What countries allow gay marriage? I can think of a couple that have registered partnerships, but please name some sources.

By the way, I know of at least one of these countries that have registered partnerships that allow consentual sex with 12 year olds. The "slippery slope" already exists.

Canada does. If you want a source just look it up, it's everywhere and I resent your implication.

The answer is Canada.
Please refer yourself to my girlfriends (Shelleyfanatic) post with the link at the top of this page.



Which country?

Now, there's a shocker.

CP, you may as well have said, "good point, but I'll ignore it completely."

Let's look at reality. You have suggested these "other groups" often enough. Well, let's address them directly.

1. Incest: What percentage of the population do you suppose practices adult, consentual incest? I reckon it's not even enough people to form a tenth of a percent of of the population. Furthermore, and I'm just guessing here, but I imagine that almost all gay rights advocates are against the idea of allowing family members to marry each other. If we took a poll on how many people think incestual marriages should be legalized, how many would say yes? Would anyone?

You can't relate incest and homosexuality, even if you think both are wrong. It's illogical. I think Nazism is wrong, and I think cannibalism is wrong, that doesn't mean I can logically group the two. Even within the realm of, say, the bedroom, we can't logically group two things we don't like. Homosexuality is not related to pedophilia, for example, though both involve sexual organs to a degree.

2. Bestiality? I don't even know what other shadowed interests you are referring to. We've established fairly well that bestiality is not related to homosexuality. One cannot marry an animal, nor will one be allowed to. The relevant terms here are consent and rights. An animal cannot give consent. Animals are protected by cruelty laws. How would giving homosexuals the right to marry have any impact whatsoever on how we interpret consent in regards to animals?

3. ?

4. ?

Please, name these "groups" you are so worried about, and please, explain how they would "logically" gain the rights of marriage IF we allow homosexual marriages.

Given the fact that homosexuals have existed throughout recorded history, we can safely say with some hope of accuracy that as long as there have been people, there have been gay people. Somehow, the human race has survived for millions of years (or 10,000 years, for you young-earthers!) with the presence of gays. Over that time, various cultures have accepted gays, killed them, denounced them, or been indifferent to them. In some Indigenous cultures, gays were revered as shamans. Whether or not we grant gays the right of marriage, gays will go on existing, and human society will also go on existing. What we have here is an opportunity to go on existing together, recognizing that we all want and need the same things in life, and that we are all an integral part of the fabric of our society.

The Netherlands

You completely miss the point. It doesn't matter. If same sex marriages are allowed (which they will be - it's all over but the shouting) It would be discriminatory for me not to be allowed to marry my dad (disclaimer: gross) simply because we are related by blood.

My dad is retired. We are both over 18 and consenting adults. He could get benefits as my spouse if we got married. I mean heck, if gays can get married for political reasons in Canada (ain't love grand?), why can't I get married for financial gain?

Opposite sex marriages are allowed but you can't marry your mother.

3. Would be Multiple partner marriages. Why discriminate against those that love multiple partners? We can't judge them, can we?

Under attack next WILL be underage relationships. It can already be argued that minors can make decisions, especially on something as universal and wholesome as sex.

Just ask Wertz...didn't he have a long tracked, 4 part, well-documented post on sex with minors?

If the SC decides that we cannot make moral distinctions between groups, we cannot outlaw, outright, adult incest and bigamy/polygamy. The door will be opened a crack further for consentual underaged relationships (which DO exist, I am sure).

RU:

Yet...

amlord, you have very little faith in Americans if you believe that.

You don't need legalized gay or incestual marriages to get married for financial gain. Haven't you watched or heard of The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Joe Millionaire, For Love or Money, Mr. Personality...?

Heck, you don't even have to marry your dad or anybody you've known for more than a few weeks! You just have to be willing to marry a stranger for money.

Edited for links

Amlord, you are arbitrarily picking gay marriage as the starting point of a landslide. Yet if your logic is valid, that marker could have been placed just as easily with the state recognizing any marriage contracts at all.

You brushed off Rancid Uncle's insightful post with a "yet...", but that doesn't address what was a good point. Homosexuality is no more related to incest than heterosexuality is. One doesn't follow the other in some sort of logic train.

Not to be offensive, but this whole slippery slope argument seems very "Chicken Little" to me.

