Essay talk:What's Wrong With Using a New Word for Same Sex Unions?

First things first
"Well, let me first start by saying that all marriage is wrong" - Granddad in The Boondocks, by Aaron Mcgruder, 3/12/2004 human be in 21:11, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Great strip and even funnier tv show. Jrssr5 07:44, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

SBE
Well, for a start, because "separate but equal" has not proven to be fair in practice. For another, a great many "civil unions" are not equivalent to marriage, and to a lot of people who don't believe that there's anything inherently wrong with homosexuality, making the distinction between their marriages and "real" marriages is insulting. Those are the usual reasons for objecting to a change in terms. So let's turn that around, what's wrong with using it, if it's just a word? --Kels 21:22, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Seperate but equal, a term coined or at least made popular via Brown v. Board of Education, is loved by many liberals today. Charter schools, langauge immersion schools--and even gender segregated schools, are making a comeback.


 * If you don't like "seperate but equal" why don't you lobby against gay bars, where some homosexuals like to get away from "breeder cows." From what I understand, even the most famous gay bar in our state has seperate areas for men and women, filtered by providing passages through public restrooms.  (Seperate but equal, again, loved by liberals).


 * What rights do married people have that you want for homosexuals?


 * The right to visit your partner as they are dieing from complications due to AIDS? I don't think even the Christian right will fight you on this.  Do it via civil union.


 * The right to have your property default to your registered partner after you die? I don't think even the Christian right will fight you on this.  Do it via civil union.


 * The right to adopt? Sadly, this is already done, at least in my state.  We have a little boy in my neighborhood who has two moms, both butch, but liberal.  Poor kid.  Reminds me of Johnny Cash's song, A Boy Named Sue.  He really has a chip on his shoulder, and he is only 8 or 9.  He would be much better off in a traditional family.  His tough attitude will only carry him so far, until others realize he is all bark and puny bite.  In any event, the right to adopt is and can be seperated from unions/marriage.


 * So, a series of tangentially related question: Are people born gay, or do they decide to be gay.  If they are born gay, and a genetic test is created to determine if an unborn child has a gay gene, do you think we should outlaw the abortion of homosexual fetuses?  If individuals choose to be gay, do you think we should treat them medically?  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 08:50, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Why people are gay isn't the point here: the legal binding between two entities (a cow got married to a bull in India last month, no kidding) is, and has alway been, called a marriage. MiddleMan


 * Let’s go through this point-by-point:
 * “Separate but equal” creates artificial class divisions, which are not good for a culture. It maintains the fiction that there’s something “wrong” or “different” about a group that requires a distinction from the rest of the culture.
 * Most gay bars are full of straight women. I know a lot that go there, because they know they’re not gonna get hit on by every guy in the place.  There’s nobody at the door tossing the straights out.  Lesbian separatists exist, of course, but they’re a pretty rare breed.
 * I can’t recall the list right off, but in most places in North America there are over 100 benefits conferred by marriage, including death benefits, the right to visit the sick, tax benefits, etc. Many, if not most, proposed civil unions do not include all of these.
 * In fact many Christians do fight hospital visitation actively, and in almost all jurisdictions such rights belong to spouses or family members. A homosexual partner, not married, can and will often be turned away, even if they’ve been true to each other for decades.  I’m interested in your choice of AIDS though, which is a bit of a stereotype.  Homosexuals die of cancer, accident, and other diseases the same as anyone else.  Other than sexual preference, there’s  no difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
 * Property and inheritance rights, ditto. In fact, these rights are one of the few commonalities of the concept of marriage throughout the ages.
 * As far as adoption goes, I don’t even know if I want to get into the outright bigotry of this paragraph. Best to leave it alone.
 * Reasons someone is gay has nothing to do with the discussion, as MiddleMan rightly pointed out, so no point addressing it.
 * Thus far, I haven’t heard much compelling argument for preserving the term marriage. --Kels 10:38, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I think a big reason why this rankles so much is that having seperate terms for "marriage" among straights and "marriage" among gays implies an "us" vs "them". Any time you begin to construct an "us vs them" mentality, one of the two must the better. It is almost impossible to have it any other way. One group must the right/justified/pure/good/authentic/wholesome/etc. and the other must be less so.Prof0705 10:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My argument for all these types of things is the same: If what someone else is doing doesn't directly affect you, why do you care? Allowing gays to marry won't lessen the importance of me eventually marrying Ms Right (just need to find a non-crazy girl).  Why shouldn't you call it a marriage, that's exactly what it is; using another word doesn't make it any less evil in the eyes of those who are opposed. Jrssr5 11:45, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Looking at your comment, Jrssr5 (who of course is better than Jssr5, the heathen), it makes me wonder if this doesn't tie back to the concept of Pride again, in that those who oppose the use of the word marriage for SSM don't want to give up the cachet of being special. If homosexuals can use the term "married", does that socially devalue the term, since it's now used more widely?  I don't know if that's the case for Heart of course, but I wonder if that's not an element of the overall opposition. --Kels 11:50, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm glad you agree that Jssr5 is a heathen. And the pride thing does make sense, even though it seems like such a ridiculous thought process.  Often the opposition to things like this comes from people who are afraid of anything different.  I can't speak for HoG, but when you limit yourself to a group of friends/associates who are all like-minded, you lose touch with reality and the possibility that there are people who don't agree with you or don't see where you're coming from.  That sort of mentality is very apparent on CP.  They're so close minded that you can't engage them in debate.  I don't expect to ever change HoG's position on gay marriage, but it's good to see him/her open to talking. (and I think I rambled enough, sorry if it's incoherent, but my brain is fried today.) Jrssr5 14:11, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd say the union between Anna Nicole Smith and that 90-year old billionaire devalued the term enough already. MiddleMan

