Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

 

but yet legally a man and woman married get numerous more advantages than a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are just as much in 'love' and 'committed' most likely even more so than said man and woman.

 

 

yet they get nothing in terms of benefits and its a major injustice.

I agree Das - that doesn't make people's opinions invalid.

Get a life or just mind your own. If they want to get married then just let them be happy.

 

 

Let freedom ring!!!

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

So, just because you believe something makes it true?

 

Okay.

I agree Das - that doesn't make people's opinions invalid.

 

 

so then you are in favor of one group of people getting more rights than another simply due to sexual preference?

"Civil Unions" are the way to go for the next 200 years.

 

Give them all the benefits of marriage (insurance/hospital visitation/whatever), just don't consider it "marriage."

 

There would be a lot less hoopla.

who cares what its called.

 

 

not like the majority of heterosexual couples actually take the idea of marriage seriously as it is now.

not like the majority of heterosexual couples actually take the idea of marriage seriously as it is now.

 

Very true. The government talks about 'protecting the institution of marriage,' but it's become much less sacred with the high divorce rate these days. I honestly don't see gay marriage doing anything to make that worse.

I agree Das - that doesn't make people's opinions invalid.

 

 

so then you are in favor of one group of people getting more rights than another simply due to sexual preference?

 

Jesus you're completely looking over my point.

 

 

 

Things you need to understand:

 

1) Gay marriage = ok with me.

 

2) Everyone acting like those who are against gay marriage are savages = not ok with me.

 

 

Get it?

 

It's not all black and white.

I agree Das - that doesn't make people's opinions invalid.

 

 

so then you are in favor of one group of people getting more rights than another simply due to sexual preference?

 

Jesus you're completely looking over my point.

 

 

 

Things you need to understand:

 

1) Gay marriage = ok with me.

 

2) Everyone acting like those who are against gay marriage are savages = not ok with me.

 

 

Get it?

 

It's not all black and white.

 

no it just means those against gay marriage are against equal rights and makes them no better than those that worked fiercely to keep Jim Crow as the accepted practices..

I don't have a problem hating on a group of bigots.

 

*shrugs*

 

Sucks to say it, but I'm so sure I'm right in this case I'm willing to treat them like savages, because that's what they are. Evolve or be left behind.

The Bull Pen - breeding grounds for liberal extremism. Gotta love it. :thumbup

The Bull Pen - breeding grounds for liberal extremism. Gotta love it. :thumbup

 

 

How's that extremism? To ask for the evolution of ideas and education on people and to get rid of their antiquated ideas built upon a foundational house of cards seems to be better than not.

 

I just don't have a problem looking at someone like cro-magnon man when their being bigoted towards others. In some way am I being a bigot? You could argue for the positive. However, I'm also not denying them any rights for doing so.

 

The problem I have is denying someone a "God given right" when, in fact, there's more evidence God put gay people on this earth (since they've been here for centuries) than not. I don't know how you could argue against that.

 

I'm not the one denying basic freedoms.

I'm with you Buckeye. The only real argument against gay marriage is the Biblical angle. I guess the separation of church and state doesn't always apply...

OK, you guys have said the same thing 3 or 4 posts in a row... I'll just forget it. You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

OK, you guys have said the same thing 3 or 4 posts in a row... I'll just forget it. You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

 

Hah.

 

Don't get offended. I wasn't hating on you.

 

To reiterate (again) : I don't have problem hating on bigots.

 

No reason to get all... Whatever you're getting. Smoke a peace pipe!

You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

We heard you.

"Civil Unions" are the way to go for the next 200 years.

 

Give them all the benefits of marriage (insurance/hospital visitation/whatever), just don't consider it "marriage."

 

There would be a lot less hoopla.

 

 

Now THAT is unconstitutional. Supreme Court has already ruled that Separate is inherently not Equal.

 

The REAL solution would be for the government itself to stop using the word "marraige", a word inherently imbued with religious overtones to a large majority of the people, and just declare all unions "civil unions" for the purpose of civil law. Let people call it whatever they want between themselves.