I think race relations in America are a perfect analogy to this issue. Some people raised a huge cry about the "decay of society's moral fabric" back during the civil rights struggle. People argued the same way when women were struggling for suffrage and rights. Conservatives (as in those supporting the status quo, not its more recent usage) argued the same way against all these things. They were subsequently shown to be distinctly lacking in the ability to envision change. The best of them adjusted their views, the worst were doomed to obscurity. But in no case (except in the view of perhaps the most warped racists or sexists, who can blame anything under the sun on the "offending party") has the "hue and cry" been accurate. The world may have "gone to Hell," but it wasn't because blacks were allowed to marry whites, and it won't be because gay people who love each other as much as you and I love our spouses are allowed to get married.

No one using the slippery slope argument so far has mentioned that underage children can already get married in almost any state. The legal age limit is 16 in most, but as low as 14 in Alabama.

http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/200...12/ap_marriage/

The problem really isn't Americans. The problem is lawyers.

The ACLU and their ilk will be all over these issues faster than you can keep up. Who stands to benefit with twice as many people getting married? The same people who will handle twice as many divorces.




That's ridiculous. The percentages of HETEROS marrying for money is miniscule. The percentages of these people landing a gig on TV is infitismal. By the way - I've never seen any of these shows. Do these people actually get married? I thought the only time that happened was on "Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire" and it was a complete unadulterated disaster.

But assuming they are getting legally married, they too are abusing what the system is designed for so that the masses of morons out there can get a cheap thrill.

Tell that to Anna Nichole Smith!

What I have faith in is some lawyer somewhere, with an agenda, using the exact same legal argument to permit these things. If "Morality" cannot be used to exclude these practices (adult incest, polygamy) then what argument can?

It is not a slippery slope to assume that these things will happen. It is a legal extension of the logic used to arrive at the decision in the SC case.

People will say : but there is no push to legalize those things in Denmark (where gay marriage has been legal since 1989). But the difference is that in Denmark, you cannot use Constitutional arguments to bolster the case. The SC opened the door through their legal logic, for better or worse, and I believe it is only a matter of time before those other things are legalized.

I'm sorry , but I think that any partnership that has proven and demonstrated true love and devotion among every party involved should be legally recognized.

According to the SC, a legitimate state interest can justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.

LAWRENCE, JOHN G., ET AL. v. TEXAS

Without a compelling state interest, morality alone cannot justify singling out one particular group to discriminate against. Even though to some our Constitution is an insignificant and trivial piece of paper, I am thankful that, at least this time around, the SC applied it to all just as it requires. It seems as though, amlord, you and others would have us believe that the 14th Amendment(as well as the rest of the Const.) applies only to heterosexuals?

It is an alarmist leap to assume that simply because my liberty has been protected that now the United States(the non-christian US that is) will turn into a nation of incestuous, animal-humping(I apologize if this type of language is a no-no), pedophiliac heathens. You simply cannot compose a LOGICAL and LEGAL argument to support this asinine claim. I have yet to see or read such a thing in this debate, or any related debates. It is all conjecture, cooked up by some overly excited scaremongers.

What OUGHT to alarm people is that for far too long the civil liberties of US citizens have been compromised by a ream of morally based legislation.

Thankyou Lemontrail!

I've said this before, but if some people in this country truely think we're going to turn into barbarians because of gay marriage, they have no faith in Americans...

Why? Because you think so?

The typical argument here is:



In some respects, it's hard to debate that point because it is true to an extent. The problem is, this is America. For every one legitimate couple like that, there will be 100 using it to get something for nothing. And how is THAT alarmist?

If I decide I want to marry my dad (disclaimer: too gross for words) because he's retired and needs benefits, why not? Instead of my dad being a Walmart greeter to get insurance coverage, why not just get married to me and use mine? Tons of people, including older citizens, can quit work because they don't need to work for benefits any longer. They can marry for them instead.

This doesn't mean I'm going to be doing anything physically with my dad. This doesn't mean I actually have to live with my dad. But who is going to know or check?

And if gay people are getting married under the assumption they are just like our good gay friends here, are you going to discriminate against me and my dad just because we're related? If so, why? We can't reproduce or cause any genetic problems (assuming that type of thing even exists). Using the gay argument, it's not about sex anyway.

Billy Jean and Shelly, Wertz and his lover, and maybe some others not speaking up here may be the most deepest in love, most committed, most faithful people on the planet. But why does that matter? It doesn't. For all we know you people may not even know each other. But because the marriage will turn into a contract having nothing to do with childrearing and having everything to do with financial benefits and protections, people will marry for the same reasons men and women without kids will marry. Because they can.

