The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... and I think that the objection based on polygamy is relevant because there really isn't a principled distinction between broadening marriage outside its traditional definition to include same sex marriage, and broadening marriage outside its traditional definition to include three, rather than two parties. All the same arguments seem to apply to me. Why should marriage be defined to include two people, but not three? What if I really love them both? What if I was born this way?

When you say "All the same arguments seem to apply to me" I'm not sure whether you mean it seems to you that the arguments apply also to polygamy, or whether you mean the arguments about polygamy seem to apply to you. But that's your business not mine.

I (apparently along with a couple of others who have responded) agree with what I think is your conclusion, that it is not the government's business to decide whom you choose as your family (or some new word for "chosen family") or what you all do in privacy. Let's separate sex and procreation (private business) from rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, tax benefits, and any other issues of interest to the state, and settle the latter issues in a way that treats everyone equally.

[Anonymous]

It is not morally OK to treat someone as a second class citizen. I agree with every one of the posts above that believe gays should have the right to marry. What is the big threat in giving equal protection in unions (and marriage is the right word here)? There is such a history of such bigotry that has faded with time (mixed race marriages, for example). I just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

it isnt a threat. it is, however, a drastic change to an institution that has been the bedrock foundation of our society. more about respecting tradition and being against drastic changes. it certainly isn't bigoted.

I love my german shepherd, but I'm not offended that I'm not allowed to marry her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this is the PP. someone told me shorthand "homos" for homosexuals was offensive. Didnt mean it that way - meant it just as an abbreviation. i.e., heterosexuals = heteros. Going forward I'll use a different term.

are the hard-core conservatives also against some form of civil union? i'm ok with that, just leave marriage alone.

If you are making that kind of distinction, why not make civil unions the only government-sanctioned status, and then make marriage a sacrament or spiritual union sanctioned by each religion as they see fit? By what right is the government involved in any part of the act that extends beyond the legal rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it isnt a threat. it is, however, a drastic change to an institution that has been the bedrock foundation of our society. more about respecting tradition and being against drastic changes. it certainly isn't bigoted.

I love my german shepherd, but I'm not offended that I'm not allowed to marry her.

What exactly does it mean to threaten the institution. People get married for bad reasons all the time, including sham marriages to get green cards, etc. I see no reason to believe that these inferior marriages diminish the meaning and value to the rest of us. Marriage is between spouses, not between us and society at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this is the PP. someone told me shorthand "homos" for homosexuals was offensive. Didnt mean it that way - meant it just as an abbreviation. i.e., heterosexuals = heteros. Going forward I'll use a different term.

are the hard-core conservatives also against some form of civil union? i'm ok with that, just leave marriage alone.

If you are making that kind of distinction, why not make civil unions the only government-sanctioned status, and then make marriage a sacrament or spiritual union sanctioned by each religion as they see fit? By what right is the government involved in any part of the act that extends beyond the legal rights?

sure, that is fine. but i think you should still allow priests and ministers the right to perform the civil union ceremony, and in that case it is both civil union and marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you are making that kind of distinction, why not make civil unions the only government-sanctioned status, and then make marriage a sacrament or spiritual union sanctioned by each religion as they see fit? By what right is the government involved in any part of the act that extends beyond the legal rights?

This I don't get. What is it that is so important about gay marriage, that you think if the government does not recognize gay marriage that it needs to get out of the marriage business in its entirety? Considering that the government has recognized marriage for many years, it would seem to me that you'd have to have a pretty compelling reason for such a significant change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
This I don't get. What is it that is so important about gay marriage, that you think if the government does not recognize gay marriage that it needs to get out of the marriage business in its entirety? Considering that the government has recognized marriage for many years, it would seem to me that you'd have to have a pretty compelling reason for such a significant change.

The compelling reason is equal rights. If marriage of gays is not that important, then why is marriage of straights so important that the government has to stick its nose into this sacred institution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The compelling reason is equal rights. If marriage of gays is not that important, then why is marriage of straights so important that the government has to stick its nose into this sacred institution?

Saying it is a matter of "equal rights" does not make it so. What it the principled basis for this claim, and why do those principles outweigh the force of tradition and the obvious biological differences between gay and straight marriages? (As a bonus question, how do those principles not also justify polygamy?) If you don't have reasons for this claim, you're just sharing your feelings, which I respect, but neither agree with nor find persuasive.

[Anonymous]

I am a black woman and I fully support gay marriage. My reason can be summed up in three words "Loving v. Virginia". Gay rights is a civil rights issue, a subset of people are being denied something that other take for granted because we don't like it and think its unnatural.

[Anonymous]

Loving v. Virginia was based on the Fourteenth Amendment's effective ban on racial discrimination, and it set aside a state statute that was clearly motivated by racial animus and was a minority view among the states in this country even at that time. In contrast, the Fourteenth Amendment is silent on questions of sexual orientation, and, AFAIK, gay marriage was recognized nowhere in the world until the last few years, nor was the institution of marriage created to discriminate against gay people. How are these things similar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a black woman and I fully support gay marriage. My reason can be summed up in three words "Loving v. Virginia". Gay rights is a civil rights issue, a subset of people are being denied something that other take for granted because we don't like it and think its unnatural.

This is exactly right.

And as for the what does it matter posters . . . it matters because "marriage" is a civil institution, separate and apart from the sacriment of holy matrimony. You do not need to be married in a church for the former to be valid. The former is a status conveyed by government that automatically entitles a person to certain rights (e.g., inheritance). Thus, you are in fact denying status and legal rights to someone. That why "equal protection" is important. That is why this is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

homosexuals are not a protected class though. What does it even mean to be homosexual? and whose definitions? is it a choice, biological, environmental, etc. lots of questions need to be answered before you would even consider making such a constitutional change.

[Anonymous]

homosexuals are not a protected class though. What does it even mean to be homosexual? and whose definitions? is it a choice, biological, environmental, etc. lots of questions need to be answered before you would even consider making such a constitutional change.

Ha. I started to respond to this, but... I just can't. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

homosexuals are not a protected class though. What does it even mean to be homosexual? and whose definitions? is it a choice, biological, environmental, etc. lots of questions need to be answered before you would even consider making such a constitutional change.

Ha. I started to respond to this, but... I just can't. LOL.

laugh away, but I'd still like to hear the response. you don't see any scenario where being homosexual/bisexual is not 100% biological? that is ridiculous. there is as much proof now that it is biological as proof that it is a mental illness. find a gay gene and I think many people would take it more seriously.