The gay marriage issue.

[Anonymous]

Here goes.
I am a moderate who is waffling on the gay marriage issue. I am mostly against it for a number of reasons. One is that I wonder how long it will take for the next marriage rights agenda to come along, like polygamy. Then gay polygamy and so on.
But here is my two cents. These failed attempts in states to legalize gay marriage make me think that a large number of people do not support it, but will publicly behave as if they do. I do not know anyone who would vote against it, but it seems that once the curtain is pulled, true feelings are revealed.
Have we come to a point in this debate where people can be honest about how they feel? Is it just a matter of being PC to say that we support gay marriage?

[Anonymous]

I don't support gay marriage and know few people that do. I guess it depends what circles you travel in. It is hard for me to think of anything more absurd that two men marrying each other.

[Anonymous]

I never heard of any kind of animal that mates for life with another one of the same species and same gender. Why would we do it?
Mating is for companionship and procreation.
I'm against gay marriage being it legal, or not, being it cool or not.
I don't mind expressing my opinion and do respect people who have different opinions. I agree with you. People are still not comfortable expressing how they feel about things and what they really think.

[Anonymous]

I am all for it. I think it's a travesty and a civil rights abomination that it's not allowed already. By the time our children are grown, it will be legal and they won't believe it was ever a serious debate.

The slippery slope argument is a weak one. It doesn't have to lead anywhere else or to redefining marriage in any other way.

There is no good argument against it except a religious one, and as we all should know, "the Bible says so" isn't a good enough reason for something to be against the law. Your church doesn't have to marry anyone it doesn't want to, but the state does.

[Anonymous]

I never heard of any kind of animal that mates for life with another one of the same species and same gender. Why would we do it?

That's the dumbest argument against it I've ever heard. We do a lot of things that animals don't do... talk, reason, practice medicine, go to church. I mean, come on. At least try to make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I never heard of any kind of animal that mates for life with another one of the same species and same gender. Why would we do it?

That's the dumbest argument against it I've ever heard. We do a lot of things that animals don't do... talk, reason, practice medicine, go to church. I mean, come on. At least try to make sense.

pretty sure gay marriage is an evolutionary dead-end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am all for it. I think it's a travesty and a civil rights abomination that it's not allowed already. By the time our children are grown, it will be legal and they won't believe it was ever a serious debate.

The slippery slope argument is a weak one. It doesn't have to lead anywhere else or to redefining marriage in any other way.

There is no good argument against it except a religious one, and as we all should know, "the Bible says so" isn't a good enough reason for something to be against the law. Your church doesn't have to marry anyone it doesn't want to, but the state does.

Why? Why would we not be looking next at polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Right, because all of a sudden all the straight people will decide they want a gay marriage instead? It doesn't work that way.

If marriage is only for procreation, we should also outlaw marriages for people who are infertile, who don't want children, who plan to use birth control, who are elderly, and who have hysterectomies or vasectomies.

[Anonymous]

Why? Why would we not be looking next at polygamy?

Why would we be? Changing the definition of marriage to between two people and not just between one man and one woman still limits to two adults. It doesn't mean that you then have to change it to between as many people as you want. Why would it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here goes.
I am a moderate who is waffling on the gay marriage issue. I am mostly against it for a number of reasons. One is that I wonder how long it will take for the next marriage rights agenda to come along, like polygamy. Then gay polygamy and so on.
But here is my two cents. These failed attempts in states to legalize gay marriage make me think that a large number of people do not support it, but will publicly behave as if they do. I do not know anyone who would vote against it, but it seems that once the curtain is pulled, true feelings are revealed.
Have we come to a point in this debate where people can be honest about how they feel? Is it just a matter of being PC to say that we support gay marriage?

It's not a matter of being PC for me. I support the rights of gay people to get married 100%.

I don't mean this to be snarky, but do you have any family members or close friends who are gay? My best friend from college had to leave the country to be with his partner. They've been together 12 years and are incredibly happy. One of my good friends from high school has been with her partner for over 5 years, and have a wonderful relationship. She and her partner just had a beautiful baby girl. I guess my point is, if you have gay people in your life, and you see first-hand that their love and commitment is no different than the love and commitment of a heterosexual couple, why would you want to deny them the right to marry?

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP who posted in support of gay marriage, against the slippery slope argument, and against the "marriage is for procreation" argument. Just so you know, I'm straight and I am a Christian. I believe that my own orientation (which I am sure was inborn) and my own Christianity strengthen my commitment to this issue.

[Anonymous]

http://www.ketv.com/family/21503364/detail.html?treets=oma&tml=oma_9am&ts=T&tmi=oma_9am_1_09000111032009

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Why would we not be looking next at polygamy?

Very simple. People are born gay. They aren't born polygamist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Why would we not be looking next at polygamy?

Very simple. People are born gay. They aren't born polygamist.

To play devils advocate for a while.

Because all the same arguments can be used. We might be "natural" polygamists. Heck not every man should have a wife. And possibly vice verse.
Also, if we change the definition from "between a man and a woman", then we can easily change it from "a man and a woman". Why not?
Also, there are lots of countries that support polygamy, biblical references, Islamic allowance, FLDS practice (remember religious freedom), and a history of that practice in the US. There are millions of people who support or permit it.

Not all people are born gay. So should we only allow gay marriage to those who were born gay?

These are real issues, many of which I am not prepared to confront...yet.

[Anonymous]

Those aren't real issues. Those are hypothetical issues that gay marriage opponents have invented to scare people away from it. Why argue against things that haven't happened yet? Allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do. If we have a later argument about whether allowing polygamy is the right thing to do, so be it. I doubt it will happen (the movement to legalize polygamy, not just the allowance of it), but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.