Gay Marriage

[Sheiky 0]

Because it goes deeper than gays getting married. If we legalize gay marriage, that opens the door for other people preaching their practices should also be legal. Do you believe polygamy should be legalized? If members of the same sex can now get married, why can't men have multiple wives? Is raising children in a homosexual environment better than raising them in a polygamist environment? So, we allow gay marriages, next we allow polygamy, what are going to allow next? Marriage between a man and a horse?

Didn't Henry the 8th do this already?

[nutzbuster 7]

Is that such a stretch? Hell there are pornos out there of women having sex with horses and dogs.

go on...

[copernicus 0]

So, we allow gay marriages, next we allow polygamy, what are going to allow next? Marriage between a man and a horse?

Slippery slope fallacy, even though were on the same side of the issue I have to point that out. :)And re the ultimate in your slope, lets at least limit it to marrying a horse of the opposite gender. Say, Madonna and Mr. Ed....got both genders (and maybe something in between) covered there.

[nutzbuster 7]

I honestly believe it is a simple semantics issue, the word MARRIAGE. For millions and millions of people that word has forever been associated as that meaning a union between man and woman. It is biblical, it is not something folks want to give up. Applying it to gays is just wrong. That is not what the traditional meaning of the word is and people are offended. Why can't the gays respect that in those that don't like it?It's just wrong to change the meaning of a word just because some would like it that way. Words mean things, a canoe is not a rowboat, etc. The word marriage is tradition, it is always the "way it has been". Change is never easy and most folks don't want their boats rocked , especially over something this sacred as this (to many many people). This might not make sense, and may not seem fair, and may seem stupid and retarded, but this is just the way it is...for now anyway.I think we have come a very long way from where we were even just 10 years ago. The mainstream acceptance of what has always been called alternative cultures and lifestyles. It is better than it has ever been for folks who fit into this description. But the openness of gay lifestyles will never be something everyone will be able to swallow (lol) And lest anyone think I am in anyway 'phobic', my wife and I have been in the hair industry for over 20 years. Many of our friends are gay. I have plenty of Palin tolerance running through me, so I am pretty much non judgmental about gays. I'll never shy away from a great gay joke (or any joke for that matter). It's all good in our hood. And Lois made a great point...it's not for me to judge, that's between them and God.I will say that I believe that even the most conservative would not be opposed to gays having more security in their lives in a legal sense, and be completely fine with legal Civil Unions. Just don't call it 'marriage'. That word means just something else, period.If they don't like the term 'Civil Union' then come up with a new word!But don't try to call it marriage. It just pisses people off. How about demanding some tolerance on this issue going the other way for once?

[x Swift x 0]

There are plenty of things in the bible not applied in todays society why is this any different?

[vbnautilus 48]

And lest anyone think I am in anyway 'phobic', wife wife and I have been in the hair industry for over 20 years.

OMG he's a polygamist!Seriously, though, I think we have to see this from a broader standpoint. Society taking the step of endorsing gay marriage is taking a step towards a huuuuge change in the social structure. If the family unit of man+woman is treated by the culture as totally equal to man+man this actually constitutes an enormous shift in the basic structure of human relationships compared to how they have been in the entirety of history. The family unit is an important part of social organization and has its roots deep in our unconscious minds. It will certainly have psychological and cultural consequences in the long run. I'm not saying those consequences are necessarily undesirable, but they are significant, and we should proceed with caution. We know so little about homosexuality and its origins at this point that almost any decision we make on this issue will be in the dark.

[nutzbuster 7]

There are plenty of things in the bible not applied in todays society why is this any different?

There isn't a data base large enough to handle a never ending discussion and dissection of the Bible.Ron wanted to know why some folks are against gay marriage. I think it's the word itself that is the main issue.

[nutzbuster 7]

OMG he's a polygamist!

shhhh!!!

[nutzbuster 7]

OMG he's a polygamist!Seriously, though, I think we have to see this from a broader standpoint. Society taking the step of endorsing gay marriage is taking a step towards a huuuuge change in the social structure. If the family unit of man+woman is treated by the culture as totally equal to man+man this actually constitutes an enormous shift in the basic structure of human relationships compared to how they have been in the entirety of history. The family unit is an important part of social organization and has its roots deep in our unconscious minds. It will certainly have psychological and cultural consequences in the long run. I'm not saying those consequences are necessarily undesirable, but they are significant, and we should proceed with caution. We know so little about homosexuality and its origins at this point that almost any decision we make on this issue will be in the dark.

this too.(slurp)

[x Swift x 0]

Your right it is the word, and i don't even know why it is important to gay couples to have that word, but to say they can't have it because of the bible just doesn't make much sense to me when you consider a marriage according to the bible should be between a man and a virgin women, if she isnt a virgin she will be executed (Deut 22:13-21) so why is it some values are no longer used yet this one people get really defensive over and suddenly everyone is an orthodox christian again? another example is that if a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) clearly this also is not still enforced.

