Anonymous wrote:Why do you, OP, and other posters who agree, feel the need to deny the sane rights and privileges you enjoy to others soley biased upon ther sexual preferences.
Christian "do unto others" is meaningless to you and Mornan tennents on homosexuality need no repetition by me. The Evangelical sects seem to thrive exploiting man's inhumanity to man.
I'd just like to her you justification

Well, this thread isn't about OP justifying why she's against same-sex marriage. It's about her asking others to help her change her views to be more accepting of same-sex marriage.

Why would you post to stir a debate instead of helping the cause?

Why do you, OP, and other posters who agree, feel the need to deny the sane rights and privileges you enjoy to others soley biased upon ther sexual preferences.
Christian "do unto others" is meaningless to you and Mornan tennents on homosexuality need no repetition by me. The Evangelical sects seem to thrive exploiting man's inhumanity to man.
I'd just like to her you justification

Anonymous wrote:My husband's older brother is gay. He's not flashy and if you hang out with him and his "friend" you'd only have circumstantial evidence that they are a couple (at least around my husband's family). They have been together longer than my husband and I have. They are both wonderful people. The only thing that ties them legally or offers them any property protection is that both their names are on the deed to their house. If one of them were sick, their families would have the right to make the medical decisions because they do not have the protections of marriage. But why, when they have had as deep and as long a committed relationship as my husband and I?

I just don't see why they can't have those protections because someone decided that "marriage" cannot be used to label the relationship they have. I cannot see how letting them have a marriage does anything but formalize their committment to each other and offer them legal protections.

I do feel sympathy for this situation, and I support gay marriage. But your BIL should really have a power of attorney for situations like the medical issues you bring up. I'm straight and married, and my wife and I still have them. There is no reason to take chances in a situation like that and they ought to at least do what they can. There are also things they can do to protect their estate against claims by family members who might try to contest a will.

My husband's older brother is gay. He's not flashy and if you hang out with him and his "friend" you'd only have circumstantial evidence that they are a couple (at least around my husband's family). They have been together longer than my husband and I have. They are both wonderful people. The only thing that ties them legally or offers them any property protection is that both their names are on the deed to their house. If one of them were sick, their families would have the right to make the medical decisions because they do not have the protections of marriage. But why, when they have had as deep and as long a committed relationship as my husband and I?

I just don't see why they can't have those protections because someone decided that "marriage" cannot be used to label the relationship they have. I cannot see how letting them have a marriage does anything but formalize their committment to each other and offer them legal protections.

Not the OP but I really appreciate the time some pps have taken to explain how their thinking evolved on gay marriage. Quite interesting. Thanks everyone.

Anonymous wrote:My stance on gay marriage has taken a similar "evolutionary" path as Obama.

Around the time of the Prop 8 stuff, I was pretty anti-gay marriage. Still was until very recently (past 2 or 3 months). Like Obama, I wanted there to be a bigger focus on strengthening the rights of gays under civil unions without tampering with the very foundation and definition of marriage.

What I've come to understand is that, while I still don't agree with gay marriage, homosexuality...or any other sin for that matter, it is not okay to deny rights to others because of my religious beliefs. The US is made up of people from many different religious (and non-religious) backgrounds and viewpoints. Religion should never trump human rights. So, while I don't agree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality, I now support support gay marriage on a human rights level.

I can respect that, pp. Thanks! -from mom of gay daughter

What PP said. It's called "the marriage penalty."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we are in a deficit and giving tax breaks to gays would not help but hurt taxes by them being able to file as married

That's the easiest one to solve: Get rid of the tax break for married people. You help with the deficit and get rid of a discriminatory policy.

We pay more taxes as a married couple. When we were unmarried and sharing expenses, our taxes were lower.

Read this

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/steps-to-help-you-evolve-your-views-on-gay-marriag

Anonymous wrote:we are in a deficit and giving tax breaks to gays would not help but hurt taxes by them being able to file as married

Of course if we can put a surcharge on douchebags that will more than even out. Assuming your kind can actually earn a living.

Anonymous wrote:we are in a deficit and giving tax breaks to gays would not help but hurt taxes by them being able to file as married

That's the easiest one to solve: Get rid of the tax break for married people. You help with the deficit and get rid of a discriminatory policy.

Anal sex nuptials...will fix a broken country!


B O 2012... If it smells bad, I'm for it!

For me, it's pretty simple - my feelings about gay marriage are separate from my feelings about homosexuality (or rather, the reasons are different). Every one of the reasons I've heard against gay marriage are religion based - primarily christianity is quoted, but there are of course other religions that do not condone gay marriage. But I don't think the government should be in the business fo enshrining religious doctrine in secular law. And I particularly don't think that government should be in the business of determining which of its citizens are entitled to enter into civil contracts (because that's what marriage is, legally) based on religious doctrine. Finally, I don't think the government should determine which of its citizens are entitled to enter into contracts based on who they person sleeps with.

In a separate but related question, I don't have any problems with homosexuality. I'm not really sure why - maybe because I have gay friends who have children, or maybe there's some other reason that I don't know - but it makes no difference to me. I haven't always felt this way, but I can't pinpoint why or when I changed.

Sorry, that probably wasn't much help.

we are in a deficit and giving tax breaks to gays would not help but hurt taxes by them being able to file as married

Marriage in the U.S. instills a bunch of legal rights as soon as the priest, rabbi, judge pronounces the couple man and wife. By not allowing gay men and women to marry, the state and the feds are discriminating on the basis of gender. Gay men and women want to marry someone of the same gender and by the state not allowing them to marry they are denying them the rights that all heterosexual couples have. (Not all hetero couples marry, but they always have the option to do so) It violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, IMHO.

Gay marriage, more than any other social issue I have seen, blurs the line between church/state. I've never heard an argument against gay marriage that wasn't based on the Bible or some religious tenent, wasn't veiled bigotry or that didn't fall apart at the first poke. For example, marriage is for procreation. If that were the case then the infertile, postmenapausal women and couples who don't want children shouldn't have the right to get married.

OP, this is plain and simple a civil rights issue. It may go against your religious teachings and gay men and women in general may make you uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean that they aren't entitlted to the exact same rights that all Americans have.