Serious question on the gay marriage issue

[JimBob2232]

Okay, I have been wondering this for quite some time, and I hope we can all have a good debate on this issue. Here is my question...

 

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

 

If you are gay, why do you want to be married?

 

It seems to me the solution here is give same-sex couples all the legal rights and benefits of being married, but dont call it marriage.

 

I just do not understand why this is such a hot button topic! Can someone help me understand?

[/dev/null]

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

 

For thousands of years civilizations across the world have taught that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, etc. Gay marriage goes against what people have believed for thousands of years.

 

If you are gay, why do you want to be married?

They want to stop being gay. What makes them gay? How they have sex.

What's the quickest way to stop having sex? Get married

[The Dean]

Okay, I have been wondering this for quite some time, and I hope we can all have a good debate on this issue. Here is my question...

 

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

 

If you are gay, why do you want to be married?

It seems to me the solution here is give same-sex couples all the legal rights and benefits of being married, but dont call it marriage.

 

I just do not understand why this is such a hot button topic! Can someone help me understand?

 

 

That's a decent start, but doesn't it really just legitimize the bigotry? Another alternative, is simply to have the state sanction unions, and leave the word "marriage" to the respective religions, and such. I don't think the state should be discriminatory in rights, or language, if it can be avoided.

 

The biggest problem with that solution, is it plays to some of the anti same-sex marriage crowd's biggest concerns: same-sex marriage lessens their traditional marriage...which is a ridiculous claim, IMO, but held by some, nonetheless. If a concession results in a removal of the word "marriage" from traditional unions, then they can claim to be right. And...that helps identify why the word has some real meaning.

 

There are times when tradition, and fear, dictate compromises be made for the good of society as a whole. Then there are times when you realize the wrongs perpetrated by the traditions are untenable to the nation. I think it's time this issue gets put to bed, for good, just as have other issues of bigotry in the past.

 

Can you imagine if Jews tried to make eating pork illegal for EVERYONE, because their religion makes it wrong, or Catholics required EVERYONE to refrain from eating meat on Good Friday? Those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, can continue to practice that very tradition. All they have to do is not marry someone of the same sex.

 

Beware the following arguments:

 

Next you will have men marrying horses/children/pianos!: Same-sex marriage is between two consenting adults, the same as traditional marriage. The comparison to pedophilia is too insulting and stupid to legitimize.

 

Marriage is for the procreation of life! We let infertile couples, older couples, women with hysterectomies, men with vasectomies, etc, get married all the time.

 

Why not polygamy? Well, why not polygamy now? We let two people get married, why not three? The sex of the individuals involved is meaningless in this argument. Polygamy may, or may not, have merit in the future, but it is unrelated to the same-sex issue.

 

I have yet to hear an argument against allowing same-sex marriage that, 25 years after it is legal, won't sound as stupid and bigoted as arguments against the end of slavery, giving women the right to vote, allowing Blacks to serve in the military along side Whites, etc, sound today.

[Kelly the Dog]

If you're an immigrant -- and you wish to move to America and become an American citizen -- the very reason this country was founded -- it is just not enough to be given all the rights that American citizens have -- but to never be a real citizen -- always be considered an illegitimate alien -- and always be considered lesser than your neighbor who is just like you.

[blzrul]

A marriage is a union. In that respect a union of two homosexuals is a "marriage". What's happened is that some folks feel that these sorts of unions somehow threaten the common perception of marriage. Some people just don't like change.

 

Had the movement to legalize these unions NOT been called "marriage" but something else, and presented as more of a civil rights issue it might have been less offensive.

 

What's a little funny is that the religious groups who freak out over these unions often don't recognize marriages that aren't performed by a religious ceremony as valid anyway. My husband and I are both "Catholic" but were married by a Methodist minister. We are legally married but with no standing in the church. The same is true of gays who are united civilly - they have the civil rights of a legal union, but probably without standing in most churches.

 

So why the religious wingnuts can't live with that, I don't know. They have to stick their silly noses into other people's business where it doesn't belong. If homosexuality is a sin then homosexuals will go to hell after living a life ostracized by petty-minded people. Either way it's God's thing, not ours.

