Convince me that gay marriage is a good thing

[brainwashed_youth]

Alright, I'm gonna come right out and say that I am not for gay marriage....but I could be convinced to change my mind. What would you say to me to get me to change my mind. Keep in mind that I view gays not being able to marry as an inconvenience, not a a pressing matter.


I'm not homphobic and have know quite a few very nice gay people, I'm just asking for someone to tell me why gay marriage is a good idea.

[Bunny]

1. Why don't you tell me why it's a bad thing?

And that's just for starters. Have you ever heard of civil rights? Do you think that freedom and equality for women and minorities are just "conveniences"? Why wouldn't gays be entitled to the same rights and privileges as other citizens of this country?

Really, you scare me. Tell me why YOU think it's a problem.

[distortionmarshall]

rofl.....

......lol - straight white men often have difficulty understanding what all the hubbub is about.....

[NightTrain]

203. I'm a heterosexual white man...

...and I fully understand what all the hubbub is about. That's why I 100% support marriage rights for same-sex couples.

[Drifter]

230. Amen brother ...

I'll see your Hetro white man ... and raise you a former Homophobic.

It was not until I was affected by gay people that I realized that gay people don't affect me.

Cheers
Drifter

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Woah!

Is that what you do to all people who are looking for the truth? Ridicule them and insult them!? That's no better than what your opposition does!

[distortionmarshall]

47. holy misguidedness, batman......

lol -

(1) the op was not looking for any truth - he was trolling.... caught quite a few of us too....

(2) i simply stated a fact - i neither ridiculed nor insulted anyone.

(3) straight white men have historically had trouble understanding what the hubbub is about - "why do negroes want to go to school with white kids anyway?" - "why do women need college educations anyway?"... and so on, ad nauseum......

(4) i'm sick of coddling idiots in today's facts-and-rationality-be-damned-i-validate-and-respect-you environment.... such silliness is how we got into this mess in the first place...

[brainwashed_youth]

57. no, i really am trying to be convinced

and I'm not the only one you need to convince. You need to convince 66% of Americans, president bush, and congress to see things the way you do

[distortionmarshall]

70. wow - such a high bar....

... thank goodness i don't need to come anywhere near jumping it.....

the antigay amendment will not pass.

the reason bush's hand was forced was the sf and others who were going to "sooner" their way into making gay marriage the norm - bush had to cut them off at the pass...

it'll all be over pretty soon tho - the courts will rule, probably without exception that because of the privacy cases, equal protection amendments, and separate-but-equal being struck down, that there's no real way to stop gay marriage. (this is, presumably, y bush & co think the only way to go is with the amendment process)

get 2/3 of both house and senate? not in this lifetime...

lol

[iverglas]

74. the funny thing is

That not you, not your fellow citizens, not your president and not your congress need to be "convinced" of anything at all regarding same-sex marriage -- except of the fact that prohibiting it is an unjustified violation of your Constitution.

Of course, some people don't *want* to be convinced of what their own Constitution says, and how their own courts have interpreted it. I've found such people to be rather like people who say that the earth is flat: it really is quite impossible to persuade some people of a fact ... or get them to acknowledge it.

The onus really *is* on those who wish to limit the exercise of a right set out in a constitution to justify that limitation.

On the very face of it, denying same-sex partners the ability to marry is a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of your constitution. (I'm tired of cutting and pasting them: amendment 5, as I recall it.)

If you or anyone else wants to say that denying same-sex partners the ability to marry is NOT a violation of those guarantees, you or s/he or they might want to try actually doing that. Or if you or s/he or they want to say that the violation is *justified*, you or s/he or they might want to offer some justification -- the kind that is used to justify rights violations, not the kind that is used to justify personal preferences.

The unfortunate fact is, indeed, that some of your fellow citizens and congressional representatives, and your president, prefer to address straw people and appeal to prejudice and emotion, rather than to address the actual issues involved and offer coherent argument that appeals instead to relevant concepts and any real authority there may be. And there ain't nobody can stop them.

But wouldn't *you* rather join the *civil* society of people who address issues and attempt honest persuasion, and listen in good faith to others' persuasive arguments, than join the incivil society of the demagoguish and disingenuous folks (and their equally disingenuous, deluded or simply dim followers) whom you cite?

.

[RapidCreek]

135. Very nicely said Iverglas!

That about sums it up.

RC

[RapidCreek]

126. Well since you didn't answer the first time you were asked

Tell us why you think gay marraige is a bad thing? Exactly.

RC

[Joe Momma]

165. i really think that..

25% of gays need to be convinced.

[TankLV]

198. No you're not - your trolling. FOLKS READ HIS OTHER POSTS!

Please ignor this - it's non productive and NOTHING will ever change his bigotry.

[brainwashed_youth]

200. blah blah blah

I know, I don't agree with you so I must be a bigot. Save it bubba, you're not the first person I've heard it from.

[Forkboy]

224. "you're not the first person I've heard it from."

I believe you :eyes:

[U4ikLefty]

202. I'd have to agreee with you.

His other posts make me feel "uneasy"

[brainwashed_youth]

205. sorry bout that

but get over it.

[U4ikLefty]

210. That hostility is not gonna convince anyone of your position.

If gay "marriage" is what makes you feel "uneasy", why not get rid of the word marriage altogether??? That sort of social sacrifice seems to be the only fair remedy to give everyone the same "marital" rights.

Hey, this is fun!!!

[brainwashed_youth]

211. that hostility was directed towards me first

when I ask gays to defend themselves and make their case known and all I get it ridicule and labels of being a bigot and a homophobe, that's gonna make me a little bit hostile. Seriously, when the first reply I get is "Dude, you scare me", what am I supposed to do? If this is the best that gays can do, they're fucked.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Get used to coddling idiots

Because a hundred million of them are going to be voting on a topic that is close to your heart and if you treat them like you do this guy, good luck.

[distortionmarshall]

72. close to whose heart?

.... rofl - i could give a rat's ass whether or not gay folks can get married - ok that's overstating it a bit... - but it's certainly not "close to my heart"... - married gay folks don't hurt anyone in the least, and it's discriminatory to prevent it, so let em get married - that's exactly as much thought as i put into it....

i have no problem treating "them" (the idiots), like i "treated" the op, because I've already written off the current generation - it's in the "loss" column... have you actually seen how dumb our kids are, especially compared to various asian and european groups'?

lol - chinese high schoolers take the gre cuz they don't have the sat - and routinely do better than our college grads....

i'll take the loss for a generation, and put all my eggs in the basket that brings about substantial educational change in america pretty damn quick....

[brainwashed_youth]

68. trolling?

Maybe it's not quite that clear to you. Most Americans DO NOT want gay marriage. And you can't tell me that they're all republican.





p.s. I really do resent that term "trolling". That what the right wing websites say you do when you say something they don't like

[distortionmarshall]

78. rofl

re: trolling: if that's how rightwingers use the term, they use it wrongly.... <after quick search> damn - there was a really nice lil research study on trolling someone did awhile back - can't find it now..... anyone got the link for it?

re: gay-marriage-backing: lol - they don't have to be republicans, just dumb - tho they're working hard on it, the republican party doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity...

lol - i feel a deleted message coming... :)

[brainwashed_youth]

79. see, here's ur problem

Ur cutting ur own throat here. Rather than politely lay out ur beliefs in order to convince me to see it ur way, you resort to cheap attacks. It's like anybody who doesn't agree with ur stance on this issue is a homophobic bigot. If you had kindly told me ur point of view, I probably would have changed my mind on the issue, but now I'm really don't care what ur opinion is. U've so totally disgusted me that I'm probably never gonna change my mind on gay marriage

[distortionmarshall]

83. nice to see the truth is of overriding interest to you....

lol - so a lil bit of impoliteness was enuff for you to not care about right & wrong? lol - awesome....

ur right on one thing tho - somebody's throat got cut here....

[brainwashed_youth]

86. more than that

All I did was ask the pro-gay people here to make their point. All they did was lash out at me and not one of them made their point. Sometimes, you might actually have to make ur case. I know that if the gays want to get married, they better start making their case soon. Cause the way things are going that amendment will be passed and all gay marriages will be nullified. How does that sound?

[Bunny]

91. Actually , the point was made to you about 86 times.

You just refuse to see it. Hint: civil rights.

Now, go back and review the posts. It's in there, trust me.

[brainwashed_youth]

93. hint hint

NOT civil rights

[Bunny]

98. Okay.

Whatever you say. :eyes:

[Lindacooks]

162. Yes, it is civil rights

Same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. That is, the right to share benefits offered by employers, the right to share property, the right to visit each other when one is hospitalized, and to make decisions about their loved one's care!!

"Lawful marriage is the most effective, and least expensive way for government to allow lesbian and gay people access to numerous state laws covering inheritance, domestic dispute resolution, tax policy, and insurance coverage. It would also allow access to more than a thousand Federal benefits..."

From: http://www.samesexmarriage.org/

And finally, it's just nobody else's business who wants to get married. The opponents of same-sex marriage are simply homophobes, who get their kicks from excluding and hating.

[brainwashed_youth]

164. yes they do

have the rights to insurance benefits and stuff. That's why I'm for civil unions. How many times do I gotta say that?

[distortionmarshall]

104. ooooh!

to the threatening ps - or what?

lol

[Bunny]

118. I see he/she edited that threat out!

What a guy! (or woman)

[distortionmarshall]

124. wow - that's weak....

lol - very bush like tho - editing the transcript afterwards.... i love people who can't even stand by what they say... makes the game a lot more challenging... :)

kudos to all who manage to be optimistic about the future... lwc

(i've decided i need a new acronym = Laughs While Crying)

<thx for calling that out tho - just so there's no future doubt/lies about who said what...>

[RapidCreek]

142. Well if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck

it's a duck. You are suggesting that Americans are not entitled to equal rights and that is indicative of a bigot....You can wrap a turd in gold foil but it's still a turd, sonny boy.

