Where do you Stand on Gay Marriage?

You said what I was trying to say, only better.

In a total aside, and waaaay off topic, what is a winter libertarian?

A winter libertarian is one who is a libertarian not when things are all pleasant and sunny (like in summer), but is one even when the environment is harsh and unwelcoming.

Something I was thinking about a long time ago.

Of course gays should be allowed to marry. Why should they be happy?

what does brown hair have to do with sex in the bedroom?
thats quite the logic you got going there

Originally posted by junglelord
what does brown hair have to do with sex in the bedroom?
thats quite the logic you got going there

What BH is getting at is how society has stigmatized a group based on a natural trait.

She just replaced homosexuality with brown hairedness.

Do you know the term "analogy"? It means a likeness in circumstances. I used an "analogy" to help demonstrate why many gay people are somewhat defined by their gay-ness in answer to your question. I'm sorry I can't think of simpler terms in which to relay my point so that you can understand.

Let's try this...

Originally posted by junglelord
so why should it define you>

You see, gay people have been shamed their entire life and forced to hide their sexuality. They were told that they were sick, shameful, an embarrassment and going to hell because of it. They are not given the same rights under the law as heterosexuals. They identify with other gay people and their sexuality has sometimes become a larger part of who they are than many heterosexuals.

Many have gotten together with other gay people and decided that there's nothing wrong being gay. They have meetings and celebrate their sexuality. They have gay parades and proclaim that they refuse to be ashamed of the way God made them! They have come out in public and stood up and said that they're proud to be gay! They identify themselves as proud gay people!

Next time, I'll try to remember that you don't understand analogies and I'll be more literal.

Originally posted by iori_komei
She just replaced homosexuality with brown hairedness.

Brown hair is not a behavior, so it's not a valid analogy.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by iori_komei
She just replaced homosexuality with brown hairedness.

Brown hair is not a behavior, so it's not a valid analogy.

They are both naturally occurring biological feature, so it is a valid comparison.

Homosexuality is not a behavior either.

Having sex is a behavior, but the state of homosexuality is the way someone is born. It's part of who they are. Just like hair color, eye color, gender and personality.

Jesus enjoined us to love. What is important is that we love...the gender of who we love is incidental.

Originally posted by grover
What is important is that we love...the gender of who we love is incidental.

We're not talking about love, in the sense that Jesus spoke of. We're talking about marriage.

I love my mother, father, brother, and sister, but I won't be marrying them.

I do my best to love my neighbor, as myself, but I can't marry them all, regardless of what sex they are.

There is no rational argument for same-sex marriage.

We might agree that people can have sex with whomever they please, including family members, but there still is no compelling reason for them to marry.

We might decide that you can put your same-sex roommate, your dog, cat, and your parakeet on your health insurance, but you can't make a rational arguement for marrying them.

Marriage is a living arrangement between two people that has a social benefit, but that is often a burden on those who commit to one. Because of that burden, societies, governments, and corporations offer benefits to offset the costs.

Those who desire to marry members of their own sex are unconcerned with benefitting society and society has no obligation to offer benefits to their living arrangement, indeed, society has no obligation to offer benefits to anyone's living arrangement, but because the union between a man and a woman is likely to yield children, the society and the state, have a vested interest in the future of those kids and the environment in which they grow up.

When we started paying women to breed outside the institution of marriage, we stepped out onto the slippery slope and now, this is where we are, trying to rationalize an absolute absurdity.

I am straight, married and a parent. I am also a Christian. A real one. Not one of those wankers who presume to tell others of their own damnation because they don't obey the rigid morays set forth by the tyrannical 'Christian" right.

To begin.....in the Protestant church, which most of these 'Evangelicals' claim to be, there are only two "sacraments" in the church. The Lord's Supper" (Communion, minus trasubstantiation) and Baptism.

Marriage is not considered to be a sacrament.

Therefore, while marriage may be BLESSED by a church, it is essentially a civil union, and therefore an issue for government, not church to decide.

I do not feel that a same-sex couple's union in any way negates my own union. What business is it of mine if a couple chooses to wed, regardless of sexual orientation?