In the past, marriage was traditionally setup under the assumption that a man and woman would have children. And they were extended certain benefits to accommodate the best interests of the children. But, men and women get married all the time and do not have children. Why do they get married? Because there's more financial benefit! Gee - imagine that. There are plenty of men and women who are now married that probably don't even like each other or even live together. But they have more to gain by being married versus divorced.

I posted a link a few days ago that showed 40 female couples and 49 male couples got married in Canada since they legalized marriage. All of them were activists that got married so that Canada would not repeal gay marriage. Their intent was to make it difficult for Canada to do anything after the horse was out of the barn.

If they can get married for political reasons, why can't anybody else, regardless of who they are, get married for whatever reasons they choose?

Hell, maybe my dad will become a Walmart greeter. And since they are insuring same sex couples now, maybe I'll marry my dad so I can get his coverage.

They get married because it's usually in human nature not to want to be alone. We seek out relationships and life partners because usually people want to find love and give love in return. We want to spend our lives with someone we can share memories and experiences with. We seek companionship.

I will agree that in the past, marriage was not only an institution set up for the purposes of having children, but also for financial gain. You can trace this through history. However, TIMES HAVE CHANGED. Marriage is no longer arranged, and it is no longer "used" for certain purposes. Yes, some people do continue to get married for money, for green cards,etc., but this is a small percentage. Look at elderly couple who have fallen in love and wanted to marry. Marriage, above all else, is a holy vow that is taken in order to demonstrate a couple's love for one another. It is about companionship, and partnership. No one wants to die alone. With such changes in the history of marriage, the government must change along with it. Of course, there will be people who abuse the institution of marriage for their own personal gain. But we cannot rule out the very legitimate possibility of gay marriage based on the actions of such people. And since gay marriage, at this point in time is not legal, it is safe to say that the "abuse" of such a sacred ceremony is being carried out by heterosexuals. Why penalize our community for supposedly taking away from the sanctity of marriage when we haven't even been allowed legally to prove you wrong?

No, DR, because NO ONE has provided this forum with a LOGICAL and LEGAL argument to support this claim. Give me PROOF that my brother may want to divorce his wife and marry me, or my mother, or my dad, or my Boxer(the male one of course), or perhaps all of us! There is no EVIDENCE in existance(if there is please enlighten all of "us people" so that me might ascertain its credibility) to prove the argument that if gay and lesbian marriages are granted state recognition then this nation, and all others who grant said recognition, will transform into a 21st century Sodom, full of Boxer "loving" brothers and the like. It is ALL CONJECTURE.




This ISN'T my argument, DR. If you are going to respond to my post, then please respond to MY post, and MY arguments. Obviously, I'm not typical. Over the last couple of millenia, the institution of marriage has morphed. The reasons for marrying have changed, as have the definitions, and the level of state interference.



What is alarmist is the ILLOGICAL connection that some are making between the recognition that homosexuals have the same liberties as heterosexuals, and the rise of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

Something for nothing? If by this you mean financial benefits, then you are absolutely right. No, this isn't alarmist, it's historical fact. Up until about the 19th century, this is why people married. It wasn't until the 20th century that marrying for love was introduced into the equation. What's the problem? If one wishes to marry out of financial concerns, SO WHAT? I could care less why someone gets married. It's NONE of my business, as long as their marriage does not interfere with my rights. My argument rests on the US Constitution's guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION and DUE PROCESS. These fundamental rights are guaranteed to ALL. Not just heterosexuals. And, once again, in language that a 5 year old can understand, unless the state has a compelling and legitimate interest, singling out one particular group to discriminate against is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In the immortal words of Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"What EXACTLY is the compelling and legitimate state interest in denying gay and lesbian couples state recognized marriage?




By setup I'll assume you mean state regulated? If this is the case then, initially marriage was a custom not a law. And couples engaged in the custom for various reasons: procreation, economics, tribal conquest, etc. Couples did not get married ONLY to have children. Nor, did they rely solely upon marriage in order to have children. Marriage was a secure environment in which to procreate. It definitely was not a means to an end regarding this. It wasn't until approximately the 16th century that the state got involved in the legalities of marriage.



And again--- is there a compelling and legitimate state interest in discriminating against you?



