Why can't people just accept gay marriage and be done with it?

[Seawytch]

Voting was still voting when blacks and women were allowed to do it. Marriage is still marriage even though the gheys are doing it all over the place (soon to be 11 or 12 states and over a dozen countries)

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I seriously do not understand how any rational human being can be against gay marriage. There is just no logical argument against it.

 

[hortysir]

I seriously do not understand how any rational human being can be against gay marriage. There is just no logical argument against it.

I simply can;t understand why a guy would mind being called a girl, a horse a goat, a car a plane.

 

[Seawytch]

I seriously do not understand how any rational human being can be against gay marriage. There is just no logical argument against it.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I seriously do not understand how any rational human being can be against gay marriage. There is just no logical argument against it.

I simply can;t understand why a guy would mind being called a girl, a horse a goat, a car a plane.

 

[hortysir]

I seriously do not understand how any rational human being can be against gay marriage. There is just no logical argument against it.

I simply can;t understand why a guy would mind being called a girl, a horse a goat, a car a plane.

You don't get to change the definition of a word on a whim.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I simply can;t understand why a guy would mind being called a girl, a horse a goat, a car a plane.

You don't get to change the definition of a word on a whim.

So you don't understand how language works and you want to make a couple of million second class citizens based on your ignorance? Okay...

 

[hortysir]

You don't get to change the definition of a word on a whim.

So you don't understand how language works and you want to make a couple of million second class citizens based on your ignorance? Okay...

What's with the constant hyperbolic "second class citizen" shit?

I've said that they can still enjoy all the rights, benefits and tax credits as a married couple.

To me, YES, it's the word.

 

[candycorn]

When hetero divorce rates are hovering near 50%...it's silly to think that homosexual marriages are any threat to the sanctity of the institution.

As for individuals; what happens in the bedroom in the house next door is none of your business.

 

[Toronado3800]

Not the worst of debates. I am impressed.

Honestly I question if my preacher accepts I am married because my wife's preacher conducted the ceremony....living in sin like that would be a silly reason to go to hell.

I coukd live with the government taking a step back and saying "we don't care what your religion calls it, we call it a civil union". That way politicians can keep government opinions out of marriage while accepting the financial and legal realities of it.

My Protestant X preacher can keep saying Jewish Liberal marriages between gays are a sham and the Jews can keep telling him he has the Sabath wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What's your argument against gay people being married? Is it the bible? Because that's not the law of this land.

Is it something else? Because that argument is easily won. So once again...

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays can have civil unions.

You want Government out of it? make all Government authority civil unions and let religions conduct marriages.

You're fighting over a word, who gives a ****? Yeah let's make an entire segment of our population second class citizens. That has always worked fantastically in the past.

Unlike liberals I understand that words actually have meanings and are not subject to mob feelings.

If Government makes all unions Civil Unions then there is no distinction between what ever 2 or more people this immoral and bankrupt Country decides can live together. Marriage will return to religion.

Explain again if all that matters is two adults and their feelings, are you opposed to incest between consenting adults? How about 3 or more partners? After all all that matters is their desire and feelings. Right?

 

[Little-Acorn]

You don't get to change the definition of a word on a whim.

So you don't understand how language works and you want to make a couple of million second class citizens based on your ignorance? Okay...

The standard lie of someone who is frantically trying to cover up the fact that gays already have fully equal rights in marriage, as heteros do.

A gay man is allowed to marry anyone a hetero man is allowed to marry.
A gay man is forbidden to marry the same people a hetero man is forbidden to marry.

Ditto for women.

There you are: perfect equality of rights.

Oh, but you say gays want to marry different people from who heteros want to marry?

What has that got to do with their rights?

 

[DiamondDave]

Um... wrong. There are tax benefits involved in government "marriage." It would be better if government could only hand out civil unions. To gay AND straight couples.

Marriage, as traditionally defined, is a religious thing. If you find a religion that declares you "married" then good for you. But government should have no say in that.

Perhaps you should understand what it means when someone states 'except in governmental matters'

You are a dense one

And I am fine with only civil unions or family units for both gay and straight....

Please define "governmental matters" o enlightened one

What is government/legal supposed to deal with?? Taxes, law, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... Not whether you are accepted by people or whatever

 

[Toronado3800]

You don't get to change the definition of a word on a whim.

So you don't understand how language works and you want to make a couple of million second class citizens based on your ignorance? Okay...

The standard lie of someone who is frantically trying to cover up the fact that gays already have fully equal rights in marriage, as heteros do.

A gay man is allowed to marry anyone a hetero man is allowed to marry.
A gay man is forbidden to marry the same people a hetero man is forbidden to marry.

Ditto for women.

There you are: perfect equality of rights.

Oh, but you say gays want to marry different people from who heteros want to marry?

What has that got to do with their rights?

That is a very cute play on logic!

It would allow me to give people like you their own seats on the bus and water fountains which of course I "wouldn't be allowed to drink from" so it would all be fair.

Just remember the government has to be small and blind in some respects or it will infringe on your own situation as well.

This issue makes strange bedfellows and loses the Republicans many votes as theirh whole "small government / individual rights" motto gets replaced by a pretty obvious "small government for you and rights for me" platform.

 

[Yurt]

Q: Why don't people just accept a new definition of "apples" that now includes rocks, and be done with it?

A: Because changing the definition of "apples" to include "rocks", doesn't turn any rocks into apples. They never have been, and changing what we call them now, doesn't make any difference - they still aren't.

Same goes for same-sex "marriages" - they never have been, and changing the definition now doesn't matter - they still aren't.

a marriage is a creation of legislation, thus, it is amenable to change.

your analogy is false.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The religious fanatics are ok with it as long as you don't call it marriage. Call it buttfucking roommates, anything, just not marriage cause that's wrong

 

[Montrovant]

As others have said, I would be all for government making all marriages into civil unions and leaving the term marriage to private citizens.

However, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon. I don't think that enough heterosexual couples would be willing to give up the government-sanctioned marriage and change it to civil union, just as homosexuals aren't willing to accept civil unions instead of marriage in many cases.

I think the best case is probably to allow gay marriage, for now, and hope to slowly change people's perceptions so that in the future the terms can be changed to civil unions (or whatever other term is agreed upon) for governmental unions.

There's also a question of simplicity : we are all too used to the terms marriage, husband, wife, even divorce to easily switch to something else.

So ideally, government does civil unions, but practically, just allow gays to marry.

 

[Yurt]

As others have said, I would be all for government making all marriages into civil unions and leaving the term marriage to private citizens.

However, realistically, that's not going to happen any time soon. I don't think that enough heterosexual couples would be willing to give up the government-sanctioned marriage and change it to civil union, just as homosexuals aren't willing to accept civil unions instead of marriage in many cases.

I think the best case is probably to allow gay marriage, for now, and hope to slowly change people's perceptions so that in the future the terms can be changed to civil unions (or whatever other term is agreed upon) for governmental unions.

There's also a question of simplicity : we are all too used to the terms marriage, husband, wife, even divorce to easily switch to something else.

So ideally, government does civil unions, but practically, just allow gays to marry.