Marriage

If you have a problem with Gay Marriage, then don't become gay and don't get married.  If you get invited to a gay wedding, send regrets.  But have the good manners to pick out a small item from the bridal registry and send a gift.  Let's be honest though, you're not getting many invitations to gay weddings, are you.

I have nothing against gays living together (I don't condone it but neither I condemn it). But that union is not a marriage and should never be allowed to be called as such. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and should remain that way. Rather than redefining what a marriage is in order to favor a minuscule minority, why don't we concentrate our efforts and save that which is known and accepted as being a marriage. Families are falling apart because of external damaging influences and a society which deifies self gratification rather than self sacrifice foe the benefit of the other partner. Let's save marriages, not invent a replacement.

Your missing the point! I'm not comparing homosexuals to drugattacks and acholisim.My point is everybody has a choice to the type of lifestyle they live (not counting people born with defects and diseases)they are not born with it and it's not forced upon them. With the acholics and drugattacks I was saying they chose to live that way but blame others. The contrast was Homosexuals are trying to do the same thing by saying I was born with it. If this passes, A door is being opened that can not be shut. Soon murders and drugattacks will be getting free from prisons because they claim they where born that way.( Sounds like a good defence. could get away with it only if there is precedence. )UpDate: This is in response to San Diego Freak Well, obvisouly I know alot more about morals then you do! These are not morals that I just pulled out of my butt these are morals America has had for generations and now you think you can just change them and us people who are actually sane are going t... Read more

Universal marriage is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, whether the courts have figured that out yet. Denying the basic American dream on the basis of sexual preference is simply criminal. And I've never seen so much screaming and hollaring about the preservation of a dictionary definition. Who cares what the word has always meant? Language is fluid with consciousness, and times change. Deal with it.

I don't see how this issue can be anything other than #1 on the list. The resolution of it (one way or the other) directly influences how civil liberties will be perceived on a national basis, and what rights and recognition homosexuals will receive from larger society and/or the government. What could be a more significant or important topic to gays?

hte argument of if we allow this, what's next incest! falls flat. I mean give me a break, that's a prejudice cop out. I dont care about the marriage ceremony itself as much as i care about the legal rights that come along with sacred marriage (only one of my friends parents arent divorced so i dont know how sacred this thing is) Anyway it is discrimination to give married couples certain rights that are denied from gay couples who are not allowed to marry. It's discrimination, bottom line and i'm so tired of hearing these half-ass attempts at justifying discrimation. UPDATE okay mr. evangel i've been reading your updates and i think you're completly wrong which is not unusual, but i had to respond to this sentence: A door is being opened that can not be shut. Soon murders and drugattacks will be getting free from prisons because they claim they where born that way if this is your best defense anti-gay marriage people have then i guess i have nothing to be worried about since that i... Read more

Here is the major problem with this discussion: the discernment is between a teleological conceptualization of positive institutions and deontological conceptualizations of positive institutions- these are two competing orthodoxies. Those arguing in favor of gay marriage and those arguing against are literally talking two different languages due to break down in perception. Case in point: Magellan argues for equal protection under that law defining the object of equal protection to be marriage; anything else to him is discrimination. Helmut views the object to be natural defined in its elements just like the laws of nature- like say gravity. We can not change that objective law no matter how we try. To him our positivism reflects the principles of those natural laws. Therefore, humans procreate in bonds between man and woman and societies formulate around these natural structures and definable institutions. Our positivism should therefore naturally reflect those institutions regar... Read more

UPDATE: Sorry for losing my temper, but are you seriously comparing gay people to alcoholics and drug addicts? Get real. Let me ask you this--if people aren't born gay as you claim with no real facts to support it, then why do we have so many people in this world who are? Maybe if it were nine or ten people that claimed they had homosexual feelings instead of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of people who are, we would all agree that it was all in their heads. But the fact is, a lot of people are gay and lesbian. Therefore we have reason to believe that homosexuality IS something you can be born with. Seriously, if it was all their heads would they really go to all trouble of trying to marry and taking all this sh** from other people like you? To LanceRoxas: That was a great comment, but my view on it is that homosexuality is natural for those who are homosexual. And if it is natural for them, they should be allowed to marry. Marraige should be available to everybody, no matter what... Read more

One major problem here is, as Lance has pointed out, that the two sides of this issue view marriage in different ways that heavily influence how they feel about gay marriage. Another problem is that we can't be sure what gay marriage can lead to. Two hundred years ago, I doubt many people considered gay marriage as a serious issue, or even an issue. So who's to say that two hundred years from now people won't seriously consider making incest legal? At the same time, a valid point is made in saying we can't form laws based on speculation. Personally, I do feel that marriage is a religious institiution and because most religions do not condone of homosexuality it would be ridiculous to expect gay marriage to be accepted into Christianity, Judiasm, Islam or the like. Civil unions with the rights that married couples have, however, might make more sense.