[Sic Jake 0]

I know this is slightly off topic, but what about being raised by a single parent? I had no father figure in my life up until I was 21 years old. I don't think i had an unhealthy psycholigical developement at all. Obv its more desirable to have a mother and father figure, but to say you think every child needs that for a healthy psychological developement seems a little narrow minded. However, I do realise thats your opinion, I just wanted to know your thoughts on single parent situations.

Same deal here, my parents split when I was very young and father was very absent. Wasn't until my early twenties that I reconnected albeit slightly, with him. So I was raised by a single mother. I'm not psychotic, or damaged in any way, so I turned out fine. I do however think my childhood would of benefited greatly from a stable household with a mother and a father. There are a number of things I missed out on, a number of horrid memories that had to be forgotten from bad paths taken. Again the key is, the ideal family would be one mother, one father, in a stable household. Really tho how many straight couples in North America are ideal? So as preferable it may be to have kids in that environment, at the end of the day any family whether it's a single parent, a low income straight couple, or a gay couple is acceptable as long as they are of sound mind and have the love to give. Everyone is dysfunctional, very few get that Leave it to Beaver childhood.As for gay marriage, this one drives me insane. Who the **** cares. Get married, get divorced, pay child support. Let gays do whatever it is straight couples can cause at the end of the day marriage is a personal bond. The gov't may recognize it, but I think the gov't has no place in it. Whether a m/m marry or a w/m it's their choice, their private choice, and if it makes'em happy then hey spiffy.If it were up to me, religion and the word marriage wouldn't appear in anything gov't unless it's attached with "Freedom as you see fit to practice"

[vbnautilus 48]

As for gay marriage, this one drives me insane. Who the **** cares. Get married, get divorced, pay child support. Let gays do whatever it is straight couples can cause at the end of the day marriage is a personal bond. The gov't may recognize it, but I think the gov't has no place in it. Whether a m/m marry or a w/m it's their choice, their private choice, and if it makes'em happy then hey spiffy.

I really think the issue here is not the government recognizing it; it's the culture recognizing it as equal. If we apply the exact same legal status to gay couple we are saying as a society that the relationships are equivalent. I think that's what people are hesitant about.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I honestly believe it is a simple semantics issue, the word MARRIAGE. For millions and millions of people that word has forever been associated as that meaning a union between man and woman. It is biblical, it is not something folks want to give up. Applying it to gays is just wrong. That is not what the traditional meaning of the word is and people are offended. Why can't the gays respect that in those that don't like it?It's just wrong to change the meaning of a word just because some would like it that way. Words mean things, a canoe is not a rowboat, etc. The word marriage is tradition, it is always the "way it has been". Change is never easy and most folks don't want their boats rocked , especially over something this sacred as this (to many many people). This might not make sense, and may not seem fair, and may seem stupid and retarded, but this is just the way it is...for now anyway.I think we have come a very long way from where we were even just 10 years ago. The mainstream acceptance of what has always been called alternative cultures and lifestyles. It is better than it has ever been for folks who fit into this description. But the openness of gay lifestyles will never be something everyone will be able to swallow (lol) And lest anyone think I am in anyway 'phobic', my wife and I have been in the hair industry for over 20 years. Many of our friends are gay. I have plenty of Palin tolerance running through me, so I am pretty much non judgmental about gays. I'll never shy away from a great gay joke (or any joke for that matter). It's all good in our hood. And Lois made a great point...it's not for me to judge, that's between them and God.I will say that I believe that even the most conservative would not be opposed to gays having more security in their lives in a legal sense, and be completely fine with legal Civil Unions. Just don't call it 'marriage'. That word means just something else, period.If they don't like the term 'Civil Union' then come up with a new word!But don't try to call it marriage. It just pisses people off. How about demanding some tolerance on this issue going the other way for once?

This line of thinking leads to an inherent inferioirty of homosexual relationships, and to me, that isnt right.

[Loismustdie 0]

Your right it is the word, and i don't even know why it is important to gay couples to have that word, but to say they can't have it because of the bible just doesn't make much sense to me when you consider a marriage according to the bible should be between a man and a virgin women, if she isnt a virgin she will be executed (Deut 22:13-21) so why is it some values are no longer used yet this one people get really defensive over and suddenly everyone is an orthodox christian again? another example is that if a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) clearly this also is not still enforced.

