<p>Isn't this like the tenth thread about this issue? Is there a point to arguing this if we use the same arguements again and again?</p>
<p>On a side note, gays do have the right to marry, just like everyone (just as long its someone of the opposite sex). So there is in fact equality.</p>
<p>That's a cheap technicality.</p>
<p>But its true.</p>
<p>Eh some of you guys are sick... why can't gays be allowed to marry? This is going to be one of those things where, years down the road, people will look back on this with a "How could people even THINK that way?" outlook in the same manner that we look back on slavery today. Well I suppose some people will always be blatantly racist, or homophobic, etc, but everyone is human and deserves to marry whomever they want.</p>
<p>^^ Amen, legend.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz: your statement about gays having the right to marry defeats the purpose of being gay. The whole point of being gay and gay marriage is the ability to be joined with someone of the same sex.</p>
<p>to those against gay marriage: gay people never hurt anybody. simply put, society is reluctant, scared, i dare say, to let gays be accepted. but for fear of what? nothing! the fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot conceive a child is beside the point.</p>
<p>Just to throw out a question...</p>
<p>How does allowing two consenting adults to marry affect anyone outside of the couple? </p>
<p>Some people believe that homosexual relationships are immoral. They have the right to believe that and the right to not participate. However, they do not have the right to force others to follow their beliefs.</p>
<p>In general, I personally believe that if someones actions do not adversely affect anyone else, then they should be allowed to do it.</p>
<p>Marriage is a cornerstone of society, a foundation on which our society is based. By allowing gays to "marry" we are destroying this foundation. However, I fully support recognizing same sex couples in some ways. Let them have the same rights, just as long as its called marriage.</p>
<p>And legendofmax, I, and other supporters of traditional marriage, are not "homophobic". This would imply that we are afraid of gays. This is not the case.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz: unless you were afraid of gays, why wouldn't you accept them? you said "Marriage is a cornerstone of society, a foundation on which our society is based. By allowing gays to "marry" we are destroying this foundation." (btw which is untrue because again, allowing gays to marry does not affect anyone outside of the couple) You are basically saying that you are afraid of gays destroying "this foundation".</p>
<p>Now, I am not "afraid" of gays destroying this foundation, I just believe that marriage is a foundation of society and that the term "marriage" should be reserved for REAL marriages. But, again, I support civil unions or whatever you want to call them, for gay couples.</p>
<p>How ironic. You are for gay civil unions, which fight for gay marriage, but against the actual marriage?</p>
<p>I also support the idea that if marriage has so many religious roots, it should be left to the church, and the government should only perform civil unions. It's all just numbers and statistics to the government anyway, right?</p>
<p>i've lost count of threads on this subject</p>
<p>
[quote]
Marriage is a cornerstone of society, a foundation on which our society is based. By allowing gays to "marry" we are destroying this foundation.
[/quote]
I think a lot of heterosexual couples nowadays are destroying this foundation. If Britney Spears can have her 50-hour marriage and treat it like a joke, then how can you think that the sancitity of marriage is being preserved by keeping gays out?
Btw, are you also against divorce? </p>
<p>I think it would be ideal to make a distinction between a legally recognized union and a church-recognized marriage. Don't people who get married in churches now get a government marriage license too? I don't really know how it works, but all couples should be allowed to have the benefits of marraige under law, and the churches should have their own rules.</p>
<p>May I ask what the exact definition of "sanctity of marriage" is? What exactly is the purpose of it or preserving some definition? Why can't certain definitions be updated and/or changed? If a gay couple respects their marriage more than, as Zant said for example, Britney Spears, then why is it wrong to prevent that couple from having that union?</p>
<p>Because "marriage" shouldn't have to change. Listen, I'm all for gay couples being allowed to be together, live happily, adopt kids, have partner benefits the whole nine yards, but marriage is MARRIAGE. There is a definition of the word, there is thousands of years of history behind the word, why must it change? </p>
<p>Certain things in life happen. If being homosexual is a choice then not being able to marry is a consequence of that choice. If homosexuality is in fact a predisposition, then not being able to marry is just a result of that, much like not being able to drive a car and blindness. You don't see the blind demanding that they be allowed to drive do you?*</p>
<p>However, if you can't provide any other rationale for gay marriage then "well, everyone else can do it, why can't they?" don't come knocking this post, give me something more thought out.</p>
<p>*Yes, blindness is a poor analogy, I just didn't reallyt feel like thinking up something more creative and it got the point across, and yes there is a factual reason why the blind can't drive whereas it is debatable as to whether or not there is anything factually for prohibiting gay marriage.</p>
<p>But when you talk about the definition of marriage, what are you thinking about? Because marriage is definitely different than it was centuries ago. In some countries marriage used to be polygamous. Even in the US marriage used to mean that the male had a lot more power than the woman, and marriage used to mean that the wife should stay home. I guess I just don't understand what people are preserving if the thing they are trying to save (the tradition) is ever-changing. You can't deny that marriage isn't the same as it was 20 years ago...so is it so impossible that marriage will "evolve" to apply to homosexuals?</p>
<p>look at my original post on this issue. I didn't deny that mariage has meant different things at different points in time. however, if you look at the history of our judeo-christian definition of marriage (you cannot deny that America exists within that cultural realm) you will find that it is a one man, one women. Furthermore, marriage at it's most basic level certainly is the same as it was 20 years ago. The fundemental dynamic is unchanged and has been that way since the Roman era.</p>
<p>But I think marriage is a personal relationship between two people and it should be defined by these two people...I'm personally not religious and I don't plan on getting married in church or adhering to marriage as defined by the judeo-christian tradition, which is why I think it's really important to distinguish between the legal union and the "traditional" marriage. </p>
<p>I think my views have changed since this thread began...but what I really think now is that as citizens, we should all have access to the legal benefits of marriage: if you want to call it a civil union, that's ok.</p>
<p>I was about to reply but Zant pretty much took my words. What is being preserved? Why does marriage have to stay the same as it is today when obviously it has always undergone change? You cannot deny this change and thus a change to simply extend the definition to homosexuals, if denied, reveals an underlying disapproval independent of the definition of a dynamically-changing marriage. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I ask what is so bad about change? So what if the "judeo-christian definition" is one man, one woman? Why do people hold onto this concept so strongly? Why is this tradition so firmly-pinned by many when other traditions undergo metamorphosis with little clash?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do people hold onto this concept so strongly? Why is this tradition so firmly-pinned by many when other traditions undergo metamorphosis with little clash?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you've answered why it is being preserved. Maybe the majority is right for once and it hasn't changed because it shouldn't. Perhaps it is because the natural order is male-female. I don't truly know. What I do know however, is that for all the "change" marriage has undergone over the centuries the underlying assumption that marriage is man-women HAS NOT CHANGED. Thousands of years of history tends to cement certain things.</p>