[kegtapr]

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

 

I don't.....pssstt (I'm a Republican )

 

If you are gay, why do you want to be married?

 

Ed still around?

[finknottle]

They want to stop being gay. What makes them gay? How they have sex.

What's the quickest way to stop having sex? Get married

 

Touche!

[finknottle]

If you're an immigrant -- and you wish to move to America and become an American citizen -- the very reason this country was founded -- it is just not enough to be given all the rights that American citizens have -- but to never be a real citizen -- always be considered an illegitimate alien -- and always be considered lesser than your neighbor who is just like you.

 

What if you are straight and never find anyone to marry? You'll have all the rights of a citizen, but never be a real one. Should the government provide spouses in the name of civil rights?

 

I'm pro-gay marriage, but arguments like that put me off. A gay person is not prohibited from entering into a straight marriage just because they are gay. True, they may not enjoy it. But that is no different than, say, becoming a doctor. I wouldn't want to be one. Maybe it's environmental, maybe I have a genetic predisposition against it. But it does bother me that I cannot enjoy the financial, social, and medical advantages enjoyed by those in the profession. So should we make sure that I get the same trappings in whatever profession I choose instead? Perhaps we should address everyone as 'Doctor'?

[The Dean]

What if you are straight and never find anyone to marry? You'll have all the rights of a citizen, but never be a real one. Should the government provide spouses in the name of civil rights?

 

 

Is that what you took away from Kelly's comment? Wow. If you are straight, you still have the RIGHT to get married to any woman who will consent, even if you don't like each other. If you are gay, you can't get married to your same-sex significant other, even if you are deeply in love.

[finknottle]

Is that what you took away from Kelly's comment? Wow. If you are straight, you still have the RIGHT to get married to any woman who will consent, even if you don't like each other. If you are gay, you can't get married to your same-sex significant other, even if you are deeply in love.

 

If you are a gay man, you still have the RIGHT to get married to any woman who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

For that matter, if you are a straight man, you have the RIGHT to enter into whatever domestic partnership relationship are recognized locally with any man who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

Love and sexual interests have nothing to do with it. It's a contractual arrangement, open to anyone (even gay people) who meet the requirements (age, etc). Unfortunately, the state is not in the business of guaranteeing satisfaction in marriage, just laying out the rules for regulating it.

 

I have no problem with recognizing gay marriage, and in fact am in favor of it. I simply reject Kelly's argument that it is a denial of a civil right. Suppose I am some kind of creationist wanna-be who does not want to be around people who believe in evolution and an ancient earth, let alone be forced to study it. I look around at all the state schools and ask "where is my university? Why am I not afforded the same opportunity to go to an affordable state school that everybody else is?" I am - it just doesn't meet my needs and interests as well as it does others.

[The Dean]

If you are a gay man, you still have the RIGHT to get married to any woman who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

For that matter, if you are a straight man, you have the RIGHT to enter into whatever domestic partnership relationship are recognized locally with any man who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

 

Read the bold, and now you should understand Kelly's point. Or consider this, if the gov't were to tell straight married couples they were no loner married, but were "domestic partners" and had all the same rights as they used to, would they be OK with it?

[finknottle]

Read the bold, and now you should understand Kelly's point. Or consider this, if the gov't were to tell straight married couples they were no loner married, but were "domestic partners" and had all the same rights as they used to, would they be OK with it?

 

Both of those sentences are true irrespective of whether one is gay, straight, or completely unsexual. You have the same options available regardless of your orientation.

 

Please clarify: are you saying it is a civil right issue?

 

To apply your example to mine, if the state said all of the state schools had to teach creationism instead of what they now teach, I would imagine that everybody would be angry (except for the young creationist). Does their outpouring of anger validate his reasoning that he was previously being denied the same opportunity to a higher education in the state system?

[StupidNation]

Okay, I have been wondering this for quite some time, and I hope we can all have a good debate on this issue. Here is my question...

