How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten me?

[Anonymous]

I just don't care enough about the issue to get excited about it. It affects so few people. Let's say 1.5% of the population is homosexual. How many of them want to get married? Who gets married anymore? And how many of those marriages will last? So really, we are talking about a fraction of a percent. Just not big enough of a number to move the needle.

[Anonymous]

I just don't care enough about the issue to get excited about it. It affects so few people. Let's say 1.5% of the population is homosexual. How many of them want to get married? Who gets married anymore? And how many of those marriages will last? So really, we are talking about a fraction of a percent. Just not big enough of a number to move the needle.

wow. Amazing to me that you don't konw anyone who is gay and also amazing that you ask "who gets married anymore"? My niece is gay and getting married this fall in MA - she's been with her fiance for years & years. They very much want to get married - honestly I know virtually no one my age (young-ish 30's and younger) who does NOT want to get married or isn't married already. Most people want to get married and more & more people know someone they care about who is gay every year as it becomes more acceptable to admit that you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, this is the beauty of freedom. Each RELIGION can do what they want, but should the government be playing with a religious term?

[Anonymous]

Funny, two atheists can get married, but two Christian gays can't. Now that's sanctity of...something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, this is the beauty of freedom. Each RELIGION can do what they want, but should the government be playing with a religious term?

Marriage long predates Christianity and even Judaism. Same sex marriage is certainly a change of an old tradition, but it's a tradition that did not stem from any religion.

Incidentally, does it bother you when you get CONFIRMATION of a hotel reservation, or when something hits critical MASS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, this is the beauty of freedom. Each RELIGION can do what they want, but should the government be playing with a religious term?

No! Nor should they be handing it out from courthouses, or writing laws to give it special rights. If "marriage" is religious, then leave it to the ministers altogether. If you can't/won't live with that, then accept that the word, like half the words in the English dictionary, has more than one meaning.

Oh, how hard was that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not sure I follow this line at all. The dominating argument here is that gays are not afforded all of the benefits of marriage given to heterosexual couples. So when two same sex individuals want to marry, then simply call it a "civil union" and give them the same rights provided under traditional marriage. This would not be procedurally difficult at all, that is a weak argument against civil unions. Is the goal to win the right so as to rub the faces in it of those who view marriage as a union between a man and a woman? How exactly is a civil union that affords all the rights of marriage create a second class citizen? Seems to me this is a means for a majority to get what they want, the preservation of marriage and the extension of legal rights for gay unions.

I honestly used to think this way. Why not call it a civil union, give it the exact same rights as a marriage, and everyone is happy?
But then I looked at it from a non-religious point of view. Marriage is a word, not owned or patented by any church. So why shouldn't a homosexual union be called the same name? If you take away the thought of gender, its about 2 people making a commitment to each other, to be each others lifelong partner. Why not call it a marriage? Is there a good reason, other than calling it a marriage offends the far right?

This is where supporters of this issue lose ground, it's not just the far right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Fine with me, but the distinction is that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory on grounds of gender, whereas banning polygamy is not, since nobody of either sex is allowed multiple marriage partners.

I assume. by the way, that you would also allow polyandry and more general group marriages?

[Anonymous]

People who live homosexual lifestyles have the same rights as everyone else. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and so do they. No one is saying that they cannot get married.

Stop arguing over this ridiculous mess and repent for all of your personal sins before God's judgment comes flying down on your head. Once you are finished, pray for this sick and perverted country full of baby killers, perverted sex, witchcraft, and all other kinds of hell.

Talking about this is a Christian nation..please, give me a break. God's judgment is coming, and sorry, no one will be raptured away from it. Repent and pray for protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who live homosexual lifestyles have the same rights as everyone else. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and so do they. No one is saying that they cannot get married.

Stop arguing over this ridiculous mess and repent for all of your personal sins before God's judgment comes flying down on your head. Once you are finished, pray for this sick and perverted country full of baby killers, perverted sex, witchcraft, and all other kinds of hell.

Talking about this is a Christian nation..please, give me a break. God's judgment is coming, and sorry, no one will be raptured away from it. Repent and pray for protection.

Who opened up a can of crazy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who live homosexual lifestyles have the same rights as everyone else. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and so do they. No one is saying that they cannot get married.

Stop arguing over this ridiculous mess and repent for all of your personal sins before God's judgment comes flying down on your head. Once you are finished, pray for this sick and perverted country full of baby killers, perverted sex, witchcraft, and all other kinds of hell.

Talking about this is a Christian nation..please, give me a break. God's judgment is coming, and sorry, no one will be raptured away from it. Repent and pray for protection.

Who opened up a can of crazy?

Or maybe a can of parody? I hope!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Fine with me, but the distinction is that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory on grounds of gender, whereas banning polygamy is not, since nobody of either sex is allowed multiple marriage partners.

I assume. by the way, that you would also allow polyandry and more general group marriages?

Banning same sex marriage is not discimitory on grounds of gender. It is discriminitory based on orientation. The orientation of attraction for the same sex. Banning polygamy is discrimintory based on neither. It simply bans a 1 to many marriage which when you think of it is even less radical than same sex marriage. Polygamy is in the Bible, the Quaran, etc. and has existed in all kinds of cultures throughout history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Fine with me, but the distinction is that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory on grounds of gender, whereas banning polygamy is not, since nobody of either sex is allowed multiple marriage partners.

I assume. by the way, that you would also allow polyandry and more general group marriages?

Banning same sex marriage is not discimitory on grounds of gender. It is discriminitory based on orientation. The orientation of attraction for the same sex. Banning polygamy is discrimintory based on neither. It simply bans a 1 to many marriage which when you think of it is even less radical than same sex marriage. Polygamy is in the Bible, the Quaran [you meant Quran, I suppose, or is there a third alternative?], etc. and has existed in all kinds of cultures throughout history.

I dispute the issue of gender discrimination, since I was allowed to marry women (two, but not simultaneously, of course), but not a man. How is that not discrimination? It depends on how you word it.

On the other hand, you are quite right that polygamy has a long history. Polyandry, not so much. So there seems to be some discrimination there also. But the history of religion (and the present also) is replete with discrimination against women, which is one reason to thank God (if that's not too smart-ass) for separation of church and state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While you're at it, ponder why polygamy is illegal. That too can involve consenting adults and in no way threatens your family.

Fine with me, but the distinction is that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory on grounds of gender, whereas banning polygamy is not, since nobody of either sex is allowed multiple marriage partners.

I assume. by the way, that you would also allow polyandry and more general group marriages?

Banning same sex marriage is not discimitory on grounds of gender. It is discriminitory based on orientation. The orientation of attraction for the same sex. Banning polygamy is discrimintory based on neither. It simply bans a 1 to many marriage which when you think of it is even less radical than same sex marriage. Polygamy is in the Bible, the Quaran [you meant Quran, I suppose, or is there a third alternative?], etc. and has existed in all kinds of cultures throughout history.

I dispute the issue of gender discrimination, since I was allowed to marry women (two, but not simultaneously, of course), but not a man. How is that not discrimination? It depends on how you word it.

On the other hand, you are quite right that polygamy has a long history. Polyandry, not so much. So there seems to be some discrimination there also. But the history of religion (and the present also) is replete with discrimination against women, which is one reason to thank God (if that's not too smart-ass) for separation of church and state.

I agree with the person who says it is gender discrimination. It is discrimination agains the people who want to marry the poster. For example, two women were allowed to marry him. However if a male wants to marry him, the male is denied that right because of his gender. That IS discriminatory. There is no reason for the denial other than which genitals the person who wants to marry the poster happens to have under their clothes.