jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (125 posts)

The conservative case for gay marriage

  1. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 7 years ago

    "Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/

    1. SparklingJewel profile image67
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "...The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional..."

      here is just one of the points from the article, that I would like to try and focus on...there are others, but one at a time is all I can do because i am still working on this issue as well. Not because I am homosexual, but because it is important for people to sort out.
      The definition of equal is what I am focused on now. and I can only speak to what I have learned from conservatives throughout my lifetime. I choose to not call myself conservative or liberal, or label myself as any one thing particularly because i am still working on what is truth of equality.
      so, i know at this point in time that there are two levels of equality in general/broad terms and the spectrum between the two.
      There is divine equality, the concept, to me, that all souls are ultimately one with the creation and creator, at their divine level of true self.
      Then there is human equality, the broad spectrum of variances of humanity's manifestations as compared to the perfection of the divine.
      Humanity being all over the board with their degree of perfection, says to me that if a soul is truly seeking the divine state of oneness with the creator and creation, than there is equality between that soul and any other soul.
      so i guess it is how one defines the creator and the creation as perfect and how one defines love in the human realms that makes the difference.
      so honestly at this point in time, I have to admit that i have a sense that homosexuality is not of the perfection of the creator, as are the many other forms of human imperfections.

      because i believe that life is the mandate for humanity's role in creation, because homosexuality cannot produce life (through pro-creation), it is not according to the divine ultimate universal laws...

      BUT because all souls are somewhere along the spectrum of their seeking of oneness with the creator and creation, it is no less imperfect than any other human imperfection, but just another example of souls seeking that oneness.
      hence heterosexual marriage being the means, the closest divine universal lawful means, to creating life, marriage cannot be redefined to imply that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage...even though, I do believe that the love and relationship aspects of hetero and homo sexualities are all important.
      i guess it is just the belief in those ultimate divine universal laws that makes the difference, but it is also the compassion of loving others no matter where they are along the spectrum makes the difference, too.

      i think and feel it is wrong to expect the divinely ultimate laws of our constitution to change to redefining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman (naturally born that way)
      BUT, that it is humanly lawful to leave others alone in how they want to live their lives' relationships...it needs to be up to the states and the people therein to decide for their local populations as to changing laws...but up to the individual people and groups (businesses and such) to decide whether they want to offer monetary things, ie insurance and hospital rights to see their partner and share their insurance policies, etc...

      I honestly am not judging one soul's desires over another's, and I can honestly say to any homosexual soul that they are equal in my eyes to me. We are just at different places on the spectrum, and I could no more expect you to appreciate fully  where I am than I can appreciate fully where you are.

      but that brings up all other kinds of notions of needing to protect children and their conscience and sexual rights from abuses by adult age homosexuals...and on and on with other issues...

      I hope I have said it all in words that expresses my genuine love and belief in human equality smile

      but maybe I am not like some others that can't find that love and vision of human equality as being on the road toward understanding divine equality. I understand my place as being divine, and I understand my place as being humanly imperfect.

      and I love everyone smile

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But by that standard, why should we recognize the marriage of two elderly people (if it occurs when the woman is past the childbearing years) or two knowingly infertile people, and entitle them to be recognized as life partners in matters such as health insurance and hospital visitation rights? Why shouldn't hospitals be allowed to make up their own minds about whether the wife in our hypothetical late-life marriage should be allowed to site with her dying husband the way you suggest they should be able to decide the final visitors of a gay man or lesbian woman?

        ETA: Aargh, we can't quote anymore? "That standard" refers to your statement that heterosexual and homosexual marriage should not be considered equal because homosexual unions cannot produce children except by artificial means.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          kerry: are you referring to me as ETA?

          1. kerryg profile image87
            kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ETA = Edited To Add

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're under the delusion that sodomy and other homosexual activities are "conservative" values.
      Or typically, trying to change the definitions of words, as so many liberals do these days.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So gay women should be able to marry each other then? Seeing as they do not sodomize each other.

        Well - that is half the battle I suppose.

        Good for you. Very well done - I am surprised. Now see if you can help sooner than later work out his issues with fears of gay men.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You must've overlooked the words "other homosexual activities", ....which, actually, aren't all specifically homosexual, but which are of course "made" into a vile act by the fact they're performed by same-sex people on each other.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Vile? What is morally despicable about oral sex exactly? Where are you getting your "conservative values" from? I know plenty of conservatives who like oral and anal sex.

