California legalizes gay marr... ZOMG!!!! MY EYES!!!!! IT BURNS!!!

[troutman]

How about my equal right to the integrity of the definition of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years?

I think you would be surprised about the "definition of marriage" not so very long ago. I think there was another thread about this. Will see if I can find it. Your "definition of marriage" is a relatively recent development in human history IIRC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I disagree with that. Homosexual and heterosexual couples are not equal, the societal purpose of marriage is to reproduce. Homosexual couples are not able to reproduce. Sure it's possible, but in the same sense its possible for an individual to reproduce - it doesn't have the same value IMHO.

Totally different than interracial couples, race has no relevance regarding reproduction.


I'm not stating I'm for or against gay marriage, but I don't see it as equal.

Many straight couples can't or choose not to reproduce. What is the difference?

[Azure]

Oh, so now people who don't support gay marriage for a variety of reasons are bigots?

Nice to know that tolerance and acceptance of different viewpoints are so identical on both sides.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by troutman

How about my equal right to the integrity of the definition of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years?

I think you would be surprised about the "definition of marriage" not so very long ago. I think there was another thread about this. Will see if I can find it. Your "definition of marriage" is a relatively recent development in human history IIRC.

Fair enough.

But certainly as far as the legal and religious doctrine that is symbiotic with the traditional definition of marriage go, you might agree that it has existed long enough to be considered an affront, and even insulting to those who have propagated traditional marriage to have their beliefs and way of life exploded upon by a specific group?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Don't see how that is bigotry.

And I'm sure that racists don't see anything wrong with their beliefs either.

I don't think gays are evil, wrong, or anything of the sort. I do think, however, that the gay community is really shooting itself in the foot by demanding a change in the definition of marriage as opposed to inventing their own unique word.

They are trying to show people that for all intrinsic purposes that they are the same in every way except one to everybody else and would like to belong in society as an equal and normal. By having a separate name for their union, they ostracize themselves from their desire to be seen as the same as everybody else.

Obviously there are some conventions of the traditional marriage that do not lend itself to homosexual couples that would otherwise be moot or easily dealt with under a unique term for legally recognized homosexual unions.

Every culture has its own traditions and customs when it comes to things like marriage, and obviously any gay marriage would have things different than a man/woman marriage, does that mean that it is categorically different than the man/woman marriage. Perhaps we should not recognize marriages from other cultures as marriages because they don't get married in the same fashion as we do.

I expect in 40 years our kids (especially the gay ones) will look back and say "I can't believe the gay community in 2008 was so selfish as to demand that society bend over backward for them on such an arrogant technicality. What an abuse of civil liberties and freedom of expression it was. Thank god things now are much better."

I hope that our society does not regress by such large amounts in the next 40 years. How dare they. Why would anyone want to be accepted as normal and not as some sort of freak.

Who knows, maybe we'd actually see some gay people holding hands in public if they weren't so afraid the local Albertans would lynch them because their brethren in ONT/QUE are putting up a huge (and offensive) stink.

Perhaps if people in Alberta were more forward thinking, then gay people in Alberta would not feel ostracized for being who they are.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Fair enough.

But certainly as far as the legal and religious doctrine that is symbiotic with the traditional definition of marriage go, you might agree that it has existed long enough to be considered an affront, and even insulting to those who have propagated traditional marriage to have their beliefs and way of life exploded upon by a specific group?

I don't see how it effects these people one iota. No one is forcing them to enter gay marriages.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I disagree with that. Homosexual and heterosexual couples are not equal, the societal purpose of marriage is to reproduce. Homosexual couples are not able to reproduce. Sure it's possible, but in the same sense its possible for an individual to reproduce - it doesn't have the same value IMHO.

Totally different than interracial couples, race has no relevance regarding reproduction.


I'm not stating I'm for or against gay marriage, but I don't see it as equal.

So than a heterosexual couple that is married and chooses not to reproduce is not equal to a heterosexual married couple of chooses to reproduce?

What about a man or woman that are unable to reproduce for medical reasons, are there marriages not equal?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

How about my equal right to the integrity of the definition of marriage as it has existed for thousands of years?

I'm not sure what "my equal right" means above. You have an opinion you are expressing, but I don't see how it is a "right". Your opinion is to deny the right to marry to other groups. That isn't an issue of you having an equal right to them.

Many traditions and conventions change over the course of time. Society becomes enlightened. Slavery, equal rights for women, child labor laws. All things that "traditionally" took advantage of other groups.

You have the right to your opinion. But your opinion does not extend so far as to preclude the rights of others in a society where all members are equal.

Don't see how that is bigotry. I don't think gays are evil, wrong, or anything of the sort.

That's good... but you just don't think they should have the same legal rights as you do? Why not? If your answer is "because they are gay" then you are discriminating against them on the basis of something that rises to the level of race (if you think people are born gay) or religion (if you think people choose to be gay). In either case discrimination = bigotry.

I do think, however, that the gay community is really shooting itself in the foot by demanding a change in the definition of marriage as opposed to inventing their own unique word.

Should interracial marriages have a unique word? In our society when two adults decide to enter a legal arrangement whereby they essentially allow their significant other to make decisions as part of a family union, why should it be different simply because they are the same sex?

