AAAARGH.

Why do people keep starting these threads? Hasn't this been done to death? We just keep going over the same old arguments:

Anti-gay-marriage:
It's immoral because the Bible says so

Pro-gay-marriage:
1. The biblical justification against homosexuality is shaky at best
2. since when do we allow scripture to dictate policy in the U.S.? The religious definition of marriage should have nothing to do with the civil definition of marriage.

Anti-gay-marriage:
Well, it ain't natural.

Pro-gay-marriage:
The hell it ain't. Sexual preference is biologically-based, and homosexuality occurs in other species besides humans.

Anti-gay-marriage:
They're sickos and shouldn't be given rights because they're all perverts.

Pro-gay-marriage:
There's a difference between "preference" and "behavior" and not all gays are "perverts" any more than all heteros are perverts. There's no evidence that being gay harms gay peoples' children or makes them more likely to be gay.

Anti-gay-marriage:
I don't care what they do behind closed doors but I don't want to have to see it.

Pro-gay-marriage:
Sounds like "separate but equal" or "don't ask don't tell" to me. Since when is offensiveness to some people a reason to deny legal rights to an entire group of people?

And on and on and on and on it goes. I don't see either side being convinced one way or another, and I don't think most people (here or otherwise) are willing to engage in true dialogue about this. Mostly we all just want to spout off our own opinions. I'm probably as guilty as the next person about this.

I can respect a religious definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, religions are by definition resistant to change. But our modern American version of marriage is essentially a contract between two people enforced by the state. I don't see why the contract should have anything to do with the sex or color or religion of the people signing it.

Once you start codifying who can and cannot sign the contract, ugly futures start to come to mind. There are MANY people in the US who would want the rules to state that the people entering a marriage contract should be of the same base ancestry (no intermarriage).

It's already codified. You can't marry your brother, sister, or 1st cousin. You also have to be a certain age, which varies state-by-state.

So saying "once you start codifying" is silly for a process that is already controlled. Also, saying "once you start codifying" when you're talking a process that is ALREADY IN PLACE makes your argument weak.

Many marriage restrictions have been removed over the years, and the country has continued on without an "ugly future." I look forward to the day when a public majority decides that gay marriage is supported. My employer, like many, already supports domestic partner benefits and I'm sure that more public support will be coming soon, especially out here in california.

By all means if you are gay and you want to get married, knock yourself out. Who am I or anyone else to say no.

It's not about marriage in my eyes, it's about equal rights. The gays just want the same things as everyone else.

Since i believe that homosexuality is nature, not nurture, then i figure why not.

There are so many other more pressing things to worry about in the world then two people who love each other enough to want to get married.

It's not my business, and i don't see it unravelling society.

I know a couple of gay guys and it may surprise you that there is an element of the gay community who oppose marriage. They view it as a straight institution that they want no part of. They prefer to be a fringe community and enjoy being part of something different. They see the ability for gays to get married as acceptance into the larger society, something they actively oppose.

Interesting, but i leave it up to the individual.

As far as the Catholic Church threatening Jean Chretien with his immortal soul I would say to them, "you had better worry about your own souls cause I think God will be much more pissed off with those pedophile priests and the catholic church that attempted to hide and sweep it under the carpet for years than he will ever be with Jean Chretien giving equal rights to his (God's) gay children."

I agree with the earlier statement of same sex marriages being called something other than marriage... maybe like State Union er something....
I'm personally not for it, I don't see enough benefit for society to change a fundamental religious bond. What will it actually add?
Will it change the way they are treated. No. Will people be more accepting. No, if anything there will be more resentment. Will it give the couple a sense of love or bond? No, or I at least hope not, that should be present in relationship regardless.

Having a separate term would really complicate things for the worse. No doubt quite a few insurance companies and agencies would continue to discriminate between "state union" and "marriage" in their policies and the situation would be little changed. If Gays lobbied for "state unions" or something and the corporate sector didn't fall into line, they'd be worse off. The public would think, "they got what they wanted" while in reality they got almost nothing but a meaningless and powerless new catchphrase.

