Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Marriage not done in a church is civil union.

State that does not allow union between two people of the same sex are not doing it why? Name one reason outside of religious teaching. You won't be able to, or anything not religious falls into rights that common law partners have.

You do realize that, as usual, when it come to progressive views on what is equal and right, the world falls into line, then the US, then third world countries follow soon after.

I know people who have gotten married outside of a church.  They seem to believe they're married.

I don't know the reason why they can't get married.  That's what I'm asking.  I've gotten "because it's not the way it was forever" and "because it will lead to polygamous marriage."  

So, we see the same lens.

Women were chattel forever. Let's go back.

And then polygamous marriage happens. Then....?

Whoop de doo.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/8/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/8/2013 9:23:00 AM (view original):
You don't get to vote on rights like this. Just like we couldn't vote to take away interracial marriage, we shouldn't be able to vote to take away gay marriage.

So who gets to decide on what we can and cannot vote for?

Is everything a "Right"?

Given that gays are mostly accepted in society, so gay marraige isnt just a way to attack guys without saying it, and that civil unions are almost always an option, except for a name on a piece of paper, what right are we defending?

This is not like interracial marriage at all. You cannot make any logical connections between blacks in the 60s and gays in modern America.

We need to not let the Federal Government grab more power away from the people.

I think the comparison can be made between interracial marriage and gay marriage. It's not exactly the same situation, but it's similar enough.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Tec,

I'm not sure what the point if you posting here is if everytime someone challenges you, you shut down.

I'm not shutting down at all.  I just don't see the need to have to type the same freaking answer every time b_l keeps asking me the same (or a close variation) freaking question over and over.

In you opinion, what is the point of marriage?

It's a legally and socially recognized union between a man and a woman.  Ideally a lifelong commitment (though it doesn't always turn out that way).  It's also commonly used to establish the legitimacy of any children produced by the union of man and wife.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
So, we see the same lens.

Women were chattel forever. Let's go back.

And then polygamous marriage happens. Then....?

Whoop de doo.

Marriage communes which, I believe, destroys the definition of "family".

30 men and women living together in holy matrimony.  

Destroys "your" definition of family.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
Tec,

I'm not sure what the point if you posting here is if everytime someone challenges you, you shut down.

I'm not shutting down at all.  I just don't see the need to have to type the same freaking answer every time b_l keeps asking me the same (or a close variation) freaking question over and over.

In you opinion, what is the point of marriage?

It's a legally and socially recognized union between a man and a woman.  Ideally a lifelong commitment (though it doesn't always turn out that way).  It's also commonly used to establish the legitimacy of any children produced by the union of man and wife.

OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:44:00 PM (view original):
Destroys "your" definition of family.

Maybe.   But I believe the loss of the "traditional" family unit is where a lot of our problems start. 

In truth, a "marriage commune" where everybody takes care of everybody's children might work well.    We know the single parent with the latchkey kid doesn't. 

I just want to know before rubberstamping it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 4/6/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Too long, I know.

I used to be against gay marriage.  I grew up in a conservative household, where I was taught that homosexuality was a choice, an abomination in the eyes of God, unnatural, etc.  I was still againt gay marriage into adulthood - I hadn't heard anything or met anyone compelling enough to make me reconsider my position.  I'm a heterosexual man, happily married to a beautiful woman.  One of my wife's bridesmaids was her sister, who is gay.  My wife's sister and her partner have been together, faithful and happy for over seven years now.  During those seven years, I have known heterosexual couples who have done everything there is to do to destroy "the sanctity of marriage" - adultery, divorce, rampant lying, inattentive or wholly abusive parenting, etc.  My sister-in-law and her partner remain faithful to one another, take care of their nieces and their nephews, and love each other and the rest of the family purely and unconditionally.  They were there on my wedding day, sharing in the celebration, wishing us well, letting us know they would be there for us as family for the rest of our lives.  I would like to be there at their wedding day to do the same.  In my mind, no two people deserve to be married more than they do.  In my mind, no two people would better represent what it means to be married than they would.  I simply haven't heard anything remotely approaching a justification for looking them in the eye and telling them "You can't be married.  You can't have a wedding.  You don't deserve the same recognition, by cultural definition AND under the law, that any two heterosexual people (who are qualified to be married only in that they are of legal age, can sign their name and pay a licensing fee) deserve."

Good, a real life example.  

I'd ask them two questions:
1.  Do they want to be married?
2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?

Funny how this was ignored.

2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?

Yes. Not to each other, but in the eyes of a lot of others.

People don't say "we've been together 26 years", they say "we've been married 24 years".

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deathinahole on 4/8/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
So, we see the same lens.

Women were chattel forever. Let's go back.

And then polygamous marriage happens. Then....?

Whoop de doo.

Marriage communes which, I believe, destroys the definition of "family".

30 men and women living together in holy matrimony.  

Ok, great, there's your distinction. We can allow gay marriage because gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with marriage communes.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 1:50:00 PM (view original):
OK.  So if two homosexual people, in love, want to spend the rest of their lives together, why can't they make the same "lifelong commitment" to each other?  What is the difference?

They can.  Civil union.  I've already said this.

What, specifically, is it about a "man and woman" that makes it marriage?

History.  Tradition.  Culture.

The part where I lose you, and anyone who makes the argument you're making is:

Tec: Civil union is the same is marriage.  You spend the rest of your lives together, happily ever after.
Gay: You think they're the same? OK. I choose marriage then.
Tec: No. 
Gay: Why? You just said they're the same.

There are a lot of things in history that were universally accepted, and wrong.  A lot of traditions that make little sense to us now that were once the norm.  A lot of cultures, even today, that treat many people very poorly.  These are poor reasons.  Am I wrong?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/7/2013 9:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by examinerebb on 4/6/2013 2:36:00 PM (view original):
Too long, I know.

I used to be against gay marriage.  I grew up in a conservative household, where I was taught that homosexuality was a choice, an abomination in the eyes of God, unnatural, etc.  I was still againt gay marriage into adulthood - I hadn't heard anything or met anyone compelling enough to make me reconsider my position.  I'm a heterosexual man, happily married to a beautiful woman.  One of my wife's bridesmaids was her sister, who is gay.  My wife's sister and her partner have been together, faithful and happy for over seven years now.  During those seven years, I have known heterosexual couples who have done everything there is to do to destroy "the sanctity of marriage" - adultery, divorce, rampant lying, inattentive or wholly abusive parenting, etc.  My sister-in-law and her partner remain faithful to one another, take care of their nieces and their nephews, and love each other and the rest of the family purely and unconditionally.  They were there on my wedding day, sharing in the celebration, wishing us well, letting us know they would be there for us as family for the rest of our lives.  I would like to be there at their wedding day to do the same.  In my mind, no two people deserve to be married more than they do.  In my mind, no two people would better represent what it means to be married than they would.  I simply haven't heard anything remotely approaching a justification for looking them in the eye and telling them "You can't be married.  You can't have a wedding.  You don't deserve the same recognition, by cultural definition AND under the law, that any two heterosexual people (who are qualified to be married only in that they are of legal age, can sign their name and pay a licensing fee) deserve."

Good, a real life example.  

I'd ask them two questions:
1.  Do they want to be married?
2.  Is their relationship somehow less because they aren't?

Funny how this was ignored.

It wasn't ignored.

Quote post by bad_luck on 4/7/2013 10:32:00 PM:

Even if answer #2 is no...then what's the difference to anyone?  Does anyone consider THEIR relationship less because gays are married?  If NOTHING changes other than a piece of paper, why are people so hesitant to hand over that paper?