            But - now you seem to be saying it is not the acts per se, but the fact that they are performed by same sex people on each other. Did I get that right? Anal sex is OK as long as it is man/woman. Oral sex is OK as long as it is not girl/girl.

            Luckily - you are not allowed to judge or have an opinion on other people - are you?

            1. sooner than later profile image60
              sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes father. Thanks for setting the moral standard for man kind.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                My pleasure. Good to see you working out your fears of gay men by the way. Well done.

                We are here for you when you want to come out. It is OK.

                1. sooner than later profile image60
                  sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Fears? I think its agressions. Now you were saying you.. I mean many enjoy anal sex? This isn't one of those "hey I have a friend who enjoys this sort of thing" conversations is it? I feel like it is.

                2. profile image0
                  cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  big_smile

                3. profile image0
                  mdawson17posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Mark I believe you have hit it on the nail

              2. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The classic North American phrase "I'm not going to go there" seems in order here big_smile

                1. sooner than later profile image60
                  sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well done. lol

                  1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I wasn't actually casting aspersions at Mark; it just sounded humourous the way it was worded (am I living in a parallel universe? The same thing just happened to me on Facebook!)

            2. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              If you'll look, I said they "aren't ALL specifically homosexual" acts.

              And yes, oral sex, and even anal sex, are okay between two MARRIED, STRAIGHT people.....IF they BOTH agree to it willingly.
              That's a big IF for many people, especially anal sex of course.

              1. sooner than later profile image60
                sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                eeek. I think the later puts a mark on the beast. haha. I wouldn't do it.

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  haha
                  yeah.  Well, it's, by definition, just plain unsanitary and nasty too;  that's why I can't imagine very many people actually being happily in agreement with that kinda life.....but oh well.....I don't like to think about it really.

                  1. livelonger profile image88
                    livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet you bring it up constantly. lol As SJ said, this thread is about gay marriage, not sex. Maybe you can discuss your fixations with gay sex with a psychologist.

    3. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You make an excellent case....it'll never happen.

    4. wsp2469 profile image61
      wsp2469posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They can be legally together anywhere in the country.  They are wasting time arguing over semantics.  I think they should worry more about promoting support for a cure for AIDS.  Additionally, in CA one of the major issues is that if they are allowed to use the term marriage then this would be one more bit of fluff that would be taught to kids in school.  California is in the three lowest states when it comes to education.  They need to spend every single minute on the basics and not have to worry about another bit of nonsense being thrown into the curriculum.
      That is one concern in CA at any rate.  Gays living together in a legal bond have more benefits than straight, single and divorced folks.  I'd say it's a low priority issue compared to things like cancer, health care and AIDS.

      1. Rod Marsden profile image79
        Rod Marsdenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Some people look upon gay marriage as a preventative measure for AIDS and other VD because it gives gays a sense of belonging and security that forms a reason not to be  promiscuous, to settle for one partner only. Sure, heaps of heterosexuals are married but are also promiscuous...Even so, it still might help. It is worth a shot if nothing else.





    5. Rod Marsden profile image79
      Rod Marsdenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You have sound arguments. The truth is that no matter what governments do against gays and against gay behavior it will keep on. That taken for granted, in order to stabilize society and give everyone the same sense of belonging and the same sense of stability maybe it is time the experiment of the gay marriage was tried. It could work.



    6. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In this country there's suppose to be a separation of church and state. A legal marriage is recognized when a license is issued. Who issues the license? The church or the state? To get any other kind of license, i.e. drivers, business, parade, etc., the state doesn't care if the applicant is gay or not. Why would a marriage license be any different? Like Rosanne once said, "If the idea of people of the same gender having sex bothers you, like any other marriage, give it a couple of months, it'll stop."

