Gay Marriage

[overdose]

Marriage is a church issue, yes, although it has many government ties, and connections. In order to make your marriage legal you have to get it signed in a court of law. You are only allowed to get it signed, if it is a man and a woman (being wed). So in our government or courts of the United States, we are excluding homosexuals a denied right of marriage. Even if you believe it’s between a man and a woman; it’s still a right, which they are denied.

Many say homosexuals have this right, if they do it with someone of the opposite sex? But again, that’s defeating the purpose of being homosexual. It is a heterosexual’s right in America to get a marriage license. It is not a right of a homosexual couple in America. That is a right that is denied. If this denied right is based on a religion, we are going against our Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

All they want are equal benefits, for health care, visitations in the hospital, and equal rights. A "Civil Union" is a great idea, but it fails to give everyone equal rights. A "Civil Union" to gays, is restaurants specific for African Americas in the south. Many people in the South had the attitude of, "We will give them the same right, to eat in a restaurant, but not in ours!" Is that correct? No! Just like a civil union’s are not right for gays.

If they get married, and it’s not according to your definition of marriage, then they aren’t leading a real marriage now are they? So, how does it hurt you? Or better yet, how does it hurt you at all? Some people falsely say that it is morally destroying marriage; to have homosexuals get the same title as heterosexuals. But I ask you this, is a 55% divorce rate in America making marriage such a prized, and morally wonderful license? Isn’t that what is really destroying marriage? Not two people of the same sex actually wanting to share their love, in an equal, fair government instituted, license?

The majority of Americans do not favor this, however. But the majority of whites didn’t favor African American independence, or freedom. But, it was changed, contrary to what the majority thought. The majority of people thought marriage was between people of the same race. People used quotes in the Bible, (as they are now). The majority thought this, but the majority lost. This all comes to our issues today, gay marriage. The same reasons are used, the majority is against it, but that does not mean it is right.

People are criticizing cities for breaking the law for justice? Well, you have to in this case. Blacks had to break the law, to gain equality, and the right to marry people of the opposite race. Woman also had to for the right to vote and got arrested, broke the law, and was criticized by the majority of Americans. In the end they got the right to vote. As gays are doing now in my home Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, New York, New Mexico, and Massachusetts.

Everyone does have the right to pursue happiness. Is love, running around naked? Is love, and wanting to put it in a legal document, so socially wrong? A person running around naked offends people. A person getting married is not noticeable, unless you MAKE it noticeable. That is exactly what the Republican propaganda machine is doing now.

There is most likely going to always be more heterosexual’s in the world. If it’s not natural to be gay, then is it their choice? I honestly, highly, doubt that if it were everyone’s “choice”, everyone would choose to be heterosexual. Why would you ever, in a million years, pick to be homosexual? You will get discriminated against, cannot make children, and everything else that goes along with being gay. Plus, did you ever sit down and go, “em I straight? ” I doubt that, too.

If we are truly a fair, equal, non-religious government, homosexual marriage will and should be legal.

[Silent Wind River]

I think I agree, for the most part. It's difficult for me to argue with you, but denying marriage to a homosexual couple just doesn't seem unconstitutional to me. The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so with that definition, denying homosexual couples marriage is not denying them any rights, it's simply an impossibilty with the definition as it stands. Changing the definition would certainly make homosexuals on a more even ground with heterosexuals, but that doesn't really make this an issue of rights. It's simply an issue of redifining words, and changing a tradition that has held ground for centuries. Civil Unions, is, to me, a perfectly fine option, and I don't think it's fair to compare it to restaraunts for black people in the south. But that's just me. *shrugs*

[overdose]

It's a right, and no matter of it's importance you have to get it signed in a court of law, so they are denied a right, in our Government to get a legal document signed. So the definition is unconstitutional and needs to be changed. A Civil Union is fine, but Marriage is still a right...that they can't get with a Civil Union.


