Gay marriage

[Blackmail]

You've never met my little brother ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am certain that healthy, happy kids can come out of gay parents raising a child, but as had been brought up by many psychologist it is not the healthiest way to raise a child.

One reason many are opposed to gay marriage is that it may signal the end of the traditional family and gay adoption is the next step, and I see even on here that is the case.

The social ramifications of altering the empire this Country has built will not be good, but apparently people here don't care.

[Steven]

I am certain that healthy, happy kids can come out of gay parents raising a child, but as had been brought up by many psychologist it is not the healthiest way to raise a child.   

One reason many are opposed to gay marriage is that it may signal the end of the traditional family and gay adoption is the next step, and I see even on here that is the case. 

The social ramifications of altering the empire this Country has built will not be good, but apparently people here don't care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

these are valid points.

because in addition to what were discussing, or primarily really, were talking about the redefinition of the classic understanding of the family unit.

and I'm just not convinced that this reclassification has been an overall healthy thing. But thats just me (and Blackmail).

[torn asunder]

I am certain that healthy, happy kids can come out of gay parents raising a child, but as had been brought up by many psychologist it is not the healthiest way to raise a child.

healthy, according to whom!? "healthy" changes with the times, as do most things in life...

One reason many are opposed to gay marriage is that it may signal the end of the traditional family and gay adoption is the next step, and I see even on here that is the case. 

if we take the stand that tradition should be followed "because it's always been that way", we'd never make any progress, nor grow as a society - what's wrong with the definition of a "traditional family" changing? morals change, (and have, quite a bit) why not this?

The social ramifications of altering the empire this Country has built will not be good, but apparently people here don't care.

i'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or not, so i'll refrain from replying to it for now! :whistling

[Blackmail]

healthy, according to whom!? "healthy" changes with the times, as do most things in life...

Studies by the APA were funded by the ACLU and studies not funded by leftist orginizations have found differences in children raised by gay parents, so I am sorry, there are people who know more than you who are willing to say it is unhealthy.

http://sexualities.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/153

i

f we take the stand that tradition should be followed "because it's always been that way", we'd never make any progress, nor grow as a society - what's wrong with the definition of a "traditional family" changing? morals change, (and have, quite a bit) why not this?

Judging by the last presidential election, most of America disagrees with you. Why do you want to impose your will on the rest of the Country? Why do you want to change the definition of marriage to fit your agenda? Study the Dutch and English and the people who settled this Country, study their religious beliefs and then get back to me on whether homosexuality was intended to be included in marriage. Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

i'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or not, so i'll refrain from replying to it for now!  :whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely not sarcasm. I mentioned before, this is a topic that came up during the fall of many empires.

[Steven]

healthy, according to whom!? "healthy" changes with the times, as do most things in life...

if we take the stand that tradition should be followed "because it's always been that way", we'd never make any progress, nor grow as a society - what's wrong with the definition of a "traditional family" changing? morals change, (and have, quite a bit) why not this?

i'm not sure whether this is sarcasm or not, so i'll refrain from replying to it for now!  :whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

to answer breifly....

healthy according to whomever presently holds the majority. this too wil change. my points of view are largely becoming less and less accepted as socially acceptable...

My stand is not "because thigns have always been that way".

My stand is because I beleive in the results of my postion, and do not see enough merit in the opposing postion. I'm not a traditionalist.

Morals dont really change. they simply present themselves in cycles. People have always pushed toward more open hedonism, such as was the case with the roman empire. But I am not (nor was I ever) arguing morality here. I'm simply stating that the lifestyle that I have witnessed up front for many years seems to bear little fruit in the longevity department. Gay people deserve to be happy. I just have not known very many happy gay people. not really my fault.

[JaneDead]

i am for it.

i know that to some marriage only means "man and woman" but marriage can even mean something like mixing oil and vinegar together - as in a marriage of oil and vinegar over some salad. mm mm.

to me marriage is a union of two things/people coming together.

by that definition men can marry men and women can marry women but i don't think a person should ever marry an animal. that is just not right.

letting gay people get married takes nothing away from the word marriage. nothing. all it does is allow all people to have the same rights as anyone else. is that so wrong??

in a way i think if you don't let gay people get married you are saying it is wrong to be gay and be wed. that is how i see it. and before everyone argues and says "that is not what i mean... i think they should have "civil unions"..." right there to me that says you don't believe that being gay and wed (whatever the term) is ok. in your mind it is only ok to be married if you are straight. and with that in mind it leads me to believe you don't think all people should have equal rights.

i don't know why but this always makes me also think of segregation. as in keeping black people out of white places back in the 50's. maybe a different issue, but to me it stems from the same damn place. unacceptace of people who are not just like you.

if gay people want to MARRY who are we to say that they should not have the right to do it?? you are just doing your part in keeping people seperated - keeping a line drawn for what is "ok" for straight people and what is "ok" for gay people. why do straight people get to make these rules anyways?