    7. jodhicoady profile image60
      jodhicoadyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your hub is interesting its positive to see in the last 10 years things are changing and we appear to be moving towards acceptance.
      As a divorce solicitor in Australia it is very clearly apparent to me that there are significant problems in heterosexual marriages, differences in ideals, differences in basic instinctive masculine and feminine needs and desires (which appear to be taking longer to adapt to changes in society), horrific violence and mental abuse, and often the matching, although procreation can exist within the matching of males and females, is incredibly destructive.  Often children of this mismatching suffer horrendous abuse.
      Why did we ever need to create ideals or impose standards/certifications and judgements on how two people love each other.  Is it as a result of societal ideals that many people run aground because they are not given the opportunity to explore their own uniqueness?  Often people suffer depression because they can't live to impossible ideals they have inherited from their elders.
      Why should Gay marriage be restricted if hetersexual marriage is condoned?
      Can the love between two people exist irregardless of marriage? Why do we need marriage?  Why is it important?

    8. NewFamilyOrg profile image59
      NewFamilyOrgposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I aplaud livelonger for his/her well-reasoned and enlightened perspective. I wish other conservatives agreed. Marriage equality is a civil right deserved by all citizens. No one has the right to disciminate against gays, especially not on 'moral' grounds.

    9. shazz01109 profile image60
      shazz01109posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would agree.  I can understand religiously if people are against, but then from a Christian perspective, as from my hub, I don't subscribe to the knee jerk, negative response to gay unions/marriage.  Civicly, they should have the same rights as anyone else, including adoption.

  2. MikeNV profile image74
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The whole issue is a non issue.

    You either support the definition of Marriage as defined by our forefathers or you do not.

    It's just that simple.

    If you want to change the definition you do it under a consensus of the people.

    When and if that consensus comes then it will change.

    The current definition is based on a definition between two people that can biologically procreate.

    One must be careful when they choose to defy or change the accepted wisdom that they do not open up a new can of worms.

    What is to stop a movement to define marriage as that between any number of individuals?

    Why not 2 men and a woman, or 2 woman and a man?

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Polygamy was very common historically, including among the Biblical patriarchs, who often had both multiple wives and multiple concubines, and it is still practiced in a number of cultures today, most famously Islam and the FLDS.

      It's not something I'd be interested in personally, but I don't see any logical reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal, as long as it occurs between consenting adults. In fact, legalizing it might make it easier to monitor groups like the FLDS who use the secrecy currently surrounding the practice to hide marriages to girls as young as 11 or 12.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Our forefathers were hardly infallible. They said all men were created equal except for slaves and women. Also, interracial marriages, aka "miscegenation," were illegal. Nobody is proposing marriages between two men and a woman or marriages between humans and animals so far as I know.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not yet anyway.

    3. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And who's definition of marriage is correct and why?
      In my opinion marriage is an institution, build on a social contract and as such could involve mature individual of any sex, including SAME SEX

      If procreation is your only "justification" for marriage, than women older than 42 should never get married. Right?

  3. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    i believe the thread is about gay marriage...not sex

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ah, but the reality is that it really IS all about the sex.  Christians who believe it is a choice are all bent out of shape about the sex, right?  A person can feel love toward another person of the same sex and that's okay, but as soon as they act on it sexually, they're a sinner.

      Isn't that what good Christians believe?

      1. SparklingJewel profile image67
        SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        not being a "good christian" ( in some people's book) I wouldn't know...are you?

        i know that is the literal line the Catholics draw

  4. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago

    And honestly, that's something I don't wanna know about, when it comes to whether a married couple engages in oral or anal sex!
    That's private and should stay private, especially if they're at ease with their sex life.

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      FINALLY you are getting the point! (eek)

  5. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    At the risk sounding redundant. They already have the same rights as all others.

    1. sooner than later profile image60
      sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      no, that is very true. I think they are at a point where they want everyone to agree with everything. While I would not hinder anybody from the same rights I expect, I will never agree. That is the strange part. The intolerance is on the other side.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. They even teach it to our children as, "normal", behaviour in schools. Yes they are trying to make all accept their veiw only.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, and I suppose those interracial couples who wanted to get married didn't respect the bigots' right to think their marriage was disgusting and undeserving of equal legal status, right?

        I mean, why did interracial marriage have to be legalized - black and white people could already get married (to members of the same race, naturally, as God or Jesus or someone else probably commanded it somewhere in the Bible)

        Planet Zarkon - AS, I like it. lol

        1. sooner than later profile image60
          sooner than laterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          My bad.

        2. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          In a normal world, this would be a knockout blow

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            But not on Planet Zarkon! wink

        3. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There is no comparison of homosexuality to Race. that is absurd to even suggest.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I wouldn't know how things work on Planet Zarkon. Everything seems to run completely opposite to the way things work here.