Is there a point here? To my knowledge there isn't a statute on the books that dictates "why" couples must marry. Couples should not and do not have to justify the reasons. Hell, if I had the credentials and the invite I would officiate at the marriage ceremony of Wertz and his partner. On second thought, no I wouldn't. I would much rather sit in the audience and behold the sheer beauty of their union.



And yet again--- is there a compelling and legitimate state interest at stake?

DR, do you honestly believe that brothers will want to marry sisters, fathers will want to marry sons, Aunts will marry cats, etc., or could it be that you simply have some sort of personal difficulty accepting the FACT that some men love other men, and some women love other women; the former making your existance somewhat obsolete, and the latter shaking your brand of machismo?

DO NOT make this personal. This thread is on its last legs as it is.

No one will ever convince me that (with the exception of a few) people get married just for financial gain.

There may be people out there who marry just to bear children but MOST people in the US marry because they love their partner and want to spend the rest of their life with them. Some are lucky enough to have children, some don’t want children and some try and can’t conceive. In every case the one thing they DO have is the comfort of automatically gaining certain rights. The right to their spouses life insurance, health insurance, etc. That right comes with or without children. Gay couples don’t have these same rights.

I also don’t believe that God was telling Adam and Eve to procreate. Go back to some posts of mine earlier where I talked about the theory that Adam and Eve weren’t the first man and woman on earth. When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiple he didn’t necessarily mean to bear children. Since God made these two people in his image, since they were the first to know the glory of God, could there be a possibility that what God really meant was for them to go out and share that glory with others? To act as disciples and bring others to God?

Be fruitful and multiply. Something to think about.

This was not meant to be a personal slight against DR. I earnestly wished to know if he in fact believed, and could support his arguments concerning incest and the like, or was there another reason that perhaps might reflect some sort of personal misconceptions on his part. I meant no offense, and I apologize for any caused. And yes, this thread is on its last legs. The same information, or lack thereof, is being regurgitated.

Thanks Jaime

Wow this thread certainly has legs! Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to add the British proposals recently put forward to allow homosexual couples of both genders to register their partnership as a "civil partnership".

It would extend to homosexual couples the same rights to be recognised as next of kin in hospitals, the right to waive inheritance tax in the event of the death of one of them, the right to inherit the pension rights of the other, to be covered by workplace life insurance, and so on.

As far as I can tell, the only distinction between these "civil partnerships" and full-blown marriage is the married couples tax allowance. In this case, more of their combined earnings are free of tax than unmarried couples, and they can choose how they are split. Usually the man earns more than the woman, especially if she takes a career break to have children, so usually he uses all the allowance, but sometimes it's split evenly or the woman takes it all. I think this is still justifiable, if only because the still-common gender gap in earnings only affects mixed-sex couples.

Almost nobody, even the religious right who might have reason to be opposed, has spoken up against the idea (yet). And, already the great and the good are considering that this kind of civilised arrangement could be extended to cover other type of civil partnership.

Unlike DR's nightmare scenario, the idea would be that, say, elderly sisters who've both been widowed and have moved in together for company could register their partnership, or any other one-on-one carer/cared-for relationship could be registered.

It just would allow people to legally say who they want their next of kin to be, nominating them to be exempted from certain taxes and granting them some legal privileges. At the moment, unless you're married or have adult children, your next of kin is automatically your closest living relative, whether or not you get on with them or they with you.

No mention is made of any sexual contact - incest, child abuse and bestiality would all remain illegal.

And dissolving such partnership would involve a formal legal process like divorce - you couldn't just switch all the benefits to someone else the way you change your will.

I think this is a rather civilised and sensible approach, that preserves the special position of marriage (through the continued tax breaks for married couples) but removes most of the institutional prejudice against couples, romantic or not, that do not have marriage as a option.

What does anyone else think? Would such formalised but (potentially) sexually neutral partnerships help in the USA?

An article appeared in my most recent issue of Discover magazine that may be of interest to those adhering to the slippery slope arguments in this debate. One of the fears associated with legalizing homosexual marriages has been the perceived potential of legalizing incestuous marriages. I didn't give it much thought at the time, but according to the magazine article there are presently only 24 states in which incestuous marriages (starting with first cousins) are illegal. Of the 26 where such marriages are permitted, 19 permit it without conditions while the other 7 come with conditions including, but not limited to, mandatory genetic counseling or sterility in one or both partners.