RC

[RapidCreek]

132. Most Americans do not want gay marriage?

According to who? No one has ever asked me or any member of the 123 or so individuals who comprise my family what we think of it. In fact I've never in my life run into a person who was asked such a question by a pollster.

What do you mean by "most Americans DO NOT want gay marriage"? Are these gay Americans? Or people who secretly fear their mate is a closeted homosexual? Since when does what most Americans want supersede a citizens constitutional rights? How does a homosexual marriage affect you directly? Are you a closeted homosexual? Are you afraid that in the event homosexual marriage was legal you'd suffer an unquenchable desire to marry a member of the same sex? Is the only thing quelling your desire to take it up the ass the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal?

RC

P.S. No offense to gay folks here on the board. This sort of shit really riles me up. Pardon me if my angst seems a bit unrefined.

[brainwashed_youth]

146. um...

no. I have no desire to have anybody stick their hoodiddly up my ass.(no offense to gays) I'm proud to be a straight man. And as for ur question, all the latest polls, CNN,Fox, NBC, show that the overwhelming majority of americans do not want gay marriage.

[Snow]

157. You're proud to be a straight man? I'm proud to have blue eyes!

I'm proud to be 5'11"!

and your sources are not only biased, they're collecting data in such a way that they know what the answer will be.

[brainwashed_youth]

159. explain to me how they're biased

no seriously, I wanna know what makes ya say that. Not trying to be a smart ass here.



and yes...I am proud to be straight. I'm proud of the surge of energy and that feeling I get when I'm around a beautiful lady(once again, no offense to gays)

[Snow]

217. They're biased first in that they have particular viewpoint that they wish

to promote. You'll agree with that, right? So starting from that a priori (before starting) bias, what you do is assemble your study population to reflect groups of people with the viewpoint you're looking for. This has to be a bit subtle, since random sampling is pretty well understood, and if it looks like you're cheating here you'll get called out. It's in the framing of the survey questions, though that you can really nail things down, because the way a question is answered is very sensitive to how it's asked. That's how they bias their findings, mostly - is in how they ask the question. Then if it still doesn't quite come out right, they can play a little with the statistics and the presentation, and that will usually swing tings their way.

Re taking pride in physical attributes - it just seems a little odd to me. I don't feel any particular pride in something I had nothing to do to accomplish. It's why I feel compliments on good looks to be so empty - unless the good appearance is a result, say, of intense gym workouts or something. Pride in a well-trained singing voice, or skill at rock-climbing, or a well-written poem make much more sense to me. Although there're certainly some gifts from birth involved in any of those, there's also a lot of work, learning of skills, creativity involved - and that's something to take pride in. Being straight? Pshhh.

[brainwashed_youth]

226. i can believe that

Ur argument sounds valid. Don't know if it's true, but it sounds like a good argument.


And hey, if there can be "gay pride", there can be "straight pride", lol.

[Snow]

231. And of course, if there can be "black pride" there can be

"white pride", eh? No, you're really missing the point. Whites and straights are not groups of people who have been told for decades, scores of years how stupid, lazy, perverted, disgusting, or downright insane they are by dint of their appearance or sexual orientation. The pride movements are an effort to help heal that. Your "straight pride" comment shows a lack of understanding and empathy.

[Athletic Grrl]

173. umm....

CNN survey today begs to differ. Last time I checked, it was running 56% against a Constitutional amendment.

[Bunny]

56. I don't give a flying fuck what "my oppostion" does.

If that's all they can relate to, I'll give it right back at 'em, in spades! Fuck them if they can't take the heat!

And if you call my comments "ridiculing and insulting", then you haven't been around here much!

Truthseeker, indeed.

[brainwashed_youth]

62. i didn't say that

I think I got my opinion across without being insulting or ridiculing people who disagree with me. And what are you talking about ur opposition? What are you so upset about? You never talked to a person against gay marriage before?

[Bunny]

76. I was responding to sirjwtheblack.

[RapidCreek]

144. Your opinion IS ridicule

you can guild a turd...but it's still a turd. You are suggesting that some Americans are not entitled to the same rights you are....that is insulting...more to the point it is un-American.

RC

[brainwashed_youth]

40. awright, here's my opinion

For starters, you cannot compare gay marriage to the civil rights struggle for blacks in the 60's. Those people were fighting for the right to vote and pretty much be a person. Gay people can vote, own their own business, be a respected leader(Barney Frank, anybody) and pretty much enjoy all the same rights as straight people. So, gay marriage is an inconvenience, nothing more.

Second, I do not believe the marriage should be redefined. Webster's defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Call me a traditionalist if you want, but that's my belief. Besides, if gays are allowed to marry, then you'll have polygamists wanting to marry, then you'll have older men wanting to marry minors, and then it'll all go downhill from there. I know it's a slippery slope argument, but it's a valid one.

And yes, I am for civil unions. I see no reason why gays can't enjoy the insurance benfits that straight couple enjoy. I just don't want the "marriage" title attached to it



p.s. In case ur curious, my dad is bisexual, so I am familiar with gays to a degree. and yes, you should be scared. I'm a very scary person....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!1

[DrWeird]

52. Doesn't seem very valid to me.

"Besides, if gays are allowed to marry, then you'll have polygamists wanting to marry, then you'll have older men wanting to marry minors, and then it'll all go downhill from there."

Looks to me like you've got that anyway. Let's ban heterosexual marriage.


"Those people were fighting for the right to vote and pretty much be a person. Gay people can vote, own their own business, be a respected leader(Barney Frank, anybody) and pretty much enjoy all the same rights as straight people."

Well, "those people" (homosexuals) are still having people in congress refer to them as a disease. You've got Matthew Shepard and other homosexuals being killed for their homosexuality, it's legal in many states to discriminate because of discrimination, like interracial couples, gay couples cannot get married because of a few narrow minded bigots, people are calling for bills that force homosexuals to register with the government. Sounds like it's all about civil rights to me.

"Those people were fighting for the right to vote and pretty much be a person. Gay people can vote, own their own business, be a respected leader(Barney Frank, anybody) and pretty much enjoy all the same rights as straight people."

"civil unions" and "marriages" are the exact same thing. It's just "civil union" is code for marriage, because some bigots have hang ups about semantics.

"n case ur curious, my dad is bisexual, so I am familiar with gays to a degree."

Yes, yes, I'm sure you have many gay friends.

:eyes:

[yellowcanine]

61. "Yes, yes, I'm sure you have many gay friends." - good catch

That was my reaction also - and you picked up on the fallacious slippery slope argument as well. Original he ain't.

[Joe Momma]

168. it is such a desperate struggle...

that 1 in 4 gays vote for the jackass in the WH.

[brainwashed_youth]

172. u serious?

1 out of 4 gays voted for shrub?

[Joe Momma]

176. absolutely..

1.1 million nationwide, 50k + in florida. you will not get an answer to why here.

[brainwashed_youth]

177. holy shit.....

how the hell did that happen?

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[minkyboodle]

204. Because....

stupidity and gullibility exists across all races, genders and sexual orientation. Enjoying your most recent troll activity?
Scott

[Joe Momma]

208. 1 in 4

gays are stupid or gullible? 1 in 4 blacks don't vote for the slavemasters. that is a good response. really goes to the issues.

[minkyboodle]

212. No

I'm just saying that gays and lesbians are no more infallible than any other race, gender or sexual orientation. They can be blind and vote against their self interests just in the way that some working class white males repeatedly vote Republican even though they are the ones that are most likely to lose out (i.e. manufacturing jobs, wage decline etc). Most likely most of those gay and lesbian votes were from Log Cabin Repub types who bought into the whole compassionate conservative bullshit and whose economic status led them to think voting Repub would benefit them. Also 3 out 4 didn't vote for Bush so its not like gay and lesbians as a whole failed you or something... I doubt W will get 25% this time thats for sure..
Scott

[Joe Momma]

215. that would be a nice change

call me a bigot and hypocrite when that happens. i'm thinking nothing will change. has the fascist party changed in the last 4 years that i am not aware of? oh yeah, they started discriminating against people all of a sudden. i am glad i don't have to make such arguments to justify such a thing as voting ones pocketbook over basic rights.

[PretzelzRule]

218. He better enjoy it while it lasts...

I just alerted his ass....

[Bunny]

54. Don't heteros get special rights and privileges upon marriage?

Do you consider these to be simply a "convenience"?

If it's just an inconvenience, they why not permit gay marriage? What's the big deal? It's just an inconvenience, really. No skin off anyone's nose, why prohibit it?

As for changing the definition of marriage, well, I don't give a rat's ass how Webster's defines it. Word usage and meaning can change over time, this really isn't that big of a hump to get over. And can you really mean that you'd deny marriage to everyone on the basis of a dictionary definition? And if your opposition to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs, which I suspect it is, then why don't you just say that?

On edit, I forgot to address your slippery slope argument. It sounds a hell of a lot like the same comments we heard from the (dis)Honorable Senator Rick Santorum (R-Dickhead). That will not go over well here, sport!

Your message is not getting across very well.

[Snow]

63. Since when does Noah Webster define how we parse out civil

rights in this country? That holds no water whatsoever as an argument. If you're making a religious argument; fine, belong to a church that doesn't offer the sacrament of marriage to gays. Keep that in your church, though, and out of the government.

Second, bigots don't pick and choose amongst their hatreds, why should we pick and choose who should have rights of whatever kind? Go forth and read John Donne - he's old but he still works - if anyone is deprived of their humanity, we are all lessened by that.

