Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gay marriage will simply render it meaningless since unions of all sorts will follow. We will have 3 person unions, group orgy unions + people and pets.
Making that comparison must be a compulsion for you guys, you always seem to want to make that connection.
Could be there are some repressed feelings hiding in the dark recesses of your mind.
Now for one of those posts that regresses to the original topic:
My views were formed a million years or so ago when I was in college and learned what homosexuality was
BUT after I was out of school and working I knew some gay people and they were wonderful so I changed from thinking they were weird to being supportive of them
As for marriage, I'm all for it but don't call it marriage because that gets confusing. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I believe the government has to sanction it, not that the government should stay out of the marriage business. Mainly for practical purposes there has to be a verifiable record of the marriage that is the same for everyone, that will be recognized everywhere.
Gays should have an arrangement with all the benefits of marriage but it should be called a partnership or something because after thousands of years of marriage being man and woman, it shouldn't change now and it can be very confusing.
I am a conservative who believes in smaller government. They should not have any say in who marries whom. Domestic partnerships, civil unions or any "arrangement" as you call it, deny over 1000 rights granted to people who are married. People should just live and let live and grant equality for everyone. Government needs to quit wasting taxpayers time and money to promote inequality.
In the past fifteen or twenty years there has been a radical shift in public opinion concerning same-sex "marriage". I remember a time when the question of whether homosexuals should have the right to marry was a non-question in almost all but the most liberal sectors of society. Rather, homosexualist organizations concentrated their efforts on fighting against discrimination and the like. It seems like only in the past decade, and especially the last 5 years, has same-sex marriage become an issue attracting major public attention.
We've had a discussion of how the public came to accept the idea of homosexuals arrying so rapidly, but I am posing this question on a more personal scale:
1. How were your opinions about same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general originally formed?
2. When did you first think seriously about same-sex marriage?
3. If there was a change in your stance, when did it occur, and what provoked it?
1. By my parents, originally, although the Catholic Church was most influential in shaping my later views on same-sex marriage.
2. Around the age of 15, or in 2002, when I began to debate the issue in an online teen forum.
3. No changes.
To me this is just another form of racism. My opinion was formed very early as a child. I was born in the south and saw racism first hand. I honestly never understood why anyone that was deemed different would be treated in such a disrespectful and sometimes inhumane manner. Being raised catholic I was taught that we were all gods children no matter how different we were and that god loved us all equally.
I'm not sure why some of us feel superior to judge others when they are no better.....just an equal.
Making that comparison must be a compulsion for you guys, you always seem to want to make that connection.
Could be there are some repressed feelings hiding in the dark recesses of your mind.
The "people will be marrying dogs if same-sex marriage is legalized!" is a fascinating argument, isn't it? After all, nothing in constitutional history has led to rights being extended to dogs (or any other non-human animal). But the hand-wringers are convinced that same-sex marriage will lead to dogs being granted personhood by the Supreme Court. And, also interestingly, they appear convinced that dogs will suddenly gain the ability to legally consent. I wonder if they think dogs will learn to speak and thus give consent verbally, or if they'll be able to write?
What a weird thought process...
I'm still waiting for giving women and blacks the right to vote leading to dogs being allowed to vote!
Making that comparison must be a compulsion for you guys, you always seem to want to make that connection.
Could be there are some repressed feelings hiding in the dark recesses of your mind.
The problem is that same-sex marriage proponents have not shown any logic that would open up marriage to same-sex couples but not to polygamous couples, polyamorous unions, father-and-son unions, etc. Traditional marriage supporters have a base from which to start. Disagree with this reasoning or not, it still forms a framework in which to think about marriage. Same-sex union supporters, on the other hand, often revolve their arguments around logic (if it could be called that) that could be used equally to prove why marriage between multiple partners or incestuous unions should be permitted (though not necessarily unions between humans and non-humans).
The problem is that same-sex marriage proponents have not shown any logic that would open up marriage to same-sex couples but not to polygamous couples, polyamorous unions, father-and-son unions, etc. Traditional marriage supporters have a base from which to start. Disagree with this reasoning or not, it still forms a framework in which to think about marriage. Same-sex union supporters, on the other hand, often revolve their arguments around logic (if it could be called that) that could be used equally to prove why marriage between multiple partners or incestuous unions should be permitted (though not necessarily unions between humans and non-humans).