If the state enforced contract of marriage is an exclusively Christian concept, then the first amendment is being violated. America lets Muslims marry. America lets Atheists marry.

does it matter either way?

if it must be different, give it a different name but make it legally be the same.

Those are some good points, Macheath. Until now I was thinking that a good compromise would be to have two seperate terms; of course, civil marriages are still "marriages" on paper and legally--so I agree with you.

agreed

Insurance seems to be the main issue, so why not a company open that deals only with same sex unions? Let the other companies cry when all the gay communities leave their company for the new one? I'm sure they can make a bundle.

I know this comparison has already been made, but these are the same arguements people made about civil rights and interracial marriage.

It may not change things overnight, but over time it may decrease the stigma attached to homosexuality. Now, that may not be a good thing to you, but that is one of the reasons it is so important to the homosexual community.

Basically, as a religious institution, marriage should be limited to the confines of that religion. If it is immoral in the eyes a a specific religion, then it should not be allowed under their auspices. However, if the Federal Government and the States give special rights and privilegdes to those who are married, then those rights must be available to all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." We must have a nation of laws that are fair and equal.

I would never condemn someone for finding homosexuality immoral. While I do not agree, it is a personal decision that comes from their own life and experiences. I would simply point out that I find pedophiles, rapists and murderers all significantly more immoral that homosexuals and they can all get married.

I guess I'm just curious as to what business it is of mine what other people choose to do with their lives. Let everyone get married and those who want to, will, and those who don't want to, won't. Give everyone the right to marry, level the playing field, and let people do as they see fit. Sometimes I also sit back and wonder what the government is all up in arms about regarding gay marriage. Haven't they got more important things to worry about, like unemployment and illiteracy and how grossly underpaid teacher are?

I agree with Lurkette... no one seems to budging.

I see no problem with Gay marriages.

1.) Marriage is a religious institution. Not so much. How many people are married by a Justice of the Peace, Ship's Captain, Judge, etc. Are they married? Yes. It is a marriage and there is no God.

2.) But the definintion of marriage is man and woman and as a purist I don't want to see that changed... Well it wasn't all that long ago that women and blacks were not considered Citizens as defined by law. That changed with the times too.

3.) But God says it's wrong. Well then he can just come down and smite my ass if I'm wrong. Let's face it. However you personally feel about homosexuals is fine. You don't like them. So be it. The law of the land (which supercedes religious law) states that we are all equal under the law regardless of race, religion, sex, etc. As such the law about marriage needs to reflect that.

Progress doesn't always smell very good but it will roll over you regardless.

I'd like to bring up a point that everyone here ON BOTH SIDES seems to be missing: why is marriage done in the first place?

Marriage is a public statement of who is a person's legal inheritor (outside of a will) and who is allowed within proscribed limits to act on a person's behalf (outside of a power of attorney). The "constraints of marriage" are dependent on the vows taken at the ceremony, nothing more. "God" is supposed to be a witness to the ceremony, any active participation by "God" is dependent on the vows taken.

Kids? Children can be had with or without marriage, thousands of "illegitimate" children are born every day ; and thousands of people are married without children. Marriage only establishes the child's legitimacy as an inheritor to the father's property.

Family stability? That depends on the people involved, not whether or not there is a legal contract binding them together. Day-to-day experience should tell you that.

As it is now, gay couples can be the exact equivalent of being married. They need interlocking wills and powers of attorney, but it's done every day. The only thing lacking is the public recognition.

The insurance matter, as was pointed out, is just a matter of one company deciding to go after the gay market and everyone else playing "follow the leader", as companies are want to do.

If gay couples want to pay The Marriage Penalty like hetero couples currently do, let them. More revenue without raising taxes; sounds like a plan to me.

Natural? "Natural" is a term used by those who refuse to examine a prejudice, regardless of the value of the prejudice.

