<p>There have been 2 posts already explaining the benefits of marriage.</p>
<p>a hypothetical white racist in the 1800s:</p>
<p>Even the Idea of equal rights is absurd to me. I don’t hate black people but being black is already bad as it is. I don’t see why society today is trying to integrate blacks into the norm.When it obviously isn’t.</p>
<p>Why should they even go through the trouble of getting equal rights anyway…I see no point in that.</p>
<p>Im not really sure…</p>
<p>On one hand Im anti-gay marriage because I think marriage is sacred and it is against my beliefs. One the other hand, I rather see a very happy gay couple who love each other very much get marry than a straight couple who doesnt love each other and got married because of their selfish needs. So again, Im in the middle.</p>
<p>Yes, I am 100% for gay marriage. Even if you don’t agree with people being homosexual, a) that won’t change them and b) it’s not hurting you.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why people are personally offended by gay marriage at all.</p>
<p>Completely for it. There should be no usage of the word ‘marriage’ in law except to say that marriage is up to churches to decide. Everything in the eyes of the law should be a ‘civil union.’ </p>
<p>I have never heard a sensible argument against that. Just the typical “marriage is an institution” excuse which wouldn’t even apply with the above scenario SINCE IT WOULDN’T BE MARRIAGE.</p>
<p>Also, the best analogy would be between gay marriage and interracial marriage. People didn’t “have” to marry a person of the opposite race, they could just find someone from their own race right? Same idiotic logic. People don’t choose their race and they don’t choose their sexual orientation.</p>
<p>I’m also for the abolishment of DADT (and I really don’t waver on that issue either, since even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports it. If one of the top dogs in the military thinks it’s fine to get rid of DADT, then it probably is!)</p>
<p>whats the point of marriage anyway? like someone said its lost all sanctity in this country so who cares who gets married?</p>
<p>DADT will probably be gone soon, but then new problems arise and most of the military, including Admiral Mullen, was kinda POed when the House went ahead and voted to start the repealment process. </p>
<p>Will bases/facilities have to re-outfitted? Do you let gay men shower with straight men? Would you let men shower with women? Are gay men going to be aloud to go to combat(women currently can’t serve in combat roles or have a combat based MOS)? </p>
<p>Lots of questions and the Pentagon is currently doing a study that will be released at the end of the year, I think in December, and I think the military wants to play it by ear and wait until then. </p>
<p>But it looks like DADT will be repealed within the next couple of years.</p>
<p>the thing is, there are already a ton of gay people in the military (my schools JROTC is top in the state of TX and half of them are gay). Military people actually don’t care much any more than if it’s a black guy or whatever (in that, they’ll screw with the gay dude/girl, tease him, but it’s just the military man way to mess with everyone, black or white or gay or married to a fat girl)</p>
<p>but this isn’t DADT, it’s just marriage</p>
<p>@Coollege I’m fine with that. Eventual progress is better than none, I say.</p>
<p>And yeah lucky, there are a lot of gays in the military as it stands. They aren’t out, but they’re there. I’ve heard plenty of accounts from soldiers who said there was a guy in their unit who was definitely gay, but they didn’t care since he was a good soldier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THIS. x a billion</p>
<p>If marriage was only religious, then atheists should BE BANNED FROM MARRIAGE!!!</p>
<p>“Why should they even go through the trouble of getting married anyway…I see no point in that.”</p>
<p>What’s the point of heterosexuals’ getting married? The same reasons that heterosexuals want to marry apply to homosexuals, too: wanting to publicly declare their love; wanting the insurance, inheritance, tax and other benefits of being married; wanting equal rights to any children that they have together, etc. </p>
<p>“I don’t see why society today is trying to integrate homosexuality as the norm.When it obviously isn’t.”</p>
<p>It’s also not the norm in our society to be black, an immigrants’ kid, or to be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, poor or disabled, yet all of these groups are guaranteed rights.</p>
<p>I think anybody has the right to marry whoever they want to! I think it is absolutely ridiculous how people react sometimes… Sometimes I wish religion never existed, but I guess if it didn’t then nobody would care anymore. I’m not religious but I know much of an impact it would have if nobody was religious. All I’m saying is, if somebody loves a person – man or woman-- then they have the RIGHT to marry them. I hate people sometimes…</p>