[wellstone_democrat]

122. Noah Webster: a favorite of a certain type of homeschooler

NOTE: I said "a certain type"

Webster's 18th century dictionary whose purpose was expressly: "to create an American language" is a hint here about the attitudes of the poster---its wildly popular lately in reprint version. Particularly the 1820 edition because Webster, with his ministerial education, defines words in decidedly Christian terms. Using an 1820 dictionary has uses beyond the religious overtones, it also avoids modern ideas and words that can provoke thought in the 21st century child.

But, as "Snow" said: Noah Webster isn't a legal authority (in his time or ours) and he's no constitutional scholar-0----btw, African Americans could not vote nor were they considered "persons" in his time so...using Webster as your authority for one argument you make, destroys your claim that Civil Rights for Blacks is different than the latest case.

Kid, if your church doesn't want to marry certain people so be it. But the government offers benefits to those of us who are married that should either be abolished for all or offered to all.

That's the American Way.

[adriennel]

67. "gay marriage is an inconvenience"

to you it is, obviously. absurd.

[adriennel]

69. which version of Websters are you referring to?

one published last century?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
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 <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

[m-jean03]

90. Please don't compare gays to pedophiles

Pedophilia is illegal for many sound moral reasons. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults.

Please don't make that pedophilia argument. It is I think the most hideously offensive "legitimate" argument.

Marriage is just a symbolic act. Get it? That's all it is and ever has been.

[brainwashed_youth]

95. not trying to

just saying that if you allow gay marriage, you'll have pedophiles wanting to get married and you'll have no good argument against it


That's all I'm saying

[m-jean03]

97. That's just not true

Pedophilia, sex between an adult and child, is illegal, didn't you know?

[noiretextatique]

106. most pedophiles are married, i believe

and heterosexual, for sure.

[kayell]

109. No good argument again pedophilia???

How about the term "consenting adults". :eyes:

[arcane1]

130. that statement makes no sense whatsoever

why, exactly, would gay marriages make pedophiles want to marry their victims? And what twisted reasoning says there will be no good argument against it?

These are terribly hollow, empty, meaningless "arguments" that mean nothing. If this is the foundation for your beliefgs, then your beliefs are built on air

[RapidCreek]

138. Oh yea?

Why is that? Please explain. Why would one have no good argument against it? You make a lot of blanket statements but provide no foundation.

RC

[Bunny]

151. Senator Santorum?

Is that you? Welcome to DU! We all know your beliefs about pedophiles, man/dog sex, multiple spouses, etc. You open the doors to gay marriage, and by Gawd who knows what'll happen next?

[minkyboodle]

207. lol

I thought I smelled Santorum....... and that ain't a pleasant smell.
Scott

[La Lioness Priyanka]

153. pedophiles DO GET MARRIED

just not to children...i think a rational society can tell the difference between adults and children and animals...unless of course your telling me that people like yourself see adult and children and animals as a big blur?

[minkyboodle]

206. what part of

2 consenting adults confuses you so much?
Scott

[PretzelzRule]

219. Are you for real??

Good gawd, do you even KNOW what a pedophile is??

Marriage, in what ever form it takes, is between ADULTS.

[togiak]

101. No attacks here

I agree with you that alot of people are attacking you unnecessarily. That is surprising since this board is usually pretty nice. But anyway.

Marriage has indeed been redefined in the past. It used to be that it was illegal for interracial couples to get married. That law was struck down as unconstitutional.

The issue really isn't about convincing the other side that gay marriage is a good idea or a bad idea. One could easily ask how is heterosexual marriage a good thing? Really the benefits of marriage come to the married couple. Yes, I know that it can be argued that marriage promotes societal stability and the same can be said for gay marriage.

But, to me, the issue is really about the right of the majority to trample on the rights of the minority. It's about the problem with being able to setup a second class citizen group. This government was founded upon the inalienable rights of all citizens. It was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Gay marriage is just one piece of the puzzle that is the general discrimination that gays have had to endure. Until just last year it was illegal in many states for homosexuals to engage in lovemaking in the privacy of their own homes.

I would say that there are great comparisons between civil rights and the gay rights. The comparison lies in the fact that it was a majority group trying to impose its will on a minority group. It was about using your political power to trample on the rights of others. The same holds true in both cases.

So I come back to my original statement. It isn't about convincing others that gay marriage is good or bad. It is about protecting the rights of each and every one of us in this country and offering everyone the ability to pursue the goals of life, liberty and happiness.

[brainwashed_youth]

107. hmm.....

Interesting. Like I said, I am FOR civil unions, but I am very uneasy about attaching the term "marriage" to it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

150. webster is your source of tradition?

the dictionary is revised every ten years. what you are essentially saying is because something is vaguely uncomfortable to you...something you cannot quite pin point 10% of the population should suffer

[Forkboy]

225. "I'm a very scary person"

Finally,something we can agree on!

[tkulesa]

75. Awesome response!

It's easy to call something an inconvenience when it only affects other people.

[HEyHEY]

2. I second Bunny -J

YEs, the old - I know a lot of nice gay people defence

[adriennel]

18. ha ha, yeah we hear that a lot here

you do not have to support gay marriage, you just need the clarity of mind to distinguish what you don't like versus impeding on the rights of others.
For example, I don't care if you're married, single, shacking-up, divorced, etc. I do think you have the right to fully participate in all of these arenas.

[BradCKY]

3. Well first I have to ask

Why are you against it? and also Would you support Civil Unions?

[soleft]

4. Usually when people have to say that they're not something......

It's like Bush saying, I have black friends, Condi and Colin.

[indigo32]

5. Naw... you convince ME that it's a bad thing

is it a good thing for you? It doesn't matter for you I'd guess.
Nice of you to call my civil liberties an inconvenience.
How about we talk about when children are involved.
Or... how about when I buy a house with my partner and then I die and she has to fight to keep the house she bought with me. I could go on and on...
do you care?

[mitchtv]

26. or , if you owned the house together

they re-assess partner's half as a gift , and leave gay seniors with unwarranted tax burdens

[NYC]

6. Convince me that heterosexual marriage is a good thing.

[noiretextatique]

71. LMAO...now this is an intelligent question

i just heard a two-divorced woman i work with railing against gay marriage :eyes: it doesn't seem that heterosexuals have any moral authority on the issue, all things considered. the basic issue here is the tryanny of the majority...just like most civil rights issues.

[wuushew]

7. Because it reinforces the wedge between state and religion

which seems to be crumbling in recent years. It is either a civil matter or a religious one, not both.

[Tyler Durden]

8. No one should have to convince anyone it's good or bad.

Equal protection under the law should hold that any contractual agreement between two parties has the power of law.

In that this is not so, our society is bigotted. Period.

[Maat]

34. The responses are so right.

When I saw the thread on the first page .. I felt myself getting angry. Thinking, "Gee, we're the U.S.A. You're right .. why stick for democracy, equal protection and basic fundamental rights?" But you guys said what I wanted to say ... there is no reason why we should not protect everyone in this country from denial of their fundamental rights. In fact, if the USA means anything, if the spirit of the Constitution & Bill of Rights mean anything, everyone of us should be out there insisting that LGBTs receive the same legal and respectful treatment we insist on for ourselves. What I hate is bullies ... if a particular congregation doesn't want LGBTs in their mist ... that's their problem. But right-wing homophobes have no justification for forcing their beliefs/ideas about society on me. We need to be as inclusive as possible ... not as exclusive as possible. No enacting of right-wing extreme beliefs into law. And by the way, Cal Thomas, I do not need to be saved.

[wellstone_democrat]

9. Tell me why you start all the threads on the topic

quite the preoccupation you have there today sonny!

And, "inconvenience?" Probably not to the life-long partner deprived of intensive care visits and the automatic assumption of inheritance of what might be joint property. Add on medical insurance and a raft of other benefits that range from the financial (taxes) to the emotional (the public vow) and I can see why it is important.

Explain why you are Johnny-One-Note on this topic?

[plcdude]

10. civil union

is what we are talking about here not the religious ritual or sacrament known as marriage. The Individual States separately registered those who are authorized to perform civil unions. We also recognize that a male and female that live together for a certain length of time have a common law "marriage". So I think we need to reframe the issue more accurately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Don't look at it as a religious matter but a civil policy matter

Look assume for a moment that you were Gay.

Assume for a moment that you live at home with a gay partner.

Assume for a moment that YOU got very sick and he had to call 9.11

Here are the realities that will come

Your partner will NOT be able to visit you in the hospital, or make the decisions that my husband can make RIGHT NOW insofar as medical care.

If you pased, your partner could not inherit

If you wanted to include your partner under your insurance plan, you could not (Unless the company allows it, as some do)

If you want to have a renters agreement with your partner, you cannot.

I coudl go on

This is a CIVIL RIGHTS matter, not a religious matter

[TXlib]

12. Just like in a criminal trial

the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Those who make the claim that gay marriage is somehow harmful, and should be criminalised must back their assertion up with proof.

Those who claim that gay marriage does no harm cannot logically be required to prove their claim - the most an intellectually honest person would require is that they rebutt specific claims of harm from the group claiming gay marriage is harmful.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Not true.

You want a right that you don't have. Guess what? The burden is on YOU to tell the Government, or in otherwords, the American public, why you should have this right!

[skypilot]

43. Tell them to read the Constitution...

...and point to where it says that I can't have this right. We "want a right that don't have". Guess what? That is precisely the problem. There is no reason we shouldn't have the right to begin with.

On edit: "You want a right that you don't have..." The fact that you can say that so blithely is exactly the reason you are getting so much flack here.

[Beetwasher]

45. Boy Have You Got it Backwards!

In this country, if one person has a right to do something, like get married, ALL people have that right already. It's part of the constitution.

The burden is on those who want to limit the rights of a certain segment of the population to show why that right should be denied to ONLY CERTAIN people, while others are free to enjoy it.

