[Luisabens]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


In other words, gay marriage will be exactly like straight marriage -- a complex, diverse institution.
exactly

[HilaryNidierer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So then the question is the ability to claim the other for benefits. I agree it should be perfectly fine. I'm for Gay rights in that regard.

As far as religion, I take the stance that God doesn't make mistakes. There is a reason and a plan for all things. Therefore, it should go without saying that no one is turned away. I having problems figuring out if this post is meant to be ironic or sarcastic.

See, because if god doesn't make mistakes...

[flowersnewacq]

Originally posted by alva

See, because if god doesn't make mistakes... ... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently.

[golfmenorca]

Then how is he just and loving to all his children?

Or did he disown the gays?

Where then is the love, understanding, and forgiveness, if he made them sin and then disown them?

[N1bNXuDb]

Loin, Phelps is about as Christian as the Reverend Moon.

As in, they are, but only in the same way the lost 13th tribe of Israel are the Japanese.

[ropinirole]

Originally posted by Oerdin
... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently. The response I've heard is that God did create some people with predilections for homosexual behavior just as he created some people with predispositions for alcoholism, greed, violence, heterosexual lust, etc., but they can still get into heaven if their behavior is in keeping with God's word. Just as a naturally lustful guy shouldn't cheat on his wife because God says it's wrong, Homer Sechel should refrain from buttsex because God says it's wrong.

(I don't believe this personally of course but it does address the dilemma.)

[g4YthYXx]

Tell me, why does the US need to regulate marriage between 2 consenting adults? That's what marriage is. A legal recognition and regulation of a relationship between two people. A large part of local government is devoted to regulating the relationship.

[ResistNewWorldOrder]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
One thing is now known. Gay tendencies are genetic.
Since I acknowledge that, then I must also acknowledge love that can exist between 2 Gays.
If I acknowledge that, then I feel it only logical to recognize a legal union.

Having acknowledged these things, I'll ask Gays; is it really the religious aspect of marriage that you seek?
Or just a legal union? I mean, either is a fine answer I guess.

I ask because I don't know. For myself, I desire the same legal protection and all the benefits with my life-long relationship as married heterosexual couples enjoy if I choose to marry a man that I love.

But I won't settle for a "separate but equal" bullshit by designating civil unions for gay couples and refusing to fully legalize them as marriage in the same light for heterosexual couples.

We tried the "separate but equal" thingy before with racial segregation before the Supreme Court finally realized that it was nothing but bullshit.

[SQiTmhuY]

Originally posted by MrFun
...
But I won't settle for a "separate but equal" bullshit by designating civil unions for gay couples and refusing to fully legalize them as marriage in the same light for heterosexual couples.

We tried the "separate but equal" thingy before with racial segregation before the Supreme Court finally realized that it was nothing but bullshit. That's the reasoning that caused me to switch from being anti-gay marriage to pro-gay marriage.

I have traditionalist friends who are very offended by the thought of something the hold as sacred as their marriage vows begin extended to a gay relationships. They don't have a problem with the equal rights, they just have a problem with the use of the word "marriage." So it just seemed to me to be easier to provide equal rights just using a different name.

Then as I thought about this, my mind inserted the "separate but equal" phrasing....two systems, equal but using different language. That's when my mind changed.

America isn't about division. It's about being ONE nation. "E pluribus unim." Separate is inherently unequal.

Ever since then, I've been listening for an persuasive argument to why gays have to have a different system, why only straights can "marry". I hear things like "that what marriage is"--but I don't buy this it-is-because-I-say-so-and-because-it-has-always-been argument.

The other argument I hear is that "gays can't have kids." First of all, that's just not true. Lots of gay men have fathered children. Lots of lesbian have given birth. Gays just can't have children with each other.

Second, if child birth were the test, then that should be the dividing line. Old folks shouldn't be able to get married. Infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married. Couples who don't want to have children shouldn't be able to get married. None of these unions will produce children.

So, I'm now pro-gay-marriage. Not because I'm pro- gay, but because I'm pro-American.

[Maserati]

The judiciary exists partially for that reason: to check the power of the democratically elected bits of the government so they can't use the will of the majority to oppress minorities. So when 80% of Georgia wishes to retain the definition of marriage to one man and one woman, the judiciary has carte blanche to overrule such a bill?

Secondly I daresay there's a bit of a difference between the oppression of minorities in the south and what we see now. Where are the beatings, the lynchings of gay people? Why are gay people discriminated against when they are permitted to get married just the same as everyone else?

I would say that the judiciaries have become a law unto themselves, which is hardly conducive to the rule of law in any country. Checks and balances apply to both the judiciary and the legislatures.

[Immampdah]

MRT:

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207729.htm

[varrozans]

Originally posted by MrFun



I thought I gave a personal opinion/personal aspect? I wasn't being a smartass. Thank you for telling me.

[JANALA]

In all fairness, we're not talking about discriminating against gays as individuals, rather we're talking about discriminating against gays as couples. We don't hate gays so long as they're abstinent, we only hate gays when they act gay. You raise a good point. Individual rights and human freedoms do not apply to collectives. No one has the right to get married, because such right would imply an obligation on the other partner. The union must be voluntary.

[trubreTab]

then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently. Not necessarily. God did give men free will, and men choose to sin in many different ways. We are not automatons, each of us makes the decision to act on our feelings or our desires, even if we do not ask for those feelings and desires.

[kranskregyan]

The whole system is based on checks and balances. Overall, it works.