<p>100% yes. I find any arguments to the contrary absurd.</p>
<p>Yes. I am in favor of it. The more interesting marriage issue, to me, is legalizing polygamy. I’m still formulating an opinion on that one.</p>
<p>I guarantee that when or if eastafrobeauty comes back on here, she will go on a tirade chastising all the people who compared gay marriage to interracial marriage or gay rights to rights for blacks. Because bigots refuse to see the parallels between the many kinds of discrimination that our country has legislated in the past and present, and so every group’s fight for equality has had to be a long, hard struggle instead of a simple realization by a society that calls itself caring.</p>
<p>^Those darn Mormons, just kidding.</p>
<p>
Hey, I think of it this way: Back in the day around the Roman era, there were many MANY gay people. And the best part about it is, they were totally open about it. Of course it did take awhile for the Romans to get used to it. Before they knew it, there were three-sums! 2 men and a woman! No joke, so I don’t see how it is a problem now.</p>
<p>I’ve never once heard a sound argument against gay marriage. In fact, one idiot I know actually said that if we allow homosexuals to be married, then who’s to say that a man shouldn’t be able to marry a dog. I was appalled at how dumb that comment was. Apparently, a lot of Canadians indulge in bestiality since there’s no one there to stop them since gay marriage is legal.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that marriage pre-dates Christianity (unless you believe that the world is only 6k years old), and it is therefore incorrect to state that allowing gays to be married would offend the origins of the institution. Furthermore, when one makes a statement such as that, we’re only looking at the christian perspective on marriage. Marriage is a custom which cannot be defined as “between a man and a woman” because that’s looking at it from a myopic perspective of what we’re used to. The custom of marriage can and has been completely independent of religious practices and the most appropriate definition doesn’t limit the practice to a specific number of people, nor does it contain any preferences regarding the sex of the individuals involved.</p>
<p>Also, the argument that this country was founded upon Christian ideals and was designed to be a Christian nation is just false. It was stated in the treaty of Tripoli that our nation was not built on such religious ideals. Moreover, all of the stories of the Puritans and Pilgrims being persecuted and forced to flee to a new country where they established a great following and influenced this country immensely are just wrong. Most weren’t even vehemently opposed to such a degree in their native lands and came here on their own will. The myth of the persecution was started by priests of those same sects who wanted to create support for their cause. Also, those groups were pretty much engulfed by the cultures of the immigrants to those regions.</p>
<p>That last part wasn’t really necessary, but some people use the whole “christian nation” thing to justify their claims, so I though I’d include it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve noticed about 4 blaring mistakes made in this post alone. It can’t be possible that you don’t see any.</p>
<p>^It was founded by deism.</p>
<p>" guarantee that when or if eastafrobeauty comes back on here, she will go on a tirade chastising all the people who compared gay marriage to interracial marriage or gay rights to rights for blacks. "</p>
<p>And if she does, I’ll quote one of my friends – a heterosexual 75-year-old civil rights veteran and civil rights lawyer, who says that the struggle for gay rights is similar to the civil rights struggle for rights for African Americans. </p>
<p>I’ll also point out that a black gay man – Bayard Rustin was the main organizer of the March on Washington, and also introduced Martin Luther King, Jr. to nonviolent protesting. Rustin said, "Indeed, if you want to know whether today people believe in democracy, if you want to know whether they are true democrats, if you want to know whether they are human rights activists, the question to ask is, ‘What about gay people?’ Because that is now the litmus paper by which this democracy is to be judged.”</p>
<p>I’m a heterosexual black woman who is a strong ally of gays and who gets sick of black people acting like gays don’t deserve the same civil rights that others have. It’s shameful that so many black people use against gays the same arguments that people used to use to deny black people equal rights.</p>
<p>Read more at Suite101: Bayard Rustin and Gay Rights: An Invisible LGBT Hero Comes to Light [Bayard</a> Rustin and Gay Rights: An Invisible LGBT Hero Comes to Light](<a href=“Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try”>Suite 101 - How-tos, Inspiration and Other Ideas to Try)</p>