Gay friendly Pittsburgh or Raleigh/Durham? (Highland Park, Bloomfield: homes, taxes, live)

[JoshM25]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That's a good analogy. Suppose someone suggested we should change the speed limit on a given stretch of road from 35 to 25 (say because a bunch of residential development had occurred along the road).

Would you argue, "Nope, the sign currently says 35, so we have to stay with 35"?

The point is that when it comes to legal matters, what we say on the sign should be driven by policy. Policy should not be driven by what it currently says on the sign.

No, I would argue why the sign said 35 in the first place. Besides, that is totally and utterly different from what a stop sign means. It will never mean anything but STOP. Marriage will never mean anything but a religious institution uniting a man and a woman. The fact that married people have more "rights" than other folks is not unusual at all. Health Insurance, taxation, etc. is all affected by marital status. So to say that is is unfair for gays to get "married" is like saying it's unfair for a child and an adult to get married. We have laws that govern moral sensibility -- everywhere and all the time.

You talk about "making laws that govern how people live" as if it's a bad thing. Ummm... that's what lawmakers and elected officials are paid to do. Look around you and you'll see that everything you do is governed by a set of laws.

As for my dictionary reference, I am merely stating that the objective and intrinsic value of what marriage is cannot change. The very word has a base meaning that cannot change. I believe in absolute truth -- some things never change, regardless of societal perspective.

Yes, I agree that nobody should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. That's precisely what I've been saying. But changing what marriage intrinsically means is a whole other ballgame.

We can agree to disagree on this one, and I think this thread has gone off topic for a bit. In any case, I'm sure this could go on forever...

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by JoshM25

No, I would argue why the sign said 35 in the first place. Besides, that is totally and utterly different from what a stop sign means. It will never mean anything but STOP. Marriage will never mean anything but a religious institution uniting a man and a woman. The fact that married people have more "rights" than other folks is not unusual at all. Health Insurance, taxation, etc. is all affected by marital status. So to say that is is unfair for gays to get "married" is like saying it's unfair for a child and an adult to get married. We have laws that govern moral sensibility -- everywhere and all the time.

You talk about "making laws that govern how people live" as if it's a bad thing. Ummm... that's what lawmakers and elected officials are paid to do. Look around you and you'll see that everything you do is governed by a set of laws.

As for my dictionary reference, I am merely stating that the objective and intrinsic value of what marriage is cannot change. The very word has a base meaning that cannot change. I believe in absolute truth -- some things never change, regardless of societal perspective.

Yes, I agree that nobody should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. That's precisely what I've been saying. But changing what marriage intrinsically means is a whole other ballgame.

We can agree to disagree on this one, and I think this thread has gone off topic for a bit. In any case, I'm sure this could go on forever...

OK...my question/thoughts are as follows:

I can take a female down to the courthouse and walk out as a married man, how is that a religious institution? Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion. I'm attending a non-religious marriage ceremony for a heterosexual couple in two weeks personally. It won't be held in a church and a religious figurehead will NOT be conducting the ceremony. A couple can CHOOSE to make their marriage a religious sacrament, but they don't have to. The concept that religion and marriage go hand-in-hand is wrong.

Also, you pretty much just contradicted yourself. You said it yourself that married folks have more rights than others--so why can't these rights be extended to homosexual couples through a marriage? Also, how is it morally wrong for two, consenting adult individuals who love one another to be married?

Saying that "this is how it is, it can't be changed" is the easy way out, IMO. You state that you feel homosexuals should not be treated differently, so why do you feel they shouldn't be able to marry their partner?

Marriage in this country is an utter JOKE as it is these days. People get divorced and remarried at ALARMING rates. They ABUSE their "rights" that they earn by entering into a marriage. I literally LAUGH OUT LOUD when someone even attempts to use that arguement that if homosexuals were to marry, the "sanctity of marriage" would be destroyed. If the sanctity of marriage was a big deal, they should have attempted to work on that long before the divorce rate was laughable. (I'm not accusing you of making that point, btw)

I am a religious person, BUT, I will never even entertain the argument that marriage is a religious institution because two atheists can easily go down to the courthouse and leave as a married couple. Marriages do take place in places other than churches.

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

Do you think Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would already constitute gay marriage if they could get away with it without having the rest of PA be a factor....

I mean we know this is a dead issue because the Burgh and Philly dont have the political clout in Harrisburg to over ride the rest of the state which will not go for it in any fashion...

But I want to know do you think the 2 cities are progressive enough that you could see a rally behind it?