 

A few years ago (before the 04 election) polls showed that while nearly 70% were against gay marraige, a majority would favor civil unions for homosexuals. Just extend that to civil unions for everyone to make sure everything truly is equal.

You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

We heard you.

 

And all I got was why our mutual opinion is "evolutionarily advanced"

 

What a bunch of crap.

OK, you guys have said the same thing 3 or 4 posts in a row... I'll just forget it. You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

 

I know so many people who are against granting gays the right to use the term "marraige", but thinks they should have the same rights in a relationship as heteros that I don't really understand the hatred for people who are against gay marraige. It's not necessaily about bigotry. It could easily be about the fact that most religions consider homosexuality a sin and marraige to many is a religious thing.

You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

We heard you.

 

And all I got was why our mutual opinion is "evolutionarily advanced"

 

What a bunch of crap.

 

Well, I said evolved in the sense that we're more educated than most of the American population. Most Americans think homosexuality is some kind of disease, all a choice, or whatever...

You obviously read over the part when I discussed MY opinion on gay marriage.

 

We heard you.

 

And all I got was why our mutual opinion is "evolutionarily advanced"

 

What a bunch of crap.

 

Well, I said evolved in the sense that we're more educated than most of the American population. Most Americans think homosexuality is some kind of disease, all a choice, or whatever...

 

OK dude... that's just not my cup of tea.

"Civil Unions" are the way to go for the next 200 years.

 

Give them all the benefits of marriage (insurance/hospital visitation/whatever), just don't consider it "marriage."

 

There would be a lot less hoopla.

 

 

Now THAT is unconstitutional. Supreme Court has already ruled that Separate is inherently not Equal.

 

The REAL solution would be for the government itself to stop using the word "marraige", a word inherently imbued with religious overtones to a large majority of the people, and just declare all unions "civil unions" for the purpose of civil law. Let people call it whatever they want between themselves.

 

A few years ago (before the 04 election) polls showed that while nearly 70% were against gay marraige, a majority would favor civil unions for homosexuals. Just extend that to civil unions for everyone to make sure everything truly is equal.

 

Interesting point of view.

 

However, while I think it's a step in the right direction, for arguments sake I have to bring up an object by analogy...

 

Wouldn't doing that be the same as the "seperate but equal" drinking fountains (Whites Only next to Blacks Only). I mean, in a sense we're saying gays can have civil unions but not be married. However, by changing the government's wording to include civil unions all things would be equal.

 

But gays want marriage. They want the wedding, the union and all that other crap straight couples do...

 

OK dude... that's just not my cup of tea.

 

 

Explain, please?

 

I mean, I don't know what you're getting at and this is a discussion board. What do you mean?

Bottom line, I disagree, there are plenty of people that don't see gay people as inferior, they see marriage as between a man and a woman. Since when do people not have reasons for believing in something?

 

 

I do agree that there's a fair % of anti-gay marriage people out there with completely fair reasons for being against it, but when you hear lines like "we're trying to defend the sanctity of marriage" or "save the sanctity of marriage" what does that make you think? Save it from the gays? Defend it from the gay attack?

 

There are people who just plain think their way of life is under attack by the gay community and the gay "agenda". I'm sure that plenty of people DO have valid reasons for being against gay marriage. But we should be working out & discussing these issues. A constitutional amendment on this is asinine.

 

Either it's legal & okay to be gay, or it's not. They're not being afforded the same legal rights as other citizens in this case, and I haven't ever read a single reason that would convince me why that should be permissable.

Like I've said, the only argument that conservatives and others have against gay marriage is the Bible angle. That's it. They don't have any evidence proving that it would be a bad thing, and they know it.

 

Mostly Bush wants the support of his evangelical base back, which has started to drift away from him since the election. One leader recently warned Bush in an interview that he better get back on task, or he would lose evangelical support. This is from someone who is supposed to be a man of God, but sounds like a sleazy Beltway lobbyist. It's interesting as well that he has again shifted discussion, this time from immigration to the gay marriage amendment. Republicans appear to realize that they will not get the votes necessary to get the Amendment moving, but they still plan to propose it anyway.