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.
Who said anything about depriving them of benefits?
Civil unions with all the bells and whistles are fine by me.
All I want is the word marriage.
There should be one law for everybody. Why should we have identical laws, but with different names, for different groups of people based on arbitrary characteristics?
And why stop at the gay/straight distinction? Perhaps we should use the term "civil shacking-ups" for atheist couples, "civil mixings" for mixed faith and mixed race couples, etc (we don't want the Godless, miscegenationists, or Christians who sinfully marry outside the faith sullying the word marriage either).
Who said anything about depriving them of benefits?
Civil unions with all the bells and whistles are fine by me.
All I want is the word marriage.
Gotta love how conservatives are now desperately trying to just hold onto a word in this fight. It wasn't long ago that republicans were voting in favOr of employers being able to fire people for being gay. Conservatives know they have lost this fight, and after the decades of political hell that they have put gays and their supporters through we will be damned before we compromise on anything. Nope, we want the word marriage too!
Yes, words typically change through common usage and not by an aggressive act of an overreaching government.
What you are trying to do is put the state in charge word use and word meaning.
Did you learn nothing from "1984"?
Real life isn't a George Orwell book, and the state is in charge of changing many words' meanings... even the word marriage has been "redefined" numerous times already, changing the parts about women not being property, different races not being allowed to marry, etc. Why are you only concerned about THIS change specifically?
Quote:
As for the same-sex marriage debate, since an individual can only marry one person and by far the greatest part of the population is heterosexual, heterosexuality is the norm.
To fail to recognize it as such is illogical.
Who is failing to recognize that? We all realize heterosexuality is the "norm," we just don't think civil rights should be limited to the "norm." As long as they're not physically hurting anyone, what reason exists to deny them this legal benefit? Just because they aren't part of the normal crowd is no justification, at least not one based on sensible logic. I know you fail to see the validity of my analogies, but they really do have a connection... to get more specific, since Christian weddings are most common in the US, why do we allow Jews to marry?
Out of curiosity, what if somebody in your "clan" did come out of the closet - let's say your son, or your favorite cousin since childhood? Would you accept that and continue to love them, or cut them off like that other poster's father did?
To satisfy your curiousity... I'd choose to no longer have a relationship with them and minimize any instances where interaction might occur. The nearest thing I can liken this to is that a close cousin got involved with drugs and I made it clear that this was unacceptable if we were to continue any type of relationship. He chose the drugs. We did not speak for the next four years, until the time he died from an overdose. And no, I didn't go to the funeral although I did immediately call his parents to express my condolences. To this day, when I'm with my aunt and uncle, we simply do not speak of what happened with their son. And I don't feel any regrets over my cutting off of that relationship due to the choices he made.
We do not choose if we have a gay relative, or a criminal relative, or a drug-using relative, or if friends or relatives have any number of what we may see as other undesirable traits, but we are free to choose whether or not to continue to have relationships with those people, just as they are free to choose how they live their lives. I choose to eliminate from my life those whose behavior I find unacceptable.
I'm thankful each day that my kid is normal... so far. And yes, we have a wonderful relationship.
If Republicans let people marry whoever they want, i'd probably be a Republican. Just saying. I'm not gay myself, but i don't see how gay people getting married affects my life in the slightest.
Anyway, I thought Romney definitely had the better plan to stimulate the economy. We've tried it Obama's way, and it hasn't worked. I think i'd probably be a Republican if they were more tolerant of gay people.
I wonder how many other people feel similarly. Do the Republicans alienate a lot of potential supporters with their strict religious stances?
I personally don't know any Republicans who don't have a live and let live policy about gays. All you need to do is stop getting your info on "what Republicans think" from MSNBC.
To satisfy your curiousity... I'd choose to no longer have a relationship with them and minimize any instances where interaction might occur.
