<p>An0nym0u5, what you say does make sense. However, the fact is that heterosexual marriage licenses ARE given and controlled by the government. Essentially, homosexuals want equal rights. So if the millions of people faithful to the bible want to preserve the sanctity of their religion, they should push for their own heterosexual marriages to be replaced with civil unions in terms of legality. If they don't, and still continue to ban gay marriage, that is intolerance and discrimination, not religious faith. Also, the bible is often equated with a napkin because many dogmatic people tend to wear their religion on their sleeves.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that the people who are against any sort of gay union have intentionally used language that they know will inflame the most people - calling it gay MARRIAGE. Marriage is marriage and no law will change what marriage is - no law of man can change what God's law is. (What I personally believe is irrelevant - it doesn't change what God says is!!) Just because the law allowed slavery, that doesn't mean it was ever RIGHT!! </p>
<p>With that said. Rightly or wrongly, our government got into the "Marriage" business years ago, granting licenses etc. There are legitimate governmental concerns which justify it. Later, married people were given governmental benefits for being married: Social security death benefits, certain tax benefits at the death of a spouse, certain tax benefits on gifts between spouses, etc. These things evolved slowly, not overnight. If the government is going to give benefits to "married people", then I don't believe it can limit what citizens can be married (I'm not talking about legitimate governmental limits, such as a minimum age). Change the laws, call them "civil union" benefits, maybe that would be easier for some to swallow.</p>
<p>"Why should we allow religions to dictate what will or will not be allowed in society as a whole?"</p>
<p>because something like 87 percent of people are Christian and 95 percent believe in God. The United States has always been that the majority wins...well I think we have a majority.</p>
<p>I believe in God (I do). I also believe that God has nothing against gays and lesbians...according to my religion ppl of all preferences are allowed their freedoms...</p>
<p>In the equation of the Bible to a napkin, I was alluding to an earlier post on this thread. I've never heard it before, and quite frankly, its offensive.</p>
<p>Civil unions CAN be separate but equal to marriage licenses. No matter what we do, same-sex couples will be looked at differently anyway. Categorizing them separately in licensing would afford them the rights they deserve, while preserving the symbolism of the word "marriage." PLEASE don't equate this to separate but equal in reference to the civil rights movement. Because that separate but equal referred to different school buildings, facilities, etc. There's no way for those to be equal. However, pieces of paper known as "licenses" with different names CAN be equal, because the same government benefits can and should be afforded to both.</p>
<p>Little known fact:</p>
<p>-John Kerry supported civil unions. (and opposed gay marriages, but this fact was not publicized.)</p>
<p>-George W. Bush opposed gay marriage. (and did say in an interview that he would be willing to grant equal benefits to same-sex couples, but this fact was also not publicized.)</p>
<p>So although they held the SAME position, the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" created an illusion to the American people, leading to the deciding factor of "moral values," where there really wasn't much of a choice on this issue. (I acknowledge that you could argue that Bush was harsher on gays than Kerry, but the fact that he would extend benefits to same-sex couples makes the difference minimal.)</p>
<p>I am a very conservative person and I have nothing against gay marriage. Although it (constitutionally) is a states rights issue, i have no opposition to a federal law to that effect. However, if I were running for a major political office right now, I probably would not support it. It would be political suicide. About two out of three Americans oppose gay marriage and what good would my views do me or others if I was defeated. I'm absolutely sure it will happen in this country, but not at this moment in the way it really should be done. </p>
<p>However, gay marriage is NOT a matter of civil rights. Civil rights is a term of art pertaining to racial discrimination. Calling gay marriage a civil rights issue trivializes civil rights and angers a lot of people, particularly blacks, who fought the hardest for the rights that everyone takes for granted today.</p>
<p>TakingSaturday-</p>
<p>""Why should we allow religions to dictate what will or will not be allowed in society as a whole?"</p>
<p>because something like 87 percent of people are Christian and 95 percent believe in God. The United States has always been that the majority wins...well I think we have a majority."</p>
<p>Your views are closed-minded and dangerous:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Don't forget the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."</p></li>
