Million issues I could start on haha.

But yeah, this is an issue that will never be sorted out.

lol.


But seriously, the arguments against marriage as covered are= Its not an issue worthy of our time so lets compromise?

Fabulous catch LirvA

A lot of public perception comes out of status, and what comes out of that.
If you create clear, defined, differences between groups you create a society where there are clear definable ways to differentiate between groups.
Thats fine when there is a choice; such as religion.
However when its something that just happens, like homosexuality, then its not ok, as it separates people from others within society, and therein fosters difference.
You don't find people separating themselves over sexual preference within heterosexuality- for example, i find very little attractive in northerners; but can apprectiate that those who do can find enjoyment in a fellow person.

The ultimate force of the universe argument would work if they had power over the public. They don't- atheists marry. They would not presume to say atheists shouldn't marry, why can they say it about orientation?
"Marriage" is the recognized bonding of a couple; not under the eyes of God, but under the eyes of society. "Civil unions" are not societal, but legal, and in that sense are alot more governmental, as well as providing legal benefits, but not societal/cultural

I support making it so homosexuals can have civil unions instead so long as we make it so heterosexuals can only get civil unions as well. Which I definitely would support anyway. If marriage is a religious thing, get the state the F out.

Marriage isn't a religious thing; its a cultural thing.

I'm all for marriage being abstracted from the state, and making the "civil union" bit the government recognised bit.

That's the part I don't understand about people being against gay marriage. It's not just about some church doing a ceremony. There are a **** ton of benefits the states give to married couples. To deny them those benefits because religious people would be upset is pretty dumb IMO.

To some people it is religious though.

Its a cultural thing, with possible religious elements, as demonstrated by atheists getting married.

The religious part is like an "add-on", and they can't claim it as theirs when, at least in UK, a significant number of marriages have 0 to do with religion.
Just like they can't claim charity, they can't claim marriage

Gay people are allowed to marry. But they have to marry someone of the opposite sex because that's part of what how we have defined marriage throughout human history.

You just can't redefine an institution like that overnight. Have civil unions and see how they are perceived and treated. Maybe after a couple thousand years if we find that we want to change the definition of marriage to include other combos of unions then we will. Right now I don't think people really even have a sense of what a gay relationship is like so why do you expect people to accept it under the umbrella of established as marriage. Is there even a sitcom that portrays one? I read in harper's that gay men retain the promiscuity of men in general. Does this mean that a man-man union should be subject to easier divorces?

I'm not trying to make a joke but that would be an example of how trying to impose marriage laws onto a gay union might not be the best way to go about giving gays their rights. And what about children? I have known a lot of gay people who have children. DNA plays a role in custody, child support etc. in marriages. In a gay union one parent will be the genetic parent and one will not. How do we deal with that?

A lot of the rush on the left to promote gay marriage has been the result of taking us through sweeping changes that have to do with rights in the last 50 years and, in the fever, not slowing down to notice that this is not exactly the same type of issue as race, age, or sexual discrimination.

No its not. Marriage has been defined throughout human history as a unity between two people. The qualifications of this; only one individual, approval of parents, colour, race, creed, familiarity, and gender; are arbitarily decided by current social norms. This has changed throughout human history.

They are perceived as a legal entity, and that is it. They have been around for a while and that is the perception.

People do know what a gay relationship is like as they have been around for '000s of years. They are the same thing in that they are all different. Your lack of understanding of homosexuality is not society-wide.


When you give someone additional opportunities and freedoms your not imposing anything. Your allowing them to do something that they can't otherwise do. With the law currently banning marriage, any ceremony etc. that you describe is not going to be accepted by society.

That is about homosexual relationships, not marriage.


How is it not different? Gay relationships might have some broad statistacal differences to heterosexual relationships but thats as societal as differences in relationships based on age, race, and gender. They are people who are different and to believe that there are qualitative difference is literally a misunderstanding of sexuality

I'm pretty sure the institution of marriage predates the church by a jillion years.

A lot of gay folks seem to think it's "super important" that they ought to be legally recognized as married in the same way that straight folks do. And there are plenty of religious folks who are A-OK with this.

No. I'm only concerned with gov't-recognized marriage. And FWIW, I'm fine with getting gov't out of the marriage business.


And this is a retarded guess that betrays a complete lack of empathy for how other people think/feel. Gays want to get married and be legally recognized as being married for ---are you sitting down?-- for exactly the same reasons straight folks do. If you genuinely think that the whole issue is all about trolling people, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Noooo, surely not?
The guy who starts a thread about giving 20k to prisoners, and the "outsourcing" thread is a decided intellectual, and truth seeker!

It has nothing to do with the fact that we have differing opinions. It has everything to do with the effect that your opinion is having on my life.

So we have doctrine that says that divorce is an offense to God. But the churches allow the state to make divorces, and you're saying that the churches go ahead and recognize them anyway. But when the church says that gay marriage is an offense to God, well we take that one seriously and don't allow the state to do it. This doesn't seem ridiculous to you?

And doesn't it seem more ridiculous that the church gets to decide on the laws that those of use outside the church have to abide by? What happened to my freedom to not be a Christian?

Why can't we make this change overnight? What are you afraid of happening? The Netherlands legalized gay marriage in 2001. They're still doing fine. Vermont legalized same sex civil unions in 2000. They're still doing fine. We have data on same sex couples with kids showing that the kids do at least as well as with heterosexual couples (and like I said, I seem to recall it starting at least 30 years ago, but I could be wrong).

I don't understand your objection about the children. How do we deal with the same issue in heterosexual couples?

If homosexual sex is legal homosexual marriage should also be legal.

I would probably support outlawing homosexuality but that's not gonna happen so I don't support this irrational compromise. Either ban being gay or don't.