It does not matter if it was held for centuries as a Man and Women. It’s been held that Women shouldn’t vote or play a role in the Government for years, until it was finally changed. Race equality has always been a factor in history for thousands of years, and it was finally changed. Just because something is old, does not make it exempt from change. This definition is old, and needs to go.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, overdose, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by overdose

If this denied right is based on a religion, we are going against our Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

I want to begin by thanking you for a thorough overview. I question the validity though, of claiming to be against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't recall the Constitution directly addressing the matter of marriage, and the Bill of Rights do not contain an amendment addressing the issue either. If you are referring to the "separation of church and state" issue, let us not forget the right to freely worship and assemble. The US was founded as an expression of religious protest, and our governmental system has a great degree of religious basis.

All they want are equal benefits, for health care, visitations in the hospital, and equal rights. A "Civil Union" is a great idea, but it fails to give everyone equal rights.

This is a valid concern, surely. It has been a while, but I believe it was Alvin Toffler who addressed the issue so many years ago in his book "Future Shock." Under the circumstances, civil union seems to me a mostly fair and reasonable way to accomodate.

A "Civil Union" to gays, is restaurants specific for African Americas in the south.

I'm not certain I agree with your assessment. A person has no control over the status of their birth. A person is born into the race and gender that they are. A homosexual lifestyle, by contrast, is a choice. A person cannot choose to be white, black, green, or purple polka-dotted, or male/female. There is a great difference.

But I ask you this, is a 55% divorce rate in America making marriage such a prized, and morally wonderful license? Isn’t that what is really destroying marriage? Not two people of the same sex actually wanting to share their love, in an equal, fair government instituted, license?

Just curious, is the "divorce rate" for homosexuals any better? It seems to me that the relationship failure of homosexuals is little different from that of heterosexuals. If legally recognized marriage is not such a great "prized and morally wonderful license", then why is the homosexual community going to such great lengths to procure it for themselves?

But, it was changed, contrary to what the majority thought.

Then why bother with democracy? What purpose does democracy serve, if the voice of the majority has no validity in directing society? Why not just have an authoritarian structure, assuming one could be found sympathetic to a homosexual agenda? Or better still, the free-for-all chaos of anarchy?

The majority of people thought marriage was between people of the same race. People used quotes in the Bible, (as they are now). The majority thought this, but the majority lost.

Again, race and orientation are distinctly different matters. This is comparing apples to oranges.

This all comes to our issues today, gay marriage. The same reasons are used, the majority is against it, but that does not mean it is right.

So, am I to assume that because a minority voices a view, then the majority in society MUST be forced into that view? Because a minority voices a view, does not make it right either. For example, should pedophilia be socially accepted? It is, after all, a minority view.

A person getting married is not noticeable, unless you MAKE it noticeable. That is exactly what the Republican propaganda machine is doing now.

You are correct about being noticed, but I question your view that it is by the hands directly of the "Republican propaganda machine." I think if you were to look deeper into the matter, you will find that it is the very radical liberal homosexual "propaganda machine" agenda that is making the matter an issue. What they are challenging is the Republican conservative stance, and the stance of society in general.

If it’s not natural to be gay, then is it their choice? I honestly, highly, doubt that if it were everyone’s “choice”, everyone would choose to be heterosexual.

Correct. So, if people choose to be crack-heads, society should support them (legally and financially)? If someone chooses to be anti-social and goes on a killing spree, society should just look the other way? If somebody chooses to hook, crook, or otherwise rob, cheat and steal, society should have no recourse against them for their own protection? These are all lifestyle choices. Just because they are lifestyle choices does not mean that society must endorse, endure or support them.

If we are truly a fair, equal, non-religious government, homosexual marriage will and should be legal.

Perhaps you are correct. But I don't believe it should be for the reasons you list. If a person chooses some lifetyle contrary to established social norms, that is their choice, but they should not expect (let alone demand) that society endorse them in their actions. Otherwise, what purpose does society serve? What value do social norms carry?

[I, Brian]

I actually like the comments in the other thread - Marriage: Secular or Sacred - about the difference between "marriage" and "civil union". IMO, it is very important to make distinctions between both, as well as agree to careful definitions.

After all, a lot of the actual "gay marriage" argument seems more fixated on state insistence to refuse civil unions, rather than any objecting religious principles.

