[Rusty]

Why is the homosexual community expecting society to accept gay marriage as legitimate? If we did, wouldn't we be giving the green light to everything else that could be called 'marriage'? In other words, what if I want to marry my dog, my computer, sister, etc.? And furthermore, demand economic rewards for such (tax relief, for example)? Why would anyone think that one-man/ one-woman marriage is an arbitrary convention, when it seems clear that it's the only thing that is natural?

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Chuck A.]

You have used many of the same arguments against gay marriage that opponents of interracial marriage used 30 years ago. We call such arguments 'red herrings'; they are used to draw attention away from the question at hand, and that question is, 'Why do lesbian and gay couples want to marry?' The answer is simple: We want to marry for the same reason straight couples get married. We want to declare before our families, friends and God that we have made a commitment to each other, to love, honor and respect each other through all the good and bad times that may come. How on Earth can you equate a loving, monogamous relationship between two gay adults with incest or the deliberate sexual abuse of animals or electronic equipment? My suggestion to you is that you get to know some gay couples, ask them if they would like to get married, and if so, 'why?' I predict you would find that gay and dtraight couples aren't so different after all.

User Detail :  

Name : Chuck A., Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 41, City : Spring Hill, State : WV Country : United States, Occupation : AIDS Educator/Part-time radio announcer, 

[Rusty]

(Part 2) Therefore, I think we need to be clear what marriage is before one can ask the question, 'Why do lesbian and gay couples want to marry?' To do otherwise would be putting the cart before the horse. I don't think it's legitimate to answer why someone wants to do something before first discovering if that something is valid. The question you raise is legitimate but it does not follow that marriage should be redefined simply because the answer seems to necessitate it. You asked, 'How on Earth can you equate a loving, monogamous relationship between two gay adults with incest or the deliberate sexual abuse of animals or electronic equipment.' There's a problem here. To illustrate, let me ask, 'Why not?' My motive is not to equate, but cast this issue in a different light. If I happen to love my dog so much so that I want to marry my dog, why should I be discriminated against doing such? Why should the definition of marriage be so narrow as to not allow me to marry my pet, setting aside any supposed sexual abuse laws against animals? Obviously this is an extreme example, and I did not intend to offend. I believe I've demonstrated that marriage is a particular thing. It's not something that, by definition, discriminates. I don't even think the word discrimination works here. It's not that the definition of marriage is too narrow and should be inclusive of other relationships that humans can enter into, but rather marriage is by definition only one thing and anything else seems absurd. 'Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn't make an ashtray food.' If I knew any gay couples who wanted to marry and asked them why so, there's a very good possibity that they will echo the same kinds of things you desire. I simply do not see how that will change my mind without committing mental suicide. As a note, I believe that the state should promote monogamous one-man / one-woman marriages for the state's greater good. Referring back to one of my definitions, procreation is generally an aspect of marriage that is good for the state, and the country as well. These products of marriage, that is people, are potential contributors to the welfare of the state and the state should encourage to build families. The state should discourage the breakdown of the family unit. This is my philosophical standpoint.

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Rusty]

Thank you Chuck for your response. Now I will respond. (Part 1) I see your point but I think you have missed mine. I do not think that I'm posing a red herring. I think I'm asking the appropriate question first. If I understand you correctly, you are making a parallel between interracial marriages and homosexual marriages. It is my position that you are making a category error. The dictionary defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I would add given this definition that marriage is generally the foundation that a family is built upon, where procreation is made possible (though marriage is not a necessary precondition to procreation and marriage does not mandate procreation). I'm speaking in generalities. The family as defined here is the optimal institution for promoting a healthy society. The U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan puts it like this: 'Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary.' I see nothing in these two definitions that would support an argument that would deny a man and a woman of different races to marry. All that's required is that they be a man and a woman. I think it is a mistake to assert that because some misguided individuals looked at interracial marriages as non-marriages that their arguments could be and are being applied to homosexual marriages as well. You must find fault with the definition, not fallable humans.

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Andrew]

When you degrade a person to the level of a dog or a machine simply because he or she is homosexual, you are implicitly saying that person can be treated as such. Do you really mean to say that gay people are the same as animals or machines? If that's not what you mean, then consider why they shouldn't be treated the same as the rest of society. How does it harm you if gay people marry each other?