There is no rational argument against gay marriage. There are, however, many irrational arguments. And HoG, gay bars aren't 'seperate but equal,' - they allow straight people in. It's no different from a biker bar, a yuppie bar, a sports bar, etc. olliegrind 11:56, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The difference is, gay bars generally have better dancers, is all. --Kels 12:00, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Olliegrind, see below (article and graphic). Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I haven't read all of this and probably won't be keeping up with the page, but someone above thought s/he remembered there being more than 100 legal benefits to being married. It may actually be more than 1000 at the federal level alone -- see this GAO report from 1997, which found more than 1000 places in federal law (as it existed prior to the DOMA) where marital status made a material impact. --jtl talk 23:42, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Civil Union vs. Marriage
From my admittedly twisted perspective, a "civil union" is what confers legal rights and reponsibilities, anyway. No matter how fancy your church wedding, you have to file paperwork with the Man in order for it to be legally binding. Now, pretty much everyone calls a plain JOP-type civil union a "marriage". And "married" is a lot easier to say than "civilly unioned". Churches and other organizations that choose not to, of course, would never have to offer their sacraments to anyone they didn't approve of. I am bothered by people who think that "their" definition of marriage is all there is. What was that line to Horatio in Hamlet? (I think it is Hamlet) (I think it was to Horatio). About the world and what was dreamt in his philosophy? human be in 12:46, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

What HG Got Wrong
Okay, so there's a lot, so I thought it needed its own section. Sorry, HG, you know I love you, but seriously?

First, (gotta go I'll be back) -AmesG 21:06, 30 May 2007 (CDT))
 * And that's love in the traditional, heterosexual sense, right? No creepy man-kisses? --Kels 21:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Whether they kiss or not is their business. Buttsex But, sex is required. human be in 21:17, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Either way, I'm taking pictures. --Kels 21:21, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, (1) Calling lesbian women "butch" is a bit... wrong (!). Aside from that, taking one couple you know, and their son, as representative of an entire class is not only wrong, but simply poor logic. I could point to children of straight couples who have been decimated by their parents. In fact, one pops to mind who is borderline homicidal, and a very scary person. He's a young-earth creationist, and the son of YEC parents. Ergo, by your logic, YEC parents shouldn't have children either...?

(2) Saying that gay bars are discriminatory is just hilarious. First off, discrimination to be cognizable at Constitutional law must be the result of state action. See generally "the Civil Rights Cases," but cf. Shelley v. Kraemer. Gay bars are... not state institutions. Second, if the long arm of the state can reach to private institutions that way, surely it can reach to desegregate public bathrooms. There's little difference. Third, you may ask, "how can the state forbid discrimination in public restaurants?" Truly, their power is somewhat limited. See Palmore v. Sidotti. However, mostly it's done through Commerce Clause power. See Katzenbach v. McClung. You can try to reach gay bars through that, but...