<li><p>Don't assume that all Christians believe the same things as you. Not all Christians are in lockstep with the fundamentalists. Different groups interpret the same Bible passages in totally different ways, and reach mutually exclusive conclusions:
"Conservative Christians" (I am certain you are familiar with these views): Typically cite the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and believe it refers to homosexuality as a detestable practice for which God used his most serious punishment - death. They also believe God created the institution of marriage as the only valid relationship within which sexual activity can be performed without sin. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>"Liberal Christians" (I'm not sure you've ever bothered to consider these views): Many believe that the texts in Genesis and the rest of the Bible make it clear that Sodom was punished, not for homosexual conduct, but because of the violent, abusive, inhospitable, greedy, and unsympathetic behavior of its citizens towards visitors, widows, the poor and other disadvantaged persons. After telling the Israelites that their sins were greater than those of Sodom, the prophet Ezekiel was moved to specify the special sins of Sodom, and same-gender sexual practices are not specifically listed: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." Eze. 16.49, 50. Sodom is listed as a "sister" of Israel, indicating the similarities of their sins. Thus, if same-gender sexual practices were the special sins of Sodom, there should be some evidence that they were the sins of Israel as well. Yet the Bible leaves no such record. God seems to condemn the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah for insensitive treatment and harassment of others. But, this is the very passage that conservative and some mainline Christian faith groups use to attack gays and lesbians. </p>
<p>"Liberal Christians" believe the Bible condemns homosexual rape simply because it is rape, consistent with Deuteronomy 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape. They believe this condemnation to be totally inapplicable to loving, committed, same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages. </p>
<p>How can otherwise intelligent people read the same passages and come up with totally opposite interpretations about what the passages are saying? IMHO, these people approach the Bible and its teachings from different pespectives. Some people simply accept the teachings of their own faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternate, normal, unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans. It is something that a person is.</p>
<p>TakingBackSaturday.....read Federalists #10 and #51....the U.S. isn't as much about majority rule as you think....infact the Founders put in a system of checks and balances/seperated government to protect against an oppresive majority (or even an oppresive, powerful, Marxist minority).....furthermore....majority views rarely actually win out in Congress....interest groups have a wide level of discretion in which bills get passed and which ones don't...and interest groups don't support moderate views like the majority of the population holds....they hold extreme views to either the left or the right....you're probably going to say "interest groups aren't that powerful...if that's the case then howcome if the public doesn't agree with something it usually doesn't happen," and to invalidate that argument I will use the example of Civil Rights for both blacks and women. The white majority didn't support the Emancipation Proclamation, nor did they support the Brown Case, nor did they support the 1960s Civil Right Movement...the male majority didn't want to give women equal voting rights or labor rights...they belived womens' place was in the home, taking care of children and basically serving to their husbands' needs. Majority doesn't win out...the concept of a democracy for the people; ALL the ppl, does. The reason majority rule doesn't win out is because the government is set up that way....Electoral College, a judiciary not set up by the ppl, a government that doesn't have direct accountability to the ppl, but rather accountability to the other branches...</p>
<p>damn, the "Best 5 Presidents" thread is now closed. :(</p>
<p>yup, that it is. seems that takingbacksaturdays flaming reached a critical temperature</p>
<p>obviously it wasnt just me or i wouldve been banned :). You guys are so cool you have a 2 man club and the only way to be in it is...to be cool! right? :)</p>
<p>I think I see a bipartisan consensus emerging :D</p>
<p>tisk tisk tisk the moderator says dont flame so cmon guys cant we be friends?</p>
<p>OMG people, I've hardly read two posts in this thread and I've already gotten the impression that liberals have this innate tedency to use conservatism as a hyperbolic political epithet to generalise republicans. Have you people forgotten what the literal meanings of conservatism and liberalism are? It seems that you guys are only truly divided on the ethical issues, and those issues are usually associated with radical right-winged evangelical conservatives alone. I guess just because bush is an evangelist, liberals generalize all conservatives as bush clones?</p>
