizons a bit though.

Then you're hypocritical, and here's why:
If you think that two mommy's or two daddy's is fine, then why wouldn't 2 mommy's and 1 daddy (be fine too)? I don't understand that one leap of faith.

Did I say 2 mommy's and 1 daddy wouldn't be fine? If I did I certainly didn't mean to. Any combination is okay by me.

Well, I don't have personal interest in this, but one of the things you just don't do is call people names. Nothing positive comes from that, even if you think its deserved.

Well you know generally I agree with you, but what do you call people who just decide an issue based on stereotypical information?

And I agree, homosexual != pedophile, but you do understand where this idea comes from. I get my information from watching TV sporadically, and i admit thats about as bad of a source as it gets. You may be right on this, its just that until then, if you do that cheesy psychology 'association' test on me, I associate homosexuals on some level with pedophiles; as I suspect plenty of other people do too. Thinking back on it, probably not such a good thing.

Yeah TV isn't the best place for good information.

That's 100% off the mark. As I said before, I'm not against gay marriage. I could care less. But I don't enjoy getting metaphorically pushed around either. Its not a good thing when anyone that has the revolutionary concept that marriage at some point was between a man and a woman, and deeply religious at that, automatically becomes 'small minded' or whatever. Play fair; I'm not running around calling you a pervert or a freak because you enjoy 'kinky sex', or whatever. Heck I do too. But it irritates me when you have to toe the line, or you get this 9 foot lecture on 'openmindedness' and 'free thinking'.

I am playing fair. You call it what you want, believe what you want. Just let me do the same. Perfectly fair.

I wasn't making you choose between the issues, only illustrating the difference between a real issue and a fake one. Hunger is an issue because it matters even when you strip away all the hype. If people just said "whatever" to gay marriage, the problem would go away. Its an artificial problem, unlike hunger which is very real.

Do you have any idea how insulting it is to call this issue fake? I only ask because you seemed to take a great deal of offense to my labels and yet have no problem throwing up your own as though they are acceptable.

See, theres this little trick in verbal arguments: if you agree with someone, even if its partially and on something totally unrelated, the person you argue with is much more likely to give your point of view a chance. Only this isn't exactly verbal

Sigh...are you really lecturing me on verbal arguments?

I actually am trivializing the issue, because I think it is trivial. This is probably our fundamental difference; I just don't get what all the fuss is over. I'll give you a fair chance at explaining it to me, if you want.

To be honest, I don't think you'd really listen to me. I hope you can understand that I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I have tried to explain the importance of it before and so have some of the others in the thread. I feel that you are incapable at this time of seeing the other side of this issue. To you it is "fake". Nothing I have said so far has shaken your position on that at all. Which is fine. You're free to believe as you wish.

Thats always good, its kind of annoying when you can't argue because you're afraid the other guys going to blow up on you any minute.

Lol. I don't know if you know this cheesburger, but I'm usually the one coming into the threads telling folks to keep it calm. I'm not about to blow up here. I'd really be the hypocrite you accused me of being then.

[cheeseburger]

Did I say 2 mommy's and 1 daddy wouldn't be fine? If I did I certainly didn't mean to. Any combination is okay by me.

Then why aren't you screaming from the rooftops over polygamy? They don't even want to be recognized (not yet anyway), they just want you to, hmm, not lock them up for starters.

Do you have any idea how insulting it is to call this issue fake? I only ask because you seemed to take a great deal of offense to my labels and yet have no problem throwing up your own as though they are acceptable.

The word 'biased' is intrinsically negative; the word 'fake' is not.

I feel that you are incapable at this time of seeing the other side of this issue. To you it is "fake".

That isn't an argument; starting off by telling someone with the opposite opinion that they are incapable of understanding you isn't the best way to try and convince someone.

Why do all these pundits and angry bigmouths always compare these things to actually important events. Like comparing the war in Iraq to WWII. Comparing gay marriage to the civil rights marches. Do you realize that by drawing these pathetic comparisons you are actually insulting the people participating in WWII, in the civil rights marches, etc.?

Nothing I have said so far has shaken your position on that at all.

Well so far you haven't said much I hadn't already heard before. Put your opinion in a clear, logical statement, and we can argue. All you've been doing so far is attacking everything I say, and trying to paint me as some kind of freak from the middle ages with tunnel vision.

