Gay Marriage (illegal, heroin, speech, illegal immigration)
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.
In relation to gays I wonder if marriage doesn't have the same impact. I lived with my wife for some time before we were married, and when we were finally legally wed the relationship dynamic changed in a way that is difficult to describe. I would be curious to know from the few gays in legal unions what there experiences have been.
If we had children before we were married it would have been very different than waiting until after. (We did wait) Many things changed in a very palpable but intangible way. Intuitively, I know the only real difference is a few signatures on paper, and a file downtown, but to me there was a very real change.
I would imgaine that any couple, of any sex, would have a similar experience. Although it has been the second most difficult challenge in my life, it has also been the second most rewarding, and the second most powerful force in molding me into a better person. (The first in all 3 cases is my children.)
I vote against gay marriage. My personal reasons are religious, but since it's hard to argue a faith-based line with those who don't share it, I'll try to keep it secular.
Marriage is a cooperative state of being that we (society) agree has certain traits, responsibilities and place. Those who choose to enter into that partnership do so because they choose to accept its cooperative rules. The partnership of marriage as it's currently defined exists only between a man and a woman. If you change the nature of that partnership to include two men, two horses, or two rocks, you change the nature of the partnership for everyone.
I didn't choose to enter into a partnership with my wife that would have the same cooperative status of two men, nor would I want to. While gay rights activists claim that their "right" to marry doesn't affect anyone, in fact it does.
Take for example private commercial partnerships. These are purely abstract legal constructs, but they have rules that define the partnership. If suddenly they decided to change the terms of partnership to include churches or non-profit organizations, you have in fact changed the rules of partnership for everyone.
The second thing to consider is the right of one group to determine who should be included in that group. Take citizenship for example. If you're born in America or have gone through the naturalization process, citizens dictate that you should be allowed in their group. Someone from Borneo can't up and decide that he's going to be an American without consent of its citizenry. Nobody has the "right" to join a group that doesn't approve of it's membership.
So my argument is this: gays don't have a "right" to get married. They would only if a) those who are married consent to the re-definition of their partnership and b) those who are married consent to the introduction of gay couples into their group.
I, for one, don't. I know that there are millions more like me.
I vote against gay marriage. My personal reasons are religious, but since it's hard to argue a faith-based line with those who don't share it, I'll try to keep it secular.
Marriage is a cooperative state of being that we (society) agree has certain traits, responsibilities and place. Those who choose to enter into that partnership do so because they choose to accept its cooperative rules. The partnership of marriage as it's currently defined exists only between a man and a woman. If you change the nature of that partnership to include two men, two horses, or two rocks, you change the nature of the partnership for everyone.
I didn't choose to enter into a partnership with my wife that would have the same cooperative status of two men, nor would I want to. While gay rights activists claim that their "right" to marry doesn't affect anyone, in fact it does.
Take for example private commercial partnerships. These are purely abstract legal constructs, but they have rules that define the partnership. If suddenly they decided to change the terms of partnership to include churches or non-profit organizations, you have in fact changed the rules of partnership for everyone.
The second thing to consider is the right of one group to determine who should be included in that group. Take citizenship for example. If you're born in America or have gone through the naturalization process, citizens dictate that you should be allowed in their group. Someone from Borneo can't up and decide that he's going to be an American without consent of its citizenry. Nobody has the "right" to join a group that doesn't approve of it's membership.
So my argument is this: gays don't have a "right" to get married. They would only if a) those who are married consent to the re-definition of their partnership and b) those who are married consent to the introduction of gay couples into their group.
I, for one, don't. I know that there are millions more like me.
I see what you are saying. You downplay one point however; gays are born american citizens and are currently being denied rights that other americans enjoy. This is much less comparable to business partnerships or rocks marrying rocks, and more comparable to the civil rights movement.
It is very difficult to make the argument against gay marriage without bringing religion into the issue. That deserves a rep point
I see what you are saying. You downplay one point however; gays are born american citizens and are currently being denied rights that other americans enjoy. This is much less comparable to business partnerships or rocks marrying rocks, and more comparable to the civil rights movement.
It is very difficult to make the argument against gay marriage without bringing religion into the issue. That deserves a rep point
But marriage isn't a right. It's a legal & social construct. Being an American doesn't confer any right at all to get married. It does grant you right of free association, which we violate if we force married people who don't want their partnership changed against their wishes.
At least I didn't tell the same sex marriage joke.
See, I'm behaving.
-TT
Heh heh. Actually I'm sitting up with a screaming baby and watching a TV debate on Catholic & Church of England charities not allowing adoptions to gay couples. It's kinda topical tonight.
I’m fully aware of the biblical verse in Leviticus that many people refer to. To them I say read Leviticus 11:10 “11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you” Hmm, I see more people openly eating clam chowder, having clam bakes, sucking down raw oysters, et al and no one seems to mind. I once used this argument against a religious person who used the anti-gay reference in Leviticus and they told me that the New Testament “mentioned” that shellfish was ok, but couldn’t tell me where exactly it said it. It’s called selective reading in my opinion
Really couldn't help myself but, to answer this one for you try Colossians Chapter 2 verse 16. Called correct reading!!
Everyone has had good comments on this one it's just a tough one when gays have been in the closet for so long and seems like some that have chosen to step forward flaunt it as more of a circus as those in San Francisco. I think that it makes it harder for some to take the issue serious.
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.