[Blackmail]

i am for it.

i know that to some marriage only means "man and woman" but marriage can even mean something like mixing oil and vinegar together - as in a marriage of oil and vinegar over some salad. mm mm.

to me marriage is a union of two things/people coming together.

by that definition men can marry men and women can marry women but i don't think a person should ever marry an animal. that is just not right.

letting gay people get married takes nothing away from the word marriage. nothing. all it does is allow all people to have the same rights as anyone else. is that so wrong??

in a way i think if you don't let gay people get married you are saying it is wrong to be gay and be wed. that is how i see it. and before everyone argues and says "that is not what i mean... i think they should have "civil unions"..." right there to me that says you don't believe that being gay and wed (whatever the term) is ok. in your mind it is only ok to be married if you are straight. and with that in mind it leads me to believe you don't think all people should have equal rights.

i don't know why but this always makes me also think of segregation. as in keeping black people out of white places back in the 50's. maybe a different issue, but to me it stems from the same damn place. unacceptace of people who are not just like you.

if gay people want to MARRY who are we to say that they should not have the right to do it?? you are just doing your part in keeping people seperated - keeping a line drawn for what is "ok" for straight people and what is "ok" for gay people. why do straight people get to make these rules anyways? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sigh.

again....

marriage is not a 'right'.

I don't have the right to use the womans bathroom. Why? Why can't I?

We have traditions in western culture, more specifically the United States, these traditions have lead to prosperity unseen by other cultures. Our culture is self sustaining and marriage has lasted longer than most cultures.

Only now, for whatever reason, people want to change this.

By the way, I am sure many black people would be upset by comparing the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement (as a matter of fact I have seen many African Americans complain on other message boards).

Luckily, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, George Bush and most politicians on both sides of the aisle support civil unions but are opposed to gay marriage.

[JaneDead]

By the way, I am sure many black people would be upset by comparing the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement (as a matter of fact I have seen many African Americans complain on other message boards). 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

all i said was is this:

i don't know why but this always makes me also think of segregation. as in keeping black people out of white places back in the 50's. maybe a different issue, but to me it stems from the same damn place. unacceptace of people who are not just like you.

was not really trying to compare the two - just like i said: i don't know why but this always makes me also think of segregation. and: they are the unacceptance of people who are not like you.

and why is marriage not a "right"? i have the right to get married or not as a "straight" person. why doesn't a gay person have the same "right"?

and how can you compare using the woman's bathroom to gay marriage?

you actually have the right to use it. you might get in trouble if someone is around, but you still have that right. it is not really necessary since there is always a men's bathroom right there by the woman's. your's just have urinal cakes and ours have tampons.

[Shade Everdark]

I don't have the right to use the womans bathroom.  Why?  Why can't I?

We have traditions in western culture, more specifically the United States, these traditions have lead to prosperity unseen by other cultures.    Our culture is self sustaining and marriage has lasted longer than most cultures. 

Only now, for whatever reason, people want to change this.   

By the way, I am sure many black people would be upset by comparing the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement (as a matter of fact I have seen many African Americans complain on other message boards). 

Luckily, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, George Bush and most politicians on both sides of the aisle support civil unions but are opposed to gay marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who does gay marriage hurt? Who gets hurt by it? Before you answer, consider that if you say society is hurt by it, or the traditions and foundations of this country, keep in mind that our redefinitions of and breakdown of "traditional" heterosexual marriages have already done quite a bit of harm to your traditions. You absolutely cannot legislate one person's idea of morality, nor even a majority's idea of morality. We tried that with prohibition and it failed, miserably. You can't do this because laws are not consciences. Laws are only a group of rules, generally agreed upon to regulate our behavior to--ostensibly, at least--allow the most opportunity to pursue our goals of life, liberty, and happiness, while at the same time drawing boundaries so that we do not infringe upon others' opportunities to do the same. That is, in essence, what law are for. If we as a people allow a denial of the right to pursue happiness, to a group of our own, because some book says so, and that's really what this comes down to, then we've given up our own rights. Because guess what? We're all in the minority somehow.