[Archangel]

Whenever I hear of gay issues, I am reminded of the lab experiment once done with mice. A community of mice were put into an environment where they flourished and lived content. Gradually, more mice were added to the environment until it became overpopulated, and at one point the mice began to engage in homosexual activity.

Subsiquently I see homosexuality as being the product of overpopulation or an overcrowded society. So I do not see homosexuality as being right in an altruistic sense. However, given the conditions which create it, I think that tolerance is required.

So I think...let them get married, let them do what they will, and let them have their rights and benefits of a "normal" marriage. But it does not seem to me that it should be construed as (idealogically) a good thing.

[Silent Wind River]

I would like to clarify. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is something a person has no control over. Perhaps homosexual ACTS are a lifestyle choice, but being homosexual is not. I'm gay, and my lifestyle is no different than that of my heterosexual sister. I do agree, however, that homosexuality and race are very very different. Homosexuality is very internal, you can rarely tell a gay person from a straight person. But race is there for everyone to see. I don't think it's fair to compare who a person is attracted to and what a person looks like. They're just... different.

In response to Archangel: How could homolsexuality be a product of overpopulation? Where is the logic in that? Just because a lot of mice were introduced into an an environment in a single experiment and some began engaging in homosexual acts? Was it not perhaps that as the number of mice increase, the odds that a few of them are homosexual also increases through simple statistics? Was it perhaps that all the bodies were making the mice a bit horny and desperate for sexual release? I don't know for sure, but your conclusion just doesn't fly with me. What of the ancient Native American tribes that lived in a sparsly populated area and revered homosexuality as a blessing (you'll notice that even though they supported homosexuality, same-sex marriage seemed silly to these people), are you saying that these tribes just made up the idea of homosexuality and it never really existed in their culture? What of homosexuals that live in countryside villiages? Are they just heterosexuals in denial? Homosexuality existed and does exist in places with few people. I just don't get the argument.

[overdose]

They want this, because the divorce rate has not been proven to be as high in the gay community.

Many homosexuals think marriage is prized, but when heterosexual’s say, “it is destroying the moral greatness of marriage” I say, isn’t the 50 or so percent divorce rate destroying marriage? So why not let them enter something, and try and get that percent down?

I believe there is a gene in a human that makes them homosexual, and you don’t. Difference of opinion? Yes. So that means in my opinion sexuality and race you are born with. So I believe that they are the same…but that this is an opinion that cannot be discussed because we cannot change each other’s minds on that. Until they find it...buhahahaha

Also, we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy. Otherwise the majority would rule, but we are a REPUBLIC just like Rome, where the majority does not rule.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, overdose!

Originally Posted by overdose

They want this, because the divorce rate has not been proven to be as high in the gay community.

Many homosexuals think marriage is prized, but when heterosexual’s say, “it is destroying the moral greatness of marriage” I say, isn’t the 50 or so percent divorce rate destroying marriage? So why not let them enter something, and try and get that percent down?

I believe there is a gene in a human that makes them homosexual, and you don’t. Difference of opinion? Yes. So that means in my opinion sexuality and race you are born with. So I believe that they are the same…but that this is an opinion that cannot be discussed because we cannot change each other’s minds on that. Until they find it...buhahahaha

Also, we are a REPUBLIC not a democracy. Otherwise the majority would rule, but we are a REPUBLIC just like Rome, where the majority does not rule.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Silent Wind River!

Originally Posted by Silent Wind River

I would like to clarify. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is something a person has no control over. Perhaps homosexual ACTS are a lifestyle choice, but being homosexual is not. I'm gay, and my lifestyle is no different than that of my heterosexual sister. I do agree, however, that homosexuality and race are very very different. Homosexuality is very internal, you can rarely tell a gay person from a straight person. But race is there for everyone to see. I don't think it's fair to compare who a person is attracted to and what a person looks like. They're just... different.

We can agree to disagree, and still remain friends.
I am sure what you say about being internal is true, I still view that internality (is that a word?) as a choice, many believe otherwise as you do.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Archangel!

Originally Posted by Archangel

Whenever I hear of gay issues, I am reminded of the lab experiment once done with mice. A community of mice were put into an environment where they flourished and lived content. Gradually, more mice were added to the environment until it became overpopulated, and at one point the mice began to engage in homosexual activity.

