Homosexuality: What's the Big Deal?

[bugsbunny04]

Guess what...if two people of the same gender want to get married, thats between them and the church. Its none of the governments g** d*** business

[tinybear]

So, Tinybear. Do you think majority should rule in all cases, or just gay marriage? I assume you are a female judging by your bear representative. Do you enjoy your right to vote? Do you think you would have that right if the majority got their way? No. It took people like Susan B. Anthony fighting for the rights of women to make that possible. Sometimes the minority has to stand up and make themselves heard to get fair treatment.

You also state "My view is that the status quo should prevail: i.e. the legal definition of 'marriage' should remain as the monogamous union of one man and one woman."

That may be the definition, but how many marriages are actually monogamous? If one isn't, does that mean it is no longer a legal marriage? And what on earth is wrong with allowing a gay couple the same legal rights as a strait one? Is it any skin off your nose if Bill and Bob want to be united by a legal marriage?

And what's with the talk (by someone other than Tinybear, don't recall who) of marriage being a religious union. Yes, in most cases it is, but not always. There are plenty of marriages done without religion involved. Government is involved either way, because it is not a legally recognized marriage without a license. I think people need to get off their high horses and realize that just because a little black book tells them something is wrong, that it may not be true. If two homosexual people want to marry, I say let them. They are people too. They are not asking to marry several people, or the neighbor's dog, or any of that other crap that people claim will follow the legal recognition of gay marriage.

Give me a break, people. As someone already mentioned, interracial marriage was once illegal. It didn't cause an onslaught of requests to marry a non-human or some other disgusting union when it was made legal. Neither will gay marriage. How about some perspective here?

My comments were limited to the recognition of a domestic institution such as marriage. Of course it is not appropriate to defer to majority rule in all cases. Each case must be considered on its own if and when it arises. And I think it's time people accept the fact that you cannot always get what you want simply by saying: "Those are my rights and it's none of your business". Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, why can't I marry my dog, have sex with a corpse, take multiple spouses..etc and have these activities endorsed by law? No skin off anybody's nose, right?

[EMUAlum]

Personally, I believe gay people have every right to be married. I don't believe that allowing two men to marry will lead to men marrying dogs or women wedding teenage girls.

[tinybear]

Personally, I believe gay people have every right to be married. I don't believe that allowing two men to marry will lead to men marrying dogs or women wedding teenage girls.

Hey, I didn't say that it would lead to men marrying dogs...etc. What I said was that if this sort of logic is followed, then there is absolutely no ground or reason for not permitting things like beastiality, necrophilia or polygamy. I mean if everyone's attitude is "I have a right to do this and it's none of the government's business", then there are lots of things which are not socially acceptable which should be not only decriminalized but given legal recognition to.

[italiangm]

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, why can't I marry my dog, have sex with a corpse, take multiple spouses..etc and have these activities endorsed by law? No skin off anybody's nose, right?

Well, in the first two examples cited, one of the parties can't provide legal consent.

As far as multiple spouses are concerned, why not?

Also, it's technically incorrect, (and intellectually dishonest) to use 'endorse' in place of 'regulate'.

[tinybear]

Legally recognize it is equivalent to endorsing it. Call a spade a spade.

Incidentally, we do all sorts of things to animals without asking their consent as it is, liking killing them for food for example.

As for getting consent from a corpse....Hahaha

[italiangm]

Legally recognize it is equivalent to endorsing it. Call a spade a spade.

No. You're creating definitions where none exist.

Incidentally, we do all sorts of things to animals without asking their consent as it is, liking killing them for food for example.

Following your logic, it is illegal to kill a human for use as food. Thanx for amplifying my point.

As for getting consent from a corpse....Hahaha

I was equally amused to see someone trot out this tired old trojan to support an argument. Sheeple thrive on soundbites from their master's agenda.

[tinybear]

Creating definitions where none exist? Sorry, but what do you mean?

And what point did I 'amplify'?

[italiangm]

Creating definitions where none exist? Sorry, but what do you mean?

Regulating is not equivalent to endorsing.

And what point did I 'amplify'?

Consent being a legal prerequisite to marriage.

[tinybear]

Yeah, but as I said, legal recognition is. See, gay unions are not part of the definition of marriage. If they are now legally made part of that definition, they are accorded recognition where none existed before. That would be tantamount to endorsement.

Consent is required in a marriage between people, yes. But with a dog? No.

[italiangm]

Yeah, but as I said, legal recognition is. See, gay unions are not part of the definition of marriage. If they are now legally made part of that definition, they are accorded recognition where none existed before. That would be tantamount to endorsement.

Consent is required in a marriage between people, yes. But with a dog? No.

Feel free to distort the actual definitions if you must to support your agenda. People with critical thinking skills know better.

[Mia]

How are gay marriages not part of the legal definition? You seem to be ignoring the fact that it's only wording of a proposed amendment that disallows it, despite the fact that I've sourced it for you. Gays aren't asking for the legal definition of marriage to be changed - anti-gays are.