<p>there is a clear crossroad in the ideology of humanity in the notion of redefinition and expansion, and i think we should respect that crossroad:</p>
<p>some would argue that gay marriage is an affront to conventional wisdom and their own way of life</p>
<p>others would see it as inclusionary and egalitarian</p>
<p>no matter which opinion you hold, i think it is important to realize that both are equally logical. it so happens that most of the world holds the first opinion, myself included. it also happens that many hold the second. it must be noted that this is a completely fine disagreement in perspective, and it is a disagreement that only remains civil when both sides realize the conviction of the opposition's beliefs.</p>
<p>thanks so much for keeping this respectful. i'm glad that this has not dissolved into a typical cafe thread.</p>
<p>"for the second, people have the right to judge because this is a government by the people for the people. if every state proposition, even liberal Oregon's, goes against gay marriage, it is obvious that the people do not back gay marriage. the question you should be asking is: why should a societal expectation (man + woman = household) be upturned?" (Justice~)</p>
<p>It doesn't matter if "the people" (religious conservatives) don't back gay marriage. A lot of "the people" would probably support a federal inquisition to smoke out and execute every homosexual in America.</p>
<p>Popularity doesn't necessarily make something ethical.</p>
<p>some would argue that gay marriage is an affront to conventional wisdom and their own way of life (Justice)</p>
<p>Just because some people are narrow-minded does not make their beliefs logical. Their conclusion itself is logical. But it is based upon illogical premises. Some people that interracial marriages are wrong. Are there beliefs logical?</p>
<p>Justice: Like Yoshe said, they aren't trying to redefine marriage, but rather expand it. And your whole idea of "preventing" homosexuality scares me--it's a very Brave New World/1984 way of thinking.</p>
<p>Yes, I am very happy that we are keeping this respectful.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, Justice, but I can't see any logic in "gay marriage is an affront to conventional wisdom and their [people's] own way of life." It is DIFFERENT from your way of life, but is it an "affront?" How does it offend you? Maybe the thought of gays making love offends you, but I guess seeing black people walk the streets could offend you, too. And "conventional wisdom?" Please, let's not use words like "conventional" (that honor something because it is widely held) to confuse the status quo with what is right.</p>
<p>slavery was heavily contested by the North and the South. it was a distinct minority who supported it ethically, and it only grew slightly in the "positive good" trend in the 1830s as backlash to heavy abolitionalism from the North. most realized that slavery was morally reprehensible but stayed with it for economic reasons and to preserve their way of life. </p>
<p>again, it is not simply religious conservatives who do not back gay marriage. a state that never votes republican (oregon) voted heavily against gay marriage. in that same election, the oregonians gave the democratic party of oregon a resounding win in the state senate. </p>
<p>popularity does not make something ethical, but it does make it legally justifiable in a democracy, which we do strive to be.</p>
<p>Exactly. Ultimately, history will treat opponents of gay marriage with the same disdain that it has for opponents of women's suffrage in the early part of the century, or opponents of black civil rights in the 1960's. Intolerance always loses.</p>
<p>If you're going to ban gay marriage, ban those reality TV shows like The Bachelor, as well. Where's the religiousness in those?</p>
<p>You can argue that marriage is a religious institution. Just don't forget the government's involvement--you know, marriage licenses, pre-nups, divorce papers, etc. etc. etc. The separation of church and state no longer exists--as an amendment on marriage should make brutally clear. </p>
<p>And don't forget that not every person in this country is religious or of the same religious beliefs as those arguing to ban gay marriage. Religious institutions, as with all institutions, need to learn to adapt to changing times. This means acknowledging and compensating for the fact that there ARE gays out there, and they are as capable of loving as heterosexuals. There's no excuse or justification for saying otherwise. </p>
<p>Quite frankly, in a country with divorce rates as high as ours, and with the commercialization of marriage as rampant as what we see every day on television, no one--especially not GWB--can preach about the "Sanctity" of marriage. Telling gays they can't get married is just as wrong as relegating blacks to the back of the bus. It's all civil rights, people.</p>
<p>Actually, to correct my above statement, technically it is "redefining" marriage since its currently defined as only between a man and woman, but still, they aren't changing what marriage is "about" just expanding that ot include more people.</p>
<p>Anom-I agree. I can see us looking back years from now and going, "why was that even a question?"</p>
<p>Just got out of school...
Read all of the posts and I disagree with most.
Homosexuality should not be treated. It's not worth the money.
