The gay marriage issue.

[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.

A dog isn't a human, and doesn't have civil rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The Fourteenth Amendment wasn't read to ban racial discrimination until relatively recently.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but Loving was decided at a point it time in which it was, as it references the "Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations". Obviously there's a long story about how the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted over time, but that's a lot of inside baseball for a comment thread.

[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.

It is indeed bigoted to equate gay marriage to marrying your dog.

"Respecting tradition" is a terrible argument. It's as bad as the slippery slope. We should not continue to do the wrong thing just because we've always done wrong.

Gay marriage causes no harm to heterosexuals (of which I am one -- I'm one of the straight Christians from earlier in the thread). It affects existing marriages and future heterosexual marriages not at all. Not one little bit. Restricting gay marriage, however, DOES cause harm. It restricts the rights and freedoms of our fellow citizens. This is a very simple issue to me, which is why I have to laugh at the "but what is a homosexual anyway??? we need a lot more research" poster. What does it matter? Who cares if it's a choice? I don't think it is, but even if it is, so what? It doesn't affect me in the slightest if someone else falls in love with someone of the same sex. It certainly can't provide a worse example of marriage than the marriages of many straight celebrities, politicians, and just plain regular folk who screw this sacred institution up on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Restricting gay marriage, however, DOES cause harm. It restricts the rights and freedoms of our fellow citizens.

And just who decided that gay marriage was a right? That's kind of the whole issue in dispute, and waving your hands and saying it is a right/freedom that is being unfairly restricted proves nothing. You're talking about a supposed "right" that has never been recognized anywhere until very recently, and now it is so fundamental that it needs to be exempted from the democratic process because the voters have the wrong view of things?

[Anonymous]

You're talking about a supposed "right" that has never been recognized anywhere until very recently, and now it is so fundamental that it needs to be exempted from the democratic process because the voters have the wrong view of things?

Pretty much.

[Anonymous]

Well, I hope you don't expect "because I said so" to convince anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Of course not. Just like "but it's always been this way!" or "but then someone might want to marry a cactus!" doesn't convince anyone reasonable.

[Anonymous]

You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

It depends how you define tradition. It was traditional for a girl's father to make a deal and marry off his daughter. Basing it on love became a new tradition. Marrying the one you love became such a strong tradition that it was extended beyond race and religion. By now, the tradition is to extend the tradition!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

It depends how you define tradition. It was traditional for a girl's father to make a deal and marry off his daughter. Basing it on love became a new tradition. Marrying the one you love became such a strong tradition that it was extended beyond race and religion. By now, the tradition is to extend the tradition!

On to polygamy, then! Since the tradition is to extend the tradition, I assume you have no objection. Marrying the two you love means you have even more love to share!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

It depends how you define tradition. It was traditional for a girl's father to make a deal and marry off his daughter. Basing it on love became a new tradition. Marrying the one you love became such a strong tradition that it was extended beyond race and religion. By now, the tradition is to extend the tradition!

On to polygamy, then! Since the tradition is to extend the tradition, I assume you have no objection. Marrying the two you love means you have even more love to share!

PP here. Personally I don;t think I could handle polygamy, but I'm not one to demand that others follow my example. I happen to be old enough to remember hippie communes -- make love not war -- with whoever is handy! I always wear cleats so I can go down those slippery slopes, but only as far as I want. Analogy is like a hand grenade -- you can throw it at anyone you want, but there is always the danger it will blow up in your face.

[Anonymous]

Okay, aside from the fact that some people think it will lead straight to Big Love territory, what OTHER harm could possibly come from gay marriage? Anyone?

[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.

They are in the District!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really assign tradition no weight in considering what is reasonable and what is not? I find that difficult to believe.

Tradition means that the man is the head of the household and a woman is an appendage. Are you willing to go back to the time when you couldn't own property and you had to obey your husband even if he was abusing you?