Ummm.... get past the Old Testament and then we can talk. Seriously, this is pretty simple. There is no real good argument for gay marriage, which is key. You can have civil unions, you could call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage. How awful is that? I mean, really, how bad is that? This isn't about what we don't want as much as it's about what gays want. The fight is to have the law, and therefore you, see a gay relationship as every bit as legit as a straight one, and guess what, it IS. It's just not a marriage. If it wasn't for the laws surrounding marriage this would not be an issue, it would then be a personal matter where no one would care, but they feel slighted because they can't have this, too. Like I said before I don't care; I think the issue could just as easily be solved by gays saying they don't recognize marriage as a legitimate means of joining a relationship. That being said they know deep down no straights will be flocking towards civil unions like we did Cosmopolitans, we will just say, "Hey, that's yours. Enjoy." And that goes against the very principle of gaydom which is to be noticed. It drives them crazy if we give a **** and it drives them equally crazy when we don't. So, good luck pleasing the nancy boys, me I say live and let live and lets have each dichotomy respect the other for what it is.

[Loismustdie 0]

This line of thinking leads to an inherent inferioirty of homesexual relationships, and to me, that isnt right.

No, it doesn't. Now, if you said gays couldn't eat chocolate and call it chocolate, that would be a real slight. All that is being sais here is "This is ours, between a man and a woman. Get your own gig."

[Sheiky 0]

No, it doesn't. Now, if you said gays couldn't eat chocolate and call it chocolate, that would be a real slight. All that is being sais here is "This is ours, between a man and a woman. Get your own gig."

But when married couples qualify for benefits that gay couples do not, then you are discriminating against them

[JoblessBast 0]

Ummm.... get past the Old Testament and then we can talk. Seriously, this is pretty simple. There is no real good argument for gay marriage, which is key. You can have civil unions, you could call it anything you want, just don't call it marriage. How awful is that? I mean, really, how bad is that? This isn't about what we don't want as much as it's about what gays want. The fight is to have the law, and therefore you, see a gay relationship as every bit as legit as a straight one, and guess what, it IS. It's just not a marriage. If it wasn't for the laws surrounding marriage this would not be an issue, it would then be a personal matter where no one would care, but they feel slighted because they can't have this, too. Like I said before I don't care; I think the issue could just as easily be solved by gays saying they don't recognize marriage as a legitimate means of joining a relationship. That being said they know deep down no straights will be flocking towards civil unions like we did Cosmopolitans, we will just say, "Hey, that's yours. Enjoy." And that goes against the very principle of gaydom which is to be noticed. It drives them crazy if we give a **** and it drives them equally crazy when we don't. So, good luck pleasing the nancy boys, me I say live and let live and lets have each dichotomy respect the other for what it is.

A lot of what you say makes sense and is accurate, but some stuff like that at the end, I wonder if it's you just trying to live up to your name. Personally, I think it would be best to leave it as a state issue. Let people vote on it at that level. If it gets approved in California (and/or anywhere else) but rejected elsewhere, gays (and other progressives who assimilate) can have the option of moving to that state.Also, there are plenty of gay folks who agree that "marriage" has been a man/woman thing and probably should be left defined as that. The gay community got mostly fired up when Bush/Rove conceived their 2004 reelection strategy of adding an amendment to the constitution to define the term, in an effort to drive Republicans to the polls.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Maybe. But who are we to tell those people how to live. I doubt I would take multiple wives, hell I'll be lucky to find one women who can stand me. But what is right for me isnt rihgt for everyone. Im just totally unconcerned with what people do, so long as they arent hurting people.