For example, forty years ago it was considered unnatural for any organ of a person to be moved into another person's body. Now, it's not only natural, but many of the same churches that protested organs transplants initially now help raise funds for some member to get an organ transplant.

Another example? In 1775, it was unnatural to think that people could rule themselves; the only "natural" way was to be ruled by a monarch who had a "Divine Right" to rule. Now we're trying to spread this idea throughout the Middle East and Asia as the "only natural human government".

Once rank prejudices against a social issue are broken down, it becomes "natural". Gay marriage will be one of those issues within the next 50 years.

EXACTLY!

Let the people solve the problem without legislating away the definitions of social institutions. That being said, marriage shouldn't be defined as a union between a man and a woman, or as a union between any two people -- it shouldn't be defined at all at a government level.

Um, are you guys aware that most large companies already do this? In fact, stuffy old IBM was one of the first large companies to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. About half of the Fortune 1000 companie now provide domestic partner benefits to their employees.

The witnesses in a wedding are the attendees. That's the historical roots for the registry and why they sit on respective sides (bride's family on her side and groom's on his) during the ceremony. If any of the two were to seek divorce the other one is supposed to open the registry, obtain one of his or her witnesses, and call the person to testify to the oath made at the ceremony.

All right, I'm out of here...

Marrage is a business contract. Religion don't matter. Let them take half each other shit when they split, just like the rest of us. Marry Away!

Being gay is not against nature. There are a lot of homosexual animals other than man. Many have homosexual relationships but use a female/male to reproduce.

If we allow gays the right to get married the next thing you know they'll be wanting the right to get divorced. The sanctity of divorce should be reserved for heterosexuals only.

Being gay is against nature because it is a genetic flaw. Darwin's Origin of the Species points out that every creatures main instinct is to survive and pass on its genes, if your (pardon my french here using it to illustrate a point) a straight up fudge packing fairy, then you don't pass on your genes, thus you are eliminated from the gene pool. BTW the animal arguement is stupid, certain animals kill their young/eat their young as well as have sex within their family... just because animals do it doesn't make it normal for humans too.

Mojo, worst you can say is that being gay is a genetic mutation.

And what you haven't said is that mutations that have offsetting benefits to reproduction can also be continued within a species.

My own viewpoint is that being "gay" does no genetic harm to humans (we have enough breeders to compensate) and that they positively affect our society.

My thought is kind of a weak one, I don't have any scientific proof to back it up, just mroe observations. One of those being that Homosexuals claim "they are born that way".

And your right Lebell, it isn't a serious human defect because we have enough people to compensate. One thing I am curious to know is how does the gay population of today with 6.5 billion people, compare to the gay population of Prehistoric-B.C. times-early A.D. times.

Would it be unfair to assume if the PERCENT of homosexuals has increased then homosexuality could very well be a natural thing used to weed out people to ease the strain on natural resources?

edit:was confusing

Umm,

Dude, you lost me.

Do you think you could restate that?

If Gays are allowed to get married, next thing you know they will want the right to be divorced. The sanctity of divorce should be reserved only for heterosexuals.

It was worth repeating.

And next thing you know, people will want to marry inanimate objects! The horror!

The only problem I see with it is that, as I understand it, at least in the Christian faith, two men or two women can't be technically married "under the eyes of God." So I can see how the religious thing gets into it. I imagine the State doesn't see you as married if the Church can't technically tie the knot. You can have a ceremony and say you're married, but it seems that the State can't grant the accomanying legal rights and institute the legal limitations: adultery, estrangement, spousal abuse, irreconcilable differences, etc. If one or more of those infractions occurs, can the laws be enforced?

Do I have a problem with gay marriage? Nope.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not up on the facts of this topic, however I did some asking around and I have a question to ask...
What are all the things Gays are missing out on that they can get through Marriage?

Wake me up when I get to be a bridesmaid!