[xchrom]

48. what!

the burden is on straight people to get out of the way and start living up to two notions -- we are all created equal and equal under the law.
get real.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. I agree

that you have the Constitutional right under Equal Protection. But can you, in every state in this union, walk up and get married if you're gay? That's right, you can't. Therefore, you obviously are fighting for a right that doesn't currently exist.

It's a total cop-out to frame the argument that the burden is on everyone but yourself. If you want something that someone else has, you'd better be prepared to defend your position and not just say claim you shouldn't have to! For instance, the original author does not have to give you his support on this matter. If you want that support, you'd better be prepared to answer his question with something better than ridicule and self-righteousness. And if you think he's alone, you're the one who needs to get real.

In short, if you want to protect gay marriage as a right, you'd best be prepared to defend it better than a lot of people have here, or I can guarantee this shitty amendment will pass.

[Beetwasher]

64. I Guarantee it WON'T Pass

The onus is on the other side to convince people WHY the constitution needs to be ammended. Why should we let the other side frame the debate? That's bullshit.

They want to pro-actively change the constitution to deny one segment of the population the right to pursue happiness and deny them equal protection. The ball is in their court to justify that.

They will need 2/3 of the House and Senate AND 3/4 of the States to ratify. No way in hell that's gonna happen, I guarantee it. Let them defend their bullshit. You are SO wrong and SO willing to let the other side frame the issue when 60% of the people in this country are AGAINST amending the constitution for this bullshit.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA2KSP82RD.html

[skypilot]

66. WE don't think he's alone...

...and our self-righteousness if perfectly justified. It's the ones who think they have the right to deny us the right to marry who are too fucking self-righteous. And it doesn't matter how reasonable and well-argued a case we make, there are people who are just to damned bigoted and will be against us no matter what we say.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

221. How do you figure?

How is it that someone who is HERE, in DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, that asks a simple question about why he should support gay marriage that he will be against you no matter what you say? Ever think that he was actively searching for a good reason? That maybe he was trying to enlighten himself by asking questions?

[noiretextatique]

103. how would two people marrying each other "burden" anyone else?

please explain that to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

220. Way to read only what you want

Never did I say gay marriage was a "burden".

What I said was burden, as in burden of evidence. You know, the legal term?

[Joe Momma]

175. therein lies the problem

a healthy percentage of gays themselves are not willing to fight. blacks in the 60's were in the streets getting beaten. the last election proved that this is not a desperate issue for gays. you will find that the burden is placed on you. i am a supporter of gay rights to marriage, and yet, get more flack here than from my right wing friends at work. i have been trying to get the answer to the simple question "why did 25% of gays that voted in 2000 vote for gwb? that is 1.1 million votes, 50k+ in florida alone. good luck, you are now a bigot and a fundie.

[brainwashed_youth]

180. more flack here?

I don't know about you, but I won't give ya any flack. I respect ur opinion. But you shouldn't be calling that man a bigot and a fundie. He's right, you should be able to defend urself, and if you're not willing to do that, you must accept what comes to you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

223. You can correct me if I'm wrong

But it doesn't sound like you personally were calling me a "bigot and a fundie", but rather was stating that is what I would be labeled (and indeed you are correct in that).

[brainwashed_youth]

73. no it's not

It is up to YOU to make ur case. If you are just gonna sit back and ricicule those who disagree with you, you better get damn prepared to live in an America where gays will NEVER marry.

[mitchtv]

cause we pay taxes too

. Sorry- if you can't figure out basic fairness, I cna't help.ask yourself why are you against it? if it's not a legal argument you have no argument.

[ronnykmarshall]

58. Speaking of taxes

since I'm not going to have any children, why should I pay taxes for schools? and since my partner will not be able to collect my Social Security if I die first

...... doesn't the government owe me a shit load of money????

[Not Me]

13. Convince me...

For all the same reasons that it is a good thing for heteros, it is good for gays.

And add to that, it brings recognition of equality under the law.

[youngred]

14. Why is it a bad idea?

Why should these people not be allowed to legally express their permanant love to the person they love the most in the world. Why should they not be conferred the rights and privledges (as well as burdens) of every other American because the person they love is of the same sex? Its not a damage to the institution of marriage, straights have done more than enough damage to that.

There is no reason not to and every reason why it must be conferred

[Sandpiper]

15. There are at least 1049 protections, benefits and responsibilities

extended to married couples under federal law, according to a 1997 study by the General Accounting Office. Gay and lesbian couples in lifelong relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections under the law. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner, despite paying payroll taxes. They must pay federal income taxes on their employer’s contributions toward their domestic partner’s health insurance, while married employees do not have to pay such taxes for their spouses. They must pay all estate taxes when a partner dies. They often pay significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401(k) from their partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.


The entire article can be found at the Human Rights Campaign:

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14392

[Trajan]

16. Its not so much about being "PRO" gay marriage ...

As it is about being "PRO" Freedom ..

WHo the hell is George 'Jerry Falwell' Bush to tell another american citizen WHO they can marry ? ..

FUCK that ... we formed this nation to establish freedom and liberty, and such 'freedom of association' lies at the core of liberty ..

WHY not just outlaw Adultery, which has a FAR greater negative effect on the institution of marriage than homosexuality can EVER have ...

Me ? .... Im hetero, married for 18 years and father of three teens ... I have no axe to grind ...

But I love freedom ...

The freedom to marry whom you love should be a given ...

[GOPisEvil]

17. Have you heard of the 14th Amendment - Equal Protection?

Why do you support making an entire class of people second-class citizens merely because of their sexual orientation? All that is being asked for homosexuals to enjoy the same rights and protection of the law that heterosexuals do. How hard is that to understand?

[calimary]

50. Exactly. If this measure went through, we would be formalizing

discrimination in our Constitution. Should we REALLY be going to that extreme? Is that what we're REALLY about, here in America? I submit that if we force discrimination into our sacred documents, then we are committing the ultimate anti-American act. Plus, it further blurs the separation of church and state, which is also part of what it means to be an American. It's putting Big Brother government into our bedrooms in yet another way, and making it constitutionally sanctioned. Is THAT what we are REALLY about? Is that why more than 540 Americans lost their lives in Iraq?

[rusty charly]

19. does

equal protection mean anything to you? or do you feel because of an accident of your birth you are deserving of more rights than others? why do you need to be convinced of fairness in america? or are you of the "i got mine, too bad for you" mind. these are all hallmarks of the far right dude. get a reality check.

also: there isn't much evidence around that sex-discordant marriage is a "good thing"

[no_hypocrisy]

20. Two people love each other and are willing to make a commitment to

each other and forsake close relationships with others. They work hard, contributing their salaries to their present and future. They make contributions to their neighborhood and their community, join the PTA, etc.

You know, everything like your folks had, but maybe better.

I say "better" because I believe when you can't have something, you try especially hard to keep it once you have it. I would imagine there will be some gay marriages that will be in this pattern and there will be some just like the middle class bourgeois version that you see everyday, where the couple is married in name only.

Gay marriage could ironically serve as an invigorating example to otherwise dead marriages by their enthusiastic example.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Benefits.

Things like hospital visitation rights...can't say I know the kind of legal things married people get because I'm not married but they are there. Personally I think there should be civil unions for everyone and no government-recognized marraige straight or gay - would probably help the issue get resolved faster if it had not religious import and civil unions could be made flexible enough to cover a wider range of relationships, even celibate ones like roommates, etc.

[supernova]

22. How could it be a bad thing?

:shrug:

Sorry, I don't see the problem people have with gay marriage. If two people want to commit to each other in the eyes of the law, I think that's a great thing.

[trogdor]

23. No.

You are either up for it, or you are not.

I am not, however, I don't see why someone else who is should be denied it. It doesn't matter whether either of us believe it is a good idea.

I also subscribe to the view that this is an issue that should wait until after the election, if that is possible. If our guy clams up, and the other guy (Bush) brings it up, our guy can make all kinds of accusations of cynicism for using gay marriage as a wedge issue (which it is) - one that pales in significance to myriad others that require our immediate attention, like jobs, the war in Iraq, or the budget deficit. This can easily be done in such a way as to make Bush look about six inches tall. One shot of that, and I guarantee you, he won't pull that shit again.

[Weathergirl]

24. Please tell us

what's wrong with two consenting adults who love each other wanting to commit to each other for life, and also be able to enjoy the same rights (insurance coverage, hospital visitation, etc.) that my husband and I enjoy? Frankly I don't think it's anyone's business beyond the couple who wants to marry. They should be free to do so in peace.

[seabeyond]

25. i hadnt thought of it

and then went to well civil union is good. and then the more the marriages started happening, not a single issue. so not bothered. what is the deal who is to care. it does nothing to me and certainly doesnt do anything to my marriage and i see it will welcome the gay community into normalcy, reduced the hate that is still there.

but the bottom line for me. was the constitution and who we are as a nation. to refuse gays the right to marry is discriminating. adn anytime we discriminate it is a key word, to clue us in to wrong. that isnt who we are nor who i want to be. constitutionally it is not ok to discriminate

gays are not going away. as women didnt, as blacks didnt

[arcane1]

80. "welcome the gay community into normalcy, reduce the hate..."

that, my friend, is precisely why they want to ban it

[Goldmund]

27. Now you tell me why...

...interracial marriage is a good idea.

What about interclass marriage?

And marriage between a blonde and a brown-haired guy?

Shit, and what about a marriage between a football fan and an automechanic?

Does it say anywhere explicitly that above groups are allowed to marry?

One doesn't prove negatives when it comes to rights. Rights are by default for ALL human beings unless legislated otherwise for certain groups. For example, felons can't vote, and under-21 yr olds can't drink. But one doesn't need a law that those above 6'2'' can drink or that bald men can vote. Any time you take a right AWAY from a group of people, you need to meticulously explain why -- and not when a right is given to a certain group that other groups already possess. The government isn't supposed to be seen as GIVING rights anyway, but only as PROTECTING rights.

