Originally Posted by wind

She's an icon for many of my women friends who are musicians. "Women's Music" used to be overly political, folksy or badly performed rock and roll.

I know. lol. I was once in one of those bands.

Originally Posted by Makedde

Originally Posted by wind

You're kidding me? Melissa Etheridge and kd lang? I didn't know that. I've got to get my hair styled more often so I can catch up the celebrity magazines!

Originally Posted by greatamerican128

And then trans-gendered people get a special union too as well as people with cars....

I don't hate gay people, but I don't believe that they need special rights, neither does anyone else. I also don't believe that America should endorse the gay lifestyle by legalizing gay marriage. And yes, legalizing something is promoting it. I'm not comparing here, but let me provide an example. Imagine if tomorrow if the US legalized prostitution, that would be endorsing it. By allowing something not previously legal, the US would be supporting the idea or the act.

Originally Posted by svoth1

I do not necessarily agree with the homosexual lifestyle, in fact, it somewhat repulses me. The point at hand is that there truly is nothing in the constitution about marriage, heterosexual or homosexual. I don't think that homosexuals should have the right to adopt because of the psychological affects it creates upon the children (http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/ho0090.html.)
However, I don't see a problem with granting them the status of "civil partnership" for financial purposes. These are not "special rights."

Originally Posted by usgrant7

Every culture has two competing forces in play, individual rights and the common good. If a culture firmly believes that enacting laws which encourage marriage between a man and a woman foster good, healthy cultural norms then I see nothing wrong with that. There is nothing stopping businesses from extending benefits they provide to married couples, to unmarried couples. There is nothing stopping two citizens from entering into a contract. There is nothing stopping homosexuals from lobbying their elected officials to enact laws recognizing those cotracts under the equal protection laws.

So why hasn’t' domestic partnership or gay marriage advanced as rapidly as one might expect?

Because deeeeep down inside, every man and woman knows that homosexuality is an aberrant behavior choice. And if we widen the definition of marriage to include boys and boys, girls and girls, men and objects, women and animals... Pretty soon there is no foundation for our society. Only the promise that "this time" it wont get out of hand.

Marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Period. End of story. Setting all the Bible verses I could quote, aside, the biggest reason for not accepting gay marriage is because it lends itself to a slippery slope, towards permissivism.. Marriage works, it is good, and it does all of us the most good when it works well. Lets leave it at that.

Originally Posted by raytri

The problem with the slippery slope argument in this case is that it can equally well be used to justify drawing the line anywhere you want.

If we allow interracial marriage, what's next?!?

If we allow rich people to marry poor people, what's next?!?

If we allow old people to marry young people, what's next?!?

If we allow women to work and vote and get an education, what's next?!?

*Any* change in the current standard can be attacked as a slide toward "permissivism."

Not only is there zero reason to think that allowing gays to marry will suddenly make people receptive to bestiality, pedophilia or polygamy; but even if that were a legitimate concern, it doesn't make up for the harm of discriminating against consenting adults in something as basic as who they want to commit their lives to.

I actually support the idea of "civil unions for everyone, marriage for those who want it and can get a church to bless it" -- with the legal and economic benefits attached to civil unions, not marriage. That gets the state out of the marriage business.

But if push comes to shove, there's no objective policy reason to prevent gays from being allowed to marry other than "I think gays are icky."

Originally Posted by raytri

That's not exactly an answer. Saying "Because we've always done it this way" doesn't explain *why* it should continue to be done that way. QUOTE]

O.K. well then I want to marry a goat. Just because it hasn't always been done that way doesn't mean i can't.

Originally Posted by JMS

denying civil rights doesnt foster good, healthy cultural norms. gays remain gay regardless, nothing is gained other than appeal to bigotry and unconstitutionality. why hasnt it advanced? because the country is full of bigots with faulty premises.

its not an aberrant behavior of choice. homosexuality has always existed, and its an inclination more than a behavior, plus its not a choice. i cant will myself to get an erection for another man, i have a hard time believing anyone really thinks its that easy.

no period or end of story. theres no slippery slope, the laws are clearly defined and our constitution clearly in favor of equality. nothing other than two consenting adults can marry if civil rights are respected. the slippery slope is a delusion.

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior

How is it disingenuous? My statement was accurate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had an actual source.




It is if you recognize that rights are defined by the Constitution. We are discussing legality here, not your interpretation of right and wrong.




I agree. But that is not the law at the moment. Right now, marriage is a state issue. States decide who can and cannot be married, not the federal government.

If marriage were a right, that would not be the case. Rights are not defined by the states, but by the federal government via the Constitution.

Personally, I am ok with keeping it a state issue.




Inequity is irrelevant. We were defining rights, which are a matter of law, not your opinion on what is or is not equitable.




Allowing homos to marry would not be giving them special rights, since heteros would also have those rights.



Is America endorsing the hetero lifestyle with it's current bias in favor of hetero marriage? In your statement above, you seem to be saying you are ok with discrimination so long as it is against gays.



I disagree. Oral sex is legal, but no one would say that the government is endorsing oral sex because it is legal. Thats retarded.




Then why are there so many people opposing it?




I have never understood this fixation with semantics on this issue.

If you people want to call it "Obscene homo parody of real marriage", thats ok with me. So long as the legal benefits are the same.



You seem to be making the argument that the institution of marriage should not be recognized by the government at all...even hetero marriage.

Couldn't the whole "contract" thing work just as well for heterosexuals?




Some people believe the same thing about interracial marriage.



Explain why we would have to include objects and animals.




The story needs to be edited. It contains grammatical errors.



The exact same argument could have been used to defend segregation and interracial marriage.

Things change.



Goats, like children, are incapable of giving consent. That is why you cannot marry a goat.

Next.