<p>If a gay couple wants to get married, let them. It's not mine, the church's, nor the government's business. Although I don't agree with homosexuality, I think that we must try to be tolerant of other's lifestyles. We shouldn't harshly impose our beliefs on other people. The whole reason why America was founded was to escape being oppressed by other people's beliefs and religion. The Puritans formulated early American society to escape religious and ideological oppression (the puritans--ironic, isn't it?). I think that it is contradictory and unpatriotic of us Americans to try to oppress homosexuals with these strict rules concerning gay marriage. It's a free country, and if two chicks or two guys want to get married, then you know what---I COULD CARE LESS. That is their business and their business solely. </p>
<p>Furthermore, many people opposse gay marriage on religious grounds. These people say that gay marriage is not supported by the church. However, I thought that our government was a secular government. I thought that there was seperation of church and state. These people should be reminded that we live in a democracy, not a theocracy. They have no right to try to impose their religious beliefs on other people. </p>
<p>If we ban gay marriage on religious grounds, then I really have to ask what's next? Media censorship, a prohibition on free media. How far are we going to go?</p>
<p>Bottom line: Although I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I don't think that anyone has any right to determine who can or cannot get married. I immigrated to America thinking that it's a land of liberty where people can think and act freely without harming others. Banning gay marriage depraves the political ideals by which our country was established.</p>
<p>A democracy is made up of people with beliefs. That's just the way it is. Marriage is a symbol, nothing more, nothing less. However, I do applaud your idealism. But the term "marriage" was coined by some religion, and "marriage" has always constituted the natural union of two individuals with the possibility of natural offspring (exception for infertile couples, who can still adopt and raise a natural family). Its primary function was not for "love."</p>
<p>I think the debate is primarily whether one considers marriage primarily a fixture of "love" or the "family." So, the debate will reach nowhere between two people who believe different premises.</p>
<p>"And building plants that dump wastes into the local rivers, killing the fish the local fishermen rely on, etc."</p>
<p>you forgot to mention how the plant provides jobs to others so that they can rise out of poverty. Also if what you are referring to is Iraq then I would like to ask why liberals are so against the Iraq war when we stopped Husseins murder of his fellow countrymen with the mass graves and such....yet they are outraged at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc.</p>
<p>marriage involves a union... but children are not a necessary component.
there's married couples without kids, and there's also unmarried couples with kids.
its function is commitment between two individuals.</p>
<p>ok about marriage...gays should not be allowed to marry. Whether or not the constitution protects everyones rights makes no difference. It does not stop murderers from receiving the death penalty why should it be any different for gay marriage? And yes it is a crime against God.</p>
<p>So what, although "under God" may appear in the pledge it wasnt always there. This country was founded on the idea of the separation of church and state. There are laws that must be abided by to protect humanity such as murder. If my next door neighbor was a murderer I would care. If my next door neighbor was a gay couple, not so much. So crimes against God don't matter. Is not paying your taxes a crime against God? No? Oh really, because that is a against the law here. Also, there are a lot of things that are a crime against God that are still being done legally (like masturbation) so I don't think that should matter when making rulings for the people of a whole country not united under those ideals.</p>
<p>In general, I wouldn't want to live my life under the Koran as much I don't want to live under the Bibles rules. What if your religion wasnt the majority? How would you feel if you were told that you must obey things that didnt matter to you? Sorry when I want to live under a theocratic government I'll move to the Middle East.</p>
<p>If gay marriage is legalized, there's nothing that says that the Church has to marry gay couples; if they feel that it is a sin, then they can choose to refuse to marry gay couples.</p>
<p>Also, I don't really get the comparison between gay people and murderers. No one is harmed when two men or two women love each other. Obviously lots of people are harmed when there is a murderer (the victim, family, friends, etc.)</p>
<p>People have said that it is a crime against God. But whose God? I know that the Catholic Church is adamently against it. But that certainly isn't the only God that people believe in. Again, as I have asked before, why should everyone be forced to follow the teachings/beliefs of one religion?</p>
<p>I have yet to hear any argument against gay marriage that does not involve religion/religious teachings.</p>
This nation is not a theocracy. People's rights are not determined by what "god" likes or dislikes. Do you actually believe you are anymore of a human being than someone with a different sexual preference. Homosexuals must, not should, be given the same inherent rights as all others. As many of you fail to see, many people in this country aren't married through Christianity (or any other religion) and with a minister.</p>
<p>btw....
