Miss California?

[Flyndaran]

There is simply no non-religious reason to deny gays civil rights.

[Rubystars]

I know what you mean about different cultures but I still feel that man and woman marriage is the ideal standard to go by and that it's the best way to go about things for a healthy society. I don't have as much of a problem with polygamy (one man and a few women) as I do with homosexuality because at least that's straight. I do think it's better if it's just one man and one woman though.

[guywithashovel]

I'm not really even comfortable with the whole civil union idea. I have a big problem with the government giving homosexuality an equal status with heterosexual marriages no matter what they call it. It's not the same and it's not equal.

Roughly a half century ago, people were saying the same thing about inter racial marriages. But, eventually society warmed up to the idea of people marrying others who had different shades of skin than they did, and the sky didn't come crumbling down.

This definition of marriage that some people are so worried about protecting has actually changed quite a bit over the years. There was a time when marriage was between a man and several women. As I hinted at earlier, there was a time when marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race/national origins. There was a time when it was between a man, several women, and a few concubines and mistresses. Point is, marriage has not always been the same. Likewise, what is considered a "traditional family" has not always been the same throughout world history. It's not even the same throughout world cultures today.

[linguist]

But this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Gay couples should be able to be legally wedded in a union and have the same rights and priveleges as straight couples - insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, legal standing for things like wills, that kind of thing.

exactly. religion has no place in law, and if the bigots insist on using a religious definition of marriage, then marriage should cease to be a legal institution. instead, anyone of any orientation should be allowed to be legally bound to any legally consenting adult of their choosing through a civil union. if you want to be 'married,' do so in a church through a separate ceremony. this grants any couple wishing to be legally bound the same legal rights, and those wishing to formally be 'married' can still do so, including homosexuals in those churches that recognize homosexual marriage.

[Rubystars]

I'm not really even comfortable with the whole civil union idea. I have a big problem with the government giving homosexuality an equal status with heterosexual marriages no matter what they call it. It's not the same and it's not equal.

[AdminAssistant]

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

Besides, many groups are no longer advocating civil unions because it's been proven that the whole "separate but equal" thing didn't really work out.

Look, you can have your own personal feelings about homosexuality. But this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Gay couples should be able to be legally wedded in a union and have the same rights and priveleges as straight couples - insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, legal standing for things like wills, that kind of thing.

[linguist]

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

because 'separate but equal' has worked so well in the past

[Rubystars]

I didn't really mean to say that homosexuality itself was on the same level as doing it with a dog, although I can see why it looked that way. What I was trying to say was that I consider the idea of gay marriage to be just as ridiculous as the idea of marrying your dog. It's just not marriage either way. Homosexual sex is different because both partners are willing (unlike a non-human animal, which can't give consent) and consentual sex is not abusive, while doing it to an animal is automatically abusive. Plus in my opinion doing it with an animal adds a whole other level of sickness to the equation.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding about that.

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

[smileyeagle1021]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is. "Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage.

for the sake of semantics, would you approve of something like Civil Unions which provide the same legal protections? Since really that is what the argument boils down to, does a homosexual couple deserve the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple. So if we leave marriage out of it, if we are only talking about providing legal protections, would you support it?

And for the record, comparing homosexuality to bestiality (which you do by comparing it to marrying your dog) is dehumanizing no matter how you spin it.

[Nyoibo]

It's a sad day when a country that was condemned for apartheid becomes more progressive and accepting than the countries that condemned it.

[AFPheonix]

Interestingly enough, it took a lot of the gay marriage bans to actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Previously, most states had the law defined as between two people. Also, as has been previously stated on this thread and others, marriage as a sacrament did not come into being until the 16th century.
Furthermore, marriage has had many definitions over the ages in different societies than what is acceptable nowadays. There's no reason why marriage cannot be simply defined as a contract between two consenting adults.

As for the declaration that you're not denying gays any rights, you are. Here's a whole laundry list of them.

The declaration that children might learn about homosexuality in school is a bit of a red herring as well. I suspect that you consider being gay to be a choice, when it has been proven that it is not. It is a result of genetics and uterine environment. There is a social evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

Look, we understand you don't like butt sex. Whatever, that's your opinion. It's not right, however, to deny an entire group of people legal rights simply because of an act that hurts no one, including yourself. You won't be forced to enter into a gay marriage, it has no effect on your ability to get a marriage license. What's the problem?

[Nyoibo]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is.

(bolded for emphasis)

No it's not, that's what a narrow religious interpretation of marriage is.

Werriam-Webster

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

[Rubystars]

The other people you mentioned are really evil people. I would consider them to be a heck of a lot worse than a law-abiding homosexual. Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean that the person is cruel or evil. I'd expect about the same proportions of really awful behavior like that would exist in homosexuals as non-homosexuals.

[blas87]

What's not normal about being gay? Just because they aren't attracted to someone of the opposite gender, they are not normal?

Serial killers, child molesters, rapists, cannibals, people who screw dead people....THOSE people are not normal.

[Rubystars]

It's not my intention to dehumanize anyone. Of course they're human beings with feelings and needs just like the rest of us. Human beings do things that don't make sense all the time. Just look at the customers suck board stories. The human SCs do all kinds of things that are illogical or strange. It doesn't make them inhuman or less human. To me expecting society at large to recognize a homosexual couple as "married" is pretty silly, but I wouldn't say the person saying that was necessarily a bad person. I just don't agree with what they're saying or what they want from the rest of us, which is to acknowledge them as normal.