Challenge to those against Gay Marriage

[Pitchforkpat]

Ok..I've read some of the stuff on gay marriages and I think it's time those opposed put up! Let's hear you state clearly why you are against gay marriages.

Some points first:

1. Nebulous notions like "it will ruin the sanctitiy of marriage" need to be given in more detail. What does the sanctity of marriage mean? Why will it be ruined?

2. Just saying "it has always been between a man and a woman" is falling back on one of the worse arguments known in debating: tradition. Tradition is a very poor reason to continue discrimination. Slavery was tradition at one time. Only allowing men to vote was tradtion at one time.

3. If you think it will lead to the moral decline of society, you will have to expain how that works and give some evidence. If you have no evidence then you're only giving your ill-informed opinion.


Now let's see what you've got. Btw...just so you don't go there, the point of allowing gays and lesbians to use the term "marriage" is because this breaks down another symbolic barrier by which a group of people can be thought of as 'different'. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong. Gs & Ls should have ALL the same rights that every other citizen possesses. If you don't think so, then it's incumbent upon you to explain your reasoning

[whitebear]

Well put. I agree almost completely. I'm still not sure allowing women to vote was a good idea.

[RA]

50 years ago the thought of blacks marrying whites was thought by the Christian right to be the downfall of humanity.

Gay marriage can only help us. Let's rid ourselves of hate.

[icest0rm]

Originally Posted by RA

Gay marriage can only help us. Let's rid ourselves of hate.

Agreed.

Eventually, I do think gay marriage will be fully accepted in society. Unfortunately, considering how conservative the US is right now, this will probably take another 50 years.

[cortezrex]

it shouldn't take that long icestorm. we'll one day realize we all have the right to marry whoever we wish, provided they are not in our immediate family and are of age.

[RA]

I do not think it will take fifty years. The tide is already changing with the middle ground. What are people afraid of? I for one will not devorice my wife becasue I like the guy accross the street better.

Allowing Gay marriage will only help us. When i see the red faced right spouting all kinds of crap about sanctity there true underlying meaning is very hateful and can not be excussed. I was a mid line republican but am becoming a democrate. this crusade against gays has made me feel ashamed of a party I supported and want no part of the bigitory.

[daniela]

I see nothing wrong with gay marriages....just let people be happy

[Pitchforkpat]

Notice how not a single theist has provided even an attempt at an argument yet. I think that speaks for itself.

[whitebear]

I'm no theist, but I think their argument boils down to "the bible told me so" and since I don't believe the Bible is the word of God their arguments don't hold much sway with me.

[RA]

The movement is starting to snowball. Today I read a second mayor is aloowing gay marriages in New York. The California Supreme court overruled a motion to annul and outlaw the marriages in San Francisco.

Now is the time to rise up gays. Go for it. Do not stand down to hypocrasy, hatred and bigitory. I am straight but still stand united with you. You are people as heterosexuals are and deserve the same rights.

Middle of the road americans are changing their course and Bush has written his legacy at one term by taking a stance for intolerence for human rights. Going as far as trying to write Hatred into our constitution.

[RA]

Shame. Mr. Bush.

[culinarean]

I think everyone has missed the point about the legality issue that has been proposed. First, the debate is not about whether or not gays can have a legally binding relationship with the same privileges as marriage. Bush even said he is not against giving the same legal rights to a gay union. That will be up to the states.

I am a traditionalist on the definition of marriage. It was intended to be the union of two people for the purposes of both partnership and procreation. Until a union of two men or two women can result in procreation, then the definition of gay marriage is a moot point.

I do believe that there should be an equal legal definition for gays with all the rights that marriage entails, just with a different name attached to it.

Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman to result in procreation. A civil union with all the same legal rights should be the way to go for a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

From what I have heard, this is what is really being asked by the gay community.

Anyway, to sum it all up, my wife and me spent part of our honeymoon with a gay couple, and I had some good comraderie with people that were openly gay. I just don't go that way myself.

[Tpolg]

Well as a libertarian, I am against any illegitimate government intrusion on the individual. Marriage in so far as it is a government institution, can only be legitimate if there is something going on that is the governments business. And the only reason the mating relationship is the governments business, is that it involves the production of new individuals that are under the governments protection. Homosexual relationships do not produce individuals, and are therefor not a legitimate area for government involvement.

[Pitchforkpat]

Culinarean,

You wrote:

“Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman to result in procreation.”

What about the many hetero couples that chose not to have children (or procreate as you say)?

“A civil union with all the same legal rights should be the way to go for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. From what I have heard, this is what is really being asked by the gay community.”

Actually, no. They want to stop being discriminated against, period. Not letting them use the term marriage, allows marginalizing to continue. Plus, in many of the “civil union” cases, not all the same right are afforded. The civil union ideas is often used just to disguise bigotry, fear, and ignorance.

“I am a traditionalist on the definition of marriage.”

Culinarean, as stated above on the thread. Tradition is a terrible reason to continue discrimination. Many people used “tradition” to say that interracial marriage was wrong. Slavery was tradition, remember?

[Pitchforkpat]

Another point to keep in mind is that since the "tradition" arguement is lousy, and the idea of societal breakdown has no credible evidence, one is left with the "Bible says so" argument.

Since Bush wants to amend the constitution based on this "Bible says so" type of argument to apease the Christian right, what happened to separation of church and state? When did the US become a theocracy?