Therefore, the burden of proof rests on you. You propose to exclude certain people from a right that is given to everyone else. Proponents of gay marriage simply support a consistent law that applies to all.

So the question is, what do you have AGAINST gay marriage?

[TrogL]

28. It means you don't have to rewrite thousands of laws

in order to remove discriminatory language. Just change one and the others are changed by default.

[Nashyra]

30. I am not opposed to or for gay marriage

I have a sibling who has lived with a partner for over ten years, at Christmas I asked their opinion and they were not in favor of "gay Marriage" but in favor of a document that stated they were an equal partner in the eyes of the law just as a married couple. They said it should be very simple to provide a state certificate that has to be obtained that perhaps reads Marriage/CivilUnion Certificate check the correct box. It would then be filed with the county registrars office just like a marriage license is today with the responsiblitites and the state and federal rights that come with it. They said very simple and most of their friends believe the same thing. Their take on this whole thing is that all they want is to be legally responsible to each other and they don't care what they call it as long as it has parity with the marriage "license". They also said that once you had the license then just like any hetrosexual couple you can go and have a civil ceremony or a "church ceremony" depending on your church, as long as the "certificate is signed by a person in the church or a person of the court.

[terryg11]

31. for starters how about benefits

homosexuals pay into social security like everyone else and if there is a family led by two gays and one dies, then they lose out on that financial security (if you can call it that) that "straight" couples get. What sense does it make to punish people for wanting to live as they wish?

[mmm]

33. This is the wrong time for Dems to press for gay marriage

This issue is divisive; it will be used by the Repukes to divide and conquer the Democrats in the 2004 election. This should
have been put on the back burner (the waay back burner) until
AFTER the Dems won the White House.

[wuushew]

44. Bring on the culture war...I want this shit settled right now

No Gore state is going red in 2004. If we win Ohio it is all over for Shrub. If and when King Kerry is crowned he will have no motivation to touch a hot potato subject.

[Tempest]

51. Dems are not pressing for gay marriage

GAYS are pressing for gay marriages.

The fact that most gays are Democrats really has nothing to do with it.

The religious rightwing have declared war on gays, and gays are responding by not taking it laying down.

[H2O Man]

35. Be serious!

What on earth makes you think that it is any of your business if two adults want to get married? It has nothing to do with you. It does not matter what you think. This reminds me of the USA's attitude towards Native American sovereignty .... the truth is, you are sovereign when you know you are, just like you are married when you know you are. The only problem comes when other people think they have the right to deny other human beings their human rights. On many of your posts, you seem like a good and decent person. This is an area where you are sadly confused. Open your mind, open your heart! And, not that it's important, I am a non-gay person, married, and often amazed at the ignorant attitude of my friends who feel they are entitled to make decisions for other people in these circumstances.

[adriennel]

36. someone needs to ask BushCo

why they are spending SO much money on programs promoting marriage for heterosexuals, yet when two individuals of the same gender want to marry (assumedly to form both a financial and familial alliance, the same goal as heterosexual marriage), it's considered unacceptable?

seems awfully hypocritical to me...I hope someone asks this question during this whole stupid debate.

[Bertha Venation]

37. BY, gay marriage is already a reality. We're already married

and it's already a good thing. Why? Because we're in love, we're permanent, we're stable, and together we can contribute more to the common good than we could when we were apart.

Now: We just need the gov't to catch up, because as it stands, there are 1,049 federal rights, benefits, entitlements, etc., that we married gay couples are denied. These include important things that all families need, like the right to make medical decisions on one another's behalf as next-of-kin, and the right for each of us to be carried on the other's insurance.

An example: If I were to be in a horrible wreck on the way home from work today, and I were incapacitated, the hospital & doctors would be completely within their rights to ignore Mrs. V. altogether and call my legal next-of-kin, my father, in from California to decide whether to put me on life support or let me go. BY, my father doesn't even know me. He has no right to make such a decision. That right belongs to my mate, my spouse, my beloved.

Another example: Mrs. V.'s a federal employee; I work for a private company. I can put her on my insurance -- but we had to get proof-of-domestic-partnership documents notarized first, and I have to pay taxes on her portion of the premiums. Her insurance is vastly better than mine, but she cannot put me on hers. To her employer I'm nothing.

To Uncle Sam we're nothing but roommates.

When we're granted our marriage license, those nightmare worries and a hundred others will go away.

Questions, friend?

[Atman]

38. Why do you reserve special rights?

just because you choose to live your life with a member of the opposite sex?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but this is probably one of those times where it is appropriate. You must have heard all the arguments before...estate issues, power-of-attorney issues, even visitation and custody issues. You are aware of those, I am sure, and will answer "so let 'em have civil unions." To which we say, sure, they ARE civil unions. ALL marriages are civil unions. A slip of paper issued by the government, affirming that you have entered into a legal contract with another person. You need a separate set of papers to dissolve the contract.

"Marriage" is not a government affair, it is a religious one. If every Church on earth were to ban gay "marriage" tomorrow, people of the same sex would continue to live their lives together, and would continue to be discriminated against in all manner of legal settings that have nothing to do with any organized religion. The government is not religion, it is not the government's place to get involved in religious matters.

We are completely hung up on semantics. A contractual obigation vs a religious blessing. Call it anything you damn well please. But I do not see any sound legal reason why the sex of the two people entering into the contract should make the slightest bit of difference to the state.

[proud patriot]

39. Simple ... It is a right to Hetros it must be a right to all

or we Hetros will have "special rights" not available
to all Citizens .

That just doesn't sit well with me .

All people created equal under the law , means
we must recognize The GLBT deserve what I a striaght
women takes for granted .

[JanMichael]

41. Convince me that YOU getting married is a good thing.

How crazy does that sound?

You really want to know? Equitable application of Civil Rights is a GOOD place to start.

[yellowcanine]

42. Because some gays and lesbians want to be married

That should be a good enough reason, lacking any compelling reason for denying this right. I do not accept the notion that same sex marriage undermines hetero marriage in any way, because no one has given me a plausible reason why that should be so and I can't think of one myself. Usually in this country when there is not a good reason to deny somebody a right it is granted. That is the definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, something we say we hold dear.

Furthermore - why would we want to deny two adults who love each other the right to make a life-long legal committment to each other? Doesn't that benefit society as a whole (married people are more productive workers, more healthy, live longer, etc. and also any children involved are better off, no?)

On edit: Not being willing to call it marriage is just semantics - and therefore just being mean spirited. If a church doesn't want to bless the marriage, they have that right, but the state doesn't have the right to discriminate based on religion.

[elsiesummers]

46. Social Security Benefits

Death can deny a member of a gay couple the same social security benefits that other married people get.

It seems to me that many legalities, such as inheritance or adoption, could be taken care of by a lawyer, even without gay marriage. If a corporation offers partnership benefits, then health care benefits are the same.

But, without gay marriage (or a recognition of civil unions as offering the same benfits under the law as marriage), I don't see how gays will have the same right as heterosexual couples to social security benefits. So, that is a fairness issue - if by law gays are required to pay into the system - then why shouldn't they receive the same benefits? Gays were not offered the 911 survivor benefits, either.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

49. Who does gay marriage hurt???

If a church will "marry" you, more power to ya. The government should only be concerned with property rights and such. How anyone can be against loving partners, being committed to each other is beyond me.
I do have a question about the "separate but equal" thing, which I would hope we all understand is inherently UNEQUAL. My question is, how is it unequal when the same law applies to homosexual and heterosexual people? (i.e. I'm a straight male who is also not allowed to marry a gay male) O.K.,is that stupid, YES, but still. Is it an unfair law applied equally???
This whole thing has me thinking in loops. However, mostly thinking that the government should not poke it's nose in here. Any two adult human beings that want to form a union, should. That should be the end of it.

[lapislzi]

53. Separate is not equal

That is exactly what the civil rights struggle made crystal clear. You cannot have one set of rules for one kind of citizen and one set for another.

It also sets up a precedent for discrimination based on sexual orientation. How is that OK? Why should anyone legally be permitted to discriminate against anyone else. Why would that be OK?

Tell me, brainwashed_youth, how are you personally threatened by two people who love each other entering into a marriage? How does that affect your life? What exactly would you like to see happen among the gay community? "OK, be gay, just be quiet about it?"

Hmmm?

[Point_n_click]

59. The simple truth of things ...

Ask yourself this question:

Why should any tax paying citizen that contributes to society in some way be denied the rights available to any other tax paying citizen that contributes to society in some way?

Unless you can come up with some reasonable answer to the above question for denying someone a right the rest of our society has, then why deny the right?

[Misinformed01]

65. It doesn't matter whether you think it's a good idea or not

Other people's marriage has nothing to do with you; butt out.

[peabody71]

77. Equal rights. Seperation of Church and State.

period.
It is not about your opinion or anyone elses.

[noiretextatique]

81. does marriage "belong" to heterosexuals?

convince me that it does.

[arcane1]

84. hell no it doesn't.

marriage, despite what Bush prattles about, is a LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT:

Heteros can go to the courthouse and get married without any church involvement at all

they can NOT go to the church and get married without the court involved

religion is irrelevant to the issue, IMHO. Thus, as a legal issue, it is pure discrimination. Hetero couples are 100% totally unaffected by this. It's not their place to criticize, since they lose nothing.

NOTHING.