(3) Feel free to prosecute gay bars as discriminatory. I hope you win. In fact, you'd probably get the gay rights activists behind you. Because, if you get discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be forbidden... well, that about opens the gates for our agenda. To hold gay bars as repugnant to the constitution would require you to assert that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation deserves strict scrutiny to be upheld (assuming you get past the state action hurdle), and if you get strict scrutiny, well, our job is done. Game & match. Because the minute strict scrutiny is used to strike down gay bar discrimination... it'll be used to strike down discrimination w/r/t the institution of civil marriage.

(4) Separate but equal is a valid doctrine so long as the separation truly is equal (Brown v. Board held as much, not to be misinterpreted). In few contexts is segregation ever equal. However, note that Andy thinks that separate is equal for the gender context (see his debates on the cp:U.S._v._Virginia page). If you're willing to say that separate is never equal, even for sexual orientation, then let's hook right back into (3).

(5) That's all for now.-AmesG 22:41, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * (1)Ergo, by your logic, YEC parents shouldn't have children either... Maybe they (YEC parents) shouldn't be allowed to adopt--take it up with your favorite congressperoffspring (person is sexist).  I am not against gay people getting married or having children...perfectly legal in this country.  Gay men like straight men are allowed to marry any woman they choose, so long as they are not violating pologomy laws.
 * (2) First off, discrimination to be cognizable at Constitutional law must be the result of state action. Then quit picking on the boy scouts.  Caution:  you do realize that Gay bars must obtain liquor licencese, right...
 * HG, you are the one who brought the scouts into this discussion. human be in 14:51, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * (3)I don't want to prosecute.
 * (4)huh?
 * (5)Okay, thanks. But what again is wrong with "same sex union" or some similar verbage?  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Gay men like straight men are allowed to marry any woman they choose, so long as they are not violating pologomy laws.
 * Har. har.  Har.
 * Let's imagine that someday, through some HORRIBLE series of events, someone like me takes over the country. If that whacko were to say  "You Christians all have equal rights to everyone else--you can all sacrifice goats to the Unnameable Ones in ANY WAY YOU LIKE.", are you going to feel like you're getting 'equal rights'?  Or are you going to feel like a crucial part of your life has just been run through a tree-shredder?
 * Nobody here thinks you're dumb, so don't act dumb just to try to 'win' arguements. It doesn't work very well.  --Gulik 02:05, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

(1) Saying "Gays are free to marry, they can marry any woman they want," is to confound the issue in a way similar to Loving v. Virginia. Equal application or facially neutral application of a law will not hide an invidious or discriminatory intent, and you can't sidestep the issue by saying that, in a value-denuded, out-of-context sense, gays can "marry."

(2) I'm fine with calling a state liquor license "state action," and fine with calling a gay bar discriminatory as long as you concede that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong. Then we'll go from there.

(4) What I'm getting at is, if you have a problem with separate but equal gay bars, I can't see how you couldn't have a problem with separate but equal marriage institutions.

(5) I have no objection to the term "civil union" for gay marriages, as long as they carry the same rights & privileges of marriage under state & federal law. People don't realize, I think, that "marriage" is a religious term, whereas "civil unions" are really all that the government deals with.-AmesG 07:59, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

What straight women who frequent gay bars don't know about gay bars
What straight women who frequent gay bars don't know about gay bars: They offer separate and unequal treatment of patrons. Heart ♥  Gold tx 21:36, 30 May 2007 (CDT)




 * Wow, that's brilliant parody. Well done! --Kels 21:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * It's not a parady (though it is simplified.) And, not being a graphic artist, it is not well done.  But it does illustrate the point.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 21:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * May I ask just how many of these bars you've personally been in, to verify your floor plan? --Kels 21:44, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I somehow ended up in a gay bar once. Horrible experience for me.  Surrounded by guys that all were in better shape than me, were dressed better, and could dance better. And even though they were gay, the girls were still all over them.  Maybe alot of the homophobia stems from stuff like that.  Wasn't all bad though, I got some free drinks. But I didn't find any hidden room.Prof0705 21:48, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If you used the bathroom, you probably got grossed out by the [slippery] mess on the floor, and didn't really want to venture through the door makred "closet"....LOL. Heart ♥  Gold tx 21:51, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Which, to return to my question, you have done? --Kels 21:53, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * To get back to the political snark HG threw out there. Virtually all bars worth going to "offer separate and unequal treatment of patrons".  The best ones don't make it obvious, they are just comfortable places to be.  Of course, some bars prefer "discomforting" patrons, and unequally treat patrons accordingly.  A bar (private business) is not much of a comaprison to marriage (state sanctioned public contract). Breeder cows, indeed! Fag hags, more likely. human be in 22:07, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, it's clearly a diversion from the point, but at least it's entertaining. Simultaneously disturbing and hilarious. --Kels 22:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Tried to fix the picture to make it less obtrusive. Please respond to the question in the above section, but HG... you can't seriously be serious about this, can you? Seriously?-AmesG