Let me re-state what I've been trying to say all along:

If you're gay, good. I don't care. You have all the rights of a non-gay, you have all the opportunities of a straight guy; you have everything. You *can* get a civil union, you can live with your spouse, you can have kids, etc. Why are you still yelling and screaming over this? Oh thats right, it's not called a marriage on paper. Thats why I have to endure these 6 foot ads everywhere about gay marriage? Is that your only concern, that other people are going to think you're abnormal (which, by the strict definition of abnormal, meaning 'not normal', you actually are)? Are you that bored?

On a side note, the ridiculous bill to ban gay marriage was presented, debated, cried over, yelled over... rejected, and hopefully forgotten. As expected.

[Aesop]

That isn't an argument; starting off by telling someone with the opposite opinion that they are incapable of understanding you isn't the best way to try and convince someone.

Correct. This is because I'm done arguing with you. I have had enough of these conversations in the past to know when my points aren't getting through and nothing you've said in your latest post has changed my mind about that.

I would suggest that you are the one who should calm down now. Your language is getting progressively more insulting.

[Tojo]

I read that thing katie. Just brilliant.

I've been trying to post in this thread for days now, either the site crashes or I get interrupted.

One of the people on this thread has a problem with gay couples.

To say-

Oh thats right, it's not called a marriage on paper.

is downright insulting to intelligent open minded people- some of whom may or may not be gay.

I lived with gay people for years, male & female- I could never quite work out why they should have any less rights than hetrosexuals?

The only thing I can come up with is fear- the same fear that leads people to hate anyone who is a different race, colour or creed.

I'd suggest it makes more sense to feel sorry for such narrow minded people. If they want to learn, we can show them the way- otherwise just ignore them.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

Tojo

[mkemse]

My hunch is that the only reason the issue was brought up in Congress at all is that Our Presidents approval right now is lower the Nixon's was before he resigned, their is a Mid Term Election in November, we are involved in a VERY unpopular War on a number of fronts, and I believe that this issue was brought up only to hekp save some Repbulican seats in Congress in the fall and to keep the Repbilcans in controll of both Houses in Washington,. If we did Not have Mid Term elections, if Bush's approval rating were much higher then they are, I real do not believe this issue would have even come up for a vote. Some have even said it was brought up as a way of deterring attnetion for the moment from Iraq, and other more critical issues.
The reality is, if 2 people of the same sex want to get married, as Aesop put it, it will have no effect on my persona life at all. If it makes them happy and they aren't crimminals, let;s have Wasigton deal with the issues we face right now and not worry about 2 women or 2 men getting married
Plus if we do, the government will start getting real intrusive into our lives.
And the issue has nothing to do with the "moral fiber" of this country, look at all the trouble the church has going on for years with children being molested this to me is far more serious and cncern to me then 2 memebers of the same sex getting married
Our governemtn is in serious need of revieiwing it's priorities and correcting theere order, Iraq, Gas Prices, Inflation, Medical Costs ect .ect. these concern me more the same sex marriages

[Alex Bragi]

Early Saxon marriages were purely civil contracts. It was only as Christianity gradually gained ground, that couples began wanting a priest to be blessed their union, that the church became involved. By the time the Normans had invaded, marriage had become a religious ceremony the church had jurisdiction over. If the church hadn't become involved, then I guess, this wouldn't be such an issue now.

Personally, I have no problem with gays or gay marriages. I take Jane Austin's view: "I consider everybody as having the right to marry once in their lives for love." *smiling and sighing*

[arwcuw]

I'd like to recommend a book called "What Is Marriage For?" by E. J. Graff. It's openly biased towards gay marriage, but it's very informative and does a good job of separating the opinions from the facts.

And I'd like to second just about everything Aesop has said so far, it would take a bit too long to address every point individually though.

Marriage is much more than a formality. It enables two people to easily manage their shared property, represent each other legally and publicly, make important medical decisions, et cetera.

I'd also like to point out that, once gay marriage is guaranteed legal, there will be a lot more people getting married initially- but not just because it's a novelty, but because there are so many people who have been partners for a long time and have been waiting to get married. There would be an initial rush because there's a long line outside the door!

One last thing. Leading a sub down the street on a leash is no more sexual than two people walking down the street holding hands. Does it hurt a child to see a couple holding hands? Does it hurt them any more if those two people are the same sex?

That's all.