As for comparisons to the civil rights movement...there are vast differences between the two dilemmas, sure. But there are quite a lot of parallels, too. And quite frankly, if I want to call it similar to the denial of rights to blacks, I'm damn well going to call it that, and I don't care if they don't like it, because that's how I see it. Until you can prove to me that the comparisons are completely fallacious or just outright invalid, that's where I'm standing.

[phee]

I think that anybody has the right to have a bad marriage

[Shade Everdark]

Judging by the last presidential election, most of America disagrees with you.  Why do you want to impose your will on the rest of the Country?  Why do you want to change the definition of marriage to fit your agenda?  Study the Dutch and English and the people who settled this Country, study their religious beliefs and then get back to me on whether homosexuality was intended to be included in marriage.    Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

Absolutely not sarcasm.  I mentioned before, this is a topic that came up during the fall of many empires.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that being for gay marriage is a minority opinion does not make it invalid, nor does it mean it should be entirely ignored simply because the majority doesn't want it. The fact that plurality rule is the best system we've found to govern ourselves does not mean that the majority is always in the right. The majority can be just as wrong as everyone else, and has been on many occasions.

Why do you think we have the Senate, instead of simply the House?

[Blackmail]

Who does gay marriage hurt?  Who gets hurt by it?  Before you answer, consider that if you say society is hurt by it, or the traditions and foundations of this country, keep in mind that our redefinitions of and breakdown of "traditional" heterosexual marriages have already done quite a bit of harm to your traditions.

so you admit that a breakdown in traditional marriages has harmed society.

You absolutely cannot legislate one person's idea of morality, nor even a majority's idea of morality.  We tried that with prohibition and it failed, miserably.  You can't do this because laws are not consciences.  Laws are only a group of rules, generally agreed upon to regulate our behavior to--ostensibly, at least--allow the most opportunity to pursue our goals of life, liberty, and happiness, while at the same time drawing boundaries so that we do not infringe upon others' opportunities to do the same.  That is, in essence, what law are for.  If we as a people allow a denial of the right to pursue happiness, to a group of our own, because some book says so, and that's really what this comes down to, then we've given up our own rights.  Because guess what?  We're all in the minority somehow.

Where was anyone trying to deny anyones happiness?

The rest of your argument is a straw man filled with idealogue not practice.

As for comparisons to the civil rights movement...there are vast differences between the two dilemmas, sure.  But there are quite a lot of parallels, too.  And quite frankly, if I want to call it similar to the denial of rights to blacks, I'm damn well going to call it that, and I don't care if they don't like it, because that's how I see it.  Until you can prove to me that the comparisons are completely fallacious or just outright invalid, that's where I'm standing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus Christ, I hope your kidding.

Do gay people have to sit on the back of the bus?

Are gay people allowed to vote?

Are gay people not allowed in certain sections of restaurants?

Again, nice straw man. All the anti gay marriage crowd is saying is that you can not do what the bible says is between a man and a woman. Now you can debate whether marriage comes from religion I suppose is debatable, but the earliest documented weddings came from Pagan scripts.

You too do not know what a "right" is. I assume you've never read the bill of rights by your posts.

Gay people should indeed have every right a straight person has.

[Blackmail]

The fact that being for gay marriage is a minority opinion does not make it invalid, nor does it mean it should be entirely ignored simply because the majority doesn't want it.  The fact that plurality rule is the best system we've found to govern ourselves does not mean that the majority is always in the right.  The majority can be just as wrong as everyone else, and has been on many occasions.

Why do you think we have the Senate, instead of simply the House?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you swear up and down that you are right and the majority is wrong.

What makes your opinion better than others?

Shade Everdark, why do you hate America?

[JaneDead]

Do gay people have to sit on the back of the bus?

Are gay people allowed to vote?

Are gay people not allowed in certain sections of restaurants?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well of course gay people have not had the same exact obstacles. but they have had their own share, and still do.

people get killed just for being "gay", even in this day and age.

gay people are judged and not treated fairly based on being gay alone.

maybe there is no written sign saying "no gays allowed" but in some instances they ARE treated as such.

being gay and being black - of course, not the same thing.

being gay and being black- still judged and not treated fairly or equally as the rest of this country. there is where the similarities are.

so gay people are allowed to vote sure, but they are not allowed to get married.

