I don't believe in gay marriage

[Anonymous]

If mean abuse kids sexually much more than women, is a two man family more dangerous for kids than a conventional Union, or, do gay men abuse kids much less than straights?

[Anonymous]

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Believe would be the wrong word here. You don't approve of it. It happens whether or not you believe in it- it's not Santa or the Easter Bunny, and I've got the certificate to prove it.

I don't approve of a huge host of things that other people do, but I'm an American and due to that happy accident it doesn't matter what I approve or do not approve so long as it does not harm me.

See- gay Americans like myself are harmed by being unable to marry the person of our choosing, our families are harmed by not being afforded the protections that marriage allows other American families. It is a right that you are offered that I am not- which is fundamentally unfair.

That's why it matters.

Why would gay individuals then seek to harm others by suing them when they simply don't want to participate in your union?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Believe would be the wrong word here. You don't approve of it. It happens whether or not you believe in it- it's not Santa or the Easter Bunny, and I've got the certificate to prove it.

I don't approve of a huge host of things that other people do, but I'm an American and due to that happy accident it doesn't matter what I approve or do not approve so long as it does not harm me.

See- gay Americans like myself are harmed by being unable to marry the person of our choosing, our families are harmed by not being afforded the protections that marriage allows other American families. It is a right that you are offered that I am not- which is fundamentally unfair.

That's why it matters.

Why would gay individuals then seek to harm others by suing them when they simply don't want to participate in your union?

The same way that you harm black people when you choose to not participate in black people's meals at segregated lunch counters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If mean abuse kids sexually much more than women, is a two man family more dangerous for kids than a conventional Union, or, do gay men abuse kids much less than straights?

And if that hypothesis is correct, shouldn't we restrict marriage to union between two women and use men only for purposes of insemination?

Not intended to seriously support that idea, just to comment on the general arguments of defining marriage to fit someone's study of what kind of household is statistically best for children -- which would probably restrict marriage to those above some income level, able to afford good schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Your strawmen are tiresome. If you'd like to talk about gay marriage, I'd be happy to. Polygamy isn't on the table. Feel free to argue that on your own thread. As I said before, I'd be happy to consider it- heck it's even been legal before, in this country.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the connection. I'll spell it out for you. Your whole basic argument for supporting gay marriage is that it's a fundamental right for a person to marry whomever he or she wants and get the benefits of a marriage (not civil union) and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. the problem with that argument, is that it can be applied to ANY union. Any individual should then have that right to have the benefits of marriage no matter who he or she marries - whether it's sister wives, a same sex partner, a relative....

And whatever arguments you have for DENYING the sister-wives the same basic marital rights you are fighting so hard for can be applied to those that oppose your right to marry.

Do you understand now? It's not a strawman - it's applying your logic appropriately.

the bottom line is that it is just as simple to change the legislative laws to say that wherever the word "marriage" or "marry" is - to change the /word/definition to include civil union. And to change the laws to recognize that when a couple has a civil union, they become spouses - so that all the rights that are given to spouses are given to a partner. But for some reason, that's not good enough (or easy enough?) for you.

You are correct. I said that most people do not understand what actually happened in the Supreme Court. Seems I'm correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Know why it's odd? Because its a strawman- a slippery slope argument used when one is out of rhetorical juice.

And as y'all scream 'slippery slope', there are progressives sliding down that slope as you state it.

[Anonymous]

In this country, the people define marriage; not god.

Affirmed this week.

[jsteele]

I think that since this is now an issue of settled law and there are similar threads, it makes sense to lock this one.