If we have won the war in regards to interracial marriage being legal...?

Question

then what is so terrible about the idea of gay marriage? Shouldn't it be all about people having the same amount of rights? And doesn't the "treat people as you would like to be treated" mantra also come into effect?

I don't care if you disapprove of their lifestyle, or if your religion tells you to hate them because of what they do behind closed doors. The thing we should remember more than anything is that they are PEOPLE and they come with the same feelings the rest of us do. Ergo... they deserve the same amount of rights we do. The right to a tax break for being married. And the right to make major decisions for the other, especially for something as important as a decision involving life support.

And- guess what- they will continue to lead their lifestyles the way they choose to, whether other people like it or not. If they're already living together, what is so terrible about a piece of paper?

Does the 7-year "live-in-marriage" law work in terms of gay couples?

all right fine... I used the wrong wording. How about "acceptable" then, in terms of interracial marriages?

Dog- it is a "nasty idea" to treat another person as just being another person? Wow, I feel so sorry for you for being so ignorant.

As I've mentioned many a time before, Massachusetts has had gay marriage legal and the sky hasn't fallen because of it.

Answer 1

The same ignorant tripe is used to deny gay couples marriage that were used to try and stop interracial marriage. States have voted on civil rights, and because of that this issue will end up in the USSC in the not so far future. Historically the USSC kicks back hard against states that think they can parcel out civil rights, and this won't be any different. Massachusetts will be one of the main positives in this concern. As you said, none of the really stupid slippery slope arguments have come about because of MA, God hasn't struck MA with a plague, and straight couples continue to marry and pop out kids without a drop in percentage. Massachusetts will be the perfect test case to show that none of the arguments that these idiots pose against gay marriage holds water. I suspect that gay marriage will be legal and as common as interracial marriage within the next 20 years.

Answer 2

"they deserve the same amount of rights we do." Those are key words to why there is resistance. Alot of what is associated with being gay are things we don't tolerate from straight people but are expected to tolerate from gays. I don't agree with most of the arguments usually presented for or against gay marriage. I think I must be the odd woman out. I will try to elaborate and hope it makes sense.
I have nothing against same sexed love or sexual contact. I am dead set against sodomy, the practice, the damage it does to the body, and the teaching of it as ok. I have no trouble with gay men having contact with children. I have a problem with men looking at either boys or girls as sex objects or future sex objects. It's not ok when straight MEN look at little girls, so definitely not ok when gays are looking at boys that way. I have no trouble with people forming their own families traditional or non traditional. My problem is when a gay couple and their adopted child can have more legal rights and be considered more a family than an engaged unmarried straight couple and his mother. In my state they already have partnership laws and it sometimes seem they have more access to the protection under these laws than straight people do.
If tax laws or hospital access are real issues, these can each be addressed in such a way that they benefit EVERYONE discriminated against by those laws, but not just single out gays and offer special rights to them. And definitely don't offer them rights denied any other decent person in society. Because it becomes very easy to blur the line between right and wrong based on personal quirks and desires rather than an agreed upon norm of ethics and morality.

Answer 3

I don't think the analogy holds, no matter what one thinks of same-sex marriage.

Just about all legal distinctions by race (but for affirmative action, etc.) are prohibited. Good, I say! One cannot discriminate based on race in housing, employment, school admissions, etc. And segregation - "separate but equal" - has been left in our dark past as well. Put simply, the law generally does not recognize distinctions based on race.

But men and women are different - they are, and should be equal in the eyes of the law, but they are not identical or interchangeable. NO AMOUNT OF LEGISLATION will make them so. (They're a matched set!) And our law recognizes this. There are "segregated" bathrooms in public buildings, and no court has said it's illegal. So there's a concrete illustration of what, for thousands of years and until only a few years ago, was abundantly obvious to all. It's biology. And I never mentioned religion once. Blame Darwin, not Jesus.

And I doubt very much whether many of the blacks and others who fought and died in the civil rights movement would see same-sex marriage as the same issue.

Same-sex marriage may or may not be a good idea, but I do not believe that our constitution compels the recognition of such unions. This is a matter left to the people, acting through their representatives.

Answer 4

Why don't we also rearrange all the major US cities to create a peace sign visible from space...

I disagree with them deserving all the rights that hetero couples have. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Tax breaks? Sharing health insurance? Why? Because of the life style they chose? No, don't think so.

Then comes adoption. No, again, I don't think so. If you cannot create a child in your relationship (unless it's a MEDICAL issue), then you're not supposed to have children. Two poles, or two holes just aren't made to create a child.

You might as well start arguing about the illegal immigrants rights. Not that being gay should be illegal, but as far as arguing about rights goes..gay marriage, illegal immigrants amnesty...

Answer 5

It's a non-issue. Marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman. No exceptions. All other "domestic unions" are fraudulent. Next, someone will want to legalize the union of women and giraffes, men and turtles, etc. God considers unnatural unions an abomination. End of discussion. Case closed.

Answer 6

I agree, I am a religiously pious man. But in terms of law and what our country is to represent. Gay marriage should be legal. And my opposing question to Christian conservatives is: How does 2 men or 2 women invade the "sanctity" of your marriage?". This phrase is always used but I don't understand it. Unless the husband of a marriage is going off having extra-marital relations with another man, or a wife of a marriage is going off having extra-marital relations with another woman. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the "sanctity" of your marriage. I plan on being married next year, just because 2 gay guys get married , how does that stain the marriage to my wife? I just don't get it.

Answer 7

I have no problem with it...Did you see the dialogue on Logo?
I thought it was well done even though only two candidates actually said out right that they have no problem with gay marriage. Congressman Dennis Kucinich ,(who is my favorite candidate anyway), was very open and responded accordingly (I'm going to have to send him another contribution).
If two consenting adults want to get married why do the rapture rights and religious fundamentalists have such a problem with it? One of the reason is they're not secure in their own sexuality. Another is Homophobic responses to their own conceptions of morality. This is another EXACT REFLECTION as the Islamic extremists hold the same views and homosexuals are executed in Tehran. These perceptions are aggrandized, self righteous, and self centered, exacerbated delusions of a close minded and intolerant society.

Answer 8

I'm sorry I'm not sure that I am able to answer your question, but if we are talking equality here for all couples, heterosexual and homosexual then the 7-year "live-in-marriage" law SHOULD be applied.
So isn't love between any two humans one of the most important things in life. Good for you.

Answer 9

Your logic is flawed. Marriage is between a man and a woman. People of different races can marry legally.
Homosexuality is an aberration. It ain't normal behavior. No amount of twisting the truth will ever make the abnormal behavior accepted or legal. The homo marriage thing is just an attempt by a small minority to become mainstream.

Answer 10

Thank you for putting into words what I feel. I don't understand what the huge fuss about this is. It says in our Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and by not giving gay couple the same rights as heterosexuals, we are denying them their rights.


EDIT: Spoken like a true homophobe, Penelope...