 * While it is funny, I am serious. Sometimes the truth and points in a debate can be made known in a humorous way.  I have not been in a gay bar, but I do have it on very good authority.  (I am friends with a gay man.)  I'll try to find a reference online.  But I may not be able to, since this sort of "filter" is not widely disseminated, it seems.  Maybe my friend was fibbing--wouldn't surprise me, how moral could he be--He's gay.  LOL Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * "I have not been in a gay bar" and yet you generalize about them? Oh, sorry, you are friends with one.  I've been to a few, maybe a dozen or so (a week in Provincetown will cover most of that, of course), and I have never seen any of this fluff you are throwing around.  Yes, there was an hotel in P-town where all the rooms were named after people like Sarah Bernhardt (sp.?).  The owners were politely showing us around when I whispered to my girlfriend "I don't think we are really their ideal clientele".  Such discrimination!!!  So we went to another motel.  Of course, on another trip, (different girlfriend), we were guests of our friend Vanilla, and got the best rate at some gorgeous, divy hotel by having me flirt with the desk clerk.  I know far more people with personalities that seem borderline, to me, that were raised by heteros that homos.  And guess what?  There was usually a strong religious component in those hetero psycho-raising famailies.
 * But what I came here to say (apart from that I think the re-size of your image was appropriate) is that, folks, I think we have most of an article here, who wants to condense and edit the strongest parts into arguments for same sex marriage? or some such file?  Do we have same-sex marriage already? (guess not) human be in 23:18, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I made Same-sex marriage a few days ago. --Kels 12:33, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * PS, I've been trying to "thumb" the image, but it's fighting me and not showing up at all. Anyone know why? human be in 23:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I originally tried to make the image less obtrusive too, but failed. Might be incomplete installation of some package?  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It works on other images. I'm gonna copy some of this to user:human/sandbox2 to experiment, to avoid edit conflicts here. We could also just make a smaller version of it. human <font color="#00AA00">be in 23:29, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Nice work, Human, though it is missing the Tinky Winky colors made famous by a certain special teletubby. P.S.  I don't think you have most of an article here.  I think you have the liberal perspective, and some conservative retorts, and some other liberal retorts.  But the issue is serious, and there is an agenda that goes beyond just wanting to secure visitation rights to hospitalized partners, as evidenced by the in your face push for redefining marriage when other less controversial approaches have a much better chance for success.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:48, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

HeartOfGold - I am amazed that such a conservative straight guy knows so much about gay bars. It would lead to the obvious conclusion that you yourself are gay and frequent them if you weren't so wrong about them. olliegrind 08:14, 31 May 2007 (CDT)


 * You know, I keep hearing about this "homosexual agenda" from people. What exactly does this agenda entail?  What are its goals?Prof0705 08:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Same as most agendas, I assume. Get up, drop adopted kids off at school, meet with evil overlords, promote homosexuality in schools, pick up kids, don't forget to get the dry cleaning.  That sort of thing. --Kels 12:31, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