Utter nonsense. Clearly, you haven't read any of the appelate decisions that have struck down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For example, the holding the District Court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (as it was then named) that sexual orientation could he construed as a suspect class. How does that possibly lead to plural marriage or incestuous marriage? Feel free to explain that to us.
The simple fact is that barring plural marriages does not prevent anyone from marrying a consenting adult of the gender to which they are naturally attracted. Nor do consanguinuity limits. Period. They don't. But barring same-sex marriage does.
Tell you what: cite the points of law in the cases from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, or California that struck down same-sex marriage bans that necessarily apply to incestuous marriages and plural marriages. Cite the specific logic, and explain to us how it applies to those other instances.
After all, you are the one making the claim that they do just that. Fine. Cite them, and explain yourself.
Of course, we all know you won't, because you can't, because your assertion is bogus.
I am a conservative who believes in smaller government. They should not have any say in who marries whom. Domestic partnerships, civil unions or any "arrangement" as you call it, deny over 1000 rights granted to people who are married. People should just live and let live and grant equality for everyone. Government needs to quit wasting taxpayers time and money to promote inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
To me this is just another form of racism. My opinion was formed very early as a child. I was born in the south and saw racism first hand. I honestly never understood why anyone that was deemed different would be treated in such a disrespectful and sometimes inhumane manner. Being raised catholic I was taught that we were all gods children no matter how different we were and that god loved us all equally.
I'm not sure why some of us feel superior to judge others when they are no better.....just an equal.
No way... a conservative and Catholic who actually stand behind what they claim to believe? My faith in humanity is slightly restored now - kudos to both of you.
I was raised Catholic and I had negative views about gays in general. I just didn't like gay men. Lesbians were ok though. One of my friends were lesbian.
Then at about age 18, I met this girl who I really liked and she was into the whole gay rights thing. Of course I'm not gonna tell her what I believed in because I liked her, so she told me everything about gay rights, Harvey Milk, etc.
After a while we decided to do something about gay rights (I'm having 2nd thoughts about gays at this point)
One night I did my research and all my arguments about gay people and my anti gay marriage stance was blown out of the water. I argued them in my head but to no avail. I couldn't win with logic, so I took the pro gay stance and I've never felt so awesome.
I am a member of the GSA, I've protested in the day of silence for gay rights, and have worked with people of the third gender to fight for their rights.
I'm probably the most pro gay person I know.
I think it's just exposure in life. I am in my late-40s; however, went to school with people back in the day who were homosexual. They were real out of about back then, of course, however I knew about it. I thought all of them were great people and never even judged them because of their sexuality. I never felt they were weird or a different class of people or perverted or anything. This could be because I *never* had any religion in my life so it just never occurred to me to think of them as being less.
Same-sex marriage wasn't even on the the table then so I never even thought about it. When it did become an issue, my immediate reaction was "of course" they should have that right. Again, I think I'm open to it because I do not have religion in my life.
Same-sex marriage wasn't even on the the table then so I never even thought about it. When it did become an issue, my immediate reaction was "of course" they should have that right. Again, I think I'm open to it because I do not have religion in my life.
Well, you didn't have prejudice disguised as religion there. My mom was a very religious person who took me to church almost every Sunday for most of my childhood. When the subject of homosexuality arose, she would tell me "That's wrong. God says it's a sin." But she never spoke about (or spoke out against) homosexuality any more than any other "sin" in the bible. That's how you know whether someone opposes it for religious reasons or because they're prejudiced against gays. Sad to say, the Christians often given a mic seem to oppose gay marriage but not indiscriminate remarriage (the bible also says that is wrong, with a few exceptions). There is no opposition to psychic hotlines even though the bible says to kill fortune tellers the same way it says to kill gays. There is no opposition to doing any sort of work on the Sabbath day (there is no verse in the bible that specifically condones every sort of work, to override one verse that reads "Do not work on the Sabbath day.") Says to kill people who promote other religions; yet, I can promote Hinduism today and adopt a child tomorrow with no trouble.
So many "sinners" are given a pass. They are not protested or antagonized; they maintain a level of freedom perfectly equal to every Christian in the U.S. Gays are the one exception, and to me the reason why is quite clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