You G/L can have it, I've been married once, and there was nothing whatsoever sanctified about it. I fight for the sanctity of divorce! :silly:

long time no see, Noiretblu! :hi:

[noiretextatique]

87. hey there...this seems to be the crux of the issue

and it strikes me as very similar to other civil rights issues...namely: who "owns" rights? clearly in this country, the tradition has been that the "majority" (white, hetero, xtian, male, rich, etc) are the ones who truly "own" rights, and they mete them out to the rest of us at their discretion. unfortunately, too many of us buy in to this mentality as well.
i've never been a big fan of marriage (every one i've witnessed has been a colossal failure) but, i'd do it just to piss off the rw blowhards and their democratic friends :D
:hi: nice to see you. i may be having a little get-together for two of my friends who got married...i'll let you all know :hi:

[arcane1]

89. it was inter-racial marriage not too long ago

that was supposed to be detremental to society too... sigh...

I have yet to hear ONE person give ONE example of how married straight couples will be harmed by this. They only say "it will be" and nothing more...

the precedent they would set by amending the CONSTITUTION is chilling. 200 years pass, and now we use it to increase the right of gov't over the right of the people. I can't deal with that. It astounds me that they were so quickly able to have so many people saying it with a straight face (pardon the pun). The "Bill of Wrongs" it should be called...

I'd love to come to your get-together, keep me posted! :hi:

[hippiegranny]

82. no, how about you convince me

discrimination is ever right.

[ronnykmarshall]

85. Protest Bush's homophobia tonight - West Hollywood

West Hollywood Rally and Demonstration 7 p.m. Today

Say NO to Bush Call to Enshrine Discrimination Against GLBT People

WHERE: Corner of Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards,

West Hollywood (Rain Location: West Hollywood Auditorium, West Hollywood Park)


WHEN: 7 p.m. TODAY, Tuesday, Feb. 24 (Gather at 6:30 p.m.)


This morning, President Bush called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages, thus permanently relegating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to second-class status.

If passed, this would be the first time in history that the U.S. Constitution has been used to deny rights to an entire class of people.

Join the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the City of West Hollywood, the National Black AIDS Institute, Metropolitan Community Church, Bienestar, Lambda Legal, the Family Pride Coalition and other community organizations in saying NO to this attempt to enshrine prejudice and discrimination in our U.S. Constitution!

For more information about tonight's rally, call 323-860-5858.

[Book Lover]

88. No, see, you contradict yourself, kiddo

Because if you really knew a few gay people (like your bisexual father, right?) then you would not have to tell the rest of us that you know gay folks.

You should also become a bit more familiar with the history of the institution of marriage. What we practice here in the US derives from medieval european practice. The position of the Church is that marriage does not happen until the bond in the hearts of the celebrants takes place. That does not happen at the wedding; that bond should have already happened. The wedding merely makes public what has already taken place.

[mondo joe]

92. I'll give you a few reasons. Here they are.

1. THe equal protection clause of the united states constitution forbids barring a "suspect class" from the rights or privileges offered by the state.

2. There's no real reason to bar homosexuals from mrriage.

3. Right now we have a patchwork quilt of rights and benefits from state to state for gays and their families - it creates chaos and confusion in the juducial system - it would be greatly simplify things if gays could simply be married

4. If in fact marriage is intended to promote child rearing and families it should be available to the millions of gay families raising children. By barring them from marriage you are making second class citizens of their children as well.

5. There is a pandemic, AIDS, that afflicts a high percentage of gay men. It is advantageous to promote lasting monogamous relationships to those men, to mitigate AIDS transmission.

6. Gay citizens pay into the system through taxes but are denied many of the benefits. They can not grant Social Security survivor benefits, even though a gay cuople will put $ into the Social Security system.

7. There are over 1000 rights and responsibilities automatically conferred with marriage that are denied to these couples. This is NOT a minor inconvenience.

[brainwashed_youth]

96. wow, first good argument I've heard

That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. I fully support giving gays the same insurance benefits and such that we straight people enjoy. I'm just very uneasy calling it a "marriage".


Thanks for kindly laying out ur argument rather than being a complete asshole and making me madder than I already am.

[noiretextatique]

99. "marriages" that make me queasy

include george bush's...i am sure there are plenty of other examples. it's ironic (and sad) that he is the self-appointed protector of hetero marrigage, considering he's been absent from his own marriage for most of its duration.

[brainwashed_youth]

108. duly noted

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

197. Afraid of a simple word?

I had this argument with my roommate, despite my insistence that I didn't want to talk about it.
With a divorce rate ABOVE 50%, an infidelity rate probably near the same rate, why should the word "marriage" be so damn protected? There's no "sanctity" involved when it's advertised on television in a multitude of reality shows.
It's "tradition" you're supporting, an argument that never holds water. It was also "tradition" for the woman to stay at home and never get a job. It was also "tradition" for whites to never marry blacks.
It was also "tradition" for wealthy land owners to OWN blacks.
I honestly can't understand why someone can "be in favor of civil unions" (I don't believe you, personally.) and yet say "No, you can't call it a marriage."
Why are you uneasy calling it "Marriage"?
Like I said. It's a word.
"Free men" once meant white land owners. Nobody else.

[Q]

94. What a sad thread...

- Ignorance is bliss as so many Americans don't care to understand our Constitution.

[Solly Mack]

100. My grandfather viewed women not voting the same way (inconvenience)

Fortunately, women found it inconvenient too......... and did something about it.



It's inconvenient to point out that America has a Constitution and in that Constitution we have the 14th amendment. It's incovenient to point out that we got the 14th amendment because many Americans found slavery (discrimination) convenient while slaves (and a few others) found it inconvenient. It was inconvenient that the struggle didn't end there. It was inconvenient that it took another 100 years to make freedom for black Americans convenient. (though still not convenient to some)

Freedom and Justice for all is inconvenient....it steps on the toes of those who would rather limit the freedom of others.

[oldcoot]

102. Convince me that heterosexual marriage is a good thing

There is sufficient evidence that heterosexual marriage is not a good thing. Heterosexuals abuse each other, they get married and divorced for the wrong reasons (for example: wanting a younger spouse), and they ignore their obligations (for example: refusing to pay child support). Heterosexuals are even willing to marry complete strangers on television for attention. One could argue that heterosexual marriages should be banned because of the immoral behavior of many heterosexuals.

[skippysmom]

105. It's the right thing to do

It's a fairness issue, if you ask me. Lesbian and gay couples should have the same rights my husband and I do.

[rbnyc]

110. A few reasons:

Dee, a lesbian woman who was in a loving monogamous relationship for more than 50 years with the same woman, who was very sick at the end of her life and whose homophobic family barred Dee from making decisions about her care, cut her out of the entire process so that she was isolated and helpless at the time of her partner's death. If they had been allowed to legally marry, Dee would have been spared that pain and may not be suffering from deep depression today.

Tom, who's male life partner was killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th, and who was never offered the kinds of legal services and recognition that was so readily available to legally married survivors.

Terry, who spent at least 8 months and thousands of dollars drawing up legal contracts to provide a fraction of the protections for her and her female partner that are automatically attributed to straight couples who marry.

John, who was not allowed to be in the paper work when he and his male partner adopted their son and was therefor prevented from visiting his son and providing him comfort when he was admitted to the emergency room with a high fever by his school.

Those are just a few reasons. I hope you take them seriously.

EDIT: Changed names, as these are actual people with whom I work at the community center.

[brainwashed_youth]

111. I do

that's why I am for civil unions.

[rbnyc]

112. Well, that's better than nothing.

Tho, I have trouble with the whole "don't call it marriage, because that's sacred" argument, as we allow straights who have secular weddings to call it marriage.

[brainwashed_youth]

113. not saying it's "sacred"

it's just that gay "marriage" makes me very uneasy

[arcane1]

114. why is that?

:shrug:

[brainwashed_youth]

116. because...

I feel that marriage is between one man and one woman and I see no reason to change that.

[noiretextatique]

117. do people like brittany give you pause...at all?

if you recall, she got married for 24 hours. meanwhile, a lesbian couple who had been together for 50 years got married in SF last week. that marriage will probably last longer than 24 hours.

[brainwashed_youth]

120. actually

yes, yes it does. And I hate all these reality shows that make marriage out to be a joke. But still, I believe that marriage is one man and one woman.

[noiretextatique]

127. that's PURE FANTASY...i hope you know that

by your definition, most marriages don't exist. or do you mean one man and one woman...at a time? most people i know have been divorced at least one, several two or three times. yeah...one man, one woman, at a time.

[brainwashed_youth]

129. since you want to get technical

yes, one man and one woman at a time. And i also happen to think divorce is a bigger and more pressing concern than gay marriage. I come from a divorced family, so I know how bad it can be However, it's not gonna make me change my mind on gay marriage.

[noiretextatique]

131. your mind doesn't have to change, since it doesn't concern you

and since it doesn't your personal opinions about it don't matter. the question i pose to you is: do you support civil rights, or just those you "agree with" personally?
it's an important question...the one i pose to all my liberal friends who are troubled by this issue. if you support the concept of civil rights, then your personal opinions should govern only how you live, not limit the ability of other consenting adults to live as they choose to live. it's quite simple...really.

[arcane1]

134. good point that is often overlooked:

if you're not gay, this issue is really none of your damned business. It has NO EFFECT AT ALL on heterosexual couples. NONE.

Divorce wouldn't be half the problem it is, if not for the fact that we straight people grow up under constant pressure to get married in the first damned place.

[arcane1]

128. ah, well. Your opinion is yours

others disagree.

Why should it only be a man and woman?

[kayell]

123. Baptists make me very uneasy

does that mean there should be a constitutional amendment so that they are forbidden from breeding more little baptists?

Uneasy is pretty poor justification for denying people a civil right.

[brainwashed_youth]

125. too bad

it ain't up to me. It's up to President Bush and Congress to deny you ur civil right....and it looks like they're gonna do just that

[yellowcanine]

143. not so fast - the amendment hasn't passed yet.

