Gay Marriage Paradox - Page 2

and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.

On February 10 2011 23:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before.

It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue.
Personally i am against gay marriage.

On February 10 2011 23:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before.

It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue.
Personally i am against gay marriage.

On February 10 2011 22:39 schaf wrote:






hmm....

liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?

+ Show Spoiler +

On February 10 2011 23:20 TwoToneTerran wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute.

On February 10 2011 23:26 bonifaceviii wrote:
All legal benefits should be stripped from marriage, as it is a religious/cultural institution. It has no place in legislation.

On February 11 2011 00:20 schaf wrote:


I'm not, it's an example of how religion IS present in politics.

but we should get back to topic as I'm clearly not the expert on this (not even living in the USA) and after all we're on the same page concerning the OP's thoughts.

On February 10 2011 22:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:


You completely misunderstand the issue. I'll just make a list:

A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.

B) Gay marriage is not so gays can get married in churches. I don't know why you think that's the issue -- it's about being seen as equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the goverment. There's no blessed ceremony, there's no inclination of necessary tradition. It's purely equality.

C) A "parternship" is not the same as a "marriage," -- even if in paper it seems exact. We USA folk have, in recent memory, had an issue of two institutions that were separated, but considered "equal," and it was one of the gravest travesties of inequality since slavery was abolished. You cannot call two things equal and give them different titles, the different titles imply something inequal about the two, and this will ALWAYS lead to discrimination. Giving it a different title is quite clearly giving ground to bigotry, which leads me to--

D) Saying you're quite liberal in your ways does not justify what you're saying when you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry. It's almost identical to the argument of, "I've got a lot of black friends so I'm not racist!" -- you may be the most liberal, rights supporting person of all time in every other subject, but if you oppose the rights of homosexuals to be seen as completely and genuinely equal, then you are erring on the side of bigotry.

You pointed out that things are different and, presumably, less hostile in Sweden. I do not have the context of how Sweden has been as a society and how relevant the separate but equal thing is, but as I clearly don't understand Sweden's context, you clearly don't understand America's context. What you suggest has been done before and was disgustingly criminal, and it is almost entirely because of that that you can't cede ground at let the bigots force you to define your partnership as something separate from theirs. You don't give ground to bigots because all it does is encourage more bigotry.

On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.

Why are you against gay marriage?

Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone.

On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

no

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

As long as it is between a man and a woman then i don't care.

On February 11 2011 07:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

no

On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote:
While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce."

On February 11 2011 14:36 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:

I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law?

On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote:
Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?

Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?