If most of you would look through your lawbooks, homosexuality is illegal in most states.<br>
I am not going to denegrate the sanctity of marriage so that some gays can get married. Homosexuality is NOT normal and to treat it as so is a joke. Revelations 12:8. "Come out of her my people lest ye be partakers in her sins".
Leave it up to the states as far as I'm concerned. I stick with the statement I made earlier. The 14th Amendment was ILLEGALLY ratified, so it is null and void. Equal protection is a joke. If Georgia wants to let gays marry, fine, but let the people make the decision, not the court, and my state of SC should NOT have to recognize that sinful partnership.</p>
<p>sry its hard to respond to so many things at once </p>
<p>it is my firm belief that homosexuality is a completely different breed of civil rights movement from the rest in that it hits at a fundamental string of what we do and do not find congruent with our own world view. it is difficult for me to explain why without seriously offending any of you, so i'll try to say it this way. interracial marriage is great and has been happening all over the world for many many years. some populations have a problem with it because they want to be very exclusive, but i do feel that if you look at a global trend (there are a bunch of sociology studies from the past 100yrs on this, i'll try to find one later), discontent with interracial marriage is a bigotry that was a function of societal pressures, and that most human beings are inherently agreeable with the idea. in fact, with an era of globalization upon us, it is clear that the vast majority of the world has no moral problem, rather only societal, with interracial marriage.</p>
<p>for homosexuality, i am being told that i should find a homosexual relationship congruent with my world perspective. i can respect it; i cannot be told to change my views to include it. i do feel that, unlike anything else we've ever seen in civil rights activism, homosexuality is something that has a distinct biological basis and should be treated. for those that are already born and we can treat, we should give them all the rights that heterosexuals have, but i do not see the case for making the effort to include them in the definition of marriage.</p>
<p>You can not just claim homosexuality is wrong and then justify it with bible verses. Newsflash: the constitution is not the bible. Many religions in fact celebrate homosexuality.</p>
<p>BC--"Homosexuality is NOT normal and to treat it as so is a joke. Revelations 12:8. "Come out of her my people lest ye be partakers in her sins"." You didn't answer my question/challenge. Of course, sin is bad. But why is being gay a sin?
"If most of you would look through your lawbooks, homosexuality is illegal in most states." What about the sodomy case?</p>
<p>And why should we treat homosexuality? (We have been trying to, by the way, but it hasn't worked.) I ask you: what is inherently wrong with being gay? And even if it is a problem, why don't you treat homosexuals as you do Jews--respectfully? Jews are not accepting Jesus, so they are sinning? (Or would that really be a sin? Anyway, it's a problem. For them, at least. I am Jewish, too.)</p>
<p>"i do not see the case for making the effort to include them in the definition of marriage" (Justice)--unfortunately, it seems that the bottom argument for people who do not support expanding marriage rights to gays is just "sorry. marriage is between a M + a W. don't want to change." What argument is that?</p>
<p>there is no set definition of what is natural. there IS a set definition of what i consider natural; i personally do not think homosexuality is natural. i believe i have the right to reach that conclusion after doing a lot of research and having friends who are gay. i further believe that if there are far more people who believe as i do and far less who believe as you do, my beliefs should at least be given your respect, as i give to yours. to me, it is not a matter of tolerance or narrow-mindedness; this is not the same as universal human suffrage. i believe that i can be fully tolerant while holding my belief that one day homosexuality will not exist.</p>
<p>You want to treat homosexuality?? It's not a disease, it's a lifestyle choice.</p>
<p>EDIT: Clearly life-style choice was the wrong words to describe homosexuality. My point is that homosexuals have made a choice to be openly gay as opposed to being in the closet.</p>
<p>"Lifestyle choice?" Being gay is a personal acceptance of something funamentally different about you. (Straights: try forcing yourself to be attracted to your gender for a day.)</p>
<p>Homosexual is not an abnormality that reared it's ugly head in the 20th century. Homosexuality has been present throughout history. In fact it happens within nature. The fact remains that some members of a species are born with a congenital preference for members of the same sex. You can not claim to be tolerant, while you mock the choices that homosexuals make. </p>
<p>Do your friends know that you believe that they are unnnatural? Do they know that you hope that if you continue to "tolerate" that one day a cure for this "disease" will be found?</p>
<p>if it's actually lifestyle choice, then we are getting into very murky waters....</p>
<p>as an aside: i personally think it's a far harder case for homosexuals to make if it IS a lifestyle choice. then the religious conservatives (which i am not) would argue that to allow gay marriage is to promote being gay, and then everyone would gasp and the constitutional ban would be inevitable.</p>