[Blackmail]

What is wrong with gay marriage?

- http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5014/CFI/family/

Since gay marriage was legalized in Holland, the aids rate has risen dramatically.

- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37061

"How long do you suppose it will be, once same-sex marriage is a reality, before brothers want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before sisters want to marry sisters? How long do you suppose it will be before brothers want to marry brothers? How about marriage between more than two people? Threesomes, foursomes? Isn't that discrimination to not allow consenting adults to get married? "

the answer:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,...1857229,00.html

After gay marriage became legal in England, a woman married a dolphin, using the same arguments pro gay marriage people used.

http://www.cnn.com/world/12003......

Man in Utah argues it is discrimination that he can not be allowed to marry three consenting women.

Again I ask, who are you people to change the definition of marriage?

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01

Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it."

the bottom line is this, if you support changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, you can not argue against polygamy either. The same exact arguments have to be valid.

Essay:

Leave Marriage Alone by William Bennet, Newsweek

There are at least two key issues that divide proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage. The first is whether legally recognizing same-sex unions would strengthen or weaken the institution. The second has to do with the basic understanding of marriage itself.

The advocates of same-sex marriage say that they seek to strengthen and celebrate marriage. That may be what some intend. But I am certain that it will not be the reality. Consider: the legal union of same-sex couples would shatter the conventional definition of marriage, change the rules which govern behavior, endorse practices which are completely antithetical to the tenets of all of the world's major religions, send conflicting signals about marriage and sexuality, particularly to the young, and obscure marriage's enormously consequential function—procreation ancl child-rearing.

Broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions would stretch it almost beyond recognition—and new attempts to expand the definition still further would surely follow. On what principled ground can Andrew Sullivan exclude others who most desperately want what he wants, legal recognition and social acceptance? Why on earth would Sullivan exclude from marriage a bisexual who wants to marry two other people? After all, exclusion would be a denial of that person's sexuality. The same holds true of a father and daughter who want to marry. Or two sisters. Or men who want (consensual) polygamous arrangements. Sullivan may think some of these arrangements are unwise. But having employed sexual relativism in his own defense, he has effectively lost the capacity to draw any lines and make moral distinctions.

Forsaking all others is an essential component of marriage. Obviously it is not always honored in practice. But it is the ideal to which we rightly aspire, and in most marriages the ideal is in fact the norm. Many advocates of same-sex marriage simply do not share this ideal; promiscuity among homosexual males is well known. Sullivan himself has written that gay male relationships are served by the "openness of the contract" and that homosexuals should resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model." But that "single, moralistic model" has served society exceedingly well. The burden of proof ought to be on those who propose untested arrangements for our most important institution.

A second key difference I have with Sullivan goes to the very heart of marriage itself. I believe that marriage is not an arbitrary construct which can be redefined simply by those who lay claim to it. It is an honorable estate, instituted of God and built on moral, religious, sexual and human realities. Marriage is based on a natural teleology, on the different, complementary nature of men and women—and how they refine, support, encourage and complete one another. It is the institution through which we propagate, nurture, educate and sustain our species.

That we have to engage in this debate at all is an indication of how steep our moral slide has been. Worse, those who defend the traditional understanding of marriage are routinely referred to (though not to my knowledge by Sullivan) as "homophobes," "gay-bashers," "intolerant" and "bigoted." Can one defend an honorable, 4,000year-old tradition and not be called these names?

This is a large, tolerant, diverse country. In America people are free to do as they wish, within broad parameters. It is also a country in sore need of shonng up some of its most crucial institutions: marriage and the family, schools, neighborhoods, communities. But marriage and family are the greatest of these. That is why they are elevated and revered. We should keep them so.

[Blackmail]

well of course gay people have not had the same exact obstacles. but they have had their own share, and still do.

people get killed just for being "gay", even in this day and age.

gay people are judged and not treated fairly based on being gay alone.

maybe there is no written sign saying "no gays allowed" but in some instances they ARE treated as such. 