Obviously there are some conventions of the traditional marriage that do not lend itself to homosexual couples that would otherwise be moot or easily dealt with under a unique term for legally recognized homosexual unions.

Like what?

While some laws were passed banning this specifically, once those were shot down there was no change needed to the fundamental dynamics of the legal side of marriage.

Except they want to be treated exactly like everyone else - equality. That includes the use of words. They don't want to call a life long commitment to each other a "civil union". They want to call it "marriage".

For example - How is denying gays the right to marry any different than saying "Asians should be allowed to enter civil unions, but because most of them are from Eastern cultures, they shouldn't use the term "marriage".

It's 2 adults who want to be treated the same as everyone else. What's the problem?

I expect in 40 years our kids (especially the gay ones) will look back and say "I can't believe the gay community in 2008 was so selfish as to demand that society bend over backward for them on such an arrogant technicality. What an abuse of civil liberties and freedom of expression it was. Thank god things now are much better."

How is it an abuse of civil liberties and freedom of expression to want to be treated just like everybody else? Discrimination should be fought wherever it is found. If you tell me that I shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else because of my religion, gender, color, or presence of a disability, you would be discriminating. What's the difference with sexual orientation?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by troutman

Many straight couples can't or choose not to reproduce. What is the difference?

Willingness to breed and fertility tests for marriage would infringe on individual liberty. Furthermore I wouldn't know how (nor care to) enforce the rules that stringently. But strictly theoretically speaking, theres minimal difference.

I'm all for equality for gays, but equality means playing by the rules everyone else has to. You can't marry whomever you want. The issues relating to gays not being able to marry (hospital visits) should be resolved, but not by compromising the sanctity of marriage.

If (when?) gay marriages are commonplace, my stance would move to "Any two people who wish to co-adopt a child may enter into a legal marriage."

Frankly, I'd like to see the gov't no longer recognize marriage at all. It would be an awful thing to actually put in place (read: a "real" reason to hate gays) but marriage is becoming a less sacred institution by the day.

[troutman]

"The Sanctity Of Marriage"

As a one time divorce lawyer, I can only roll my eyes. Seems to me, at least 50% of straight people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Fair enough.

But certainly as far as the legal and religious doctrine that is symbiotic with the traditional definition of marriage go, you might agree that it has existed long enough to be considered an affront, and even insulting to those who have propagated traditional marriage to have their beliefs and way of life exploded upon by a specific group?

The world changes, and many would say improves.

This is an improvement.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

So than a heterosexual couple that is married and chooses not to reproduce is not equal to a heterosexual married couple of chooses to reproduce?

I'm not sure of the question.
Are the marriages less equal? No. Are the people less equal? No.
Would I oppose the marriage? No.

Originally Posted by J pold

What about a man or woman that are unable to reproduce for medical reasons, are there marriages not equal?

Not a logical argument.

Since A isn't always true, is it equal to B which is never true?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by troutman

"The Sanctity Of Marriage"

As a one time divorce lawyer, I can only roll my eyes. Seems to me, at least 50% of straight people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage.

No kidding! On one hand you can point to a 50% divorce rate, "The Bachelor" and all the other nonsense and say "sanctity of marriage" is long dead.

On the other you can question why 2 people loving each other and making a life long commitment somehow infringes on it.

Either way, there is no way it can be held up as a reason to discriminate against gays.

[Azure]

Going back to what Flashlight said.....I think gay marriage is wrong, but I do agree with legalizing it.

Am I a bigot?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by troutman

"The Sanctity Of Marriage"

As a one time divorce lawyer, I can only roll my eyes. Seems to me, at least 50% of straight people have no respect for the sanctity of marriage.

One of the good things religion had brought to the world, a reverence that is fading as religion continues to be vilified.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, so now people who don't support gay marriage for a variety of reasons are bigots?

Nice to know that tolerance and acceptance of different viewpoints are so identical on both sides.

The problem is that there aren't a variety of reasons.

There is one reason - "Gays should be treated differently than the rest of us because they are gay."

That's called discrimination. When you discriminate against someone you are a bigot.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Azure

Going back to what Flashlight said.....I think gay marriage is wrong, but I do agree with legalizing it.

Am I a bigot?

In that case - only on the inside!

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by Azure

Going back to what Flashlight said.....I think gay marriage is wrong, but I do agree with legalizing it.

Am I a bigot?

Yes.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The problem is that there aren't a variety of reasons.

There is one reason - "Gays should be treated differently than the rest of us because they are gay."

That's called discrimination. When you discriminate against someone you are a bigot.

Personally I think religious people should be the last ones complaining about this. The government accepts a lot of their 'stuff' too....and its not their business what gay people want.

I think its okay for someone to think its wrong....but what you think is wrong may not be the same thing I think is wrong. And the government shouldn't be deciding what is wrong and right.

I guess my point is that I don't agree with 'being gay'....but I do agree with gay marriage....as screwed up as that sounds.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

The problem is that there aren't a variety of reasons.

There is one reason - "Gays should be treated differently than the rest of us because they are gay."

That's called discrimination. When you discriminate against someone you are a bigot.

Not it is not. I personally feel that the term marriage applys to a man and a woman. It is my opinion and because of that opinion I am opposed to the idea of a gay marriage. It's not like I am going down to Detour, roping myself a fruit and dragging 'em behind my pickup with my clan buddies.