A couple of thoughts here. The illustration, and the assumptions behind it, are so laughably false that it's hard to refute. It's like the old Eddie Murphy routine where he dresses as a white guy, and they all have parties and champagne the moment black people leave the room. This is honestly the stuff of fantasy, in the real world the cost of such a place alone would be enough to sink it, let alone the morals involved. And yes, gay people can be every bit as moral as anyone else. Haven't you heard? They're considered human now. As to the term "breeders", I've hung around with a lot of gays and lesbians, and the only time I've heard that is as a joke. Now the people I have heard use it are largely straight women who are part of the child-free movement. You might want to go talk to them instead. --Kels 12:37, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The illustration, and the assumptions behind it, are so laughably false that it's hard to refute...this is honestly the stuff of fantasy Ah, okay.  Did they teach you that in debate class?  Which part is false?  The part about gay bars using bathrooms as gender filters to additional bars?  The part that gays discriminate?  The part that some gays use crass terms like "breeder cows"?  You know, all it would take is for me to provide the name and number of one such bar.  I am thinking about offering up a wager, such as:  If I am wrong, I will volunteer at an AIDS hospice for 6 months.  If I am right, you (Kels) will attend church and Bible study for 6 months at a conservative christian church, with the open mind you believe you have--that is, listen and learn without judging until the six months is up.  But be careful, I have already provided one link to a news story about a bar so fed up with women looking to find the company of ~"good looking, attractive, physically fit men who can dance and dress well" that the bar owner made it a bar for men only--the whole bar, not just a section of the bar.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 20:25, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not about to take your ridiculous bet. I guess that means you get to claim victory, so if you feel like it, have fun.  You'll feel good about yourself, and be saved the trouble of cherry-picking news articles to prove that your fantasies (or James Dobson's fantasies) are all-pervasive. --Kels 20:36, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Issues of "dumb" versus "funny"
While the floor plan above is quite a chuckler, it is also farcical. Hmmm, where are the fire doors for the "men only" section? How secret do you keep "hidden" parts of your club/bar floor plan? Are Do the straight women whe hang out there assumed to be so completely stupid that a straight boy who has never been to a gay bar in his life knows more about the floor plans? Methinks the author's gay friends pulleth his legs (all three) sometimes. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 21:08, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Still searching, but...
Found this about a bar in Melbourne:

After Tom McFeely complained about rowdy hen parties, a tribunal in Melbourne ruled that heterosexual women ogled his customers and treated them like zoo animals.

This jives with what my friend said, some (or many) gay men get sick of straight women coming to their bar. Heart ♥  Gold tx 23:32, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * P.S. I guess his name really is McFeely.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:36, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

"Some", sure. But you aren't really making a point (the whole issue has been addressed above). Some, or most, goths hate it when people dressed in color come to their bars (ever seen how silly that looks?). Punks don't like business-suited twerps. Etc., etc. Usually, most groups will accept "outsiders" if the outsiders don't act like it is a zoo. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 23:48, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Bars obtain liquor licenses from government bodies. The Boy scouts, unlike bars, are truly private.  Yet gay activists want to sue the Boy Scouts while arguing that gay bars are private businesses?  In any event, women are different then men, and gay men are different than straight men (though I have run into married men with children who were gay and didn't even know it.)  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:51, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Women are not different than men. Not as people, anyway.  In Boston MA, the Sons of Hibernia successfully sued to block a gay Irish group from participating in the annual St. Patricks's parade that they run - on the public streets of the city.  A liquor license does not require the holder to serve "anyone" who asks.  In fact, most come with strict requirements regarding not serving people who might be trouble. And gays and atheists have been out of the scouts for a while now, and the United Way doesn't give them money any more because they discriminate. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 00:03, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Which is why I refuse to give money to the United Way. And many of my peers decline to donate to the United Way as well.  Free country after all.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 00:06, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * But is it really? Free country for who?  Obviously not homosexuals.Prof0705 09:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Homosexuals in this country are not persecuted by the government. President Clinton even declared the month of June one year as the month of celebrating homosexuality.  A whole month.  Contrary to popular belief, homosexuals in every state of the union can get married, to a person of the opposite gender.  We have homosexual congressmen (well, at least one that I can remember right now), laws against sodomy are either unenforced or repealed, and, in general, homosexuality is portrayed quite positively on television (E.g., "Ugly Betty" even has an affible young boy who is clearly being portrayed as being homosexual or pre-homosexual, as well as other charasmatic homosexuals that appear on that show.)  Homosexuals are not allowed to redefine marriage in all 50 states, but I can't have words redefined either.  Sounds fair to me.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 21:37, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * (Ahem) maybe I misunderstand you, but gay marriage is legal in MA. Has been for years.  The word already bin done redefined. But maybe you mean "all 50" not "any of the 50".  Oh well, I will continue to be a tool of the international gay agenda and work and hope towards it. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 21:43, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