 

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

 

If something is against the natural law, and in effect affects others by religious views than opposition is legitimate. The opposition or support of homosexual marriage are both religious standpoints. As such the views of a just society demand just laws. It works on both sides. If homosexuals get the laws passed in their favor than homosexual acts should be not only tolerated, but accepted as normal. Discrimination laws will be passed to stop people from objecting on moral and religious grounds, and in effect "push down others throats" their beliefs with the force of law.

 

I can show you proof through the changes in the American Psychiatric Association's change through lobbyists and infiltration which originally said homosexuality in essence is a mental disorder, to acceptable; and also the change from viewing it as an act to linking it to someone's personhood. People and the law take the APA as the gospel so there is another major issue.

 

Those opposed to homosexuality fall into 2 tiers: those who are against it in principle and say it should not be in public at all and illegal in all instances in public (which was each state's laws until recently with the homosexual agenda), and those who say they are overtaking a well-understood definition to undermine natural marriage and should use a new word entirely to stop confusion behind the well-understood perennial definition of marriage.

[The Dean]

Both of those sentences are true irrespective of whether one is gay, straight, or completely unsexual. You have the same options available regardless of your orientation.

 

Please clarify: are you saying it is a civil right issue?

 

To apply your example to mine, if the state said all of the state schools had to teach creationism instead of what they now teach, I would imagine that everybody would be angry (except for the young creationist). Does their outpouring of anger validate his reasoning that he was previously being denied the same opportunity to a higher education in the state system?

 

 

Are you posting drunk? Let's wait until tomorrow to see if you can comprehend any of this any better.

[OCinBuffalo]

If you are straight, why do you care if two gay people get married?

I don't care about what they want to do. I don't feel sorry for them, nor do I feel any hatred for them.

If you are gay, why do you want to be married?

Along the lines of Dev/Null-->perhaps they need to be careful what they wish for?

It seems to me the solution here is give same-sex couples all the legal rights and benefits of being married, but dont call it marriage.

The fundamental problem with the entire Gay Marriage argument is this: they already have all the legal rights, or reasonable substitutes, that straight people have.

Consider the "we aren't allowed in the hospital" argument: Complete BS. You can make anyone your health care proxy. Once that person is, they not only are allowed in the hospital, they are allowed to make all decisions regarding care, including life and death, same as a spouse. Making someone your legal proxy can be done verbally or in writing, and health care proxies have all of the legal rights of a spouse the instant the patient says so.

Consider the "we can't inherit" argument: Complete BS. You can make your will out to anyone. And, while that will can be contested, if it is done properly it stands.

Consider the "health insurance" argument: Complete BS. What insurance company in the world doesn't want to have MORE premiums? Hell all of them have already created "significant other" coverage. Why? Charging more for the gay partner, and the insured themselves, due to the additional "risk factor" of being gay, makes a hell of a lot more money than getting sued because you only cover straight couples. Also, insurance companies would much rather pay to cover your gay partner, AND KNOW YOU ARE GAY because you have one, than not know you're gay. This way, the next time you apply for insurance, they get to jack up the rates.

 

And on and on. I have yet to hear one rational argument for gay marriage that points to a specific right gay people don't already have. Remember, I said above that I don't care either way. But, not caring and pretending like BS isn't BS are 2 different things.

I just do not understand why this is such a hot button topic! Can someone help me understand?

It's such an issue due to the following:

1. Far-left pissants decided that they were going to "be courageous" , start telling people that gay marriage was going to be acceptable and that "if you didn't agree then you were a bigot", and force their agenda on us. They hoped to score political points on those people who stood in their way. They figured they would pass laws in a couple of states, with the intent that this goes to the Supreme Court , and personally attack people for political gain until it did.

2. The far-left, being as f'ed in the head as they are, didn't count on the fact that most people think they are idiots, and that their ideas are worthless. And people especially don't like being told how to think, even in California.

3. The far-right, seeing an opportunity to crush the far-left, got their PR people moving and overwhelmingly passed laws in 35+ states against gay marriage, with the intent that this goes the the Supreme Court, but existing law would be on their side.