Need two thirds vote in each house and then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify. It is not at all clear this is going to pass either house let alone get ratified by 3/4 ot the states. It is not going to happen any time soon. Bush actually has no real power in the process - so it is clear this is just a political campaign move on his part.

[Lars39]

152. Why do I get the sense you are jumping up and down with glee?

The government tampering with anyone's civil rights ought to be objected to by everyone.

[indigo32]

154. But BY

you asked us to lay out the reasons Gay Marriage should be allowed... and over and over agian we spoke of basic Civil Rights...all the things we are denied, and in the end you admitt it all comes down to you, and President Bush and Congress "Feeling Uneasy" about it.

What exactly do you expect us to say to that?

I'm sure, in fact I know, during the AA Civil Rights movement (and even today)... there are those that feel "uneasy" about AA people. Ya'll are going to have to get over it because it doesn't concern YOU. The courts, with some providence will rule that the constitution says ALL OF US have equal rights. As far as Pres Bush and the ammendment go, well I'm not so sure it'll pass.

[indigo32]

161. Still waiting for an answer

eom

[brainwashed_youth]

163. I told you what I thought about it

scan the page up if you missed it

[indigo32]

166. I read all this thread

I was just trying to boil down the jist of your original request and our answers.
You're basically saying... I don't feel good about this, make me feel better about this (said reason would be translatable to alot of folks in these polls you talk about I'd wager). What exactly do you expect us to say in the face of that? I'm not elequent enough I think.

[brainwashed_youth]

170. just give me a reason

why gay "marriage"(not civil unions, I've already said that I support them) is a good thing and why it's a valid subject

[noiretextatique]

174. why not MARRIAGE?

i posted a definition of marriage for you...yours is but one of several definitions. why not expand your definition and your consciousness instead of asking people to dismish theirs to fit your narrow view? why should your limited definition of marriage be THE definition?

[indigo32]

178. Because

1. it's the right thing to do.
2. because I'm willing to concede there is power and respect in the word... and I don't feel I should be deprived of it.

[rbnyc]

184. But civil unions don't...

...I don't get it. Can you explain why?

[noiretextatique]

115. right on, rbnyc...are "liberals" arguing for a theocracy?

i mean who advance the "sanctity of marriage" argument?

[molly]

119. Why is ANY marriage a good idea?

we don't NEED to get married - it's our choice. It should be every legal adult's choice.

[guitar man]

121. I'm a straight white guy

I should have no ax to grind one way or the other about this issue since it doesn't affect me,right?

WRONG. These wingnut fucks are tampering with the 14th amendment with this horseshit "amendment" being proposed and it has me concerned about not only the outright denial of the right of gays to marry,but the precedent it may set for future denials of equal protection for any other groups or individuals. Remember who is pushing this thing and don't forget to pay attention to "the man behind the curtain."

Let's not forget,we are not talking about a group that is trying to gain their rights,the right of gays to marry ALREADY EXISTS under the Constitution,just like minority rights already existed prior to the Civil Rights act of 1964.It's just that the rights ahve not been RECOGNIZED. Now we have a fuckstick jingoistic asshat in the White House trying to move backwards instead of forwards.

I had this conversation with my wingnut sister-in-law last week.She started in about how she didn't like the idea of gays getting married and supported the idea of the amendment and yada yada yada.....
I told her how I felt and she said "surely you don't like the idea of gay people being allowed to get married?" I explained to her that it doesn't make a flying fuck what I liked or she liked or the "majority" of holier than thou wingnut fanatics liked,it is no reason to deny the rights of any group or individual.In short,no majority in this country is allowed to dictate to any minority(or individual). If they were,surely the shade of platinumesque blonde she has currently tortured her hair into would be illegal.

Finally,I just asked her how gays being allowed to marry would affect her life,liberty or property. When she couldn't answer,I left her with a "well,there's your answer"

We do NOT need to dick with the Constitution over this.

[distortionmarshall]

careful there sonnyboy....

that's the kinda talk that'll lose you the south for a generation.....

lol - mebbe there's hope....

haven't seen it much commented on, tho i'm sure it's not far from a lotta peoples' minds here: i can't get over the fact that it's REPUBLICANS trying the amend the constitution so that peoples' rights are limited..... kinda of a piece with fiscal irresponsibility, i suppose.....

[guitar man]

149. It doesn't surprise me

The only "rights" most repukes are in favor of are for those that agree with them. Mostly,the repuke idea if "rights" has to do with the "right" of corporations and huge churches to steal all they want without government interference.

[ronnykmarshall]

139. Right ON GTRMAN!

I love the responce from your Sis-in-law. <cue crickets>

[guitar man]

189. Yeah,it was pretty funny

When she came up empty. She finally said "I'm just worried about what it will do to our country" My reply was: "What country? Your party has turned us from a nation into one huge marketplace that hides behind religion to mask their motivies for their selfish pursuit of profit,like the moneychangers Jesus drove from the Temple"

<cue pin drop>

[HornBuckler]

Beautiful - Simpyl Beautiful

Werd

[Lars39]

133. Are you old enough to vote?

[brainwashed_youth]

136. yup

why?

[buddhamama]

137. i'm just asking for someone to tell why it is NOT a good idea

Human/Civil Rights is enough for me--why not for you?
that, and the fact that it is none of my frickin' business,
and if two people love each other and want to spend their lives together who the Fuck am I to say they can't.

More Power to Them !

[Deja Q]

140. Why are you against it is a much better question, wouldn't you agree?

From there we can reach a compromise. And I also want to know why "Yes, they're equal but we can't have them do that." Capisce?

Men and women can marry and divorce all they want and be puerile childish dipshits like Britney and play games with the system, have star trek (or other) themed 'weddings', have "multiple matromonies" as performed by faux priests on sleazy morning radio shows, and so on...

But it's wrong for a pair of men or a pair of women to be recognized, even though they're just as serious as the next couple, as well as being infinitely more so than Britt-Brat.

Don't put me on trial with your sublime bigotry, thanks all the same.

All I want is to have my partner and I to be recognized. Not rejected by some irrational rationalizing of prejudice.

In other words, I'm all for civil unions and government recognition. You can keep your concept "marriage" all safe and secure and unfettered by us (homosexuals), as ordained by a religion that's just like the others: Twisted by unsavory people over the centuries so that the original meanings were lost. (Sodom and Gomorrah was about people being greedy and unkind to each other, not wrath on homosexuals. Also note, America is turning into the modern day equivalent of S&G because of the greed and unkindness... we should be scared for real, actually.)

[shihtzu5]

141. The same rights; nothing more, nothing less

Gay and lesbian persons just want the same rights as heterosexuals; nothing more, nothing less. They wish to live openly in society with the person whom they love, sharing the joy and sorrow marriage entails for a lifetime.
Civil unions, although a start, confers rights to gay partners piecemeal. The word "marriage" grants gays and lesbians the same rights, immediately, as straight members of society; not only the same rights, but ALL RIGHTS.
Doesn't seem like too much to ask. And why should we care if that nice young couple of men down the street (whose yard is always the neatest and has the most unique landscaping) enjoy the benefits of a marriage license or not?

[buddhamama]

145. i am offended by your post

"Keep in mind that I view gays not being able to marry as an inconvenience, not a a pressing matter."

How convenient for YOU not to be "inconvenienced" in this way.
How nice of YOU to decide that Inequality is OK for some.
How nice for YOU since you obviously are not Gay and do not have to INCONVENIENCED at ALL.

You have no idea what it is like to be told,
YOU can't be YOU, and You are not accepted. You can't love and marry whom you wish because 'WE' don't approve. You won't be offered the same protections of marriage that hetero couples have.
Shit, if they could they'd be segregated to SAN FRAN or some where
so the "GOOD FOLKS", wouldn't have to SOIL themselves everyday with the Sight of PEOPLE. Yeah, i know, it is easy to forget BUT, GAYS are People too.

It is a Pressing Matter to ME, and a whole Lot of other People
So you'll have to excuse me If I continue to INCONVENIENCE YOU
and PRESS THIS MATTER.

[brainwashed_youth]

156. at least you didn't call me homophobic

if it makes you feel better, I do support civil unions. Or is that not good enough....?

[Liberalboy]

160. I have always said

Call it Civil Unions, call it marriage, call it dogshit - I don't care as long as I get all the same rights.

I'm so defeated right now, so tired of all the argueing and hatred. I made up my mind and moving to Canada. I'm so over the hatred and anger I see on TV, the internet and the papers.


Sigh

[noiretextatique]

169. i may go to canada too...but i am not yet willing to concede the word

marriage to people who claim it as their exclusive right and sacred privilege, yet would deign to *allow* me to have a civil union, so as to keep their illusions of superiority intact.

[Solly Mack]

185. Thank you!!! That damn "allow" word has been chapping my ass

throughout this thread.


The arrogance of those who think they can "allow" others their freedom. How big of them, huh? If one has the power to "allow" a freedom then they have the power to disallow it as well.....so much for having "rights"


Either we all have rights or it's ALL one big LIE.

[noiretextatique]

187. exactly, solly

:hi: the arrogance/superiority is so engrained in some...they can't even recognize it when it is operating. this, of course, is the one biggest problem we face in this country...convincing people that they don't have the right to control other people:

because they are uncomfortable or afraid
because someone interprets a book a certain way that appeals to them (sacred hatred)
because of the tradition of superiority/inferiority of some over others
because of: POWER

when all is said and done...isn't this really just about a bunch of people punishing a bunch of other people...because they CAN?

sheesh...it chaps my ass too :grr:

[buddhamama]

227. why should i bother to state the obvious--

if i rewrote your post,
using Africans American in place of Gays would you think i was Prejudice?

i sure as hell would.

as soon as someone says something like I am not homophobic, i am not prejudice BUT...warning bells go off and you just know they are full of shit.

