How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

1. You have just pointed out that this "sacred institution" long predates Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

2. It is not being changed, just extended. Same thing happened a few decades ago when laws against racial intermarriage were dropped.

3. Every change can have unintended consequences, but we do not choose to keep the status quo on everything.

4. Giving all the rights of marriage, but calling it civil union might be okay if it really included all the rights of marriage. But the only sure way to be sure to give it all the rights of marriage is to call it a marriage.

5. The ceremony may be sacred, but "marriage" is just a word, and words belong to all who speak the language.

#4 simply is not true. A civil union could be defined under the law as having all of the rights of marriage. You are minimizing the meaning of marriage as a religious term. To a Muslum, the term Allah is not simply a word that could be mis-used at will because it is a word in the language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

1. You have just pointed out that this "sacred institution" long predates Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

2. It is not being changed, just extended. Same thing happened a few decades ago when laws against racial intermarriage were dropped.

3. Every change can have unintended consequences, but we do not choose to keep the status quo on everything.

4. Giving all the rights of marriage, but calling it civil union might be okay if it really included all the rights of marriage. But the only sure way to be sure to give it all the rights of marriage is to call it a marriage.

5. The ceremony may be sacred, but "marriage" is just a word, and words belong to all who speak the language.

#4 simply is not true. A civil union could be defined under the law as having all of the rights of marriage. You are minimizing the meaning of marriage as a religious term. To a Muslum, the term Allah is not simply a word that could be mis-used at will because it is a word in the language.

My point is proved; thank you. It could be defined that way, or it could be defined in other ways, either by design or by oversight. And it would have to be fought out in every state.

As to Allah, an observant Jew writes G-d because one must not take the name of the Lord in vain. But people in the US write God all the time, because one person's religious beliefs are not binding on fellow citizens. In America, you worship God in your way and I worship in mine (or not). Your bacon and eggs may make Jews and Muslims sick to watch, but it's your right to eat it. Conversely, your religious views on marriage bind you, but not me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

1. You have just pointed out that this "sacred institution" long predates Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

2. It is not being changed, just extended. Same thing happened a few decades ago when laws against racial intermarriage were dropped.

3. Every change can have unintended consequences, but we do not choose to keep the status quo on everything.

4. Giving all the rights of marriage, but calling it civil union might be okay if it really included all the rights of marriage. But the only sure way to be sure to give it all the rights of marriage is to call it a marriage.

5. The ceremony may be sacred, but "marriage" is just a word, and words belong to all who speak the language.

#4 simply is not true. A civil union could be defined under the law as having all of the rights of marriage. You are minimizing the meaning of marriage as a religious term. To a Muslum, the term Allah is not simply a word that could be mis-used at will because it is a word in the language.

In another time, a similar argument was made, and it was about race. "Separate but Equal" was overruled by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education because in part separate did not turn out to be really equal.

If you feel that marriage is being misused as a term, it should be eliminated as a legal term altogether. There is nothing sacred about the legal transaction performed by a Justice of the Peace, whether it is done for same or opposite-sex couples. Surely some of our mothers and grandmothers would consider a non-religious marriage rite to be a sacrilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sitting in a church does not make you a Christian, just like sitting in a garage will not make you a car.

Jesus said by their fruit you will recognize them. He also said not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Have whatever religious beliefs you want to have, but this is not a cafeteria or a buffet. Just because you enjoy reading the Bible, going to church, and saying hallelujah it does not mean you have a relationship with Jesus and you have surrendered your life to Him. And if you have not, then you really shouldn't call yourself a Christian. It's common, but it bothers me because it confuses people. Find another name for your religion, or put some kind of qualifier in front of it. Or better yet, leave religion out of it and just state you believe what you believe.

Well, I'll be... Who knew Franklin Graham posted on DCUM? Franklin, are you in town so you can try to peek in the White House windows to find your proof that Obama isn't a "true Christian"? Daddy must be so proud. Shouldn't you be visiting him now that he's out of the hospital rather than following your political pursuits you try to pass off as theology?

[Anonymous]

Conservative lawyer Ted Olson, along with NY AG Eric Schneiderman, has written a timely article, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/05/16/2011-05-16_the_civil_union_baitandswitch_compromise_is_far_from_true_marriage_equality.html#ixzz1MYyl4d8m, about civil union as a poor substitute for marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go ahead and change the institution that has formed the basis of every civilization since the beginning of recorded history. I am sure there will not be any unintended consequences.

1. You have just pointed out that this "sacred institution" long predates Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc.

2. It is not being changed, just extended. Same thing happened a few decades ago when laws against racial intermarriage were dropped.

