That Pastor's letter is astonishing and absolutely dead-on. It should have a wider circulation.

I agree with you on some points -

I firmly believe that it is a civil rights issue, but not to the extreme of slavery. My statement before simply dealt with other civil right battles from the past, trying to substantiate my beliefs regarding "tradition" as the excuse to oppose it.

I agree with you that it does come down to the government regulating things in areas where their nose doesn't belong.

Civil Rights
pl.n.
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

I firmly believe, my governing officials have far greater tasks before them, and incredibly more important issues to deal with. I lose more faith in these people with each arbitrary issue they decide to take on.

Well I think that it was clear that Bush's statement on TV about pushing for an amendment to ban gay marriage was nothing but smoke and mirrors. It was a distraction tactic. "Woo-hoo! Look over here! Hot button issue! No, don't look over at the war in Iraq! Gays getting married over here! Yoo hoo!"

I want to hear just one anti-gay marriage person tell me exactly why their perspective should trump the unhindered exercise of religious practices.

As a pro-freedom individual, I must say that my own opinions are being well-represented in this thread. The pure logic that shines from the words of filtherton (nice use of the term 'cognitive dissonance') and the like makes me proud to be in charge.

I don't have much to add except to tie in a thread that I previously posted regarding fascism. By definition, to deny gays the right to marry would be a step closer to a fascist state.

I disagree to some extent, for a couple of reasons. First, you and I can, right now, get married. There's nothing stopping us from inviting witnesses and exchanging rings and vows in front of a willing pastor/rabbi/priest of whatever religion.

Secondly, this isn't about a fascist government robbing a group of people of their "right to marry" (where in the bill of rights is that, btw?). It's about the government overstepping its bounds and becoming entwined with defining a purely social institution. Even by recognizing gay marriages the government would still be wrongly involved with marriage in the first place. So, by not recognizing same-sex marriages the government is not any more fascist than before. Instead, get it out of marriage completely.

I'll be waiting patiently for my ring. :icare:

Awww shucks :icare: :D

ser, I worded it like so: "a step closer"

:)

Interesting debate going on here, and I would say that most of my thoughts have been nicely summed up by the filterton et al crowd. A couple of things to add which I haven't seen yet.

1. The whole issue of children being reared by a homosexual couple versus straight couple is, as far as I understand it, complete strawman argumentation. It would seem to make the assumption that all straight households are safe havens of love and understanding, and all gay households are hotspots of sin and debauchery. For myself, I would far rather a child grow up in a stable and loving home, with financial means to see to the child's well being and education, regardless of sexual orientation of the parents. If this means a stable homosexual home versus a less stable heterosexual home, then so be it.

2. I've seen a lot of mentions of beastiality earlier on this thread, and just to check myself, isn't there a distinction between consenting homosapiens and non-consenting other mammals that we can draw here?

3. In discussions regarding the question of what is better for a stable society, I've frequently encountered the notion that heterosexual homes are somehow inherently better for society. Conseding that I have no evidence to back up my next statement, but prefacing it by saying that if we're going to play mind games, then fine - let's play mind games - allow me to ask the following.

Is it possible that in times of underpopulation / struggle for survival in a new area / exploration of new frontiers, that heterosexuality would be preferred because it would result in more workers and a higher population to settle the underpopulated area? Or that, contrarily, in times of excess / overpopulation / relative geographic stability, that homosexuality might become more popular, as a natural mechanism to curb population levels? Shortly put, I personally believe that the stigma of "unnatural" applied to homosexuality is quite incorrect, and that homosexuality is as natural as can be, as right as rain...

Yeah, I don't feel that failing to recognize same-sex marriages is "a step closer," as government is already involved with defining and regulating marriage. For it to be a step closer to fascism it would have to get even further entrenched in such social/religious institutions.

Well...here's the answer to all of this....
 

Folks, its really quite simple. Here in America, we have a process to decide how we want to shape our society. That process is DEMOCRACY.

And this is essentially what we are speaking about with the gay marriage issue...how we want our society to be structured. If the conservatives want to have certain constraints, they can try to make it law....just as the liberals can.

But, I do think that we (America) is really getting off the path with the emerging "everything is ok" culture.

Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Hell yes. I liken it to a mental health problem, or possibly a chemical imbalance. There's just no denying it....we are born with certain "equipment" that works with the other sex's "equipment". Dudes with dudes just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

To summarize, the majority makes our societal rules (democracy), and I see no problem with either side arguing their point, but both sides need to agree that what the majority decides should be accepted. If we have supreme court judges that rule FOR gay marriage against the desires of the public majority, we have a vehicle to get them ousted, and should do so.

Re: Well...here's the answer to all of this....
 

Regarding homosexual behavior being "natural," I have to wonder what dictionary you are using, if any, as you contradict yourself above. The common use of the word "natural" is to mean "occurring in nature." Homosexual behavior certainly does fit this definition, as it occurs among animals other than humans. Now, is it normal or ideal? Probably not, but that requires an entirely different argument than if it is "natural" or not.

Normal for people who are homosexual, yes, and there are very many of them, so it's not like it's a tiny little offshoot minority thing. Ideal? I'm not really sure how you would define heterosexual love as ideal, any more than homosexual love is? And don't give me talk about babies, babies are irrelevant- they aren't now, and likely never will be, barring nuclear disaster, the sole driving purpose for marriage.

Re: Well...here's the answer to all of this....
 

Dudes with clothing just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

Yes, this is a Natural Law fallacy.

What happens in nature isn't a terribly good argument for or against homosexuality. Mutations happen in natrue too, but they are more commonly detrimental, fatal, or useless than helpful. You don't see people lobbying for or against people with webbed feet.

Anyways, it's kind of getting off topic in here.

I meant normal / ideal as far as a genetic trait goes. It isn't ideal to have a species or subset of a species which is unable to breed with one another. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality should be considered socially unacceptable, it just isn't normal or ideal for the species. The fact that it does occur in nature, though, extinguishes any idea that homosexuality is simply a psychological defect.

But, yes, this is a bit off-topic. :eek:

Re: Well...here's the answer to all of this....
 

I disagree. If we just accepted what the majority decided then there would never be change. A few decades ago the majority thought that women and blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote; through cultural change and the expression of a minority that is no longer the case.

It doesn't matter if those in the wrong are the majority; they're still wrong.

See what you are doing Taxachussets? You allow gay marriage and all hell breaks loose.
Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. This is on You, Gay Marriage. Your existence forced the breakup of such a bastion of, and advocate for, stable heterosexual monogamous relationships. The venerable Rush Limbaugh is getting divorced. For the third time! And we had such high hopes for this one to last too. It started off so well being an online affair with a married woman.
Or maybe the only way she could handle being married to him was the fact that he was always drugged. :p

Why do hypocrites always have the loudest, most influential and powerful voices?

You mean like Newt Gingrich? He forced his wife to sign the divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer treatment. Nice guy, huh?

*puts a sign by the side of the road* It reads: The Topic is this Way! and points.

Thanks....I got a little side tracked.

BTW, can't wait for the Gay Pride parade in Chicago on the 27th. It's one of the most fun days every summer.