That's really sad, and I guess you don't understand the meaning of unconditional love. You'd really cut off ties with your family, just because they were born with a same-sex orientation? So glad my parents understand the meaning of love, and would NEVER disown a child for being born different than the majority. I actually hope one of your children is gay, so you might have to look inside yourself and see if you could really do this - as many parents talk all tough, but later realize they can't turn their feelings on & off that easily.
Quote:
The nearest thing I can liken this to is that a close cousin got involved with drugs and I made it clear that this was unacceptable if we were to continue any type of relationship. He chose the drugs. We did not speak for the next four years, until the time he died from an overdose. And no, I didn't go to the funeral although I did immediately call his parents to express my condolences. To this day, when I'm with my aunt and uncle, we simply do not speak of what happened with their son. And I don't feel any regrets over my cutting off of that relationship due to the choices he made.
If that's the nearest thing you liken to being homosexual, I'd say you are either horrible at analogies or lack an understanding of biology & human nature. Taking drugs is a choice, and one that can physically & directly harm others... being gay is a natural orientation, and hurts nobody in and of itself. Again, I find this very sad.
Quote:
We do not choose if we have a gay relative, or a criminal relative, or a drug-using relative, or if friends or relatives have any number of what we may see as other undesirable traits, but we are free to choose whether or not to continue to have relationships with those people, just as they are free to choose how they live their lives. I choose to eliminate from my life those whose behavior I find unacceptable.
Sure, you can make that choice... but I'll tell you something based on personal observations, you will likely regret that choice later in life. Hopefully your hypothetical gay family member (you might even have one already) would be able to move on, and find new family members who love without prejudice.
Quote:
I'm thankful each day that my kid is normal... so far. And yes, we have a wonderful relationship.
My brother is normal too, and he also happens to be gay. In fact, I'd say he is even more normal than you, seeing as he wouldn't suddenly stop caring about a loved one because of their innate attractions. I'm thankful each day for him, and for my parents who don't hold these prejudices... and who actually have a good relationship with their children, unlike people who would dump them for something they cannot change.
I said I wasn't going to get all judge-y on you, but my blood literally boils when I read these things! I guess not all families have the same dynamic, however I still cannot fathom cutting off a family member over this.
I personally don't know any Republicans who don't have a live and let live policy about gays. All you need to do is stop getting your info on "what Republicans think" from MSNBC.
Or, I guess, from CD, judging from the looks of this thread.
If Republicans let people marry whoever they want, i'd probably be a Republican. Just saying. I'm not gay myself, but i don't see how gay people getting married affects my life in the slightest.
Anyway, I thought Romney definitely had the better plan to stimulate the economy. We've tried it Obama's way, and it hasn't worked. I think i'd probably be a Republican if they were more tolerant of gay people.
I wonder how many other people feel similarly. Do the Republicans alienate a lot of potential supporters with their strict religious stances?
You do realize you are generalizing don't you? Many Republicans believe in same sex marriage or believe it is up to states to decide. Others ae very tolerant of gays but still believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I don't think any of us base our politics on one or even 2 issues, I know I don't.
You might have it under consideration if one of your relatives or close friends ever came out of the closet though.
Maybe, maybe not: our foster daughter is gay; Next month we will have a family cruise to celebrate she and her partners 20th anniversary: Guess what, they don't necessarily believe in gay marriage either. They happen to feel, marriage is between a man and woman, so no, one issue does not control most of us on how we vote. In fact her roomate (no not her partner) is a lesbian, a vegan and a conservative. They do admit this is pretty unusual. Now with this being said and I have said it many times before, how many times are we going to debate this issue, just using different titles??
Or, I guess, from CD, judging from the looks of this thread.
No kidding! I don't even watch MSNBC, all I have to do is come here to see the extremists on either side... and based on a handful of posters in this very thread, it seems we're not too far off base.
I realize not ALL Republicans are against gay marriage, but they sure are against it more strongly (and illogically) than your average liberal/Dem. And since we're mostly discussing the party as opposed to individuals anyway, can we think of any major players who are pro-SSM? Maybe there are some out there, but I don't know of them offhand.
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.
And yes, we have a wonderful relationship.