There were state sponsored laws that did not allow blacks to vote, use the same rest rooms as whites, had to sit on the back of the bus, were not allowed in parks after a certain time.

gays are not allowed to say they are married.

so blacks did not have the same rights as other people, gay people have all the same rights except marriage. hardly similar at all.

there is no comparison. sure some gays are treated bad but it is illegal not to extend the same rights to them as it is to others, whereas it was legal to be openly racist to blacks. There are laws protecting homosexuals, there were no laws protecting blacks.

being gay and being black - of course, not the same thing.

being gay and being black- still judged and not treated fairly or equally as the rest of this country. there is where the similarities are.

I am certain that homosexuals are victims of bigotry and hatred, however the 4 gay people I know are able to lead normal lives and most people don't care about their sexuality. 1 of my gay friends is opposed to same sex marriages as well.

Again there is no correlation between the civil rights movement and not allowing gay marriage, there is also no correlation between being pro civil union and the "seperate but equal" movement of the 1960's.

so gay people are allowed to vote sure, but they are not allowed to get married.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand how you equate the right to vote, a basic tennant of the American republic with wanting to change the definition of marriage which has existed, unchanged for centuries.

[Steven]

There were state sponsored laws that did not allow blacks to vote, use the same rest rooms as whites, had to sit on the back of the bus, were not allowed in parks after a certain time. 

gays are not allowed to say they are married.   

so blacks did not have the same rights as other people, gay people have all the same rights except marriage.  hardly similar at all.

there is no comparison.  sure some gays are treated bad but it is illegal not to extend the same rights to them as it is to others, whereas it was legal to be openly racist to blacks.    There are laws protecting homosexuals, there were no laws protecting blacks. 

I am certain that homosexuals are victims of bigotry and hatred, however the 4 gay people I know are able to lead normal lives and most people don't care about their sexuality.  1 of my gay friends is opposed to same sex marriages as well. 

Again there is no correlation between the civil rights movement and not allowing gay marriage, there is also no correlation between being pro civil union and the "seperate but equal" movement of the 1960's.

I don't understand how you equate the right to vote, a basic tennant of the American republic with wanting to change the definition of marriage which has existed, unchanged for centuries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

very good examples. I agree with Ted's point of view on this one, as "opression" seems a bit heavy handed to use as a descriptive here. Also remember - that by and large pop culture itself not only embraces the gay ideology but encourages its use for exploration. this in and of itself means that it is and shall continue to be part of our everyday lives.

sure there are exceptions.

but there are exceptions to every rule. And no one in here is arguing for the right to hurt anyone, or wishes thme harm in any way whatsoever.

[JaneDead]

no offense but i usually only see white repulican catholic/christian males as the ones against "gay marriage" while most other people just don't care. now i am not saying they are THE only ones- just happens to be what i usually see.

so once again - i am for gay marriage. i don't think allowing 2 gay people to marry is fair to say that will open it up for sisters wanting to marry and mulitiple people wanting to marry. 2 people getting married is 2 people getting married if you ask me - no matter if you are man and woman, or man and man.

i'm done with this one as i have no real good argument other than i am for it and that is that. you (whoever, all of you that are against it) are against it and seem to find a bunch of reasons why, reasons i don't agree with and i am ok with that. i don't think you are wrong but i don't think you are right either. i think it is the way you feel and that is fine.

you will never see my point of view and i sure won't see yours so i am ok to just let it be as it is.

[Steven]

no offense but i usually only see white repulican catholic/christian males as the ones against "gay marriage" while most other people just don't care. now i am not saying they are THE only ones- just happens to be what i usually see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not white.

[Steven]

no offense but i usually only see white repulican catholic/christian males as the ones against "gay marriage" while most other people just don't care. now i am not saying they are THE only ones- just happens to be what i usually see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and I'm definately not what you usually see....

[torn asunder]

and that's why the word used was "usually"... :erm

[JaneDead]

I'm not white.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh i know you are not white

my response to usually white republican catholic/christian males was not even to imply anyone here

[Fierce Critter]

With all that straight & supposedly religious people have done to the institution of marriage over the centuries, I find it ludicrous that allowing gay couples to call themselves "married" is the ultimate threat.

[Steven]

i'm also not offended.....just trying to make a point.

as a christian yet also as a non traditionalist, perhaps there is more in common between us than you'd normally think. I am usually alienated from those very "religeous" types that are so often used for examples.

[BlackHound]

This what happens when Religion and politics go hand and hand. This suck ass.