4. The far-right, stupidly, instead of taking their win and going home, decides to keep running their mouths every day, and suddenly turns gays into "underdogs". This country loves the underdog. Far-right idiots lose the 2010 elections based on this and other stupidity, thus ensuring that this goes to the Supreme Court, but now with some court decisions that favor the other side

 

This ends up at the Supreme Court 9/10 times. The far-left once again foolishly miscalculated their position in this country and the Court strikes down gay marriage, due to the fact that, as I said above, the far-left cannot prove that gays are short any TANGIBLE rights. Aside from Kelly's intangible "right to feel a certain way", which isn't a right at all, the Court will find that no equitable rights to life, liberty or property are being denied by not letting gays get married, and all that will be accomplished is wasting lots of money and time.

[KD in CA]

I just do not understand why this is such a hot button topic! Can someone help me understand?

 

People have a need to force their views on others. This topic is a good example of both sides trying to do it.

[billybob]

Let religious, spiritual, or social institutions preform marriage ceremonies

 

 

let the government handle binding legal contracts between consenting adults

 

 

Keep the Fock out of each others business

[Alaska Darin]

If something is against the natural law, and in effect affects others by religious views than opposition is legitimate. The opposition or support of homosexual marriage are both religious standpoints. As such the views of a just society demand just laws. It works on both sides. If homosexuals get the laws passed in their favor than homosexual acts should be not only tolerated, but accepted as normal. Discrimination laws will be passed to stop people from objecting on moral and religious grounds, and in effect "push down others throats" their beliefs with the force of law.

 

I can show you proof through the changes in the American Psychiatric Association's change through lobbyists and infiltration which originally said homosexuality in essence is a mental disorder, to acceptable; and also the change from viewing it as an act to linking it to someone's personhood. People and the law take the APA as the gospel so there is another major issue.

 

Those opposed to homosexuality fall into 2 tiers: those who are against it in principle and say it should not be in public at all and illegal in all instances in public (which was each state's laws until recently with the homosexual agenda), and those who say they are overtaking a well-understood definition to undermine natural marriage and should use a new word entirely to stop confusion behind the well-understood perennial definition of marriage.

Bwaack! Natural Law! Bwaack!

[Kelly the Dog]

If you are a gay man, you still have the RIGHT to get married to any woman who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

For that matter, if you are a straight man, you have the RIGHT to enter into whatever domestic partnership relationship are recognized locally with any man who will consent, even if you don't like each other.

 

Love and sexual interests have nothing to do with it. It's a contractual arrangement, open to anyone (even gay people) who meet the requirements (age, etc). Unfortunately, the state is not in the business of guaranteeing satisfaction in marriage, just laying out the rules for regulating it.

 

I have no problem with recognizing gay marriage, and in fact am in favor of it. I simply reject Kelly's argument that it is a denial of a civil right. Suppose I am some kind of creationist wanna-be who does not want to be around people who believe in evolution and an ancient earth, let alone be forced to study it. I look around at all the state schools and ask "where is my university? Why am I not afforded the same opportunity to go to an affordable state school that everybody else is?" I am - it just doesn't meet my needs and interests as well as it does others.

Total misinterpretation of what I said. I didnt say anything about denial of a civil right except the obvious one about not being able to marry. The immigrant in the analogy is not being denied civil rights either, he is getting all the rights but not the recognition of citizenship and the equality of citizenship as his neighbor. My point is about the recognition by the culture and the acceptance of equality.

[VABills]

Total misinterpretation of what I said. I didnt say anything about denial of a civil right except the obvious one about not being able to marry. The immigrant in the analogy is not being denied civil rights either, he is getting all the rights but not the recognition of citizenship and the equality of citizenship as his neighbor. My point is about the recognition by the culture and the acceptance of equality.

Yet there are some who see this in a similar vein to the folks who come here, want their citizenship but refuse to learn English, and expect this country to bend over backwards to their culture, and obsure needs. You want to be a US citizen then it come not only with the freedoms and perks but it comes with responsibility. You want gay "whatever", then you have to take everything that comes with it. People like to pick and choose the options that tend to come with the bigger picture.