[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yes, he has been polite and respectful, which is why I'd like to engage in civilized coversation with him (or her?).

To just say "gay marriage is wrong" but post nothing further to back up that point does not facilitate an intelligent and respectful conversation.

I will try.

I should have said: Denying gays the right to marry is wrong, but allowing them isn't much better.

I don't know about most of you, but I find definitions to be important. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman that are not related to each other and who are not married to anyone else. (although in the distant past and/or Saudi Arabia, that last one is iffy).

Marriage is an important thing. Not a flippant thing, nor an iffy thing. I didn't get married because it was no big deal, that if things went south I could always divorce. That's not right. Where I come from, where I grew up, Marriage was a solemn thing. It went beyond politics and ordinary stuff.

So when I see things like this:

Originally Posted by Dion

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I wonder if this was part of God's design?

I guess I really should get past that. What I believe just isn't relevant anymore. The Institution of Marriage is indeed destroyed. I can understand why everyone should be free to do what they want, but I can also be disappointed in what they do.

Which is why I struggle with this argument. The definition stands as it is. No amount of wishing by anyone will change that meaning. The definition doesn't make homosexuals or their life choices right or wrong. It is merely what the word means. But at the same time, what it means, doesn't mean anything anymore. (I think that by this time it's clear that I'm no writer, and I'm not necessarily the best at putting my point of view across).

So then, are gays who want to marry being persecuted, and denied something that they will consider a powerful and transformative part of their lives? Some of them, yeah. Which is why it would be wrong to deny them this.

But are others just using it as a political statement, a statement about equality and rights and acceptance? Yes. Some of them are. It would be wrong to even further diminish something that still holds some value, merely because people are using it as a political statement. I guess I don't believe that marriage is dead, and that someday people are going to wake up and realize it is a powerful and valuable thing. But they probably won't.

Which brings up the question as to whether or not government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Half of me says no. They don't need to be there, having government get out of the marriage business would solve the problem. Everyone that wants a union can have a union, and no one can have a marriage, and we will all be happy. But the other half of me realizes that there are currently different levels of marriage, such as common law marriage (which I do not consider "real" marriage, just like I do not consider gay marriage "real" marriage), and other larger scale legal issues that revolve around rights, such as what happens when your partner dies? Or ownership issues. And that half of me does not want government to take away marriage, because my wife could end up with the government taking away all of the things that belonged to "me" from her when I die. That thought worries me.

So, in the end, there is no good answer. All the answers are bad ones, most of which really affect me, even if at the same time some don't affect me at all.


But a bigot is a bigot, right? And because I said I didn't agree with gay marriage, well...


By the way, I find it interesting that many of those who quoted me like this:

Originally Posted by Knalus

Allowing gays to marry isn't right

ignored the rest of the sentence.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Allowing gays to marry isn't right, but neither is denying them. Catch-22. There is no right answer. There is only wrong answers. There are no winners in this argument.

It's a him, btw, not that it matters.