[randr]

147. Hetero Marriages produce a fair share of suffering

when you look at the current divorce rate, especially among the evangelicals, spousal abuse, single parent homes, etc.. No one is suggesting we outlaw them--yet.
If B* was serious he would not send any married men or women with children to war. Now that would be a compassionate, pro family statement for him, if he were so inclined to anything resembling compassion that is.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

158. Logophobic: Fear of words

or rather one word...marriage, meaning something more than "one man, one woman." our friend prefers to limit his definition soley to 1) a). perhaps it's just a fear of definitions 1) b) - 3 :shrug:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1)
a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b) The state of being married; wedlock.
c) A common-law marriage.
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2) A wedding.
3) close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4)Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

[Lisaben2619]

155. There are at least 1049 reasons for gay marriage

Please refer to
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

[distortionmarshall]

167. good nuff for me....

the rights of consenting adults shall not be infringed upon by the government, so long as they don't interfere with anyone else's rights...

let the church discriminate all it wants - not the government...

[Malva Zebrina]

171. I don't care if it is a good thing or a bad thing or anything in between

it is the same as any other legal definition of a marriage, imo.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indigo32]

181. You're the most liberal person I'll ever meet?

I don't think so...
I don't know where all this came from... but at the moment I'm tempted to just say go ahead and vote for Bush... you don't want to hear anything I have to say.

[brainwashed_youth]

182. are you being sarcastic?

if you are, I still wouldn't say "fuck the fags".

[noiretextatique]

186. i hear this paranoid bullshit a lot

from people who don't remember that the rw vowed to make this an issue in the november election. the answer, apparently, is to "wait" until after the election, but of course, the rw was bound and determined to make this an issue. i, for one, don't expect gays and lesbians to take a goddamn thing for the team.

[tedoll78]

188. Easy: it's the constitutional thing.

"All persons born or naturalized" are guaranteed "equal protection of the laws."

Note the absoluteness of this guarantee. It didn't say "all straight persons..", and it didn't say ".. except for marriage law."

There is no exception for gay people or marriage laws in the Constitution with regard to its guarantee of equal treatment for all.

The Chimp calling for an amendment is basically an admission by him that he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in terms of justifying this discrimination. Otherwise, he wouldn't need this amendment.

[brainwashed_youth]

194. protection?

the issue isn't protection, it's about the privilege(not right) to marry

[tedoll78]

196. "Equal protection of the laws"

is the concept that all laws apply equally to all citizens. Take a class in constitutional law; it's a very basic concept.

In such a class, you'd also learn about the layer cake theory, which states that the Constitution is on top of the cake. Federal laws are next; they are subject/inferior to the restrictions of the US Constitution. State laws are next; they are subject/inferior to federal laws and the US Constitution. Local laws, and so on..

So, given that the US Constitution requires that ALL laws (federal, state, local) treat ALL persons as equal.. you're right that there's no constitutional right to marry. However, there is a right that the laws be applied EQUALLY (see 'Equal Protection'). First, remember that civil marriage is a law, and is thus covered by the US Constitution. Second, given that a man can marry a woman, and given that Equal Protection requires that men and women be treated equally by all laws, a woman should also have a right to marry a woman. (and vice-versa).


edit: also, I note that this was the same argument used against interracial marriages in the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia. The Supreme Court decided that there are no special exceptions to equal protection for marriage laws (unanimously). There is no "It makes me feel icky, so let's ignore this guarantee of equality" clause in the Constitution.

[megatherium]

190. Lesbians are fine but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one?

Is that what you're trying to say?

But seriously, I think we should treasure gay relationships just as we treasure straight relationships, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to do so through marriage. It serves the interests of society to encourage monogamy given the danger from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Now if I can only meet a nice man...

[brainwashed_youth]

193. you want me to put that bluntly?

[myopic4141]

191. Marriage: One man, one woman?

Convincing one of goodness or badness is not the issue. If a tradition is wrong, then change will occur to make it right. Even Biblical tradition is not immune from change for if one were to truly have studied the history of scriptures, one would know that marriage did not start out as a union between a single man and a single woman. Marriage got its biblical start as one man and many women; however, through marriage contracts of Aramaic case law (mostly in Elephantine around 5th century BCE) evolved to one man and one woman. Yes, they actually had prenuptial contacts then. Some changes to marriage via contact law were: The Deuteronomic law of divorce (24:1) which gave the husband sole right to dissolve the marriage was circumvented via scribes ignoring the bill of divorce in the contract which in turn granted rights to both parties; The bride-price (the mohar of the Bible) was altered to be returned to the bride upon divorce in full upon divorce should the husband be at fault; Established the monogamous structure of the union via inserting clauses into the contract sanctioned by pecuniary penalties prohibiting concubinage; and designating inheritance rights of the spouse. Just to be clear, these changes in marriage came about not because of changes to scripture nor legislative action; but via development of the marriage contract. Marriage is a tradition that evolves over time, not fixed as we are led to believe.

[FreeState]

192. Why aren’t civil unions enough?

Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not. Consider:

Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.

Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire – let alone California or any other state.

more....


http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Marriage3&CONTENTID=16388&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Joe Momma]

195. convince me

that i am right in supporting a cause that so many gays do not support, or find to be so far down on their priority list, as to be unimportant.

convince me that speaking down on someone that is open to gay rights in any way is the way to win these civil rights.

convince me that middle and upper-class gays face the same struggle as blacks and jews today or yesterday or 100 years ago. so much so that they vote for the party that puts a few extra bucks in their pockets every may.

i am for civil unions. i am for marriage if it is called civil unions and civil unions if it is called marriage.

what are you doing to spread your message if you are in this situation? i don't see any gays speaking up where i live. i speak up. maybe all the gays where i am are going to vote for a fascist. just to teach us that aren't not to be bigots and hypocrites.

hey, you can tread on my rights but not on my paycheck.

please get your own house in order before you kick down my door. meanwhile, i will vote for the party that helps those that are discriminated against. and i will speak up for gay right to marry or civil union or whatever i do that they cannot.

i will sneak the question in again, in case anyone can answer: why did so many gays vote for gwb?

[noiretextatique]

199. did SO MANY gays vote for gwb?

i suspect the ones who did are mostly white and male, just like MOST of the people who voted for gwb.

[Joe Momma]

209. i have said the same thing

it is not popular. i have heard that 1 in 4 gays are either stupid or gullible. i don't believe that.

[minkyboodle]

213. see post 212

for a reply

[Joe Momma]

216. is it not the case

that a large number of gays do not see this as an important issue? i am not positive, but i am pretty sure that a higher percentage of blacks felt that civil rights were more important than their wallets in the 60's. why can't gays face this as an issue and take it on? i suggest confronting these people with the same hostility that those who support this issue are confronted. maybe we can turn this "huge majority".

[MurikanDemocrat]

201. Why must we convince you it's a good thing??

I have not read this thread, but I have a couple problems with how your posed this issue and your mind set.

Civil Rights are not a matter of convincing individuals it might be a good thing and more than just an inconvenience. The question is whether GLBT's are ENTITLED to Equal Rights, i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, just like every other citizen.

I don't think 2 year olds are good things, and they are damned inconvenient, but we can't ban them. Sheesh!

And why should this be up to your arbitrary approval anyway? This isn't something a parent must consider for a child, we are talking about adult human beings with rights. They are equals according to the Constitution as it stands. What we are talking about is an amendment that seeks to TAKE AWAY their rights, not give them something they aren't already entitled to.

[scottxyz]

214. Try this:

Convince me that <interracial> marriage is a good thing

Alright, I'm gonna come right out and say that I am not for <interracial> marriage....but I could be convinced to change my mind. What would you say to me to get me to change my mind. Keep in mind that I view <people of two races> not being able to marry as an inconvenience, not a a pressing matter.

I'm not <racist> and have know quite a few very nice <colored> people, I'm just asking for someone to tell me why <interracial> marriage is a good idea.

Also try reading Bruce Bagemihl's "Biologicall Exuberance" in case you still think there's anything "unnatural" about two males or two females loving each other and forming a relationship.

Homosexuality happens all the time, all through the world, all through history, in all species.

= = =

Now, while we're on this topic, perhaps you could convince ME why we should amend our Constitution to deprive one group of people their natural inalienable rights and equality?

= = =

And if I can't convince you, perhaps gay conservative Andy Sullivan can:

WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_02_22_dish_archive.html#107764340071973047

= = =

So what it really comes down to is that while gay marriage (or equal right for OTHER people) might not be a GOOD thing (for you), BANNING it would be a bad thing - for your country.

Since you're not gay, you might think it's not about you, so it doesn't matter if another group of people in your country are deprived of their rights.

Perhaps you KNOW or are related to somebody who's gay, and who would like to have equal rights and equal protections under the Constitution. Think about that. Would you feel comfortable amending the US Constitution to deny a friend or relative the same rights you enjoy?

[kiahzero]

222. One day, in the 1950s

"Alright, I'm gonna come right out and say that I am not for civil rights....but I could be convinced to change my mind. What would you say to me to get me to change my mind. Keep in mind that I view blacks not being able to drink from the same fountain as an inconvenience, not a a pressing matter.

I'm not racist and have know quite a few very nice black people, I'm just asking for someone to tell me why civil rights are a good idea."

How's it feel to be a bigot?

[rman]

228. i guess whoever said that is not a civilian.

I mean, why would any civilian give up their rights?
And why would any civilian believe anyone who says it'd be better if we'd not have civil rights?

[kiahzero]

229. I'll admit... you've utterly confused me

If you look closely at my reply, you'll notice that I've simply swapped "gays" and "gay marriage" for "blacks" and "civil rights." It was an analogy - equal rights = equal rights.