<p>Economic -5.88
Social .41
I'm kind of close to Gandhi.
Although I don't believe in abortion rights, I think that those who are different as gays should have rights. Also consider the fact that the US is a multicultural nation stop talking about christianity. Many aren't christian in the US. Also all citizens have a right to have their right to be protected with due process of law.</p>
<p>"Ctrain why do blacks always have to bring up slavery? You were never in slavery, you were never put under "the lash" so what is your problem?"</p>
<p>First of all, my choice of examples is utterly irrelevent to the discussion, and that you would use that as a basis for your attack only illustrates your own insecurity in your argument. Second, I am not, in fact, black. Nor do I believe in reparations. It was an example. This country's foundation was also predicated upon the systematic slaughter of Native Americans and the annexation of their land. Do you think that that kind of wanton violence is still valid in the context of today's society?</p>
<p>"By allowing homosexuals to marry, we'd be destroying the foundation of our society"</p>
<p>How? Why is a homosexual relationship any less valid than a heterosexual one?</p>
<p>"Gays should be entitled to the benefits and distadvantages of marriage, but their unions should not be called marriage because they simply aren't marriages"</p>
<p>Now you're just arguing semantics. Who cares if it's called marriage or not?</p>
<p>I care if its marriage or not because there is a BIG difference. As you say, a homosexual RELATIONSHIP is no less valid than a heterosexual one. But there is not such thing a homosexual MARRIAGE. Marriage is the instituation between a man and a woman. That's why I am arguing that I would accept same sex unions, or what ever they want to be called, as long as it is not called a marriage.</p>
<p>Same sex unions aren't recognized across state lines or internationally. Equality with geographic qualification isn't true equality.</p>
<p>For the time being, a marriage license is the only valid document that with ensure REAL equal rights for gay couples. I just don't see what the big deal is over the word.</p>
<p>Hey, I'm with you all the way ElCommando
It sucks sometimes to accept that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, and I have a hard time with it a lot, but I guess it is the best way to think.</p>
<p>Because the term MARRIAGE is reserved for one man and one woman. A same sex "marriage is a misnomer. Its like calling a cat a dog.</p>
<p>You don't see it...but a MAJORITY of people do. A MAJORITY of people are opposed to gay marriage. Liberals think the whole world shares their view. If you don't see what the big deal is over the word, i can tell you that i don't see what the big deal is with accepting civil unions. </p>
<p>People are willing to give gays their civil unions but, no, it has to be MARRIAGE - they have to impose their views upon a nation where a majority believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Not only is gay marriage not protected by the constitution, it is unfair to impose this. When society changes as it does, maybe gay marriage will be democratically accepted. Until then, no.</p>
<p>Then perhaps we need to redefine it. You know that society changes faster than the law does. The law or convention can't adapt to it easily, and is always slower than the change. The world is changing and gays are becoming more and more common today. Thus we need to redefine marriage. A definition that actually suits the change in the society.</p>
<p>"People are willing to give gays their civil unions but, no, it has to be MARRIAGE - they have to impose their views upon a nation where a majority believes marriage is between a man and a woman. "</p>
<p>But what you're arguing is pure ideology. "Civil unions" is NOT just another term for "gay marriage." They confining and don't grant the same rights.</p>
<p>Why should we change a privilege for 97% of the population to suit 3% of the population????</p>
<p>It's not a matter or changing a privilege for anyone, it's a matter of extending that privilege to people who are equally deserving.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should we change a privilege for 97% of the population to suit 3% of the population????
[/quote]
</p>
<p>why should the privilidge be for only the majority of the population? does that mean that marriage between other minorities should not be allowed either?</p>
<p>also, why does it matter to YOU if two people who love eachother want to get married? is it just because they are different from you? </p>
<p>it does not "change a privilege" for us at all... how does it affect you? its not like anyones forcing you to marry a guy....</p>
<p>also, ElCommando, i feel sorry for you as you are clearly uneducated and the only basis you have for any of your arguements has been michael jackson. michael jackson is a psycho, no one is denying that, but there are also tons of straight men who molest children. i believe you are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia.</p>
<p>in words you might better understand: pedophilia is when adults are sexually attracted to kids... this usually leads to molestation... got that? yeah.
and homosexuality is merely when someone is attracted to someone of the opposite sex.
they are in no way connected. </p>
<p>please, get an education and spare us all your ridiculous babbling. thanks.</p>
<p>Equally deserving? Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say marriage is a right? Tell me? And where does it say in the Constitution that it must protect the same privilege as others?</p>
<p>Under that ideology, I should have a Ferrari, a mansion, and hundreds of millions in bank deposits -- these are privileges of the elite, are they not? Distinguish the idea of privilege and right, my friends.</p>
<p>We live in a democracy. As long as a policy is not in violation of the Constitution, it is up to the people to decide social policy. Plain and simple. Sexual orientation has not been recognized as a suspect classification under the 14th Amendment, so banning gay marriage is not unconstitutional. </p>
<p>When Congress makes a law allowing gay marriage, then it is perfectly fine because that decision will reflect the desires of the population. As of now, a majority of people is opposed to gay marriage. Last time i checked, we still lived in a democracy. </p>
<p>You may like gay marriage, but it is a threat to democracy and freedom when the Supreme Court constantly sets the social policy for the country and ignores its duty of just interpreting the Constitution.</p>
<p>haha good to know theres others out there like me BCgoUSC. I was debating before on CC alone against about 5 liberals and they used such technical jargon i barely knew wat we were debating.</p>
<p>I live in New York. Its me vs the liberal world here everyday. My AP Government class is so ideologically-driven that i've lost all interest in it. Good to know there are other conservatives out there who don't turn every little privilege into a sudden constitutional right.</p>
<p>ElCommando: see my above post. hopefully it wont confuse you TOO much.</p>
<p>Yes it does change a privilege for us. Marriage is sacred. Marriage is holy. Marriage is the incarnation of the love between a man and a woman and the step before the birth of a child. There is nothing on earth more holy than a man and a woman joining as one in a ceremony forever.</p>
<p>It matters to me because gays don't deserve these privileges. They cannot reproduce and have much more promiscuous and unhealthy lifestyles that children would be raised around. </p>
<p>If we allow this, then why not polygamy or anything of that nature? You may think that is ridiculous, but 100 years ago they would have though gay marriage was ridiculous.</p>
<p>LOL ElCommando
You just stick it out with me and I'll translate their liberal speak for you and then we can decimate them together.</p>