What do you think of gay marriage?

lkjhg wrote:

all i have to say is that my ex left me because he was gay. he was abusive... i think him being gay explained why he was so mean to me. i think he used me to hide his true colors. he left me and our daughters to go on another road thats not gonna lead anywhere. that guy isnt gonna give him what i could.

Judged:

2

2

2

TxTraveler wrote:

One thing that the change marriage activists have been very good at (aided by the media, I must add) is the framing of the argument. I have never thought of prop 8 or any of it's other-state corollaries as being "anti-gay" or "outlawing gay marriage". From my point of view, they simply define what a marriage is, and by inference, what it is not. To me, that's no different from defining what "caucasian" is, or what "of legal age" is. Being aware of the realities of ethnic differences does not make someone a bigot or 'anti' anything.
In many cases in the US, the definition of marriage was considered so obvious that no actual standard was ever established. This provided a loophole that under the right conditions of social upheaval and changing standards allowed some people to be convinced by a false argument; that what society considers a marriage to be is the "union of two PEOPLE who love each other". That is false. Marriage is the socially recognized union of a man and a woman. Whether or not they love each other is irrelevant; whether or not they have sex, or children is irrelevant. Also since a legal definition exists, "The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship" (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... ) it's pretty plain that the real issue is the meaning of the word.
That various governments and states have declared a vested interest in marriages by writing that particular union into laws, rules and standards has nothing to do with what a marriage is, only with how marrieds must interact with the state.
The entire "equal protection" argument is based on the false premise that marriage has no gender-based meaning. That is works is because no one wants to be thought of as a bigot - but in truth, same sex unions not qualifying as marriages has nothing to do with bigotry or anti-gay sentiments, and everything to do with the socially defined union of a man and a woman being something that society has created for a reason.

Judged:

2

2

2

TxTraveler wrote:

...Whether or not they love each other is irrelevant; whether or not they have sex, or children is irrelevant. Also since a legal definition exists, "The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship" (from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... ) it's pretty plain that the real issue is the meaning of the word.
...

Judged:

1

1

1

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

<quoted text>
[sarcasm]OMG, BigDan, you're right! You've convinced me

Judged:

2

2

2

Traumtanzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Tx, I swear, your arguments are the most profound examples of petitio principii I've ever seen.

The very basic underlying question in regards to what you are trying to put forth here is; Why should marriage be between only a man and woman?

To me, answers like:'Because...','That's the way it's always been..','A lot of people feel that it should be, so it should be...','It's for procreation..butt..hey, we'll take pity on men and women who can't have kids, just not them gay folks..', etc., these just don't cut it..

For your argument to have any grounding, you're going to have to find a valid, secular reason why some people should be denied their choice in family while others are allowed their choice. This is the essence of equal protection. If your going to take a right or freedom away from a person, pardon me if I feel that there should be a damned good reason to do it.

To quote you:'...and everything to do with the socially defined union of a man and a woman being something that society has created for a reason.' So, again, my question would be, what IS that reason?

Judged:

3

3

3

Traumtanzer wrote:

<quoted text>
I should also point out that your use of this reference is invalid.. As soon as any State recognized same sex marriage, this definition was no longer valid in all legal situations, this makes it outdated at best and more a statement of author's viewpoint, or relegated to location. You're including it here because you believe it backs your position, but it's rather transparently misleading. It really only serves to define the word the way that you wish to define it.

Judged:

1

1

1

u dont know me wrote:

this is a brief summation of marriage throughout the years without going through all the sociology courses(link at bottom). Not very hard to understand that the way a society views marriage changes quite often.

maybe it is time for one of those socialistic shifts. You may not agree with it but gay marriage will be a "normal" thing one of these days. Just like women being able to vote and have EQUAL RIGHTS. Wasn't long ago when that was the story to talk about.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/20050...

Judged:

1

1

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
Be careful not to confuse WHY a marriage is with WHAT a marriage is. The 'why' has changed often, but the 'what' hasn't. Note that through all of the examples of history that this truly abbreviated summary provides, marriage ALWAYS remained the union of a man and a woman. Still, in terms of accuracy, the description provided by your link isn't far off at all.
<quoted text>
I think you may mean 'sociological shifts'. You may even be correct about that, although I see the "equal rights" argument as an obviously flawed one. I have stated many times that marriage may eventually be redefined by society to mean two people rather than a man and a woman - and if it is, then so be it. Until that happens though, I submit that it is wrong for the courts to try to force that issue since we are talking about a legally-recognized, but socially-defined institution.

Judged:

1

1

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
I imagine it might seem that way if they aren't examined closely enough. I won't fault you for making that mistake.
<quoted text>
I disagree with your framing of the "basic underlying question". I think it should be; why should the government only recognize the familial union of a man and a woman, instead of the familial unions of all paired adults?
<quoted text>
Do you see how these answers you object to can be applied to my question just as easily as they can to yours?
In truth, do gays in Massachusetts care that I don't consider their union a marriage, as long as the state says it is? If the "gay marriage" advocates win in the courts, do you think it will matter to them if they don't win the popular opinion poll? As long as that poll isn't taken with a vote, I don't think so...and that to me is evidence that my framing of the question is more accurate than yours. "Equal protection under the law" is about governmental and legal recognition, not social.
<quoted text>
No right or freedom has been taken away from anyone - that is the part of this you refuse to see. Around 99% of gay men who have children have them by virtue of being married, which means the claim that gays are being denied the right to marry is nonsense. That you want to take something that isn't a marriage and call it one is the issue I have with you. That the government doesn't acknowledge your gay union the same way it acknowledges my straight one is the true question you should be asking. You are talking of equal protection under the law. That rule applies to individuals, but you are trying to apply it to couples. If the courts decide that the equal protection clause applies to pairings as well as to individuals, then the question of your union being treated by law on an equal basis with my marriage MAY be a valid one...but your union will STILL be something other than a marriage, because a marriage requires a member of each gender.
<quoted text>
To boil many books down to a couple of sentences, marriage was created so that couples could be, by group acknowledgment and consent, removed from the pool of competitors for a mate. With this done, we could have increased cooperation between those no longer in competition with each other, resulting in increased size in social groupings, improved protection against threats, etc. It also established a social recognition of paternity which increased the survival rate by having a male dedicated to the support and protection of children he could be reasonably assured were his progeny.
There's a lot more, but a lot more room as well as two or three courses in sociology focusing on rules of societies would be required. The above is sufficient to answer your question though.

Judged:

1

TxTraveler wrote:

<quoted text>
Be careful not to confuse WHY a marriage is with WHAT a marriage is. The 'why' has changed often, but the 'what' hasn't. Note that through all of the examples of history that this truly abbreviated summary provides, marriage ALWAYS remained the union of a man and a woman. Still, in terms of accuracy, the description provided by your link isn't far off at all.
<quoted text>
I think you may mean 'sociological shifts'. You may even be correct about that, although I see the "equal rights" argument as an obviously flawed one. I have stated many times that marriage may eventually be redefined by society to mean two people rather than a man and a woman - and if it is, then so be it. Until that happens though, I submit that it is wrong for the courts to try to force that issue since we are talking about a legally-recognized, but socially-defined institution.

Travis A wrote:

GOD LOVES GAYS WHY DON'T YOU??

Judged:

1

1

1

JNielsen71 wrote:

<quoted text>
God loves PEOPLE....not the act of homosexuality. Big difference.

Judged:

1

1

1

JNielsen71 wrote:

<quoted text>
God loves PEOPLE....not the act of homosexuality. Big difference.