You don't have to like gays to support gay marriage.

Society dictates what is acceptable, but the law dictates what is allowed. If there were no laws against drinking in public and creating disturbances, drinking in church would still be unacceptable, but the law would not give the church the right to expel you from the church or otherwise prevent you from doing so. As it stands now, the laws in that regard don't take into account your gender or sexual preference, or any other aspect, they are applied equally to whomever may be drinking, be it a man, woman, child, mother, father, race, religion, ethnicity, etc etc. That is not the case with marriage laws, where anti-SSM crowd wants them to exclude people based simply upon who they are, not what they've done or will do. They are using the law to subjectively discriminate against people they don't like.

Your case is that homosexuals should only be allowed to enter into heterosexual contracts on the basis that society's subjective discomfort with same-sex relationships is proof enough that the law is valid and not discriminatory? That's not the way the law works, at least not in this country. You're allowed to think and feel whatever you want, but the law is not a tool to protect you against things you don't agree with. It's an equalizer, not an exclusionary force.

Yes you could. The law allows you to do so. If it did not, you would not be able to.

I fail to see what your point here is, other than you believe homosexuals ought to be discriminated against based on standards that are not applied equally. You're not acknowledging the difference between societal mores and the law. They are not the same.

 

You've come into this conversation late i'm afraid. I've stated that I have no issue with full legal rights for homosexual unions. My only argument is that marriage is a heterosexual tradition and should remain that way.

 

You may be missing this: To my understanding, gays can get completely equal rights if they take part in a gay union. If this is not the case, don't read on.

If it IS the case, it strikes me that the MAIN reason that gays want to be able to utilize what is called 'marriage' is to help convince people that homosexuality is normal, natural, okay, just fine. Gays want to rationalize, want to justify homosexuality.

In that case, if I disagree with homosexuality, then I also must disagree with changing the common definition of the word 'marriage' to allow it to include homosexuals.

 

That is a very succinct analysis of the issue.

 

To play the other side here I would argue that homosexuality is normal. It has existed since the earliest time of humans. It is not socially acceptable in the realm of marriage however and never has been.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and has been defined that way for centuries.

 

Marriage has been defined as between a Man/Woman and a God for centuries as well.

 

I stand corrected. Good point

 

You don't have to dislike gays to be against gay marriage.

 

It has been socially acceptable. It is socially acceptable now for more than half of America. There's no logical or objective reason to keep it illegal, as the law reflects neither reality (there are gay people and they do marry each other whether the state recognizes that or not) nor the wishes of the American people.

 

What other reason is there?

 

With all the gay marriage debates that I've seen on this board...I'm suprised you don't remember arguments against gay marriage.

I know that VERY RARELY do I read a post where someone "hates" gays. Or "dislike" gays. Its pretty jarring actually---because those types of responses are so rare.

 

Gays are free to marry anyone they like. I saw a guy marry his horse once. BUT-

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[58] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

Let them get married. I understand that your religion may not accept it, but that's not what this is about. No one is going to make churches change their rules on who can get married within the church.

I'm Catholic. My church wouldn't marry me to my wife because she is Baptist. My church said she must convert which wasn't going to happen. So we got married elsewhere. The gov't has no problem with it. There are reasons why we have a separation of church and state. It's not a popularity contest nor should it be. There are plenty of hateful people in this country who think we should go back to not allowing blacks and whites to marry each other. You wouldn't consider putting it on a ballot for a vote would you? No. Because it's wrong.

The definition of marriage argument is the weakest. If it so pleases you to think of a gay couples marriage as not a "real" marriage so be it. No one is telling you that you have to change your definition. It's not right to discriminate against a whole segment of the population just because it might offend someones definition of a word. If it makes you feel better think of every gay marriage as a "Fabulous Union". I promise I won't be offended.

 

On this point we are in total agreement. But at the time of this writing, government does have a say, doesn't it? It has a say because we, the people, have either permitted or insisted it have one. Given that it is unlikely that will be changing ant time soon, don't you think that the law should thusly be applied equally? Without regard to arbitrary discrimination?

 

What a ridiculous "argument."

 

As I've already stated, I'm not going to play your games. If you have a position, let's have it. Otherwise, thank you for the "debate" and for further proving my point.

 

But we are not discussing the definition of words here. We are discussing the application of the law.

 

I'll bite... The same thing that made you straight..... assuming you are.

 

I just want to know why anyone thinks they or any government has the right to choose what marriage is and what marriage isn't.

 

If gov't is going to have tax breaks etc. for married couples, they need some way to identify you as married or not. If they didn't have the ability, all your legal rights as a spouse would disappear.

 

Are you saying that the government is denying clergy entry into the hospital to perform last rites? I'm still not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Please get very specific--just pretend you are a news reporter and give me the "4 Ws": Who? What? When? Where? Thanks!

 

Viewed objectively, how is that fair, just, or legal?

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion--but we still have this problem with the Constitution. How do you navigate that one objectively?

 

You are correct that the law makes no stipulation to sexuality--but it certainly does to gender, arbitrarily in my view. Also, it makes no reference to procreation so we should probably take that off the table as well. Given that set of facts, how does an objective analysis of the current marriage statutes conclude anything other than the arbitrary stipulation to gender being unjust and unconstitutional?

 

Correct, There is no stipulation to reproduction in the marriage statutes.