This

I honestly believe it is a simple semantics issue, the word MARRIAGE. For millions and millions of people that word has forever been associated as that meaning a union between man and woman. It is biblical, it is not something folks want to give up. Applying it to gays is just wrong. That is not what the traditional meaning of the word is and people are offended. Why can't the gays respect that in those that don't like it?It's just wrong to change the meaning of a word just because some would like it that way. Words mean things, a canoe is not a rowboat, etc. The word marriage is tradition, it is always the "way it has been". Change is never easy and most folks don't want their boats rocked , especially over something this sacred as this (to many many people). This might not make sense, and may not seem fair, and may seem stupid and retarded, but this is just the way it is...for now anyway.I think we have come a very long way from where we were even just 10 years ago. The mainstream acceptance of what has always been called alternative cultures and lifestyles. It is better than it has ever been for folks who fit into this description. But the openness of gay lifestyles will never be something everyone will be able to swallow (lol) And lest anyone think I am in anyway 'phobic', my wife and I have been in the hair industry for over 20 years. Many of our friends are gay. I have plenty of Palin tolerance running through me, so I am pretty much non judgmental about gays. I'll never shy away from a great gay joke (or any joke for that matter). It's all good in our hood. And Lois made a great point...it's not for me to judge, that's between them and God.I will say that I believe that even the most conservative would not be opposed to gays having more security in their lives in a legal sense, and be completely fine with legal Civil Unions. Just don't call it 'marriage'. That word means just something else, period.If they don't like the term 'Civil Union' then come up with a new word!But don't try to call it marriage. It just pisses people off. How about demanding some tolerance on this issue going the other way for once?

see, but not everyone believes in god or the bible. That is your thing, not everyone's thing. If calling it a civil union gives them the exact same rights as married couples, then fine. Your way is discriminatory, therefore asking for tolerance is ridiculous.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Ron wanted to know why some folks are against gay marriage. I think it's the word itself that is the main issue.

and even if I disagree, I appreciate the time you took to answer in detail.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Having "Civil Unions" but not letting them call it marriage is ridiculous.Let's have a separate category for gay people. It'll be completely equal to marriage in every way, but it won't be marriage, it'll be separate. Equal, but separate. Separate but equal. Remind anyone of anything?

[Balloon guy 158]

Having "Civil Unions" but not letting them call it marriage is ridiculous.Let's have a separate category for gay people. It'll be completely equal to marriage in every way, but it won't be marriage, it'll be separate. Equal, but separate. Separate but equal. Remind anyone of anything?

Common property laws?

[nutzbuster 7]

Having "Civil Unions" but not letting them call it marriage is ridiculous.Let's have a separate category for gay people. It'll be completely equal to marriage in every way, but it won't be marriage, it'll be separate. Equal, but separate. Separate but equal. Remind anyone of anything?

I am not trying to convince anyone that my view is right, or not right, it's just my opinion. In very broad sense I think that the main problem is that most of America still, at this point anyway, has a problem with the word itself. It just seems that the majority of the mainstream just don't see that word as meaning anything other than Man and Wife.Regarding the category issue I am not advocating society to do it or not do it, but I do think that most folks naturally tend to look at things and then break them down in a category sense. Most of the time I don't think they are aware that they are doing it.And I don't think most people mean anything by it at all in a negative sense. For the most part I think it is just human nature taking over and trying to make sense of things. . And that may well be completely f*cked up, but I don't think it is inherently malicious or intentionally an attempt to classify or exclude.I have no clue what the answer is here. Sylvia and I have seen first hand the problems that have arisen in some of our gay friends lives, either during illness and long term break ups. It is horrific and devastating. I am all in favor of gay couples having rights in the same way married couples do. It only seems fair to me.What we call it???? well hells bells, who knows! All I know is using the word Marriage is really pissing people off, and that maybe a good way to get to a solution that makes everyone happy sooner is to simply call it something else.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

All I know is using the word Marriage is really pissing people off, and that maybe a good way to get to a solution that makes everyone happy sooner is to simply call it something else.

The law shouldn't be based on certain people having problems with semantics that they may or may not understand and that may or may not be malicious. It should be based on fairness. Denying a group of people a right based on a harmless preference is wrong.The government shouldn't be in the business of determining the definition of the term "marriage." If two people want to call themselves "married," why should it be any of the government's business. Why should it be anyone's business?

[vbnautilus 48]

The government shouldn't be in the business of determining the definition of the term "marriage." If two people want to call themselves "married," why should it be any of the government's business. Why should it be anyone's business?

With regards to the legal definition of the term the government must be involved. Any two people can call themselves married if they want to. The question is whether the government recognizes that union and if it has legal status for the couple that the other citizens must abide by.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

With regards to the legal definition of the term the government must be involved. Any two people can call themselves married if they want to. The question is whether the government recognizes that union and if it has legal consequences for the couple that the other citizens must grant.

But civil unions grant these rights. The only difference between a civil union and marriage is the word marriage, and the government saying that gay couples can have one and not the other is the same as the government controlling the use of the word marriage. It's like the government saying, "You can have full rights, but you technically can't call yourself married because that could somehow offend straight couples who are married by somehow linking them to you, or saying what they have is the equivalent of what you have." So, saying they can have equal rights but it must be separately labeled in inherently being prejudiced.