I'm not sure the article will be available from their site as it's just hitting news stands, but for anybody wanting to read it in detail it's the August 2003 issue with the cover story, "Can We Rocket to Another Star?"

It seems other sexual practices and the pursuit of legal marriages are already well and good without the aid of the Supreme Court's recent or future rulings.

Wertz, what kind of claim is that? How could you possibly make such a claim on personal experience? Maybe you didn't get the option to flip the gay/straight switch on the sexual orientation machine, but that claim is absolutely ridiculous. I don't deny that sexual orientation might be a result of predetermination or genetics, but to claim that is claiming something on no basis. How do you know that sexual orientation isn't a result of your acceptance by peers at school, or whether you like beets or stringbeans? To make a claim like you have is a bit irresponsible... and as a trained physicist and medical student, I'm offended that people haven't learned a simple lesson from science. You can say whatever you want, but unless you have some data or facts to back it up it's a bunch of (you know what).

Yes i recognize studies on the pituitary gland of gay individuals, but unfortunately it was fraught with control and variable problems. For example, the high density of HIV/AIDS cases in homosexual communities(because of the relatively small closed community) was not taken into account. Other things such as stress (having major physiological effects) were ignored, besides the experiment being conducted by a homosexual. Not that it really matters that he was a homosexual, but I am familiar with the problems of clinical experiments and testing and the requirement of DOUBLE blind studies.

Here is a recently conducted experiment to find the "gay gene" which refutes the claims of the 93 study that the X chromosome contains such a locus.
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/...tml?record=4181

My point is that simple experience about how the homosexual community feels about the origin of their sexual orientation has little if anything to do about the actual origin.

IMO, (not that it's based on any evidence) is that homosexuality is due to a combination of tendencies resulting from certain biological, social, and environmental circumstances.

Although I've never been inside of the mind of a homosexual, I would like to ask whether or not great levels of stress have been encountered before acknowledging the fact?

jmunro - I think you're posting in the wrong thread. This topic is to debate Gay Marriage. The "Nature vs. Nurture" thread is over here link.
FYI - the Nature vs. Nurture thread was started for the specific purpose of making sure this thread did not wander from the subject of gay marriage.

Please join us in the other thread

The prohibition against same-sex marriage is not essentially homophobic. It's essentially sexist, and in that, as in any sexism individual rights are denied, not gay rights or lesbian rights, but plain old human rights.
The prohibition is a partial bias against men and women each, partail for each, and unfair to both, treating men and women essentially unequal under law. It says to a woman that although a man can marry a woman, she cannot, which is a priviledge to him over her. It says the same thing to a man, that although a woman can marry a man, he cannot, by law, do the same. It's a bias against women for being women, and eqaully a bias against men for being men. It's sexist. Its prohibitio is not aimed at gays or lesbians. It's aimed a t ment and women, to control and regulate their personal sex lives.
In that it violates everyones rightful freedom. If you think about it, this prohibition is so far-reachingly bad. It denies to every man and woman love relations with half of the human race.
Its no surprise either that the opposition consists almost entirely of those who cite religious reasons for maintaining the prohibition. Because it is so much a religious edict, like something a church would decide for it's members, what it will recognize and what it won't. It is so clearly an instance of the government behaving as a religious body, almost entirely transparent, which presumably the government is not supposed to do.

Thread reopened. Extremely offensive, inflammatory comments and subsequent rebuttals have been removed.

Please resume the debate:

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

One of the ironies for me is that I fear government coming along and forcing me to be married. It is a screwy world where people who do not want to be married can be forced to while others who wish to be married are denied. I would caution anyone from marriage for legality reasons. Marriage for emotional reasons is a good thing. Just do not get the government involved.

And yes, people who wish to have a legal partner via the vehicle known as 'marriage' should be able to do so with any adult of their choosing.

It is a far more important issue to correct our current legal problems with 'marriage' than to put it on a pedestal as a goal for homosexual couples. Then again, maybe having homosexual marriages will help to take the sexism out of our current marriage contracts.

I know my religion would never allow anything like that. Same sex marriages are wrong in my eyes. Homosexuals can do whatever they want in their privacy, but marriage is a no no. Sorry thats the way I feel.

i find this funny to me, i know this is a serious issue to america, i think that they should just make their own form of it, rather then trying to be accepted as normal people. Social acceptance is what its all about. I dont see a problem with it, i would vote yes to let them.

That may be the way you feel, and I respect that. But what about the separation of church and state. One religious partiality cannot dictate the laws of the land.