What rights do married people have that you want for homosexuals?
What rights do married people have that you want for homosexuals? Please answer. And explain how it requires redefining the institution of marriage (as opposed to simply creating a new institution). If the purpose is to obtain rights, there is no need to be so "in your face" about changing the legal meaning of marriage. The U.S. is not India. And why stop at man/man and woman/woman marriages? Why not daughter/mother marriages, and son/father marriages? Why not man/woman/woman marriages? Where will it end? Heart ♥  Gold tx 23:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 1. The same ones.
 * 2. It doesn't "require redefining the institution of marriage". That's a right wing talk radio catch phrase to make people angry about it.
 * 3. Marriage gets redefined all the time anyway (think of changing divorce laws, wives not being property any more etc.).
 * 4. Nobody would be in anybody's face if the rights were simply passed (no fuss in MA, by the way, or other countries where it is legal.). Actually, the only place it got in anyone's face here was you challenging the idea of gays being allowed into the franchise, the insitition, with this essay.
 * 5. That's right, it's not India.
 * 6. Incest may be best, but it's illegal. I think the incest laws block M/D or F/S (etc.) marriage on grounds of genetics (yeah, science), relating to breeding.  But that's not what we are discussing here, is it?  It's a contrived slippery slope.  I believe Scalia's favorite is man/animal sex (relating to Lawrence v. Texas).  And don't bring up polygamy/andry or I'll explode a Romney on ya ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 23:55, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

What rights do married people have that you want to deny to homosexuals?
Question says it all. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 00:32, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * None. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are allowed to get married, so long as they marry somebody of the opposite gender.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 07:25, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, okay. So it would be okay with you if a man wanted to marry a post-op male-to-female transexual? Cool. C ® acker 07:53, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * So by your own logic, Christians are free to practice their religion anytime/anywhere they want, as long as it is not in public/government. You concede this, I'll concede the gay issue.Prof0705 09:03, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

"require redefining the institution of marriage"?
We did THAT back when the early Church outlawed the Biblically endorsed practice of Polygamy. (Why aren't all the "Bible Traditionalists" trying to revive that custom? Instead, they let the poor Mormons do all the hard work...)

And we did it again back when someone decided that a man and a woman are PARTNERS, not owner and property. --Gulik 02:09, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

My question is still the same. What will it change? If gays can marry in the same way that straights can, what will it change? Will you suddenly leave your wife and kids to go find a man? If polygamy becomes legal, will you go find another wife, will she go looking for another husband? If smoking crack becomes legal, will you go and buy a rock or two? No. Why? Because you are not a crack head. Legalizing gay marriage, like legalizing crack, shouldn't have any effect on you because it does not deal with you. I've truly never understood this argument against it. There are not enough tigers in the world.Prof0705 06:51, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree.

Did society collapse in the countries that legalized it? No, a tourist wouldn't even notice the difference! MiddleMan


 * I am proud to live in a country that has legalized gay marriage (Canada), and society seems to still be here. Homosexuals aren't running the country (yet), nor have straights stopped being married.  The divorce rate hasn't skyrocketed in protest, and to the best of my knowledge, church services haven't gotten any less sacred.
 * I've made several false starts in replying to some of the above, but honestly I can't seem to do it. The paranoia and repeated falsehoods ::("Homosexual Agenda", etc.) are too dense.  Maybe when I get home from work, but not yet. --Kels 07:07, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I' telling you, there are not enough tigers left in the world. Back in the good old days you were too busy trying to keep from getting eaten by tigers, or too busy trying to find some food of your own.  You had no time to worry about that gay couple, or that different color guy, or that guy with the odd religion.  Too busy running from the tigers.  I think my evil scientist goal will be to bring those days  back, genetically engineered super-tigers combined with massive EMP's might do it. Who wants to help?Prof0705 07:18, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I am proud to live in a country that has legalized gay marriage (Canada) I am prouder to live in a country that allows Dr. Dobson speak his mind about homosexuality, unlike in Canada, where such broadcasts are prohibited.
 * The divorce rate hasn't skyrocketed in protest. I am against no-fault divorce, too.
 * repeated falsehoods ("Homosexual Agenda", etc.) Hmn.  No homosexual agenda?  Do you swear by Darwin that there is no Homosexual agenda?  (Note, you don't have to be a card carrying member of NMBLA in order for there to be an organized and international homosexual agenda...such movements have leaders, with followers who are easily tricked.)  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 20:16, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay, let's see. Some of that comes off as gibberish, but I'll try to figure it out.
 * Far as I know, Dobson's stuff has been broadcast in Canada, and there's even a branch of his organization here in Ottawa, pretending they're not a lobby group. I have no clue who Darin is, wasn't he the guy on Bewitched?  I guess there's no way to deny that there's a Homosexual Agenda with you, since you've already decided that anyone who claims there isn't is either deluded or lying.  Despite the fact that the concept originated on the far right, among people who hold a hell of a lot more power than homosexuals generally do.  All I can say is, I have seen no credible proof of any such Agenda (or half of it, since I'm bi), and everyone I've ever heard speak of it on the queer side of things either treats it as a joke or an insult.
 * But hey, can you prove there isn't an International Jewish Conspiracy, or that GWB planned 9/11, or the phone company had JFK killed? --Kels 20:24, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * (missed one) As to divorce, what's the point? Whether you're for it or against it, there was no increase as a result of gay marriage, so clearly it's not causing marriages to fall apart. --Kels 20:25, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh kels. why did you mention JFK? now they are gonna come for you.Prof0705 20:27, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Kels, Dr. Dobson, when he has a Broadcast about homosexuality, is not allowed to broadcast that program into Canada. He is allowed to do it over the internet, but when the program is on homosexuality, a repeat radio program is played in its place in Canada, according to Dr. Dobson himself.  So, in Canada, Christians are largely unable to hear open and public discussion on homosexuality, as it is censored and very effectively marginalized through the force of law, in your great country.  Regarding the agenda...you need to study how movements work.  In general, the masses that give weight to a movement do not understand what it is about.  For example, when the U.S. bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Chinese students in China were encouraged by student leaders to demonstrate.  I have spoken with students who protested.  They didn't really care.  They were there because they were told to go, felt peer pressure to go, and so they went along to get along.  Likewise, most of the students at Tienimen square were not there to fight for democracy, but to make friends, be cool, cut class, and maybe even pick up chicks.  If you watch documentaries on the SLA or SDS in the United States, you will find that while the leaders knew what they were doing, the followers were simply "schooling up" (like fish).  How do you explain the organized international effort in several countries to push for homosexual marriage?  On one level, it is a fad, or a trend, but on another level, leaders do communicate, and share strategies, and move in chaotic unison.  The push for gay marriage was not organic--it was organized and led by highly intelligent and motivated people.  It reached a tipping point, became hip, and now supporters simply espouse talking points as though they were deeply held beliefs or undeniable truths.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 20:45, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