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes I am sure it does. But here on Earth we don't mis-understand the differences between race and sexuality.

              1. livelonger profile image88
                livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, you're on Zarkon. You may think it's Earth, but it's Zarkon.

                Features of Zarkon:
                - heterosexuals are an embattled minority, being persecuted by evil homosexual heterophobes
                - homosexuals have more rights than heterosexuals
                - Christians are a tiny persecuted minority
                - homosexuality is so appealing for all the extra rights and social status that it affords you, that many heterosexuals choose a homosexual lifestyle
                - heterosexual relationships are only about love, while homosexual relationships are only about sex

                Yep, you're on Zarkon, my friend.

    2. TheGlassSpider profile image82
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      At the risk of sounding intelligent: No they don't. Or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Spot on. Take a look at all the rights denied them!

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. They do.

          They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. Same as all others.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Complete rubbish. Gays are denied all sorts of legal and human rights. Do some reading outside your bible! lol

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              They can have a civil union and be happy.

              Not my problem. I can marry. lololol

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly. It's not your problem. So why do you care. Live and let live (for God's sake)

                1. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I have the right to vote. hahahahahaha

                  1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    OKaaaay. and you care about this issue, because... (given, after all, it is not your problem)...

                  2. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Now that is SCARY! lol

              2. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                How can they be happy with a bunch of laws that prevent it.
                I would find it more sensible if people who are heartless and gutless about this were not allowed to marry!
                Mental illness should not be allowed in marriage! smile

  6. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    Show me the Science of the homo-gene. C'mon,... where is it?

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't freakin' MATTER if it is genetic or not. I thought America was the Land of the Free. Apparently not. Free means free to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others to be free. A lot of the people on this thread are crapping all over the American ideal without even realizing it... and I'm not even American!

    2. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Wikipedia is as good a starting point as any:

      "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an … rientation

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see why the biology angle matters. I am not biologically gay. I really don't think a gay experience would 'do it' for me. Yet I should have the right to *have* a gay experience. And I should have the *right* to marry a man if I wanted to. The State has no right to know whether or not I am doing it for love, for sex, or because I am just a weirdo. The State has no right to come into my bedroom. Period.

        1. profile image0
          cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          yeah! Chuck and Larry were straight and they did it!

          http://www.canyon-news.com/artman2/uploads/1/Chuck_and_Larry_thumbnail.jpg

        2. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hear, hear!

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is your profile a dingo? (I don't actually know what they look like)

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Gray wolf, actually. I think dingos tend to be more yellow or tan.

  7. TheGlassSpider profile image82
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    Since religion and law are *supposed* to have nothing to do with one another, there should be no question as to whether or not gay people should marry.

    There is no such thing as a secular reason two people should not enter into civil union. The people who want to keep them from it are usually over-zealous hate-mongers.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. Civil Unions, as I said.

  8. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    We are not talking about happiness, or love.

    We are talking about Marraige.

  9. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    being that the thread is about marriage, it seems logical to look at it democratically and constitutionally, and not get all caught up in the desires and wishes of the sides

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree.

      And Democratically it has been rejected over-whelmingly by the American People, repeatedly.

      1. kerryg profile image87
        kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        52% is overwhelming?

  10. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 7 years ago

    That looks like a husky to me.

  11. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    Homosexuality is a choice, not genetic. No science shows it to be otherwise.

    E. You do not have a. "Right", to be gay, straight or otherwise. You are a man, or a woman. You choose to be gay, or straight, mesochestic or missionary.

    Get the point?

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The point is that in "The Land of the Free" you should be "free" to have the "choice." Exactly

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You do.

        You are "free" to be with whoever you want.

        And you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like me.

        As I stated. I have no problem with equal rights under law, in a Civil Union.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You keep saying this.  Do you not realize that civil unions are only allowed in some states, not all?

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes I do. I vote in my state, not theirs. They can choose as they want.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              But what I don't understand is what business it is of the state who marries whom... in other words, marriage, including for straight people, should be a private matter. What business is it of Government?

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I know what you mean. And I don't dis-agree. But the discussion was about gay marriage.