A marriage, (definition from websters) is a legal union between two persons.</p>
<p>TakingBackSaturday, gay marriage may be against <em>your</em> religious beliefs, they are not against mine. You don't have to a) participate in a gay marriage or b) belong to a church that allows gay marriage. But you may not impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us.</p>
<p>Shrug. The argument doesn't make a lot of difference in the long run. There's a steady rise in the acceptance of gays and gay marriage overall. If you break it down by age groups, the trend is even more pronounced. A generation ago, the cultural conservatives were against interracial marriage. I've seen protest signs against civil rights that said "Race mixing is Communism." </p>
<p>Another generation and the ugly anti-gay prejudice will look just as ugly as the anti-civil rights prejudices do today. Ugly. Bigots.</p>
<p>TheDad, this isn't even a religious issue...it is a question of tolerance, respect and co-existance. I am a pretty devout Catholic and do not believe in gay marriages. Even then, to me, the thought that people believe they have the right to stand in the way of two consenting adults' happiness sickens me. Such hypocricy and bigotry is disgusting. If certain denominations have no issue with marrying gays, so be it. As far as I am concerned, society has no business telling two consenting adults whether or not they have the right to live together and receive the benefits given to all legally recognized couples. </p>
<p>TakingBackSaturdayx, the first thing I was taught as a Catholic is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing and all-merciful. There is no way you could possible know what God considers a "crime" and even if you did, there is no way you could be as forgiving and understanding as God.</p>
<p>For the record, you can only tolerate that which you believe to be wrong. If you believe something is correct, right or moral you do not need to tolerate it...in fact, it would make no sense to even suggest that good behavior should be tolerated. </p>
<p>If a particular view or act is right, correct or moral, from your point of view, you should not tolerate it but rather embrace and encourage it when it is appropriate.</p>
<p>We tolerate, when necessary, things that are bad, like discrimination, sexism, badly behaved children, impolite or ill-mannered people and immoral or unethical acts committed by people; we do not tolerate good behavior, we embrace and encourage it.</p>
<p>Tolerance is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misused words in the language. As a rule, tolerance is not ethically good, but rather ethically lazy. The West tolerated Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The church tolerated the pedophile priest scandal, and the US tolerated slavery and discrimination. If you believe that homosexual unions are a good thing then you should not feel the need to tolerate them, but rather, embrace and celebrate them.</p>
<p>Intolerance of a bad act is normally a good thing.
Tolerance of a bad act is counter-productive and by the nature of the act wrong.</p>
<p>"Shrug. The argument doesn't make a lot of difference in the long run. There's a steady rise in the acceptance of gays and gay marriage overall."</p>
<p>True, it is a cultural phenomenon, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime. In my younger days, the gay-rights movement largely found the institution of marriage to be oppressive, if not fascist (free-love and breaking the bonds of tradition), as to did the far end of the feminist movement (the heterosexual act was referred to as violence against women): we now have a new paradigm, but dont hold your breath; these things are obviously quite fluid. </p>
<p>For the moment, marriage seems to be used more as a convenience than as a sacred union and this feeling is by no means limited to people within the homosexual community; I doubt, for instance, that most of the views in the posts above were of gay individuals championing their attitudes/philosophies on marriage and its significance, but rather young heterosexuals with a more utilitarian view of the old and wavering institution.</p>
<p>Woodwork, tolerance also means to accept things that aren't necessarily like you...or accept beliefs that are in conflict with your own. Remember Woodwor, beliefs are usually based on points of views and opinions. Like I said, I do not think gay marriages are right. That's a belief, not a fact. My tolerating it does not make gay marriages wrong, it makes it different from my own views. And my tolerating it certainly doesn't make me lazy. I am neither wise enough, nor do I wish to or have the right to act on my beliefs. I will tell you what though. I will not tolerate an injustice. For example, I will not tolerate a government telling people (regardless of race, religion, age or gender) whether or not they can marry and benefit from the basic rights given to all married couple. Now that would be wrong.</p>
<p>To be honest, most of us are agnostic in our beliefs; that is to say, these days, for us to believe something to be true--whatever that might be--is a rather watery concoction (religion aside). That is why, I believe, we do tolerate so much injustice (excluding anything to do with marriage for the moment). Our idea of tolerance is often much closer to indifference.</p>
<p>We are indifferent to pollution, though we would prefer that there be less, we tolerate it. We are indifferent to certain laws, though we do not fight for or against them, we tolerate them. We are indifferent to warsor terrorism, though not powerfully so, and thus we tolerate them. We are, it seems, also indifferent to marriage, families and the upbringing and intimate lives of children and will tolerate a great deal of variation in their lives, from quickie-divorce to marketing soft-drinks, fast-food and violent video games (even in the schools). We are a very tolerant people, indeed. I finds this somewhat sad and patheticin a sympathetic and tolerant way. :)</p>
<p>In many cases, it is indeed a question of indifference. But in many cases, tolerance is a behavioral trait adopted by people who are genuinely open minded and willing to accept that there are differences.</p>
<p>unless, the governments of the world can figure out a way to offer the same economic benefit like joint tax filing, insurance coverage, property laws, tax free estate passage, etc. that any married couple currently enjoys.</p>
<p>Then there are those sticky issues like polygamy that we do not tolerate, meaning, we find them to be a) immoral and thus b) unlawful. </p>
<p>Whether or not the people in question (polygamists) desire to be so united or not; whether or not we believe their happiness to be contingent upon their union, and whether or not such unions have already produced off-spring (we even imprison them).</p>
<p>I personally find polygamy to be distasteful; however, it would be considered other than "tolerant" for me to tolerate it anyhowit would be considered reactionary, perhaps even streching the definition, intolerant of something else I hadn't considered.</p>
<p>????? what is God? sorry, PLEASE stop making up creature that doesn't exist. geeeeeeeez, you are mad..................</p>
<p>"The United States is not run by a mob. We need intelligent individuals who are trained in law to decide the consitutionality of gay marriage and not some hick from Alabama."</p>
<p>However, whether or not gay marriage is a crime against God shouldn't really matter because we live in a secular government. There is seperation of church and state.</p>