My Eyes Started to Blur While Reading this Page So Maybe I'm Duping Someone Else, but. ..
. . . why not just change the name of what heterosexuals do to 'civil unions' when it has to do with the state? If I want to belong to a religion, and that religion has a ceremony called 'marriage,' well yay for me. But why does the state have to call it that? Make it a civil union for everyone, with the same rights involved no matter who is participating in the union.

This way, the issue of calling it a 'marriage' is back to being a religious issue, which the individual faiths can work out for themselves. Aziraphale 10:49, 31 May 2007 (CDT) <-thinks semantics are better than noantics.
 * I agree, and although I sort of referred to it in a section above, I didn't take the trouble to put it clearly. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 11:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Same Gender Union compromise
Let's pass a law granting same sex couples the right to seek civil unions (they can seek marriage with a person of the opposite gender, without regard to what they do in their bedrooms). Work toward the goal of obtaining rights for same gender couples, such as visitation when one is hospitalized, inheritence, and what not. This is much more politically feasible anyway, and less offensive to traditional western and christian values. Heart ♥  Gold tx 21:03, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * What's the matter with a law granting them (oh, we are so generous) all the rights and obligations legally associated with marriage and get it over with? I'd get me one of them, if I met the right girl... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 21:12, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One thing that is wrong is that, at least in the United States, married couples enjoy certain breaks, e.g., an extra tax deduction for a two parent family where one of the parents stays home. Ostensibly, this is to promote nuclear families (read:  father and a mother).  Other than that, I don't think I have a problem with the rights (though I have not read all 100+ to 1000+ rights married couples supposedly enjoy) being made for same gender unions legally registered.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 21:26, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * As regards that one thing, a same sex couple can be raising children, too (via live birth or adoption), and perhaps one might "stay at home" and the tax break would be fair to the kids, I think. But as long as you have no problem with then getting all the rights/responsibilities, let's just call it foobar and have done with it. Pass the law now ;)  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 20:40, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Retiring
Well, I will retreat from this topic. What once seemed like an important topic with humorous exchanges is beginning to frustrate some. No need to continue to offend for the sake of argument. Heart ♥  Gold tx 06:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, this is *with* appologies to those who were offended. Heart  ♥  Gold tx 06:58, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Inconsistency is what's wrong
If the new term basically constitutes marriage as it is, why use it at all? --89.163.10.71 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)