Johnnyskydive 0 #1 April 4, 2006 Okay, after a very heated debate with a friend. I really want to try and understand why people are SO against this. I've seen plenty of posts in the forums about this issue, but I'd like to see peoples unheated explanation of why they oppose gay marriage/civil unions. For me, I see it as discrimination. Denying people rights based on their sexual orientation. WHY shouldn't they be able to marry and have the same rights as hetro couples? Does it hurt you in some way? Is it a religious issue? If so, why do you think YOUR religious views should be forced upon someone else. And I couldn't really care less if it isn't what the majority of Americans want, I don't buy into that argument. The "majority" of Americans didn't support civil rights at first. Does that mean we should have kept things the way they were? Besides, IMO, I think the majority of people really don't care either way. Doesn't bother them if they do or don't have the right. And what we get are the loud mouthed religious zealots left to rant and rave against it. That probably comes across as a very angry post. And I guess, in a way, I am angry. I don't understand why people are so against it. The only argument that makes any sense is the one some Christians make. But, I don't think religious views make good laws. Seems not everyone is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. There are many different religions, with many different values. If you want to live in a religious state...I dunno...move to the Vatican. Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #2 April 4, 2006 As long as its called "Civil Unions" then I could care less. Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #3 April 4, 2006 Thats fine, but I'm curious as to why? Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 April 4, 2006 Why does the name matter, if they get the same privileges?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #5 April 4, 2006 It doesn't. Not to me. I just wanted to know why it bothers people to call it marriage? Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #6 April 4, 2006 I'm not opposed to gay marriage, as long as they don't plan on having children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #7 April 4, 2006 QuoteWhy does the name matter, if they get the same privileges? By definition marriage is the joining of 2 of the opposite sex. Don't tell me everyone is going to get bent out of shape because it is called a civil union? Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #8 April 4, 2006 I'm not opposed to gay marriage, as long as they don't plan on having children.*** Well, obviously not biological children . But why should they not be allowed to adopt? Especially with all the children out there that need a good home. I'd think as long as the child would go to a good home, it really doesn't matter whether its a married couple, a single parent, gay couple, etc.... Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #9 April 4, 2006 QuoteIt doesn't. Not to me. I just wanted to know why it bothers people to call it marriage? It really doesn't matter what it is called, its just my opinion, but lets call apples - apples. I see nothing wrong with 2 people of the same sex spending the rest of thier lives together, nothing wrong with it at all. Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #10 April 4, 2006 LOL. It doesn't bother me. But I've heard people who it did bother. To me, it'd be a win just to get that passed and legal in all 50 states. I just wonder why it bothers people. And by who's definition? It wasn't in most state constitutions. It seems lots of states were quick to add that in though..... Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 April 4, 2006 Well, for one it directs more money to divorce lawyers. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #12 April 4, 2006 It really doesn't matter what it is called, its just my opinion, but lets call apples - apples. I see nothing wrong with 2 people of the same sex spending the rest of thier lives together, nothing wrong with it at all. *** Agreed. Thanks for your replies! Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #13 April 4, 2006 So, A legal construction for gays with all the same benefits as marriage would be OK with you, as long as it was called something different? Conversely would it be OK with you to just leave "marriage" to religious societies, and civil unions to the law? I don't think that the name is what matters to gay activists. Rather I think they just want to be treated like everybody else.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #14 April 4, 2006 Well, for one it directs more money to divorce lawyers.*** Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #15 April 4, 2006 QuoteSo, A legal construction for gays with all the same benefits as marriage would be OK with you, as long as it was called something different? Conversely would it be OK with you to just leave "marriage" to religious societies, and civil unions to the law? I don't think that the name is what matters to gay activists. Rather I think they just want to be treated like everybody else. Would opening up the word "marriage" to include polygamy bother you? It holds all the benefits of a 2 person marraige as well. Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LargeBoy 0 #16 April 4, 2006 QuoteI'm not opposed to gay marriage, as long as they don't plan on having children.*** Well, obviously not biological children . But why should they not be allowed to adopt? Especially with all the children out there that need a good home. I'd think as long as the child would go to a good home, it really doesn't matter whether its a married couple, a single parent, gay couple, etc.... have you heard of pinko liberals? and have you seen this flid twat before? http://www.blamonet.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Retard_Win.jpg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 April 4, 2006 Live and let live ... what's the big deal? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #18 April 4, 2006 QuoteWould opening up the word "marriage" to include polygamy bother you? It holds all the benefits of a 2 person marraige as well. If someone could formulate coherent legislation on inheritance in the "family" I don't see the problem. I take it you do.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LargeBoy 0 #19 April 4, 2006 QuoteLive and let live ... what's the big deal? did god create Adam and Steve? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #20 April 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteLive and let live ... what's the big deal? did god create Adam and Steve? That didn't take long! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #21 April 4, 2006 did god create Adam and Steve?*** So, your religious beliefs should define our laws? And what do you lose if a gay marriage law is passed? Edit to add: Which is really sad anyway....should really just be a marriage law...no reason to add gay to that..... Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #22 April 4, 2006 QuoteOkay, after a very heated debate with a friend. I really want to try and understand why people are SO against this. If it was very 'heated', then I doubt either of you really wanted to 'try and understand' the opposite viewpoint. More likely just trying to convince the other person that their way of thinking was flawed or immoral. I think all the rights that accrue to marriage need to be evaluated one at a time and then only applied where applicable to every form of family structure. Call each form of family structure whatever you want, but I'd like to remove the term "marriage" from civil arrangements and leave it for the religious only. Religious marriages should not result in any secular rights. Government licensed civil unions should only define partnering rights. Everybody gets a secular 'civil union' license that automatically invokes whatever benefits correspond. If the government is too lazy to do that, then just eliminate all the rights that accrue to partnering and treat all adults as individuals in terms of taxation and benefits. If two people want a religious ceremony and partner up, then the government shouldn't treat it any different than housemates. If the government wants to encourage having and raising children, then any government sponsored benefits for children (education, etc) accrue to the children directly, a couple that has no children doesn't get any benefit relating to having children..... It's easy to be objective if we stay on topic about the specific benefits etc. It's hard to when the topic goes off the 'acceptance' or 'why can't you understand' or 'what do you lose' tangents are confrontative and really just self congratulatory rhetoric that won't ever foster a productive discussion on the topic. I think any direct benefits to secularly licensed partnering should be a simple short list that's the same for any type of partnering - inheritance to the 'spouse', hospital and medical decision making authority.....that's about it. What else needs to be there that can't just be eliminated by treating each spouse as a single? Immigration preferences for the non-citizen? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #23 April 4, 2006 I dont see this as a theologiocal thread, it's essesntially a social (at worstcase legal) one. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MattM 0 #24 April 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteWould opening up the word "marriage" to include polygamy bother you? It holds all the benefits of a 2 person marraige as well. If someone could formulate coherent legislation on inheritance in the "family" I don't see the problem. I take it you do. Yea it would kind of bother me, but not so much I would go to a protest to have it changed. Man + woman = marriage man + many women = polygamy same sex + same sex = civil union its just the way I see it. Only because to me personally marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. I agree though a civil union should have no less benefits as "marriage". Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LargeBoy 0 #25 April 4, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteLive and let live ... what's the big deal? did god create Adam and Steve? That didn't take long! i don't think that, i just thought i'd get that old chestnut out the way early Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