Yes, the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin. It also says that tattooing your body or wearing cloth woven of two fibers is sinful and it is a sin for a woman to cut her hair. The God I know also looks disdainfully on gossip, inhumanity to man and judging other people, when in fact, that is the job of the Creator. Not mine.

So when will the 'Christian" Right start burning at the stake people who wear a poly/cotton blend?

Or gossip about their neighbors?

Or (like several members of Christian Contemporary bands do) sport tattoos on their flesh?

Live and let live. You are not the judge of anyone, that is the job of the Lord. SO shut up and mind your own house, you hypocritical morons.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by eponymous67]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no rational argument for same-sex marriage.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't rational. There are plenty of rational reasons for a person to marry another person.

We might agree that people can have sex with whomever they please, including family members, but there still is no compelling reason for them to marry.

What is the compelling reason for me to marry? I can't have children. So would you have me not be allowed to get married? Simply because YOU see no compelling reason for ME to do so?

Those who desire to marry members of their own sex are unconcerned with benefitting society

How do you know this? And are you saying that part of the reason people get married is to benefit society? Sorry, that didn't even make the list when I got married.

When we started paying women to breed outside the institution of marriage,

Pardon me? What do you mean here?

As usual, no obligation to answer...

Look at it this way Grady ... two people meet and they fall in love and want to form a bond that cements their lives together ... as a sacrament, not a religious one, but a spiritual one between two people... why should we not honor that simply because those two people are of the same gender?

I'm not talking about ritual.

I'm not talking about commitment.

I'm not talking about love.

I'm talking about marriage.

Two persons of the same sex can do with one another as they please as far as I'm concerned, but there is no compelling reason to allow them to marry.

I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

If corporations want to let people put their goldfish on their healthcare, why should I care, but the state has no compelling reason to sanction marriages between or among members of the same sex.

I haven't heard one, yet, not here, not anywhere.

I don't really see a compelling reason to maintain the system we have now.

I'm married, and have kids, but would be more than fine if we simply removed the benefits of marriage, so far as the government is concerned.

I generally tend to disagree with selectivity in government benefits (which I'm not sure why there are ANY government benefits to anyone for any reason).

There is no compelling reason to allow homosexuals to get married. However, I'd say the same for anyone seeking permission from the government to do anything of the sort.

Government has traditionally offered benefits to families because strong families tend to produce strong, reliant, beneficial citizens.

It has no obligation to do so and, at this stage of the game, there would probably be no discernible macro-level effect if such were to cease tomorrow.

The die is cast.

When a man can marry a man, marriage will have no meaning and should be ignored by government completely.


[edit on 2007/6/2 by GradyPhilpott]

Personally I never wanted homosexuals to call what their union was marriage, simply because it's probably the slowest route (and the one to produce the most backlash) to getting what they want.

Honestly, marriage was ruined by heterosexuals far before the threat of homosexuals could happen. There is a far larger social illness that is causing the problems.

Correct.

The concept of marriage in this society has been damage by heterosexuals, but that still isn't a compelling reason to allow homosexuals to marry under the auspices of the state.

Not many heterosexuals bother with marriage anymore, anyway.

Most will eventually marry, but the wedding night for most will involve nothing new for either partner and a significant portion of females will have already conceived and many will have already given birth.

But, even that is not a compelling reason to allow a man to marry a man.

[edit on 2007/6/2 by GradyPhilpott]

It is not simply a question of taxes or tax cuts or other governmental benefits... if people want to form a long standing permanent relationship why shouldn't they have the same benefits, straight or gay.

If you must make a distinction then let "marriage" be a strictly religious rite, and let a civil union be well, a civic one... if the various churches and religions want to preform a gay marriage fine, if they don't fine, but either way the "official" union would be the civil union and have that be for both straights and gays. But make sure ALL the benefits are the same and even more importantly, the penalties such as annulment, divorce, alimony and child support.

If a gay couple want to get a civil union fine but let there be no mistake, they will have to go through the same hurdles to end it as well.