<p>Regarding homosexuals and marriage: I don't believe that gay marriages should be legalized. Why? well, it's as much of a religious issue for me as it for an atheist. But I always thought marriage was between a man and a woman or did i go wrong some where(rhetorical question, don't bother to answer). I wholeheartly embrace and accept the fact that a monority of society's people wish to adopt a different and rather eccentric lifestyle. However, that doesn't mean I will step aside and let them change what has always been the norm and is now the unchangeable constant in society. I believe bush is allowing gays enough leeway just by letting them live together. Gays may be offended by the fact that they don't get a mariage certificate, but they should realize that should gay marriages be legalized, a vast number of christians will be even more offended. Last I heard, there are infinitely more religious fanatics than there are gays. Do I believe that these gays will prove to become a direct impediment upon our everyday life? Never. Which is why i think that the issue of gay marriages should be abandoned. It's proving to be quite a controversy with no foreseeable resolution any time soon.</p>
<p>Would allowing gay people to marry impede upon your life? Why should we base our decisions on what is or isn't acceptable because "religious fanatics" will be offended? </p>
<p>For centuries, perhaps even millennia, women were considered lesser beings than men. It wasnt until the early to mid 1900s that women were finally recognized as persons and given equal status with men. By giving women equal rights, it changed the societal norms and what was considered at one point to be an "unchangeable constant in society" (male dominence). I'm sure that at the time, many people were offended by this. Does that mean that they were right and that women should still be considered "lesser beings"? What about the rights of minorities? For many years, the majority of the people in the US discriminated against African-Americans. Does that mean that those people were right? Previous posters have argued that comparing women's rights and the rights of minorities with the right for gays to marry isn't the same because gender and race are out of one's control whereas sexual orientation isn't (there are arguments that it isn't, but I won't get into that right now). However, these are all groups that have been discriminated by the majority at one point or another in history.
I believe that everybody should be equal; if what they are doing does not harm anyone else, I don't see why other people need to worry about it.</p>
<p>"I wholeheartly embrace and accept the fact that a monority of society's people wish to adopt a different and rather eccentric lifestyle. However, that doesn't mean I will step aside and let them change what has always been the norm and is now the unchangeable constant in society. I believe bush is allowing gays enough leeway just by letting them live together. Gays may be offended by the fact that they don't get a mariage certificate, but they should realize that should gay marriages be legalized, a vast number of christians will be even more offended. Last I heard, there are infinitely more religious fanatics than there are gays. Do I believe that these gays will prove to become a direct impediment upon our everyday life? Never. Which is why i think that the issue of gay marriages should be abandoned. It's proving to be quite a controversy with no foreseeable resolution any time soon."</p>
<p>sounds like the same argument against interracial marriage</p>
<p>You're afraid of offending Christians? Why should Christians be offended? Nothing is being done directly to them by allowing a very small percentage of Americans to marry members of the same sex. Christians can continue to be faithful and practice their religion in the privacy of their homes and churches, as should be the case. </p>
<p>Discrimation is a very serious and scary reality, and although no law will please everyone, the point shouldn't be to please everyone. Rather, it seems to be almost self evident that eradicating discrimation should be something supported across the board. So long as any small minority of citizens is being discriminated against in this country due to ideological beliefs, true justice can not exist.</p>
<p>I have no idea what you people are saying. All I know is that I'm not discriminating. I just wish that homos should be satisfied with just living together. What difference is a piece of paper going to make in their lives anyway. Besides, they can always go to massachussettes(sp) if it's that important to them.</p>
<p>Takingbacksaturday, flaming at primitive is an entertaining addtion to this thread, but mature? hardly. I reccommend that you stay on topic.</p>
<p>Marriage is defined as the legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. So, in order for gay marriage to be legalized, the definition of marriage would have to be changed. I think that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, but should continue to be allowed civil unions. Gays can call living with a partner anything but marriage and I will support it. You must respect the definition!</p>
<p>are you talking to me? Cause I'm actually fully supportive of civil unions for gays.</p>