User Detail :  

Name : Andrew, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Huntington, State : NY Country : United States, Occupation : Reporter, Education level : 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[John]

If one man/one woman is the natural thing, why is adultery so prevalent? I am getting sick of people trying to police something they obviously don't understand (i.e. same-sex relationships) when they can't maintain the institution themselves. Once you criminalize adultery and deny adulterers the right to the benefits of marriage, then I will listen to your arguments. Adultery has done more to ruin lives and the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex marriages ever could. If you use Christianity as your basis for argument, adultery is one of the big ten, whereas homosexuality is mentioned in much less conspicuous places. I'll even go one step further: if the Defense of Marriage Act were amended to read 'between a non-adulterous man and woman,' I'll vote for it.

User Detail :  

Name : John, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Disability : Parkinsons Disease, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Presbyterian, Age : 37, City : New York, State : NY Country : United States, Occupation : Systems Administrator, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Rusty]

The one-man/one-woman relationship seems to be the natural relationship. If sex is for procreation, then it doesn't seem that gay sex is natural because procreation is not possible. This is purely a biological observation. Now, adultery is something else entirely. I think your argument is flawed because it seems you are suggesting that perhaps the one-man/one-woman relationship is not necessarily the default natural relationship because adultery exists. I do not think it follows that since adultery exists in one-man/one-woman relationships that that validates 'gay marriage.' On one side you have the physical differences and functions of the male and female; on the other there is the potential for the members of a heterosexual marriage to willfully break the marriage vow. The logic is flawed because the physical properties and functions of people are completely different from their behavior. If your agument is correct, then I might as well say, 'mixed-race marriages are not valid because adultery exists in them.' I'm not sure what you mean when you say, 'I am getting sick of people trying to police something they obviously don't understand[.]' Who is policing anything? If you are suggesting that 'gay marriage' is illegal, I would disagree. 'Gay marriage' is not illegal, it's just not recognized as legal, and therefore it does not exist under the law. What you are against here is not policing because there is no law being broken. What you are against, it seems, is people opposed to the recognition of 'gay marriage' who use the law to keep the institution of marriage as it is traditionally known to be. That's your right, as is my right to oppose the view that 'gay marriage' should be recognized under the law.

Whether an offense mentioned in the Bible is 'conspicuously placed,' or how many times it's mentioned, or not mentioned, does not remove the weight of the offense or remove its validity altogether. Also, you should consider not arguing that you will only listen when your particular view is upheld. This demonstrates you are closed-minded and not willing to argue on the merits of your position.

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Lynn22515]

The fact is that the one-man/one-woman marriage is an arbitrary convention that is still to this day not common practice in many cultures. In fact, eastern branches of Orthodox Judaism practiced polygomy right up until 1948. (It was a major point of argument in creating the new Jewish state.) Only in Western cultures has one-man/one-women been common practice for marriage arrangements, and often those were not legally sanctioned in any way by a governing body -certainly not in biblical times. To say it goes back thousands of years is unsubstantiated. Show me a marriage certificate of a 15th Century peasant women and her husband. They made a commitment to live and love each other till death do they part (and oftentimes without any church authority or mention of God bringing the union together), a party was thrown, and then their family and friends considered them married. If they migrated to another country and said they were man and wife, they were, and no one showed a piece of paper to anyone in order for the laws of marriage to apply to their relationship. There is just no logical way to equate diads of the same sex joining in marriage with anything other than simply that. Incestual laws will not go out the window, we'll just have to add that brothers can't marry brothers, and sisters sisters. Bestiality is still illegal and immoral, and so are many of the other sexual practices often quoted as being 'let loose' if gays are allowed to marry. Polygomy is almost completely eradicated from Western culture, as I well believe it should be, in the name of egalitarianism for women and proper respect for all human beings. This is not a brick being knocked out of a feeble wall (marriage) that will bring the whole thing crumbling down. It's simply a new brick being mortered to the top of the wall, which makes it stand taller and more strong for the whole institution of marriage, and to the people who commit love and devotion for life to one another. You can accept that or not, but the wall will grow taller as our civilization evolves to respect love in all its many forms.

User Detail :  

Name : Lynn22515, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : mixed, Age : 37, City : Washington, State : DC Country : United States, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Upper middle class, 

[Paula]

In all cultures, people feel the need to connect with another person and build a life together. In most cultures, that is done by entering into the union of marriage. Why should marriage then be limited to only one cross-section of the population? Some countries, especially in Europe, have seen fit to legalize gay and lesbian marriages. Just because you love someone of your own sex, that should not make you an outcast and should not limit your rights as an individual. Remember that in the Bill of Rights is the right to the pursuit of happiness. For most people, that is a right given at birth, a right everyone has regardless of sexual orientation. The only difference between a gay/lesbian relationship and a straight relationship is who sleeps with who at the end of the day. Therefore, the same rights and opportunities should exist for both.