3. Every change can have unintended consequences, but we do not choose to keep the status quo on everything.

4. Giving all the rights of marriage, but calling it civil union might be okay if it really included all the rights of marriage. But the only sure way to be sure to give it all the rights of marriage is to call it a marriage.

5. The ceremony may be sacred, but "marriage" is just a word, and words belong to all who speak the language.

#4 simply is not true. A civil union could be defined under the law as having all of the rights of marriage. You are minimizing the meaning of marriage as a religious term. To a Muslum, the term Allah is not simply a word that could be mis-used at will because it is a word in the language.

In another time, a similar argument was made, and it was about race. "Separate but Equal" was overruled by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education because in part separate did not turn out to be really equal.

If you feel that marriage is being misused as a term, it should be eliminated as a legal term altogether. There is nothing sacred about the legal transaction performed by a Justice of the Peace, whether it is done for same or opposite-sex couples. Surely some of our mothers and grandmothers would consider a non-religious marriage rite to be a sacrilege.

I say, the same and equal, therefore, civil union for all. No more marriage.

[Anonymous]

it is very offensive to me, in my opinion, to compare the homosexual trend to the civil rights movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is very offensive to me, in my opinion, to compare the homosexual trend to the civil rights movement.

The comparison does not claim the two are equal. But gays suffer discrimination and violence, both characteristic of the injustices faced by African Americans. And do you not realize that your use of the word "trend" is offensive, even to a straight old guy like me, implying that gays choose their minority status to be fashionable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say, the same and equal, therefore, civil union for all. No more marriage.

I agree that would be the best solution, but it is counterproductive to oppose a good solution because it is not perfect. And look at it from the point of view of those who mistakenly see extension of marriage rights as an attack on the institution. You propose something that actually does affect everybody's marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it is very offensive to me, in my opinion, to compare the homosexual trend to the civil rights movement.

First, I only compared the political solution called "separate but equal"

Second, the segregationists were none too pleased that the civil rights movement was invoking Jesus and comparing themselves to Moses and the Israelites. No one said that civil rights please everyone, every time. There are people exercising their rights in ways that I totally detest. But even Jesus could say "give to Caesar what is caesar's"

[Anonymous]

Newt Gingrich has come out for gay marriage. On Rush Limbaugh's show, of all places, in answer to Rush's question about how he defined social engineering. Newt would probably say my interpretation is wrong, but how can he make this statement and favor a government ban on gay marriage?

It's very straightforward. It's when the government comes in and tells you how to live your life and what you're gonna do -- whether the values that lead it to do that are left-wing values, or the values that lead it to do that are right-wing values. I believe in personal freedom. I believe in your right to lead your life. I believe that we are endowed by the Declaration of Independence, by our Creator, with the right to pursue happiness. And I want a government that is much more humble about its ability to tell you what to do, whether it's people on either side of the ideological spectrum.

(http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105190031)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newt Gingrich has come out for gay marriage. ...

According to Newt's cellphone,
he's really into the gay scene.
The tune he uses as ring tone
turns out to be ABBA's Dancing Queen.

(http://twitter.com/#!/KObradovich/status/71304045591134208)

[Anonymous]

I don't see how you can overturn a millenium of social convention by the fashionable whim of a few judges and liberal (libertine?) legislators. Just a few years ago, it was considered inappropriate to have open homosexuals teaching in the schools. Now gay marriage is presented like a chocolate vs. vanilla lifetyle preference. It's deviant behavior, pure and simple. I guess I'm ok with civil unions, but just.don't.use.the.M.word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how you can overturn a millenium of social convention by the fashionable whim of a few judges and liberal (libertine?) legislators. Just a few years ago, it was considered inappropriate to have open homosexuals teaching in the schools. Now gay marriage is presented like a chocolate vs. vanilla lifetyle preference. It's deviant behavior, pure and simple. I guess I'm ok with civil unions, but just.don't.use.the.M.word.

It's not a lifestyle preference, it's people seeking happiness by committing themselves to the ones they love.

Do you remember the commercial where we see an old married couple walking in the park holding hands, and we all think it's beautiful, despite the fact that there is no way those two can procreate anymore, and the thought of them having sex is probably not something any of us wish to visualize? Why do we find it heart-warming to see their marriage enduring long past its biological usefulness? Because it's love that counts!

[Anonymous]

Also, please don't lose sight of the fact that in my church gay people are married in a religious ceremony. That is not a civil union, it is a marriage celebrated by the congregation, friends and family. One religion does not have all claim to the word.