On a very technical level, I think they should still be called civil unions, but they should still get the same tax penalties and benefits married people get. I stand firmly against my party on this one. I think Frist's proposal makes us look like we are still in the dark ages, burns bridges with the Gay Republicans (who do have a decently powerful lobby) and contradicts one of the core fundamentals of the party-small government that doesn't micro-manage. Ironically though, most moderates on both sides seem to agree with Republicans on one of the few things I reject them on. I think the party would be ideal for me if it didn't attract bigoted, so called, "Christians."

Also, If a gay couple you never met threatens your marriage, you need to get marital counseling, because you are gay or in an amazingly weak marriage.

History does repeat

From www.buddybuddy.com

Such lectures didn’t end with the 19th century, though. In 1959, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving for evading Virginia’s law against white-black marriages by marrying in Washington, D.C. “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” Bazile declared. “And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.”

The how-dare-you rulings against interracial couples that were handed down by judges confident that God shared their prejudices have a familiar ring. That’s because they’re so similar to justifications concocted to try to keep gay couples from taking the step from love to marriage. Members of Congress who last summer railed against gay couples before passing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act sounded as if their speech writer were the 19th century judge who denounced “alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them.”

Yet the most vocal foes of same-sex marriage act as if this country has never before struggled with the question of which couples should have the right to wed. They’d have us think there is something obvious, sacred, constitutional and timeless about drawing the marriage eligibility line exactly where it is today.

In fact, though, for nearly two centuries the idea that allowing interracial couples to marry is right — both in the eyes of God and in the precepts of the U.S. Constitution — was not obvious to a majority of Americans. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court, after repeatedly ducking the issue, declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional. (End of quote)

Sadly we are slow to learn. Laws against same sex marriage are likewise a violation of the 14th Amendment.

I think people against gay marriage and the removal of sodomy laws should be equally vigorous about oral sex. And besides, why are all these religous tightwads so determined to destroy homosexuality? Don't they want a bountiful crop of choir boys?

Sorry, that was a bit much, but this is the part of my party I lothe.

That's not part of your party unless you want it to be, aquapub. I don't know of a single Republican who is interested in choir boys.

I think what he means is that religious conservatives lately have been found with their pants around their ankles while trying to preach morality. The hypocracy of SOME of them.

I will never understand how so many people can get hung up over a word. "Marriage" is just a word, people. Who cares if you call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "banana split"? If it has the same rights and the same priviledges, call it the same thing and be done with it.

I also find it interesting that some people object to "gay marriage" on the basis of their religious beliefs, as though *THEIR* beliefs are the only ones around. And they they complain that in some Muslim countries, Christianity is outlawed, much the same way homosexuality has been here in the past.

Hmmm... Christians can object to things on the basis of their beliefs, but other religions can't object to Christianity on the basis of their own beliefs... Hypocracy anyone?

Wow, my first ultra-controversial thread post, where to start....

It took a long time to read this thread, I've been updating some servers all around the country from my desk here in Reno, NV for the past couple of days and have been catching a few posts here an there in between logging in, patching, etc...

I'm a firm believer in having equality for all and dealing with expoiters as we discover them. It's also my opinion on affirmative action, but that's another thread.

Here in Nevada, there was a vote to allow gay marriage a few years ago. The spokesperson that was heading up the movement for allowing gay marriages was offered the chance to have it called a civil partnership. He declined. The vote was nearly 80'ish percent no. After the vote, there were several polls taken asking people how they would've voted if it was not called "marriage". 60% of the "no" voters would have voted yes. The spokesperson was later interviewed about the poll. He said he still would not have changed the name. Many in the gay community were very upset. All they wanted was to be recognized by the state so they could receive the same benefits as heterosexuals. They had no desire to "prove a point", now they'll probably have to wait a decade or so before it'll hit the ballots again, unless something happens at the national level. I haven't heard any word on whether this guy is still their spokesperson anymore but I hope not. He put his own agenda before the needs of the people that trusted him to do what they asked him to do.

Marriage has been around a very long time, and many people act like the united states just sort of invented it or something. Marriage is a religious ceremony. You are bonded together before God. I am an atheist myself, but I do respect the beliefs of others.