Subsiquently I see homosexuality as being the product of overpopulation or an overcrowded society. So I do not see homosexuality as being right in an altruistic sense. However, given the conditions which create it, I think that tolerance is required.

I've heard of that test before too, I believe it was in my psyche class. Wasn't that one of Skinner's experiments? As I recall, that wasn't the only "anti-social" behavior exhibited. As the cage got even more crowded, the rats became more and more violent, finally killing each other over petty squabbles, and finally resorting to cannibalism. A rather interesting study, that.

So I think...let them get married, let them do what they will, and let them have their rights and benefits of a "normal" marriage. But it does not seem to me that it should be construed as (idealogically) a good thing.

Thank you. That is pretty much what I was trying to say. I can't live life for anybody, and I don't want anybody telling me how to live my life.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, I Brian! How is the new baby coming along?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I actually like the comments in the other thread - Marriage: Secular or Sacred - about the difference between "marriage" and "civil union". IMO, it is very important to make distinctions between both, as well as agree to careful definitions.

Fair enough. I'm not a technical legalist, I tend more towards general legalisms. I came here because I had nothing to contribute there.

After all, a lot of the actual "gay marriage" argument seems more fixated on state insistence to refuse civil unions, rather than any objecting religious principles.

You are correct, at least as to issues that make it into the news. There are other issues too, like the religious ones that degrade into hissy fits and temper tantrums. There are also health and safety issues. And there are wisdom issues. It is not my intent to broach these issues, I plan to play nice. While I agree homosexuals should not be treated as second class citizens, neither do I agree they should receive preferential treatment.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Silent Wind River

I would like to clarify. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. It is something a person has no control over. Perhaps homosexual ACTS are a lifestyle choice, but being homosexual is not. I'm gay, and my lifestyle is no different than that of my heterosexual sister. I do agree, however, that homosexuality and race are very very different. Homosexuality is very internal, you can rarely tell a gay person from a straight person. But race is there for everyone to see. I don't think it's fair to compare who a person is attracted to and what a person looks like. They're just... different.

In response to Archangel: How could homolsexuality be a product of overpopulation? Where is the logic in that? Just because a lot of mice were introduced into an an environment in a single experiment and some began engaging in homosexual acts? Was it not perhaps that as the number of mice increase, the odds that a few of them are homosexual also increases through simple statistics? Was it perhaps that all the bodies were making the mice a bit horny and desperate for sexual release? I don't know for sure, but your conclusion just doesn't fly with me. What of the ancient Native American tribes that lived in a sparsly populated area and revered homosexuality as a blessing (you'll notice that even though they supported homosexuality, same-sex marriage seemed silly to these people), are you saying that these tribes just made up the idea of homosexuality and it never really existed in their culture? What of homosexuals that live in countryside villiages? Are they just heterosexuals in denial? Homosexuality existed and does exist in places with few people. I just don't get the argument.

Yes, I think that there have always been a certain number of homosexuals. I perhaps should have been more specific and referred to the increase of a more "rampant" homosexuality in the general public. I think that everyone on the planet is potentially bi-sexual and that most of us can make our own choices. I also think that much of the population is to varying degrees having genetic abnormalities and with most it is slight. I think that it was much easier for a person to know they contained genetic abnormalities in ancient times because of the limited population and closer ties to and knowing the histories of many more family members within the society. Subsiquently many more indulged in homosexual relationships to prevent procreating. Even some were influenced by it and sex IS more of an addiction like many things in life.

It is the natural way for a person to duplicate the lifestyle of their past-life...hence homosexuality is perceived by some as genetic (within itself). But that is a misconception, because it is more spiritual in nature.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, I Brian! How is the new baby coming along?Fair enough. I'm not a technical legalist, I tend more towards general legalisms. I came here because I had nothing to contribute there.

Tiring, of course.

My reference to the other thread was merely because the issue of "civil union" seems to be particularly well discussed there. A point of reference to the overlap, nothing more.

[Silent Wind River]

Yes, juantoo, a daresay we can still be friends! Yay! And thanks for clearing up some things Archangel. That theory seems much more valid to me now, even a little bit intriguing.