Well like everyone is pointing out Insurance is really the big issue, perhaps taxes? I think the big thing is so that they can flaunt that which has been denied to them. For example (since I am feeling very politically incorrect right now) it's like when black people from the hood get rich first thing they do is Get platinum grills, floss some bling-bling, and put 24"s on their escalades.

This drives me nuts. The slippery-slope argument that if we allow gays to be married that somehow is will lead to humans getting married to animals is completely stupid. It is different? The Bill of Rights doesn't apply to animals. We're talking about rights. Is marriage a right that all of humanity should have access to? This is the argument. Stop trying to change it to something else.

I don't think that if you were to measure the ratio of gays:straights throughout history that it would differ dramatically from our ratio today.

Greek pottery, Roman writings etc... refer to homosexual relations. If it's big enough to be mentioned in numerous texts (like the Bible where it's chastised and forbidden several times) then it must have been prevalent enough to warrant public attention. It must have been important enough to garner public admonition.

There are several references to homosexuality in ancient Chinese writings pre B.C. , Greeks and Romans are famous for homosexual writings and art, ancient Egyptians, The Koran all mention homosexuality and the Bible (of these I am the most familiar with) mentions it at least five times that I'm aware of. (Genesis; Leviticus; Romans; 1 Corinthians; 1 Timothy)

I also don't think that being gay is a genetic defect. If it's a population limiter (as mentioned above) then I'd say it's done a piss poor job of saving our natural resources. If homosexuality was as prevelent in ancient times as it is today (and I think it was), then the "gay" gene hasn't done a very effective job of culling the population evidenced in our exponential growth since recorded time. It seems that a gene that inept at fulfilling it's purpose would have gone the way of the Dodo bird and T-Rex and been replaced by a better gene. The ever popular "deformed sperm" gene for instance.

My opinion is that the Government shouldn't favor one over the other (marriage {church sanctioned} to civil union {state sanctioned}) and if said Government wants to extend privileges to marriage it should extend the privilege to the other. If folks want to banter about immorality, by all means it's their right. I just don't think that our Government should have the power to legislate "morality" a tenuous and relative term at best.

I voted Yes, only between a man (who was born a man) and a woman (who was born a woman).

When you can get a penguin to give informed consent to be married, then i say you can go for it. But that's going to be a damn smart penguin. There is no slippery slope towards bestiality, since NO animal can give consent.

The way the courts are going at the moment anything is possible, and every day the animal rights brigade are getting more and more towards treating animals on the same level as humans. So give it time and nothing will surprise me.
As for gays getting married I have mixed feelings on that one, I have a few gay friends who are great people while at the same time it goes against what in my mind is a natural thing of male and female.

It's sad that I'm quoting myself, but no one seems to have answered this simple, yet important, question at all on this thread:

Why should government be involved in defining marriage, at all?

My uncle is gay, one of my friends I've known a really long time is gay. They both say they were born that way, and my friend noticably *always* has been different.

I can speak penguin. It told me. Stop repressing me!

They are both equally invalid. They both equally fail to meet the qualifications, they are both equally nonfunctional, they are equal as far as how close to be qualified for marriage they are.

*looks at the 50 percent divorce rate*

<_<
>_>

It's a question of externalities. Economically, there are benifits when people marry. Stable households withstand economic shocks better, provide better health care to their members, etc...than single person households. This is a known. Children also turn out better with 2 parents. These economic benifits are not rewarded by the free market, and so left alone, there would probably be a sub-optimal number of marriages. Artificial economic incentives raise the number of unions to the effecient quanity. Since they're giving out goodies, they start defining.

Assumption, assumption, assumption. If you define "marriage" as one man, one woman, then yes...you have a point. But, the fact that we're as a nation, talking about gay marraige, means that thos couples can have a relationship that's close enough to recognize as being "marriage like." As a nation, we are not talking about bestial marriages...nor are there claims that person-animal relations are "marriage like."

Whatever makes a person happy...who are we to say someone is wrong in the way that they want to live??