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  But it is a related point. If marriage did not have to be sanctioned by the state, then anyone could have a ceremony, and become married, whether straight or gay, and then this whole debate would go away. (OK, wishful thinking, but I do wonder about this)

              2. SparklingJewel profile image67
                SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                and so we come back round to the purpose of the thread, (I think?) which was why can't gay marriages occur so that gay people can have the same monetary privileges straight married people have...(was that the purpose of the thread livelonger?) smile

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I am pretty sure that where I live even commonlaw spouses have the same rights as married people

    2. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You chose to be straight? Really?

      I don't ever remember looking at someone and making a conscious decision to be sexually attracted to them. It just happens.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But either way, that's not the point. If someone believes in individual liberty, then that means they believe that all people *could* choose to be gay, or straight, or whatever, but that it is *their* *individual* choice. (though I agree, who chooses what gender they are attracted to...??? that's nuts)

  12. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
    AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago

    Actually I think I have a slightly different question. Why does the government insist on intervening in marriage at ALL?

    In other words, isn't this gross government interventionism?

    Why do I as a straight person have to get permission from the State to marry someone? What business is it of theirs!

  13. TheGlassSpider profile image82
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    *jumps up and down for joy* It looks SO fun to get spit on, beat up, and killed for what I do in my bedroom...Yeah! I think I'll do that!




    ETA: Yeah...I can imagine that happening.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And those who did that would go to prison for murder. What does that have to do with this discussion.

      1. TheGlassSpider profile image82
        TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It means that given the current state of hatred, there is no really good motivation for *choosing* to be gay. It doesn't make sense.

        There is evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, there is also evidence that conditions in the womb have an effect on it. You're a big boy, if you're interested in the truth, do the research yourself. I've done mine. In reality though, the origin of homosexuality and the question of whether or not acting on one's inherent homosexuality is sinful is irrelevant to this thread--which is secular in nature. Laws about marriage (which, on earth, can only amount to civil union anyway) should have no basis in such questions in the United States.


        And as to sending the perps to jail: It doesn't really help the victims after the fact, does it? Best to teach people to be tolerant of one another.

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There is no Science to support it. Isn't there.

          And there is no rabid hatred of Homosexuals either. Mostly wer're just sick of their bitchin and whining, and want them to shut up and grow up.

          It isn't hatred.

          They have just given us a national headache.

          Like petulant spoiled children. Playing with their mothers wardrobe and make-up, and screaming and hissying like their at a flaming lips concert.

          Man. We have enough real issues to deal with in this country. They need to get over themselves already and go to disneyland.

          1. TheGlassSpider profile image82
            TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It isn't hatred? What do you call it when high school students beat one of their own to death for something they *suspect*? What do you call it when everyone's favorite thing to say when they don't like something is "That's so gay". Perhaps you need to learn what love and hate are.

            I'm not sure if you would accept decent science if it bit you on the butt; I am inclined to believe that you would not. The fact is that the truth could be staring you in the face, and you would refuse to see it.

            If freedom in America isn't a real issue, I don't know what is.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I agree with your last sentence.
              If it isn't an assault against straight people's freedom when we can't even say "that's so gay" about people who take PRIDE in BEING gay, without being accused,  I don't know what is.

              1. TheGlassSpider profile image82
                TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You're welcome to say it...and as some famous person said, I would defend your right to say it...but don't fool yourself about what it is: an indicator of culturally acceptable hatred--and don't expect me to believe it's anything other than that.

              2. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Hehehee. You have a point about the thought police being out there to get you these days if you say the wrong thing, but you know as well as anyone else reading this, that "That's so gay" means "That's not up to par, that's lame" etc.

                But I am sure gay people would have no problem if you were permitted the right to say what you want on any topic (freedom of speech after all), but still accepted that the State has no right to EXCLUDE them from all the rights everyone else has.

  14. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    52%? Are you talking about in one state? There has been no national referandum on it yet. But every state to vote it so far, says no. Even California.


    lololol That speaks volumes.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. California recently defeated gay marriage by 52%, Maine by 53%. These are hardly the "overwhelming" defeats you described above.

      1. Petra Vlah profile image60
        Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There are ignorant people even in California

  15. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    Like I said Civil union is fine with me. Now go convince everyone else. I'll be right here.