Hypothetically speaking, I think the city of Pittsburgh would stand a better than 50% chance at having gay marriage if it were possible to do it on a city-by-city basis ... or trump the entire state, for that matter! After all, the city already does have a domestic partnership registry. I don't see why the support wouldn't be there to take that one step further.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by JoshM25

Marriage will never mean anything but a religious institution uniting a man and a woman.

Well, then the state should definitely get out of the marriage business, because it shouldn't be participating in religious institutions.

Strangely enough, though, the state will consider you married even if you are atheists, and got married by a civil servant in a non-religious ceremony.

The fact that married people have more "rights" than other folks is not unusual at all. Health Insurance, taxation, etc. is all affected by marital status.

What happened to civil unions for gay people?

So to say that is is unfair for gays to get "married" is like saying it's unfair for a child and an adult to get married. We have laws that govern moral sensibility -- everywhere and all the time.

Ah, so it isn't about the dictionary after all. It is about morality.

Well, I don't think it is immoral to be gay, or to be in a gay relationship, or for gay couples to want to commit to being in a legal union, or for gay couples to ask their friends, family, and so forth to recognize they have made that commitment.

Of course children of a certain age and below typically are not physically and psychologically mature enough to qualify for that reasoning.

You talk about "making laws that govern how people live" as if it's a bad thing. Ummm... that's what lawmakers and elected officials are paid to do. Look around you and you'll see that everything you do is governed by a set of laws.

It is a bad thing when there is no good reason for it. Regardless, my point was that when you want that sort of power over other people, you can no longer claim you are just adopting a live and let live attitude.

As for my dictionary reference, I am merely stating that the objective and intrinsic value of what marriage is cannot change.

"Value" is not about mere definitions. I suspect you are slipping back into moral arguments. I will just note that in my view, gay couples can and do derive value from marriage, pretty much the same value as many straight couples derive, and that our society is often better off as well.

The very word has a base meaning that cannot change.

A word is an arbitrary collection of symbols and sounds. The meaning of words can and does change over time. Adam and Eve, or rather their real world equivalents, never even heard of the collection of symbols and sounds known as "marriage".

I believe in absolute truth -- some things never change, regardless of societal perspective.

Again, I suspect you are sneaking in some morality again. If you want to base your case on committed, public, gay relationships being immoral, you need to be honest and say so. Hiding behind the dictionary is just trying to avoid the issue.

Yes, I agree that nobody should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. That's precisely what I've been saying. But changing what marriage intrinsically means is a whole other ballgame.

Again, if you are going to insist that marriage can only be offered to straight couples, but admit the state should be treating straight couples and gay couples equally, there is only one possible solution: the state should not license marriages for either straight couples or gay couples. Instead, everyone gets civil unions, and the state is back to treating everyone equally, as you agree it should.

We can agree to disagree on this one, and I think this thread has gone off topic for a bit. In any case, I'm sure this could go on forever...

Sure, but I do think it is relevant. Treating gay people and straight people equally is a great idea, but a good number of people apparently don't realize what that would really mean. In other words, they balk at treating straight people as restrictively as they want to treat gay people (no PDAs allowed, no state recognition of marriges, and so forth), but that means they aren't really willing to treat everyone equally.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

::sigh::

Gay marriage is one of the biggest non-issues this country faces. Gay people should have the same rights to marry as everyone else, end of story. Just another useless morality issue that keeps Americans away from the real problems this country faces.

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

::sigh::

Gay marriage is one of the biggest non-issues this country faces. Gay people should have the same rights to marry as everyone else, end of story. Just another useless morality issue that keeps Americans away from the real problems this country faces.

Exactly. I just returned from a vacation to Toronto. That's so 1980s up there. No one even bats an eye, the country didn't fall apart, it doesn't affect those who aren't gay, life went on. It would be nice if the U.S.A. would fast forward to 2010.

[Blackbeauty212]

Please much of the US is still living in the 1950's.......

[BrianTH]

We're getting there--if it was up to just young people, this would indeed be a non-issue. And eventually, it will be up to just them.

[Craziaskowboi]

Gay marriage and divorce: either both should be legal, or neither should be legal.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, the point is that when gay people do things which are ordinary for straight people, like publicly display affection for a loved one, or talk about their relationships, or so on, some people treat them as if they were doing something improper. As long as you agree we should treat straight people and gay people exactly alike in that sense, I don't think you will find many gay people unhappy with that prospect.

Exactly!