Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[tigretigre 0]

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

I think I read somewhere that we're all endowed with the same inalienable rights. It's not a question of you or I or anybody in this thread "granting" rights to others. The question isn't whether I would "grant equal rights" to someone--it is whether I will stand up and protect his or her inalienable rights when they are threatened.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

Under the law, there is nothing sacred about marriage between a man and a woman. Under the law, marriage is a construct of rights, duties and privileges that are gender-neutral. What makes a marriage sacred and unique is what the two people who make that commitment bring to it, and our legal tradition has recognized the importance of the government staying out of this private aspect of marriage as much as is possible.

If part of what makes your marriage special and sacred to you is the fact that you and your partner are different sexes, then by all means celebrate that in your covenant. But don't make it part of mine.

[garya505 2]

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

You're kind of obsessed with the polygamy---something you want to share?

What if it was something sacred and unique between two people? What if 'marriage' was never 'sacred and unique' unless the parties involved defined it that way?

As far as the legal definition of marriage, love has nothing to do with it. Our government (read 'us') decided it is bureaucratic function of registering families--look at marriage traditions from around the world.

While most here gasp on about their undying love for their domestic partner (self included), love is not a prerequisite for the spousal immigration benefit (for example). Nor should it be. How would you have our government define and prove your "love" vs say, mine?

Yes, actually I like the thought of having 2 wives, or 3.

OK, then where would you stop? Would you grant equal rights to homosexuals but not polygamists? If so, why?

I think I read somewhere that we're all endowed with the same inalienable rights. It's not a question of you or I or anybody in this thread "granting" rights to others. The question isn't whether I would "grant equal rights" to someone--it is whether I will stand up and protect his or her inalienable rights when they are threatened.

If we redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, then we would be saying that there is nothing sacred and unique about marriage between a man and a woman, and there would be no valid argument against other forms of relationships such as polygamy. If marriage does not have to be one man and one woman, then what is marriage?

Under the law, there is nothing sacred about marriage between a man and a woman. Under the law, marriage is a construct of rights, duties and privileges that are gender-neutral. What makes a marriage sacred and unique is what the two people who make that commitment bring to it, and our legal tradition has recognized the importance of the government staying out of this private aspect of marriage as much as is possible.

If part of what makes your marriage special and sacred to you is the fact that you and your partner are different sexes, then by all means celebrate that in your covenant. But don't make it part of mine.

Under the law, does marriage have to be only two people?

[tigretigre 0]

I'm not going to get into the what-about-polygamy debate with you, so when you argue with me, you will have to remove that from your arsenal of wit. There have been government interests advanced in the prohibition of polygamy that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality or the "definition of marriage," and in any case polygamists are not per se a class of persons whose disenfranchisement triggers Constitutional scrutiny. Unless you want to get into a discussion about religious freedom, equal protection, and the three-prong test for violation of the Establishment Clause. Something tells me you don't.

What I will say is that you took the most inconsequential part of what I said and made it the focus of your argument, without addressing the issues presented to you. Before you say another word about polygamy, which I didn't write about, it would be nice if you would do me the courtesy of addressing the issues that I and other people have raised in our posts.

Edited November 10, 2006 by tigretigre

[Peikko 1,575]

It would be nice, but it isn't going to happen, mainly because there is no rational argument against homosexuality.

The 'best'/'only argument that has been proposed is that it's 'abnormal and unnatural'. Rather flimsy.

[garya505 2]

I'm not going to get into the what-about-polygamy debate with you, so when you argue with me, you will have to remove that from your arsenal of wit. There have been government interests advanced in the prohibition of polygamy that have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality or the "definition of marriage," and in any case polygamists are not per se a class of persons whose disenfranchisement triggers Constitutional scrutiny. Unless you want to get into a discussion about religious freedom, equal protection, and the three-prong test for violation of the Establishment Clause. Something tells me you don't.

What I will say is that you took the most inconsequential part of what I said and made it the focus of your argument, without addressing the issues presented to you. Before you say another word about polygamy, which I didn't write about, it would be nice if you would do me the courtesy of addressing the issues that I and other people have raised in our posts.

Yeah, I didn't really think you would answer that one, per se.

[Mirorgate 0]

Wow. 27 pgs about nothing but bitchen about something noone lost because they didnt have to begin with. Name callin... position stancing. fear tactics. and much much more all for free to read thru 27 pgs of nothing.

I have family that are gay. i shared an apartment with a gay guy during college, later a gay woman after college. I dont HAVE to agree with their choice of life style, I only have to treat them like a human being worthy of respect like I want to recieve from them.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I wonder if Charles will "take one for the team".

Maybe we can get Gupt to setup a poll.

Daniel

:energetic:

only if you will be my stunt double

My cat is gay...that's all I have to add to this thread.

steven, i'm thinking it's something in the water out there in cali

Excuse me, but I can have sex with a woman- doesn't make me gay. I could have sex with a cucumber, doesn't make me a vegetable either.

PS I a know I am going to regret this post because at some point Charles is going to show up

so that was you i saw on the internet cam!

[mybackpages 0]

I wonder if Charles will "take one for the team".

Maybe we can get Gupt to setup a poll.

Daniel

:energetic:

only if you will be my stunt double

My cat is gay...that's all I have to add to this thread.

steven, i'm thinking it's something in the water out there in cali

Excuse me, but I can have sex with a woman- doesn't make me gay. I could have sex with a cucumber, doesn't make me a vegetable either.

PS I a know I am going to regret this post because at some point Charles is going to show up

so that was you i saw on the internet cam!

I knew you would find your way here

[meauxna 15]

Yes, actually I like the thought of having 2 wives, or 3.

HOW can you continue to ignore the question I had, and tigre has?