User Detail :  

Name : Paula, Gender : F, Sexual Orientation : Bisexual, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Agnostic, Age : 30, City : Miami Beach, State : FL Country : United States, Occupation : Professional, Education level : 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Lane Coley Morin Russell II]

I feel I must disagree with you on at least one point: that being that the 'pursuit of happiness' is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee the pursuit of happiness. That is written in the Declaration of Independence: '...we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...' (apologies for errors in quotation). The grounds on which I disagree further, however, are not commonly accepted. I speak, of course, of the Bible. In Leviticus 18:22, it is written, 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... (27) ...(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled)...(29)...for whomsoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people...' and again in Lev 20:13: 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.' And in the New Testament, it is written: Rom 1:22 'professing themselves to be wise, thy became fools...' v.24'...Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their bodies between themselves...' v.26'...For this cause gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:(v.27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.' (King James Version throughout) The Bible, which I perceive to be the true, living, breathing word of my God, forbids these practices, and implies no tolerance of these sins. Now, in my religion, a sinner can be released from both the price and the practice of sins through the grace and love of my God, Jesus Christ. However, those who do not wish to be released I believe should be left alone once their choice has been made, because my God made their minds free to choose, and it is His design that those who choose sin be allowed freely to do so.

User Detail :  

Name : Lane Coley Morin Russell II, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Pentecostal, Age : 24, City : Prescott, State : AZ Country : United States, Occupation : hotel night clerk, Education level : High School Diploma, Social class : Lower middle class, 

[Rusty]

The phrase 'and the pursuit of Happiness' is NOT in the Bill of Rights. It appears in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator and an order in things. You are correct. I have the right to pursue happiness. Gays have the right to pursue happiness. They just may be denied the right to marriage. What if torturing babies for fun made me happy? Should I be allowed to pursue that? Maybe, but the law does not have to permit it. Therefore, the right to pursue happiness seems to be different than making something legal for happiness' sake.

User Detail :  

Name : Rusty, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 35, City : Los Angeles, State : CA Country : United States, Education level : 2 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[David25920]

I can see where you are coming from. You aren't gay, so for you I'm imagining that when you see two guys kissing, it must be immoral and there must be no love, since it is not your run of the mill. But gays really fall in love, seriously. Gays don't just have flings and flirts all their lives; they often find Mr.Right and want to marry. And true love is right, not wrong. To me, wrong is when kids run into schools and murder their own teachers and classmates. To me, right is when two people, regardless of their sex, race or anything, fall in love and want to share the rest of their lives together. It is only when there is NO love that we have homophobia, racism, etc. To tie together everything, I'll say that giving gays/lesbians the right to marriage would be right - it would not be a waste of the government's time at all. If two people love each other, they should not be barred from marriage just because of what sex their partner is. And you would never fall in love with your dog, window or cat. People fall in love, not things. The last time I checked I was a regular human being; and I am sure if you were to get to know some homosexual people, you would find that they are probably very similar, and that they fall in love just like you would with a woman. So try to think from a different perspective next time. For example, if you had a son and you loved him unconditionally, which I am sure you would, and he was gay, wouldn't you want him to have the chance to marry his love? I'm sure you would.

User Detail :  

Name : David25920, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : White/Caucasian, Religion : Catholic, Age : 14, City : Phoenix, State : AZ Country : United States, Education level : Less than High School Diploma, Social class : Middle class, 

[Ken Chin]

Regarding response: 'Gays have the right to pursue happiness. They just may be denied the right to marriage. What if torturing babies for fun made me happy? Should I be allowed to pursue that? Maybe, but the law does not have to permit it. Therefore, the right to pursue happiness seems to be different than making something legal for happiness' sake.' The right to happiness does not grant unrestricted authority/freedom, and the original writer surely did *not* think it did. She questions *where* a particular line has been drawn, not that lines need to be drawn. She was asking people to reason about civil marriages (and the attendant benefits, rights, and responsibilities) for a specific group of couples engaged in long-term, committed, mutually respectful relationships (she sees no sufficiently compelling justification for government to disallow such marriages). Her concern is neither reducible to a general issue of why freedoms are limited by laws, nor comparable to a narrow example of torturing babies.

User Detail :  

Name : Ken Chin, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Gay, Race : Asian, Age : 38, City : New York City, State : NY Country : United States, Occupation : Computer Programmer, Education level : Over 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class, 

[Author]

Posts