As far as what it will do to the other 'groups' out there and whether or not they will seek the same benefits, well of course they will. America is a lot different than other countries, we sue a tobacco company for giving us lung cancer, we sue mcdonalds for giving us hot coffee(the nerve of them), we use loopholes in court cases every day. I'm surprised no one here has used the term "bench legislation" yet. Or at least I never read it. A US supreme court ruling can and does make new laws because they are the last resort in many cases. If the SC says so, it's law. Which is why certain cases can set dangerous precedences. However, I don't think that this is a good reason to not allow gay marriages, nor do I think "it's not natural" or "the bibles says it's the devil momma". We spout liberty for all, but then don't allow two consenting adults to get insurance advantages, or tax benefits.

P.S. I am straight, white, and male. I hope that doesn't make too much of a difference on my opinion as it does in many other boards.

I support gay marriage above and beyond! Since, and well before the 9-11 attacks, we have always said we are a "free country". The question I ask is, How does the government define "free"? Surely they didn't find the definintion in the "Merriam-Webster" dictionary.

Free -2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself- http://www.m-w.com

If that was the case, marijuana would be legal, most drugs would be legal, gay marriage would be legal.

"Choosing or capable of choosing for itself" - Meaning if Joe Blow down the street decides that not only is he going to indulge in a hit from the bong, but he is also going to marry his lover, Rico. WHY? Because he chooses too! Free, meaning the right to choose.
However, our government has taken away the right to choose who we love, what we put into our bodies, what we wear, how we speak. Even in some areas...what we watch. Sure if you want to catch Politically Incorrect which is now Real Time with Bill Maher....you can turn on HBO. But at one time, Bill Maher was allowed to speak his mind, without having to be on HBO, until someone didn't like what he said and kicked him off. Just because one person doesn't like what another person does, says, or engages in, doesn't mean we should isolate that person...take away something they LOVE. Just all for our children.
Because isn't this fight all because of...the children?

I read this forum, and this one quote struck me.

If I were god, I'd twist this accordingly.

Alright, You don't have to be forced to see the union of two men or women. Because you obviously don't believe in Homosexuality, A law granting same-sex marriages would be acknowledging that something YOU don't believe in is perfectly acceptable.

By the same token, Any Gay person that finds that Heterosexual marriages are disgusting will no longer be forced to see the union of a man and woman. A law granting different sex marriages would be acknowledging to that gay person that something he doesn't believe in is perfectly acceptable.

Maybe we should take away citizenship of jews because I don't believe that they built this country.

Can anyone else see where this type of thinking leads us?

I, for one, am not Homosexual. I cannot understand why anyone would want to BE homosexual. But the fact is that they are.

Lets face it, homosexuals are a minority group. When we let a bigger way of thinking force minority groups to conform, does that make our country one that stands for freedom?

The best argument I have heard so far is that marriage is a name associated between a man and a woman. Well, what if that name means something different to someone else? Are we going to let a larger group push around minorities and tell them what they can call marriage?

Some might think that that "larger group" is the supreme court, and that by letting gays have access to marriage, the definition looses something. If thats the case, ignore those marriages, but don't prevent another group from living out their own definition.

My brother is gay and so is my husbands sister and I tell you this I would not want to be in there shoes. Any time you think something like that you have to put your self in there shoes and wonder what would you do if you where not aloud or was told it was wrong to marry someone of the opposite gender.

I am a christian tread lightly. My brother and his partner are getting married and I fully support them. I hate that people say things to put down christians because I feel if you are a true christian you should not judge others lest you be judged. It says God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who so ever shall believeth in him should not perish but have ever lasting life.NOT that he so loved you you and you and not them. Jesus did not like those that judged others and spoke out against it time and time again.

I support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. I refuse that right to someone based solely on the gender of their partner seems archaic and oppressive. There is no reason for a restriction. The nations laws should not be based on one groups religious principals. I respect the right of individual churches to choose not to perform the ceremony, but I see no other reason for opposition.

Ah, but other religions have no problem with it.
Look, I don't think your church should be forced to marry homosexuals- I don't actually know of anyone who wants that. By the same right I don't see how your church should be able to prevent the church my boyfriend goes to from marrying us. They already perform "commitment ceremonies" but are forbidden to perform marriage. How is that not religious discrimination? Should Baptists not be allowed to perform full immersion baptisms because Catholics don't believe in it?

Before this thread gets closed because of it's size, i want to throw my 2 cents in:

I think it should be legal to the point where gays DO NOT flaunt their marriage in public like they flaunt their sexuality in public at parades.