@ P.Ami
“I am not a Christian, I am not a bigot, I am a conservative and in this general election I will vote Republican.”
What is McCain’s position on gay marriage? I expect he is soundly against it, right? Then he is a bigot and you are a bigot for voting for him.
“Gays are not disallowed from marriage. A gay man can marry any kind of woman who will have him. The same holds true for gay women marrying any man who will join her in this sort of union.”
You know, different races also used to not be allowed to marry. The anti-miscenegation crowd would have said “A black man can marry any black woman he wants! He’s not being denied any rights!”
They are being denied the right to marry the people they want to marry. That is the issue. The gay people want to marry other gay people of the same sex, not straight people (or gay people) of the opposite sex. They want the freedom to marry who they choose. Why do you think you have a right to deny them that.
“Heck, even a straight man couldn’t marry another straight man if they wanted. So, lets not get too caught up in thinking that this is a gay issue. The issue is whether the state and society should view the union of same-sex partners (whatever their sexual preference) as they do the union between the opposite sexes. I don’t think they should.”
This is ridiculous. Straight men don’t want to marry other straight men. That is completely beside the point.
And why don’t you agree? Is there some sort of religious belief behind it? Is their any good reason at all behind it? Or are you just disgusted by the thought of it? Until you can provide a good reason to support your position, you are a bigot.
“There is no such thing as a homosexual head of a family. A family is a unit of people in which couples produces offspring. This production of offspring gives rise to primary, secondary and tertiary (often time more distant relationships are observed as well) relationships between the members of the family.”
This is only according to your narrow definition of family.
“Gay sex does not produce offspring and so leads to a genetic dead end with no primary, secondary or tertiary relationships for future generations.”
Neither does the marriage of infertile people. So, to be consistent using that logic, you ought to believe they are also not allowed to be married. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Gay people can adopt, just like infertile people. Lesbians can even have surrogate fathers. Gay men can impregnate surrogate mothers – not by sex but by in vitro fertilization.
“The head of a family may participate in gay sexual practices but that would make them bi-sexual and these same sex partners have never been given family status on the basis of their sexual relationship.”
“They never have before” – again, up until 1967 in this country (the United States), people of different races were never allowed to marry before. Your position against gay marriage has a lot in common with the people who were against interracial marriage – it is arbitrary, and it denies people their happiness and their rights.
“Equality under the law does not equate to the same benefits given to everyone. Not everyone has the benefits provided by affirmative action. Not everyone pays the same taxes. Equality under the law is primarily meant to keep the judiciary branch from assigning special privileges to competing members during a trial.”
It should extend to gay people being allowed to marry the people they love. Why are you so hell-bent on denying love?
“The tax breaks given to families was and is meant to ease the tax burden on those who are bringing new people to the society and thus offering an avenue for the continuation of the nation. Homosexuals do not procreate and do not bring new people to function in society. Marriage is a union whose purpose is the making of a family. Why should people who will not make a family be given these benefits?”
Well, you answer your own question with the next paragraph. They should be given these benefits because they may have children. But it goes beyond that. Look up the benefits conferred by marriage. One is the right to visit your spouse in the hospital.
“One can argue that homosexual couples can adopt and thus make a family. I think it much better for children who have no family to get one. If a gay couple wishes to adopt, I think they are providing a great service to society by giving love to children who need it. That said, they can be given the same benefits as any other family. I just don’t see the point of calling it marriage. Call it a civil union.”
Why not call it marriage? Give me one good reason! The only thing you have is that it offends your religious sensibilities – and that should have no role in governing the people.
“It seems to be you who is insisting on divorcing the meaning of marriage from its historical purpose. Marriage is a binding obligation of a society to give relative status to those who are of a family. Marriage contracts define inheritance, who will care for orphaned children, who will be responsible for anti-social behavior by the children, and who will be respected for producing offspring that contribute to society. No one on the right wishes to stop folks on the left from marrying.”
No, I am not. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. They are not obligated to have children, so that can’t count as the “purpose of marriage”. All the stuff you have called “the purpose of marriage” is your personal definition.
People on the right do want to stop gay people from marrying, and you are one of them. You are against their happiness.
“We just don’t see why the left should be allowed to redefine an ancient and universal system for the sake of a small portion of the population.”
We don’t understand why you got to define it in the first place. Unfortunately, you defined it in a very exclusive way that leads to less happiness overall. We want to define it in a more egalitarian way.
“You can dress it up in platitudes of civil liberties but in truth your movement is about changing the meaning of marriage and causing harm to society, so a small part of the population can fluff up their chest and say they have made us all change for them.”
Civil liberties are just platitudes to you? You disgust me.
Give me one tangible example of the harm that is caused to society by gay people being allowed to marry. Because it sure causes them a lot of harm not to be allowed to marry – it is an arbitrary obstruction to their happiness.
You put these malevolent motivations on gay people, like they are Satan’s agents out to destroy your marriage – like they want to make you all get divorced. It is not going to hurt your marriage at all to let them get married. You are standing in the way of their happiness – essentially, you are stepping on their faces and making them submit to your religion. You want them to have a separate set of rights so that your rights are not “contaminated”.