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      So you'd be fine if the state stopped recognizing all marriages (this will never happen, but I mean, in theory)

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If they don't recognize it, you don't get the benifits with it.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image72
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, as I say, I think that where I live commonlaw relationships have all the same benefits as marriages. You have to show you have a commonlaw relationship (occasionally) but there is no document for this. You might (rarely) have to show a home lease, for example, but otherwise...

  16. wsp2469 profile image61
    wsp2469posted 7 years ago

    Wait!
    Since when do gay guys or girls go to Flaming Lips concerts?
    You lost me with that one!

  17. Tadeusz598 profile image60
    Tadeusz598posted 7 years ago

    In other countries conservative opinion saw and followed the argument made by the poster, just as they accepted female emancipation and incorporated it into conservative thinking (as the USA's conservatives also did, generally).

    Much more than other industrialised countries- Germany, the UK, France- the US is affected by religion and the bigotries and prejudices that stem from it.

    The conservatives in the USA are not pragmatic, nor moral but moralistic.

    This will one day be their downfall, because they will be unable to adapt to inevitable social changes, one of those being the general acceptance of homosexuality as natural and harmless.

  18. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 7 years ago

    This was not an argument 20 years ago. The thought of homosexuals and lesbians marrying in a church or in front of a judge was asinine.

    What we should do next is allow first cousins to marry. Afterall, no matter how sick it sounds or is, we should just allow anything as long as it does not hurt anyone.

    Gay marriage is an abomination to God and the Bible. Yet I understand that Gay Christians and Gay Republicans exist.

    Marriage is not marriage anymore. I sometimes wonder what else society will lose, no matter how absurd it is.

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Which side are you on?

    http://masonryan.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gay-marriage-7.jpg

    or

    http://dayeight.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/god-hates-fags.jpg

  20. profile image0
    StormRyderposted 7 years ago

    WoW, you can feel the hostilty in some of the replies from the turn the other cheek, love thine enemy christians..
    So it's an abomination to god or whatever ...why does it have to be an enforceable law? That should be between god and the gays & lesbians not the general public. This is a moral issue, some in favor some not and should not be regulated by laws or politicians...Why should you care if they want to marry, it's not your life or your place to choose for them...Ralph's photos sum it up pretty well...Many religious folks seem to be the most hateful and judgemental of us all. GOD HATES FAGS....I'm sure he is very proud of those with the signs also!

  21. Wealthmadehealthy profile image60
    Wealthmadehealthyposted 7 years ago

    Regardless of what the "law of the world" states....the Law Of God will prevail.....in His Word He states that a man lying with a man or a woman with a woman is wrong.....End of Story....What God states is the Law.   This is what is wrong with the "world and all it's laws"   they do not line up with the Word of God....

    It will not matter soon what the "world" thinks, for because of it's rebellion against the Word, soon it will find itself in utter destruction....gee, can't you see it yet????   But you believe what you want to believe,  Me and My house, we follow the Lord....find one place in the Bible which states that men are to be married to men   and     women to women.....It is not there....So why don't you just get it????

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "What God states is the Law."

      Fortunately, that's not true in the U.S. Sounds more like Afghanistan to me.

  22. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    There really are several issues involved here.

    The spiritual and religious concepts of marriage

    And the legal, financial and practical concepts of marriage

    and the emotional and ethical concepts of marriage

    It is not equal or fair to force an employer to pay for certain benefits for a same sex couple, nor is it equal or fair to not give a same sex partner the legal/medical ability to make decisions for his/her spouse or not allow them to visit in a hospital, if that was their decision to want it.

    it is not equal or fair for homosexuals to try and change the traditions of and definition of marriage as per anyones's religious and spiritual beliefs...they need to use a whole diffent word entirely to "own their own state of beleifs" and not try to take something away from someone else's...

    it should not be about depriving/usurping anyone of their beliefs, homosexuals or heterosexuals...each need to have their own, and feel good about common values and not be concerned about the others morals...but that also means not force feeding one's agenda on the other as well...

    the legal stuff should be the easiest to solve...the Constitution and Bill of Rights said nothing about marriage directly and distinctly, did they?

    and if it did, what?

  23. AEvans profile image70
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    Not all Christians are hateful therefore should not be placed in the same category, one of my sister's are Lesbian and she is happily married to her partner so saying all if us run around with signs politically incorrect. smile

 
working