**I'm just trying to get folks to call a spade a spade. This isn't about process. It's not about the way that gays are going about demanding equal rights. It's about some of us not believing that gay Americans are worthy of equal protection under the law. I won't even ask how you folks feel about the ban on interracial laws, aka the Jim Crow laws, being repealed. Depressing stuff. This will be my last post on this topic. *** Ahhh.... I get it. So let's vote on it, and because your side is in the majority, those gays will never get equal rights. So it is a religion issue for you, and you do have a problem with gays having the same protection under the law as yourself. Not nearly as sophisticated (or interesting) a position as I had orginally thought. Fortunately, our style of democracy is not mob rule. And to Lance, great comment (and i mean that( - where it breaks down for me however, is that I have no problem saying that a consenting relationship between two adults of th... Read more

Magellan, you underestimate me. I say let's vote on it because that is the way the system was designed to work and I have the utmost respect for it. Know that if I was in the minority, I'd say the exact same thing. Also, do not presume that I have ever said anything like damn gays or that I fear the gay community. I happen to have a close friend that is gay and I think that would offend him. UPDATE #3: Magellan: first, let me address your second question. Changing the way we read the Constitution for the purpose of reform undermines its integrity and opens up the door for a whole host of problems, not the least of which being judges setting new presidencies that might or might not reflect the will of the voter. In my humble opinion, the liberal (and by liberal I only mean someone who is for change) should make it clear to his/her congressman that change is what they (the voter) wants. They should use their free speech to gather support for an idea and vote in people to their legis... Read more

This is about a marriage between two human beings who love eachother - whats wrong with that? Now, talking about marrying your daughter, son, father etc etc is wrong because you are related to them. Gay couples have shown that they have long monogomous relationships with their partner, so why the not if they are happy?

I can't give it 5 stars. I believe that taking the word marriage and changing it to a meaning that ignores the historical meaning of the word is improper. It's like taking the word apple and making it also include pomegranites. Tasty, but linguistically incorrect. However, I fully support equal rights and equal access to all of the legal and social rights which are contained within marriage for gay couples. If civil unions can accomplish this, then that's fine for me. And, as always, I'm glad to see that at least one person has put in a bizarre comment about what God wants. How do they know that?! If I could find out, I'd ask God personally whether these curtains match my sofa.

More religious fundamentalist BS from the same old diehards...and why doesn't Dickdirk just say 'no thank you' when he is hit on?

If this is okay, then what about someone wanting to marry a member of his own family? Will we have to justify incest as an acceptable family lifestyle? If not, why not? The same God Who created marriage and forbade incest also forbade homosexual activity.

Dont really agree with the idea. The reason being that the Constitution was set up with the rights of the individual in mind. Not a couple.

Considering the divorce rate is about 50%, protecting the sacred institution of marriage is a joke. Gay couples who want to form a legal union should be allowed to do so, and neither the government nor the church has no right to say that they can't. BTW, the Vatican taking a moral stand on gay marriage is laughable after their attempts to cover up pedophilia in the church.

I support a national law allowing the Civil Union parterships that exist in Vermont. There's no reason why two men or two women who love each other cannot enjoy the same benefits as straight people. I agree with Rebelyell1861 that the fuss over marriage is more about financial benefits than anything else. This is not about God, this is about respecting basic human rights.

i think its out of order that gay couples cant marry cos its not just a pretty little ceremony. it gives the couple the right to adopt a child TOGETHER. ok so 1 member of the couple could adopt on their own, but if the couple seperates then the other 1 has no legal rights over the child.

Gay marriage, in and of itself, is no problem at all for me. Go do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect me. The problem? The government has made so many laws over the years pertaining to married couples and their property. These bad laws have affected insurance rates, tax rates, the court system and costs (divorce laws), lawyer costs (divorce attorneys), etc etc. The bad, non-objective laws end up biting everyone in the end, married or not.

Personally I think MARRIAGE is historically and traditionally a STRAIGHT union and bonding. I think us gays need to come up with a new tradition of our own. We just DON'T need to call it MARRIAGE. It could be called DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP for example.

I personally think that gay couples should be able to get married without breaking any laws. Where is it the governments right to tell them that loving another man/woman is immoral and sinful? Straight people can't help who they fall in love with and neither can a gay man/woman.

First of all let me say that I don't hate gays, I just disagree with their lifestyle/sexual preference. I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flak for this, but as far as marriage goes, it seems to me that (as so many things are) it's more about money than it is anything else. No laws are keeping gay lovers from being together and many of 'em even have ceremonies declaring their union of love for each other or whatever. In my humble opinion, the only reason gays care about a legally recognized marriage is for insurance and tax purposes. That's the only reason I can think of as to why they care so much. I mean no one is stopping anyone from living together and acting like a married couple, so who cares about a marriage certificate?

See me Gay Rights comment. Im not writing it all over again.