Is Gay Marriage Really That Big Deal?

["SICC"]

So then you do think they should be denied rights....yet you have nothing against them, thats wierd. Actually I think most homosexuals will tell you they didnt have much of a choice in it. Im sure many homosexuals wish they were straight, it would make their life a lot easier.

you keep saying right's, its one thing, so since i dont execpt everything im the bad person?

 

[hom36rown]

I dont know if you are a bad person.... denying someone a basic right based on sexuality is definitely a bad thing though, atleast in my eyes

 

["SICC"]

so you saying if some one wanted to marry a dog it would be ok

 

[hom36rown]

Hey, if the animal can say the marriage vows and sign its name on the paperwork, and has a legal ID proving it's of legal age, more power to 'em. Seems unlikely though. There just aren't that many talking and signing animals out there with proper ID and of the required age. .

what he said^

 

[Budsworth]

I say let the gays and lesbo marry. Then we would all dye from some diseases and the homos and lesbo would be left to fill the earth with thier offspring.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[joepro]

[quote="SICC";1482953]so you saying if some one wanted to marry a dog it would be ok[/quote]

If you were attracted to a dog, marry it would be a small problem in your world, I'm guessing.
What stops you from being a sex partner to the dog, now?

why do we love pussy so much?
...same reasons why some love da cock!
If had a choice some would prefer a cock wheelin vage.
It's an odd world indeed.
it's also personal, therefore a personal right of choice.

 

[Seamaiden]

States rights sweetie.....just like your precious "no death penalty" states. What if big bad Bush said, "I declare that the death penalty must be enforced for capital offenses under the following set of circumstances,...." You'd be all torn up, hun. States rights. I'd rather have 50 independent decisions than 1 final decision. Difference of opinion, I guess.

That's it? That's your response? To start with a dose of ad hominem sexually condescending and wrap it up with a complete and total non-answer intermingled with an obvious attempt at obfuscation? Where's your argument? I get the distinct feeling that you jumped in, and based on the thread title are just having at it. I really think you need to get yourself up to speed, first, otherwise you're not making much sense.
And... you need to work on your debating skills, frankly. The specific issue at hand here is a state proposition, I'd even spoon-fed you which one.

A simple Power of Attorney would suffice to clear up many of these "lost privileges" arguments. Not all, but most.

Back up your assertion, and relate how it would work as a substitute, legally, for marriage. The courts have already ascertained, if I recollect, about nine ways, legally, that marriage is different from civil unions and domestic partnerships. Do I need to spoon-feed that information to you, as well?

I aint got nothing against gays, but i dont think its right, being gay is a choice, your not born that way, you dont hear people protesting against haveing more than one wife do you? so how is gay marriage any different, they both wrong, thats just how it is

Marriage is a right because it cannot be alienated from your "humanness", it cannot be separated from what might collectively be called "humanity".
In the U.S., we all have a right to pursue happiness, as this right is legally granted us by the Framers. I think all normal, reasonable people would agree that the ability to select a mate and name that person as next of kin, as spouse, is part of that pursuit (of happiness).

Now, as to the next part of your argument, you are basing on a pre-supposition which I dispute--that homosexuality is a choice. There are very real and observable differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals (and, children who have been physically abused, the more severe the abuse the more severe the differences in brain structure). I think that any normal and reasonable person would accept that the structure of our brains is something that we have only a small degree of control over, especially a structure like the hypothalamus.
(We can have an effect on brain structure if we learn a great deal, literally, which makes the brain more fissured; i.e. smooth brains have less surface area, which translates, relatively, to stupidity.)

Alright, let me present my evidence that homosexuality is not "chosen" any more than heterosexuality is "chosen". (Religion, however, can be chosen, yet we are not allowed to discriminate on basis of religion. How ironic is that?)
A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men
News article, with warning: If seeing men kissing passionately grosses you out, do not click the following link.
BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences' (Excerpt following)

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.

More scientific literature: A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men -- LeVay 253 (5023): 1034 -- Science
Another news article, which includes brain imaging, so everyone can see for themselves. Please note: The previous two articles are specific to the hypothalamus, whereas this Washington Post article is talking about amygdala structure.
Comparing Brain Scans - washingtonpost.com

And, finally, here's a different viewpoint altogether, which I believe supports my own assertion that the collective distaste, even from otherwise apparently non-religious people, is indeed based in Abrahamic religious dogma.
Living--One India-Kama Sutra-Facts About Sex.

 

[Seamaiden]

Because I'd "lost" all the responses I had copied and pasted I did not address other arguments. For instance, marriage to an animal or child. I think any normal and reasonable person would agree that, in absence of any infringement upon someone else (i.e. full ability to know and agree, as legally defined and usually accepted), one simple rule might apply to all these issues--consenting adult.

A dog cannot consent to marriage, in the literal or legal sense. Nor can a child. Nor would an arranged marriage be acceptable unless all parties are consenting adults.

I hope I've touched on all points.

 

[Eharmony420]

love is a tool of propagation. marriage is a tool of propagation. lol, i mean procreation. If they cant propagate can they love, if they arent going to procreate wht are they married? Define marriage and quit screwing around

 

[ALX420]

legalizing gay marriage would help control the population.

 

[joepro]

legalizing gay marriage would help control the population.

ok, you got me....I'll ask.

just how does that control the population?
people are going to stop fuckin because gays get married?
....let me guess, you just harvest

 

[ALX420]

ok, you got me....I'll ask.

just how does that control the population?
people are going to stop fuckin because gays get married?
....let me guess, you just harvest

youre right not gay marriage.

gay marriage education.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

love is a tool of propagation. marriage is a tool of propagation. lol, i mean procreation. If they cant propagate can they love, if they arent going to procreate wht are they married? Define marriage and quit screwing around

Based on that logic, post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry. They cannot reproduce. How about people who are sterile by choice, by accident, or by natural selection? They cannot reproduce either.

Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. It has nothing to do with children. Plenty of women have children without the benefit of marriage. Plenty of married couples are childless.

 

[ccodiane]

That's it? That's your response? To start with a dose of ad hominem sexually condescending and wrap it up with a complete and total non-answer intermingled with an obvious attempt at obfuscation? Where's your argument? I get the distinct feeling that you jumped in, and based on the thread title are just having at it. I really think you need to get yourself up to speed, first, otherwise you're not making much sense.
And... you need to work on your debating skills, frankly. The specific issue at hand here is a state proposition, I'd even spoon-fed you which one.
Back up your assertion, and relate how it would work as a substitute, legally, for marriage. The courts have already ascertained, if I recollect, about nine ways, legally, that marriage is different from civil unions and domestic partnerships. Do I need to spoon-feed that information to you, as well?

Marriage is a right because it cannot be alienated from your "humanness", it cannot be separated from what might collectively be called "humanity".
In the U.S., we all have a right to pursue happiness, as this right is legally granted us by the Framers. I think all normal, reasonable people would agree that the ability to select a mate and name that person as next of kin, as spouse, is part of that pursuit (of happiness).

Now, as to the next part of your argument, you are basing on a pre-supposition which I dispute--that homosexuality is a choice. There are very real and observable differences between the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals (and, children who have been physically abused, the more severe the abuse the more severe the differences in brain structure). I think that any normal and reasonable person would accept that the structure of our brains is something that we have only a small degree of control over, especially a structure like the hypothalamus.
(We can have an effect on brain structure if we learn a great deal, literally, which makes the brain more fissured; i.e. smooth brains have less surface area, which translates, relatively, to stupidity.)

Alright, let me present my evidence that homosexuality is not "chosen" any more than heterosexuality is "chosen". (Religion, however, can be chosen, yet we are not allowed to discriminate on basis of religion. How ironic is that?)
A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men
News article, with warning: If seeing men kissing passionately grosses you out, do not click the following link.
BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences' (Excerpt following)
More scientific literature: A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men -- LeVay 253 (5023): 1034 -- Science
Another news article, which includes brain imaging, so everyone can see for themselves. Please note: The previous two articles are specific to the hypothalamus, whereas this Washington Post article is talking about amygdala structure.
Comparing Brain Scans - washingtonpost.com

And, finally, here's a different viewpoint altogether, which I believe supports my own assertion that the collective distaste, even from otherwise apparently non-religious people, is indeed based in Abrahamic religious dogma.
Living--One India-Kama Sutra-Facts About Sex.

I don't need to "prove" anything. Your opinion is, marriage is a right to be had by all. My contention is that marriage is a privilege, and as such, need not be "equally distributed".

What percentage of the US population is "homosexual"? Of that percentage, what percent desire to be married?

What percentage of the population is on welfare? Of the total US population, what percentage would like to be on welfare?

What percentage of the US population pay taxes? Of that percentage, what percentage desire to pay taxes?

What percentage of the US population has legal authority to smoke marijuana? Of the total US population, what percentage would like to have legal authority to smoke marijuana?

Our system of governance has rules. You don't have to like the rules. You do have live with them, though.

 

[ccodiane]

I personaly have no issue with anyone whos gay.
It's as gross as two uglys or fatties displaying their love.

Don't know why some feel they own the patent on marriage?
How can a state enforce such a sexist practice?
(I can get fired from my job for the telling of a gay joke)

Is there not more then one form for christian marriage already?olygamy?
Marriage is a social, religious,spiritual, or legal union of human individuals.
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reasons givin from the right are sooooo ludicrous.
I herd today a few new reasons, schools will have to rewrite books, churches will get sued for hate speech???
Have to say it's better then the argument of 'why not a man and a animal then.'
Heres a few more reasons, i thought was funny.
12 Reasons | Gator Gay-Straight Alliance

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians

Yeah, but what the heck is "prop 8"?

 

[joepro]

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, three states (Massachusetts, California and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-five states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.
On May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court as a violation of equal protection; the decision came into effect on June 16, 2008.[3][4] A proposed constitutional amendment overriding the Court's decision has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot.[5][6]

 

[ccodiane]

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
Including the results of the 2006 midterm elections, three states (Massachusetts, California and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-five states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.
On May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court as a violation of equal protection; the decision came into effect on June 16, 2008.[3][4] A proposed constitutional amendment overriding the Court's decision has been placed on the 2008 California general election ballot.[5][6]

Right on. Let the people decide. That's the right thing to do. I think we ALL can agree on that!

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/

 

[ccodiane]

Nudity is a right because it cannot be alienated from your "humanness", it cannot be separated from what might collectively be called "humanity".
In the U.S., we all have a right to pursue happiness, as this right is legally granted us by the Framers. I think all normal, reasonable people would agree that the ability to travel freely and unmolested, while in the buff, is part of that pursuit (of happiness).

 

[ccodiane]

Based on that logic, post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry. They cannot reproduce. How about people who are sterile by choice, by accident, or by natural selection? They cannot reproduce either.

Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. It has nothing to do with children. Plenty of women have children without the benefit of marriage. Plenty of married couples are childless.

So is a mortgage.......I wonder what would happen if we gave them to anybody who asked for one?

 

[VTXDave]

I don't need to "prove" anything.

Now you sound like Chucky.