Marriage as a legal function has nothing to do with love, or sex. Read tigre's post again--she says it so well!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, actually I like the thought of having 2 wives, or 3.

HOW can you continue to ignore the question I had, and tigre has?

Because answering it would expose the underlying issue: prejudice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess I don't understand the idea that if gay people should be given some some sort of civil union (with all the legal benefits accorded to married couples), why not call it marriage? The difference seems purely semantic, for all practical purposes....

I'm not sure why homosexuality is being mentioned in the same breath as polygamy, but it does show one thing. That those who claim to have nothing against homosexuals, and apparently don't want to impose their views on others - consider homosexuality to be "deviant", and really don't want to concede that their lifestyle should be condoned by society by giving them those legal rights.

I mean how can you hold a position on a point of semantics? The real meat and potatoes of the issue is whether or not gay couples should have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple.

Some specious reasoning going on methinks

Edited November 11, 2006 by erekose

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not sure why homosexuality is being mentioned in the same breath as polygamy, but it does show one thing. That those who claim to have nothing against homosexuals, and apparently don't want to impose their views on others - consider homosexuality to be "deviant", and really don't want to concede that their lifestyle should be condoned by society by giving them those legal rights.

Those opposing homosexual marriage are more often than not the same caliber people that would have opposed legalizing interracial marriages a few decades back.

[meauxna 15]

Yes, actually I like the thought of having 2 wives, or 3.

HOW can you continue to ignore the question I had, and tigre has?

Because answering it would expose the underlying issue: prejudice.

<sigh> I know.

I've told the story before, of my mom and her marathon training partner. J was one of my customers and she was looking for a running partner to train for the same race & was also a first time marathoner, so I naturally put them together.

Well my mom had always been a little disparaging of my (mostly at that time) gay friends. She didn't understand what I saw in 'those people'.

Mom and J started training together, and when you're running for 2 and 3 and 4 hour stretches, I guess you talk about everything under the sun. It came out that J is in a committed relationship with another woman (like 10 years together back then) and to my mom's amazement: They were just like us! Same as any old married couple, they had the same wants, dreams, plans, arguments, complaints, you name it.

My mom and J (and her partner) are still pretty tight now, some 15 years later. By spending time actually getting to kow *individuals* instead of 'the gays' my mom totally changed her world view. She's not out marching in the Pride Parade or anything, but she can clearly see how these are people just like you and I and if this mature woman can see that there is no reason that J & her partner should not be as legally tied and benefitted to each other as any husband and wife, well, I'm sure the mature people here could open their minds if they had the opportunity to know *people* instead of stereotypes like some of the names that have been called out here.

(J and her partner finally had a baby--a long time dream. They conceived through artificial insemination, just like my straight girl neighbor did. He's a cutie patootie!)

There's obviously been a high titillation factor going on here in this thread.. it's funny to make fun and snigger about things that are unfamiliar to you.. but we don't talk about each other in terms of our sex lives here (most of the time) and I can only guess at the reasons to laugh and use crude names. Like many here, I expected a higher level of tolerance from this audience due to our reasons for being here, but...

Gary, I do wish you'd think of people as people and not as labels. Once you did, you'd instantly see how it is wrong to deny our neighbors (who are already living as spouses) the rights and responsibilities of a legal union like you can have.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, actually I like the thought of having 2 wives, or 3.

HOW can you continue to ignore the question I had, and tigre has?

Because answering it would expose the underlying issue: prejudice.

<sigh> I know.

I've told the story before, of my mom and her marathon training partner. J was one of my customers and she was looking for a running partner to train for the same race & was also a first time marathoner, so I naturally put them together.

Well my mom had always been a little disparaging of my (mostly at that time) gay friends. She didn't understand what I saw in 'those people'.

Mom and J started training together, and when you're running for 2 and 3 and 4 hour stretches, I guess you talk about everything under the sun. It came out that J is in a committed relationship with another woman (like 10 years together back then) and to my mom's amazement: They were just like us! Same as any old married couple, they had the same wants, dreams, plans, arguments, complaints, you name it.

My mom and J (and her partner) are still pretty tight now, some 15 years later. By spending time actually getting to kow *individuals* instead of 'the gays' my mom totally changed her world view. She's not out marching in the Pride Parade or anything, but she can clearly see how these are people just like you and I and if this mature woman can see that there is no reason that J & her partner should not be as legally tied and benefitted to each other as any husband and wife, well, I'm sure the mature people here could open their minds if they had the opportunity to know *people* instead of stereotypes like some of the names that have been called out here.

(J and her partner finally had a baby--a long time dream. They conceived through artificial insemination, just like my straight girl neighbor did. He's a cutie patootie!)

There's obviously been a high titillation factor going on here in this thread.. it's funny to make fun and snigger about things that are unfamiliar to you.. but we don't talk about each other in terms of our sex lives here (most of the time) and I can only guess at the reasons to laugh and use crude names. Like many here, I expected a higher level of tolerance from this audience due to our reasons for being here, but...

Gary, I do wish you'd think of people as people and not as labels. Once you did, you'd instantly see how it is wrong to deny our neighbors (who are already living as spouses) the rights and responsibilities of a legal union like you can have.

:applause:

[Karen_L 1]

I have many gay friends, many of whom I've known since childhood. From as earlier as I can remember, there was always *something* different about these boys, even as young as 5 or 6 years old. I remember at age 7 my mother predicted a friend of mine would be gay and today he's 22 and he is FLAMING lol. I think sexuality is biologically determined; it's not a lifestyle choice. Has anyone here ever made a conscious choice to be heterosexual?

Also, no, I wouldn't mind my children spending time around gay people. My father's sister is a lesbian and I was raised around her and her partner of 20 years and I likes the menfolk When I have children, I'm sure they WILL be spending lots of time around homosexuals because so many of my friends are gay.