How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

Forum Index » Political Discussion
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:15
Anonymous
I'm currently living in MN where the state senate jusst approved adding an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. The House will surely approve as well, then it will go on the ballot in Nov 2008. Apparently this will help protect and benefit me in some way. I'm a heterosexual mid thirties married Christian female with three children. What serious threat to me or my family is being avoided by ensuring gays cannot marry? What benefits will my family and me receive? If this is such a serious issue that a constitutional amendment is necessary, I'd like to understand why, exactly.

My tiny little brain just can't process how denying rights to others will improve my marriage, strengthen my family, or make the world safer for my children.

[Post New]05/12/2011 12:22
Anonymous
No idea why it is so threatening. Haven't figured it out yet either.
Usually the tactic is to scare us into thinking somehow they will have special rights that us ordinary people don't. Most people saw through this arguement. I'm not sure what line they'll use to scare us next.
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:29
Anonymous
These people are different from us. We therefore need to hate and despise them and deny them their basic human rights.
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:30
Anonymous
Many religions, and most of all Christianity, officially proclaim that homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is for procreating children.

This is because religions evolved to suit the human population growth and mores of their time. Until not so long ago, there was no overpopulation to strain the earth's resources and bloodlines were important to determine inheritances and identify oneself in extremely class-segmented societies.

Now that hierarchical societies are in decline, that technology offers myriad ways of passing on one's genes and that adoption is now seen as a way of becoming a family without further burdening ecosystems, all these "religious" objections of a bygone age seem very backward.




[Post New]05/12/2011 12:40
Anonymous
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, fine, but not marriage. Just imagine a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey with a future Prince Rupert, Prince of Wales and John Jingleheimer Schmidt?
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:42
Anonymous
Only issue would be whether his garb was too dull.
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:48
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, fine, but not marriage. Just imagine a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey with a future Prince Rupert, Prince of Wales and John Jingleheimer Schmidt?


This doesn't really answer the question of how gay marriage would threaten OP.
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:57
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, fine, but not marriage. Just imagine a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey with a future Prince Rupert, Prince of Wales and John Jingleheimer Schmidt?


This doesn't really answer the question of how gay marriage would threaten OP.


That's pretty much the point. The best anyone can come up with is that the wouldn't watch a royal wedding between two gays. Or that "marriage" has some definition and we must adhere to the definition.
[Post New]05/12/2011 12:59
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, fine, but not marriage. Just imagine a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey with a future Prince Rupert, Prince of Wales and John Jingleheimer Schmidt?

Not trying to be snarky... but this is it. Many religions view marriage as sacred, a sacrament, something "holy". So since they also view homosexuality as a sin, they can't accept sinners into a sacred institution. That is why many are ok calling it a civili union - because it has no religious meaning.
The problem is - no religion "owns" marriage. There is no patent on it. States issue marriage licenses, as well as religions perform marriage ceremonies.
[Post New]05/12/2011 13:08
Anonymous
Not trying to be snarky... but this is it. Many religions view marriage as sacred, a sacrament, something "holy". So since they also view homosexuality as a sin, they can't accept sinners into a sacred institution. That is why many are ok calling it a civili union - because it has no religious meaning.
The problem is - no religion "owns" marriage. There is no patent on it. States issue marriage licenses, as well as religions perform marriage ceremonies.


But then aren't these anti-gay marriage or defense of marriage laws unconstitutional from a separation of church/state principal? If these laws are designed to allow the government protect and propogate a religious belief isn't that as big an issue as the civil right issues?
[Post New]05/12/2011 13:15
Anonymous
The idea that marriage is sacred so that gay marriage has to be labeled something separate is appalling.

Has separate but equal ever worked?

[Post New]05/12/2011 13:19
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Not trying to be snarky... but this is it. Many religions view marriage as sacred, a sacrament, something "holy". So since they also view homosexuality as a sin, they can't accept sinners into a sacred institution. That is why many are ok calling it a civili union - because it has no religious meaning.
The problem is - no religion "owns" marriage. There is no patent on it. States issue marriage licenses, as well as religions perform marriage ceremonies.


But then aren't these anti-gay marriage or defense of marriage laws unconstitutional from a separation of church/state principal? If these laws are designed to allow the government protect and propogate a religious belief isn't that as big an issue as the civil right issues?


(FWIW - I'm on your side - just well versed in the other) - Even though the "basics" for those against gay marriage is religious based, it is not religion. Most of our laws are Judeo-Christian in nature. It's why we don't allow pilagamy. And its why so many civil rights issue took so long. Slavery can be found in the bible. The bible also forbids women to hold positions over men. So when our country was founded, slavery was legal and women had no rights. Yet today, after several generations of fighting for equal rights, no one blinks an eye at the fact that blacks can vote and women can hold office. So, it will take a while to extends the same rights to homosexuals.
If the anti-homosexual marriage folks really want to have it their way, we should do away with legal marriage in totality, and only have legal civil unions. That way marriages are only ceremonies performed by religious institutions, and civil unions are what the states issue licenses for.
[Post New]05/12/2011 13:21
Anonymous
It doesn't threaten you. It doesn't threaten the "sanctity of marriage".

If we must fall back to the civil union argument, fine, every person shall be entitled to the same civil union. Leave marriage to the church.

We all know separate-but-equal, is a farce.
[Post New]05/12/2011 13:34
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions, fine, but not marriage. Just imagine a royal wedding at Westminster Abbey with a future Prince Rupert, Prince of Wales and John Jingleheimer Schmidt?

That's so disrespectful! It just doesn't fit:
The name is John JACOB Jingleheimer Schmidt!


And I think you are also wrong about the ratings. I bet the first royal gay wedding will probably bust the Nielson charts.
[Post New]05/12/2011 13:43
Anonymous
OP - if God gets mad at your state, then you certainly will suffer.

That's all I got.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics