Question for anti-gay marriage people.

[glenn1]

Yes it does. Any couple can have a civil union but only straight couples can get married. In other words a special class exists for heterosexual couples with no equivalent special class for homosexual couples. It is not only a totally unnecessary differentiation (it's much simpler to just use "marriage" and "gay marriage") but it is also inherently polarizing. It is segregation in a less obvious form. The concept of "separate but equal" was already struck down for racial segregation. I don't see why it's suddenly become acceptable again.

So if instead of issuing marriage licenses, the state recognized civil unions only (for both gay or straight couples), would this work as far as you were concerned?

In the above case, marriage would revert to a religious ceremony only, whereas civil union was the political recognition (similar to how currently the state would issue a birth certificates, whereas the church woudl handle the baptism if desired).

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Yes it does. Any couple can have a civil union but only straight couples can get married. In other words a special class exists for heterosexual couples with no equivalent special class for homosexual couples. It is not only a totally unnecessary differentiation (it's much simpler to just use "marriage" and "gay marriage") but it is also inherently polarizing. It is segregation in a less obvious form. The concept of "separate but equal" was already struck down for racial segregation. I don't see why it's suddenly become acceptable again.

So if instead of issuing marriage licenses, the state recognized civil unions only (for both gay or straight couples), would this work as far as you were concerned?

In the above case, marriage would revert to a religious ceremony only, whereas civil union was the political recognition (similar to how currently the state would issue a birth certificates, whereas the church woudl handle the baptism if desired).

Yes

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm not in favor of your position to not have any laws on marriage, but it would end legal discrimination; if we keep marriage laws, though, you need to oppose discrimination, IMO.

If the gov't is in the business of "marriage" then it has every right to decide what the definition is. If one were to use the "discrimination" argument as you do, then any and all forms of relationships must be included.

I suggest we just remove the issue by having people do the work(legal wise) - not the gov't.

 

[Lemon law]

At this stage of science, we still don't understand what causes homosexuality. But in the historical record, it has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.
And over historical time, various societies have tried to stamp out homosexuality with zero success.

Homosexuality is also not some foreign plague but instead comes from within the society itself packed in our children. As we play a kind of Russian roulette and some discover that the lovely and loved bundle of joy sometimes grows up to be gay or lesbian. They are still
America's sons and daughters regardless if they turn out as expected or that 4% or so fraction not as expected. And now, in a country the size of the USA, we probably deal with 12 million of them. They look like us, they act like us, yet they differ in their sexual orientation. A sexual orientation no amount of punishment can change.

Also present in nearly all human societies is the institution of marriage. Which exists for social stability and to protect the children. And conveys important rights of inheritance, health benefits in industrial societies, and a long list of other obligations and benefits. In our society,
marriage is often celebrated in church but its still legally its falls under civil law. And as Atomic Playboy pointed out, gay and lesbian couples sometimes raise children who have that same 96% chance of being normal in sexual orientation.

So question, from a social stability perspective, why should we deny the institution of marriage to gays and lesbians? In my case, I am a biological male married to a biological female. But it totally baffles me why extending the institution of marriage to gay and lesbian couples would threaten my "normal" marriage in any way. And I would get the benefits of a more stable society added to the bargain. Even if I am in that 24/25 majority, its still important to protect the rights of minorities.

Personally, I derive no pleasure from hurting people who do not threaten me in any way. Any way you cut it, gays and lesbians are still America's sons and daughters also. Why should they have a lesser right to happiness?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
At this stage of science, we still don't understand what causes homosexuality. But in the historical record, it has always been part of the human condition and likely always will be.
And over historical time, various societies have tried to stamp out homosexuality with zero success.

Homosexuality is also not some foreign plague but instead comes from within the society itself packed in our children. As we play a kind of Russian roulette and some discover that the lovely and loved bundle of joy sometimes grows up to be gay or lesbian. They are still
America's sons and daughters regardless if they turn out as expected or that 4% or so fraction not as expected. And now, in a country the size of the USA, we probably deal with 12 million of them. They look like us, they act like us, yet they differ in their sexual orientation. A sexual orientation no amount of punishment can change.

Also present in nearly all human societies is the institution of marriage. Which exists for social stability and to protect the children. And conveys important rights of inheritance, health benefits in industrial societies, and a long list of other obligations and benefits. In our society,
marriage is often celebrated in church but its still legally its falls under civil law. And as Atomic Playboy pointed out, gay and lesbian couples sometimes raise children who have that same 96% chance of being normal in sexual orientation.

So question, from a social stability perspective, why should we deny the institution of marriage to gays and lesbians? In my case, I am a biological male married to a biological female. But it totally baffles me why extending the institution of marriage to gay and lesbian couples would threaten my "normal" marriage in any way. And I would get the benefits of a more stable society added to the bargain. Even if I am in that 24/25 majority, its still important to protect the rights of minorities.

Personally, I derive no pleasure from hurting people who do not threaten me in any way. Any way you cut it, gays and lesbians are still America's sons and daughters also. Why should they have a lesser right to happiness?

Very well said. Bravo!

 

[spidey07]

It's simple.

Just like the tax codes there are incentives. Marriage is an incentive to produce children and the laws are there to protect and encourage that. Gays can't produce children.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's simple.

Just like the tax codes there are incentives. Marriage is an incentive to produce children and the laws are there to protect and encourage that. Gays can't produce children.

lesbians can produce children.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: spidey07
It's simple.

Just like the tax codes there are incentives. Marriage is an incentive to produce children. Gays can't produce children.

Bullshit! There are lots of reasons for marriage. It's a commitment between two people to share a life together, and under the laws of our nation, married couples enjoy numerous privileges and advantages, including tax advantages and the right to care for their SO's and speak on their behalf in life and death situations.

The words enscirbed above the main entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States are, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. What makes you think it's OK to deny gays equal rights to these privileges and advantages? :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

 

[chucky2]

In the end, gays should just pick a term - civil union is fine, whatever works for them - excluding the word "marriage" (straights got here first for the past couple thousand years gays, too bad, pick another word) and that should be the end of that.

It seems the real issue is not whether gays should enjoy all the rights a married couple enjoys (I believe most reasonable non-holy book brainwashed people would agree with this), it's whether or not gays who are joined should be able to adobt kids (or in a lesbian join, whether one/both should be able to be artificially inseminated).

I can see how a lesbian could make the case that it is her body to choose whether she will artificially inseminate herself, however, I have a very hard time getting my head around allowing two gay males joined to adopt a child.

Something about nature (lets forego the whole, Well what about medical drugs/proceedures then? arguments, no one seriously can support that argument in good faith) not allowing two gay men to reproduce seems too much like a natural check for us to just rush out and interfere with just to satisfy PC arguments...

The kids part makes this issue so much tougher really....

Chuck

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

The institution of marriage is an old school thing. Whatever. Marriage or civil union, what difference does it really make? The importance is that the "union" is recognized and all get equal benefits and rights.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

Actually, you are homophobic...and it's not the attack term for the week, I'm calling you a homophobe because you ARE a homophobe.

"Marriage" is a word, we can define it however we like. If it is an "institution" that becomes different as a result of social progress, it certainly won't be the first. The argument that we should do things the way we've always done them just because it's the way we've always done things is circular. If there is no value in tradition other than it being tradition, what difference does it make? You can't possibly be arguing that we should maintain marriage as "one man and one woman" just because that's the way things have always been done.

And you know what? That's not your real argument. Surely you must realize the extreme number of counter-examples to the "wisdom" to be found in tradition for the sake of tradition. You aren't arguing that man/woman marriage is good, you're arguing that adding man/man or woman/woman to the equation would be BAD. And there is just no way to support that without making the argument that gay love is somehow worth less than straight love.

I wish there was another word than "homophobic" to use here, but there isn't. I don't like that word because it makes it sound like you guys are the new-age version of the Klan, and I don't think that's true at all. I just think that homosexuality is a new and different thing to a lot of people, and most people don't like new and different. Particularly when it comes to sex, which is something that people in this country treat in a truly pathological manner. It's not that people hate gays or anything, it's that a lot of people are social conservative and they don't like things that make them uncomfortable. Gay marriage is hardly the only example of this.

But don't get me wrong, this IS about thinking gay love is less than straight love. You don't want to "preserve" marriage for the sake of preserving an "institution", you want to exclude gays from marriage because it's a way to keep your relationship at a higher status...a way of looking PC by being accepting of gays without having to treat their sexual preference as equal to yours. That's why "civil unions" don't cut it as a solution, it seems WAY too close to "separate but equal". Even if civil unions come with all the same legal rights as marriage, it would still be a two tiered distinction who's only purpose is to emphasize the superiority of the straight sexual preference.

It's not a big deal though, we're going to have gay marriage, sooner rather than later. Social progress only goes one way, and I don't think history will look any more kindly on the people who oppose it than history ever does on the people stuck in the past.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2
In the end, gays should just pick a term - civil union is fine, whatever works for them - excluding the word "marriage" (straights got here first for the past couple thousand years gays, too bad, pick another word) and that should be the end of that.

It seems the real issue is not whether gays should enjoy all the rights a married couple enjoys (I believe most reasonable non-holy book brainwashed people would agree with this), it's whether or not gays who are joined should be able to adobt kids (or in a lesbian join, whether one/both should be able to be artificially inseminated).

I can see how a lesbian could make the case that it is her body to choose whether she will artificially inseminate herself, however, I have a very hard time getting my head around allowing two gay males joined to adopt a child.

Something about nature (lets forego the whole, Well what about medical drugs/proceedures then? arguments, no one seriously can support that argument in good faith) not allowing two gay men to reproduce seems too much like a natural check for us to just rush out and interfere with just to satisfy PC arguments...

The kids part makes this issue so much tougher really....

Chuck

Only if you accept the idea that gay couples are somehow less capable of raising kids than straight couples or even single people. And again, it's hard to make an argument for that position without being at least a little bit homophobic.

As for the "pick a new word" approach, why should they have to? Gay relationships are every bit as valid as straight ones...it seems really silly to allow anyone to "claim" a particular term for it. A new word assumes there is something fundamentally different (and worse) about a gay relationship, and I don't think that's at all true. Sexual preference is a non-starter issue for dividing people, in my opinion. People are people, if they love each other and want to commit to spend the rest of their lives with each other, that seems WAY more important than what equipment they have below the waist.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)
...

We do, and do you know WHY? It's because the folks on your side of the argument just end up stating your ideology without answering the fundamental question here.

How is my marriage or your marriage affected by the gay couple 2 doors down that also got married? And if our marriages ARE affected, why should it be the gay couple's problem?

Your argument is, essentially, that we have to preserve the institution of heterosexual marriage by preventing gay people from also getting married. But that argument makes two fundamental assumptions that you never seem to support. The first one is that banning gay marriage in any way helps preserve heterosexual marriage, and the second is that the preservation of straight marriage is a worthy goal to justify denying gay couples equal rights.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people?

You start off with a false premise.

For thousands of years 'marriage' has been defined as being between a man and a woman.

It is the gay rigths people who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else by forcing everyone to accept 'gay marriage' as being the same as any other marriage.

I think states should create 'civil unions' that allow gay couples the same right as 'married' couples. I also have no problem with states eliminating the term 'marriage' from the books and replacing it with 'civil unions' for gays and straights. But I don't think we should allow a small vocal group to change the definition of 'marriage' because they don't like it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people?

You start off with a false premise.

For thousands of years 'marriage' has been defined as being between a man and a woman.

It is the gay rigths people who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else by forcing everyone to accept 'gay marriage' as being the same as any other marriage.

I think states should create 'civil unions' that allow gay couples the same right as 'married' couples. I also have no problem with states eliminating the term 'marriage' from the books and replacing it with 'civil unions' for gays and straights. But I don't think we should allow a small vocal group to change the definition of 'marriage' because they don't like it.

take THAT women who don't think marriage should be indentured servitude between a man and a 13 year-old girl.

the definition of what constitutes a marriage has always been fluid.

but lock this thread already. it's just the same arguments around and around again.

 

[First]

There is no point in defining marriage as strictly between a man and a women, it's ancient tradition that's as outdated as segregation used to be in public schools. Being against gay marriage today is about as justifiable and logical as the "separate but equal" SC decision in 1896, and will be looked at with the same disdain a couple decades from now.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

Actually, you are homophobic...and it's not the attack term for the week, I'm calling you a homophobe because you ARE a homophobe.

Nice personal attack there Rainsford.

I don't see anything in his comment that makes him out to be homophobic, maybe you can explain what it is he said that makes him a homophobe. Or is just disagreeing with your point of view enough?

Just for the hell of it lets look at some polling data on this subject.
LA Times
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."
Marry=30% Civil Unions=25% Neither=38%
CNN
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
Should=40% Should not=56%

Seems that a large majority of the country is against gay "marriage" does that mean that are all homophobes?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
What right do you have to impose your beliefs on other people?

You start off with a false premise.

For thousands of years 'marriage' has been defined as being between a man and a woman.

It is the gay rigths people who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else by forcing everyone to accept 'gay marriage' as being the same as any other marriage.

I think states should create 'civil unions' that allow gay couples the same right as 'married' couples. I also have no problem with states eliminating the term 'marriage' from the books and replacing it with 'civil unions' for gays and straights. But I don't think we should allow a small vocal group to change the definition of 'marriage' because they don't like it.

You have a right to your beliefs, you DON'T have a right to force others to LIVE by those beliefs. You can believe whatever you like about the proper definition of the word marriage, you can't prevent other people from doing something based on your beliefs. There is a difference between what you are doing and what gay rights folks want to do. Nobody is forcing you to DO or BELIEVE anything different, but you ARE forcing gay couples to do something different. The situation would only be comparable if gay rights folks wanted to define marriage as ONLY between two people of the same sex.

I think a good rule of thumb is that a more inclusive definition of a term can't possibly stomp on anyone's rights, you don't have a right to force the state to back your exclusive belief system. You can believe in it all you want, but unless you have a better argument, I don't think the state is under any obligation to limit anyone's rights just because it happens to offend you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

Actually, you are homophobic...and it's not the attack term for the week, I'm calling you a homophobe because you ARE a homophobe.

Nice personal attack there Rainsford.

I don't see anything in his comment that makes him out to be homophobic, maybe you can explain what it is he said that makes him a homophobe. Or is just disagreeing with your point of view enough?

Just for the hell of it lets look at some polling data on this subject.
LA Times
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."
Marry=30% Civil Unions=25% Neither=38%
CNN
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
Should=40% Should not=56%

Seems that a large majority of the country is against gay "marriage" does that mean that are all homophobes?

Yes, of course it does.

It's not a personal attack, if you had bothered to keep reading. Being opposed to gay marriage is homophobic because doing so requires you to take a position that says gay love is something less than straight love. There are no two ways about it, try as hard as you want, you can't separate what you think about gay couples and what you think about gay marriage.

Edit: And don't give me that "preserving the traditional definition of marriage" line. Marriage USED to mean a woman was the property of her husband, did we preserve THAT just for the sake of tradition? Of course not, we looked at it in terms of modern ideas and decided that marriage is really a relationship between equals. Now we're looking at how we view marriage again, and either you think it's a good idea to extent marriage to include gays, or you don't. But you can't oppose it just because gay marriage was never a part of marriage before, that's silly. And you know it, because that's NOT why you oppose it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Pabster
Don't we have this debate about every other week? (In one form or another?)

I have nothing against gays and lesbians wanting to be together. But it should be a so-called civil union, not marriage.

Marriage is an institution in this country and the definition is one man, one woman.

And please, don't call me a religious nut. I'm an atheist and my opposition to "gay marriage" has absolutely nothing to do with any cult (aka religion or faith). Nor am I "homophobic" or whatever the attack term of the week happens to be.

Actually, you are homophobic...and it's not the attack term for the week, I'm calling you a homophobe because you ARE a homophobe.

Nice personal attack there Rainsford.

I don't see anything in his comment that makes him out to be homophobic, maybe you can explain what it is he said that makes him a homophobe. Or is just disagreeing with your point of view enough?

Just for the hell of it lets look at some polling data on this subject.
LA Times
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Same-sex couples should be allowed to legally form civil unions, but not marry. OR, Same -sex couples should not be allowed to either marry or form civil unions."
Marry=30% Civil Unions=25% Neither=38%
CNN
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
Should=40% Should not=56%

Seems that a large majority of the country is against gay "marriage" does that mean that are all homophobes?

Not homophobes, just mostly ignorant. Similar polls of the American public showed that a majority believed in segregation 80 years ago. Strom Thurmond was even able to run on a segregationist platform in the late 40's. All of this doesn't necessarily mean they were all racist (though certainly many of them were). More than likely, just horribly ignorant.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
...
Not homophobes, just mostly ignorant. Similar polls of the American public showed that a majority believed in segregation 80 years ago. Strom Thurmond was even able to run on a segregationist platform in the late 40's. All of this doesn't necessarily mean they were all racist (though certainly many of them were). More than likely, just horribly ignorant.

I wouldn't even use the term ignorant. The problem is that nobody likes different things, they are rejected out of hand because they are different, without anyone considering whether or not they are good or bad. The phrases and arguments used to oppose gay marriage are almost identical to those used to oppose interracial marriage back in the bad old days. And it's not that the anti-gay marriage folks are also closet racists, it's just that it's the same argument people ALWAYS use to avoid having to THINK.

You can find this kind of argument in almost every situation, and largely it has to do with this goofy belief that different is bad, and that "we've always done it that way" is a valid argument.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You have a right to your beliefs, you DON'T have a right to force others to LIVE by those beliefs. You can believe whatever you like about the proper definition of the word marriage, you can't prevent other people from doing something based on your beliefs. There is a difference between what you are doing and what gay rights folks want to do. Nobody is forcing you to DO or BELIEVE anything different, but you ARE forcing gay couples to do something different. The situation would only be comparable if gay rights folks wanted to define marriage as ONLY between two people of the same sex.

I think a good rule of thumb is that a more inclusive definition of a term can't possibly stomp on anyone's rights, you don't have a right to force the state to back your exclusive belief system. You can believe in it all you want, but unless you have a better argument, I don't think the state is under any obligation to limit anyone's rights just because it happens to offend you.

Again you seem to be missing the point that it is the gays who are trying to force everyone else to change their beliefs. For the first 200+ years this country has been around marriage has been between a man and a woman. But because a few gays don't like that I have to give up my belief in marriage as being between a man and a woman and instead accept their belief.

Also, do you realize that the argument you are making is the same one being made by polygamists? If I believe it is ok to have 5 wives that does not mean that you have to change what you do or believe.

Anyway? I am done with this thread, said what I believe. Unless someone has a question about my beliefs then off I go to bash Hillary or something more productive.

 

[gururu2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I wouldn't even use the term ignorant. The problem is that nobody likes different things, they are rejected out of hand because they are different, without anyone considering whether or not they are good or bad. The phrases and arguments used to oppose gay marriage are almost identical to those used to oppose interracial marriage back in the bad old days. And it's not that the anti-gay marriage folks are also closet racists, it's just that it's the same argument people ALWAYS use to avoid having to THINK.

You can find this kind of argument in almost every situation, and largely it has to do with this goofy belief that different is bad, and that "we've always done it that way" is a valid argument.

lets be real. finding something odd, unpleasant, or gross does not automatically mean that one is ignorant or discriminating. if you think that Russian food is disgusting after having tried it, how fair is it to me to tell you that you are ignorant because you do not understand Russians.
personally, I find homosexual acts pretty revolting, does that make me a homophobe? I don't know, it certainly wouldn't stop me from hiring one for a job or giving my life to save one if necessary. i'd bargain that the majority of straight men find homosexuality among males pretty revolting. i'd even go further and say that these feelings were innate. we are wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. human beings are wired pretty damned hard. there are some popular theories around that suggest that humans are more hard wired for sex than any other species. we screw just about anything, anywhere, anytime. this drive can also manifest itself towards a repulsion of certain acts. some people think lesbian sex is gross. some people think males having sex is gross. some people think bestiality is gross. where do you draw the line? do we want to start awarding unions to people who want an animal partner? i know it sounds silly, but what rights do we have to stop it? if a person wants our taxes to support the care and welfare of their pet, what is the deal?

different people find different things as sick and disgusting. some of it is hard wired, some of it is conditioned. but calling folks ignorant or bigots is pretty pathetic.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You have a right to your beliefs, you DON'T have a right to force others to LIVE by those beliefs. You can believe whatever you like about the proper definition of the word marriage, you can't prevent other people from doing something based on your beliefs. There is a difference between what you are doing and what gay rights folks want to do. Nobody is forcing you to DO or BELIEVE anything different, but you ARE forcing gay couples to do something different. The situation would only be comparable if gay rights folks wanted to define marriage as ONLY between two people of the same sex.

I think a good rule of thumb is that a more inclusive definition of a term can't possibly stomp on anyone's rights, you don't have a right to force the state to back your exclusive belief system. You can believe in it all you want, but unless you have a better argument, I don't think the state is under any obligation to limit anyone's rights just because it happens to offend you.

Again you seem to be missing the point that it is the gays who are trying to force everyone else to change their beliefs. For the first 200+ years this country has been around marriage has been between a man and a woman. But because a few gays don't like that I have to give up my belief in marriage as being between a man and a woman and instead accept their belief.

Also, do you realize that the argument you are making is the same one being made by polygamists? If I believe it is ok to have 5 wives that does not mean that you have to change what you do or believe.

Anyway? I am done with this thread, said what I believe. Unless someone has a question about my beliefs then off I go to bash Hillary or something more productive.

I think you're missing a pretty fundamental point here...the government isn't the final arbiter of belief. We don't all have to get together, collectively decide what our beliefs are going to be, and then make sure the government enforces them. There is room in this country for people who disagree on any number of topics, and unless there is a compelling reason to do so, I don't think the government should make a habit of stepping in and taking sides.

Honestly, I'd LIKE you to have different beliefs about marriage, but I don't really care what you believe...and I don't think the government should force you to change your beliefs. And that same courtesy should be extended to everyone else as much as possible. Ultimately, we're just talking about LEGAL issues, not beliefs. You should be able to believe whatever you like, and nothing the government can do or not do with the legal definition of marriage is going to change that.

The reason I'm in favor of legal support of gay marriage isn't because I want to change your mind, it's because I want gay people to be able to get married. Now that may not agree with your beliefs, but nobody is saying you can't have those beliefs. You just can't expect your beliefs to be the highest deciding factor when it comes to the rights of other people.