isnt a civil union the same thing? is the "proprietary" term, marriage what you guys are hung up on or is it the concept of gays having equal access to rights other citizens can enjoy? thats only one definition, btw.

__________________

Do you honestly believe that someone could talk you into being attracted to the same sex?

There's your answer.


It is likely a combination of many genes. Sexuality is not like eye color. There are many variables. Recent research suggests that there is definitely a genetic component.


Depends...who is harmed by farmer brown marrying his sister?


Same issue.


Civil unions are acceptable to me, so long as the legal benefits are the same.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

I suppose one could make that argument. But where the slippery slope fails is that just because someone makes the argument, society is not required to accept it merely because it agreed to recognize gay marriage. They are separate issues, not joined.

The main objection to "I want to marry my sister" is a legitimate practical one, revolving around genetics and the risks of inbreeding. If science figured out how to avoid that problem (unlikely, but we're hypothesizing here), it would certainly justify raising the question of whether laws against relatives marrying are still relevant.

Again, he can ask. But that doesn't mean the answer has to be yes. Nor does recognizing gay marriage affect that debate. As a matter of logic, it's more egregious to say "these two people can marry, but those two people can't" than it is to say "any two people can marry, but three people can't." The first is making distinctions within an already recognized right; the second is establishing a wholly new right.

Personally, if three consenting adults want to get married, I don't really see how that's any of my business. The exception would be if it could be shown empirically that polygamous marriages aren't really consensual, or result in sharply higher levels of sexual or child abuse, or the like. Then you have an objective basis for regulating or banning the practice.

So what? That just says change will be difficult. It doesn't mean that excluding gays from marriage is fair, just or right.

Yeah, I can feel your sympathy from here....

The specious "anyone, gay or straight, is free to marry someone of the opposite sex" argument gets really tiresome, besides being intellectually bankrupt.

Moving past that, whether or not there is a "right" to marriage, when the government grants privileges to some people and not others, it had better have a good reason. In the case of gay marriage, it doesn't. There is no compelling state purpose served by preventing gay couples from enjoying the same rights to property, survivorship, etc. that straight couples have.

True. So? That's expensive, time consuming and subject to legal challenge. If they were allowed to marry, it would be automatic, free and pretty much ironbound. Are you really arguing that it's fair to tell one couple "here, you can do this for free" and tell another couple, "sure, you can do that, but it will cost you $10,000"?

Plus there are some issues that contracts can't really address, such as a lot of issues surrounding parenthood. For instance, when adopting, only one member of a gay couple can be recorded as the actual adoptive parent -- leading to really mind-bending custody issues if the couple splits up.

Or what if one of the spouses is a foreign national? If they're straight, marriage solves the problem of citizenship. If they're gay, that's not an option -- and no amount of lawyering can change that.

There is no compelling state purpose served by such things.

__________________
Man up.

My slant on the whole thing is that government should not be sticking it's nose into 'marriage' at all. Civil unions for all, or more generally civil partnerships which extend to any two people who want to declare themselves in a financial dependency would work just as well. Then you go to your pastor or your shaman to get married, whoever you are, and you go to the IRS to declare that one of you will be claiming the other as a dependent. It can work for a grandmother and her grandson, two gay men, two college students working their way through college and living together. When you see the argument in that light it starts to make more sense. I mean in order to get a break for having a dependent the person must actually be dependent. So Divine blessing on any kind of union and taxes are completely separate issues (or should be in my mind.) Note I am not gay and not necessarily an advocate for 'gay rights.' But I do think that any person regardless of race, age, gender, or sexual orientation (preference) who is willing to live at peace in society should be left to do so. As for the religious aspects I do believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, but I am also very much aware that God loves everyone and that He would not want me to pass by a gay man dying on the side of the road simply because he is gay. Recall the parable of the Good Samaritan.

What do I care? Can't think of any way that affects anyone else.

So what? The majority of people in the south supported slavery at one time. Simply not a relevant argument. The majority of people in Saudi Arabia think women are chattel. Does that make it so? The majority thinks all kinds of stupid things.

Well, except the right to get married to the person they choose. There is that....

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

It seems too bad that many gay activists are so determined to have the term, "marriage" bestowed on their union. I think that the term gets in the way of the practical reality. If a heterosexual couple does not wish to marry in a religious setting their's should be called a "civil union", as well. If "marriage" is associated with a religious ceremony and most churches do not choose to sanction gay "marriage", so be it. We have a civil, legal construct for sanctioning non religious unions the same should apply for gay couples. What is the big deal about the m word?

I agree with all of the above. Of course, one could turn the "what is the big deal about the m word" argument around and ask the same question of opponents, but if they simply have an irrational attachment to the word, I'll just shrug my shoulders and say "fine, don't call it marriage."

But when you get down to particulars, you find that the wording of most "marriage amendments" also ban civil unions. So the opposition, apparently, is to more than just using the "marriage" label.

__________________
Man up.

Whatever the motives are, people don't register as anything unless there is some incentive or compulsion. It is sad that many Christians feel that imposing the commandments on others means they have fulfilled the Great Commission. This is not true. Such legalism has not power of the Spirit behind it, it is an attempt to please God in the flesh. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit sayeth the Lord of Hosts." Christians are to be emulators of Christ by definition of the label itself. When did you see Jesus picketing a gay man's funeral. At worst he said to one young man , "Let the dead bury their own dead, you come and follow Me." But I must confess that it is the true Church that will suffer most in the days ahead in this country. The people who refuse to hate will be hated more deeply than any others by the animals who pretend to be human, who feign to be gods. Will someone stand up and condemn me if I say I know gays and lesbians who are better people in many ways than alot of Christians? All sin is sin, God decides what is sin according to the Bible and the Church is charged with spreading His love and the message of the Gospel, not lording themselves over those weaker than they. Wake up Bride of Christ. Get the courage to be weak so that He may be strong. On the other side I recently had the distinct displeasure of coming into contact with a group of closeted cruisers. I'm wondering why the words 'I'm not interested' don't seem to mean the same thing to them that I always infer when a women says that to me?

Peace or War, love or hate, to build up or to tear down, these are decisions that face all of us throughout our lives.

when we speak of the majority, people need to stop bringing up exapmles of horrible violence or depravity. I don't think any gays are going to die if they don't get married.
The majority of this country says that it shouldn't happen and it does not harm anyone, so that is what happens. There is a reason it is called the "Majority".

__________________
"Your old road is Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."

"There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

-Bob Dylan, greatest singer/songwriter ever to live.

Are you trying to make my point? Marriage is not a "propriatory term" it is a noun with a long understood definition and meaning. When you say, "that's only one definition" are you not speaking of the redefinitions of marriage to wit the vast majority of Americans will not accept? As I pointed out, gays do have the same rights as other citizens. There is no law against a gay person getting married. In fact, they do it all the time.

__________________
"We should Invade Their Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity." Ann Coulter
Thank You, and God Bless America!