<p>
I don’t get it.</p>
<p>
Still don’t get it.</p>
<p>Note: I am NOT arguing.</p>
<p>@panther:</p>
<p>The heart of the problem is that many people aren’t worried about a word, they want to control the thoughts of others. For many LGBT activists, iit’s not just being able to use the word marriage, it’s having everyone required to believe that gay marriage is no different from normal marriage. For many Defense of Marriage activists, it’s not about defending a word, it’s about requiring everyone to believe that gay marriage isn’t really “marriage”.</p>
<p>It seems to me that arguing about a word is rather silly, especially since that word has already been largely devalued. If two groups have mutually exclusive understandings of marriage, it should be easy for either side should to create their own term, avoiding all this trouble.</p>
<p>Or it would be easy if people were reasonable. In reality, the man who led an effort to do just that in Florida (on the issue of divorce) is now being reviled as a woman hater and accused of trying to trap women in abusive relationships, despite that fact that his proposed “covenant marriage” legislation would only apply to people who chose to enter into it.</p>
<p>
No, the latter is not an example of separate but equal treatment. It’s lesser treatment because they’re being forced to play the alternative, not as accepted, not as watched basketball. However, while I believe it to be inferior treatment, I still believe it to be (in most cases) appropriate treatment just because the kids in wheelchairs are doomed to lesser treatment in physical activities regardless. If they played with non-wheelchair kids they wouldn’t get passed to as much, they wouldn’t be able to jump, they wouldn’t be able to throw as high, etc. So giving them a separate game is still inferior, but it’s nicer. Of course, if we’re talking about little kids in a non-competitive area (e.g. recess for second graders), the kids should play together.</p>
<p>
Why would their views be like yours though? I doubt most gay people believe that they are unfortunate or not meant to be, that they’re essentially second-class citizens. A different title tells them that they are abnormal, which is all they’re going to understand when they’re really little. You don’t appreciate legal benefits until you’re older. When you’re young, it’s just, “Mommy, why do those people not want be able to do the same things as them?” So I guess if you truly believe that gay people are second-class citizens, then you’re being consistent…I just find that position to be cruel (and because I’m not religious, unfounded in reason).</p>
<p>And yeah, thanks to you to for having this good debate/discussion.</p>
<p>
I think this is a very wise realization. But let’s look at the reasons why each group wants to control the thoughts of others. LGBT activists do it (at least I believe the majority does it) because it is impossible/near impossible to grow up accepting yourself in a world where others view you/your relationship to be inferior. So in essence, they’re looking to make a world a better place for homosexuals.</p>
<p>Defense of Marriage activists, on the other hand (as you said), want people believe that only straight marriage is valid marriage. Why? I imagine it’s for one of the following reasons:
- So they feel validity in their own marriages.
- So gay people feel like their relationships are invalid.
- So God’s wishes are respected/some other entirely religious reason</p>
<p>However, if we go through these, we find that they’re not good reasons to not call gay marriage “marriage.”
- Their marriages are valid. They’re valid in their churches, they’re valid by the state. Nothing is actually changed for them, and therefore this feeling is irrational.
- Okay, so I think we can all agree that this is just putting down others. Even if you believe that gay relationships aren’t “real relationships” or as “good” as straight relationships, why should you make others feel that too? That is truly just control of other’s minds for your own agenda: hurting them.
- Right. Religion shouldn’t affect legal terms. I believe we decided this around 1789.</p>
<p>At least that’s how I see the psychology behind the two wants to control people’s minds. Tell me if I missed something major.</p>
<p>^ You forgot that children will be taught to be gay in public schools as soon as gay marriage becomes legal</p>
<p>^They will not be taught to be gay. Were you taught when you were little to be straight? I don’t think so. If anything, children would be taught to treat everyone equally.</p>
<p>HarryJones, by the first I meant that homosexuality is not a choice. But even without scientific proof, I don’t see why it’s hard for people to believe that others can be naturally attracted to the same sex (just like most people wouldn’t need scientific proof that hair color isn’t a choice to believe it). By the second I was envisioning a ridiculous situation of a gay man marrying a gay woman for the hell of it, to p-off “traditional marriage” supporters. Of course I forgot that most people against gay marriage don’t care why two people marry, as long as they’re a man and a woman, so they probably wouldn’t be as outraged by that as I thought before.</p>
<p>Mosby, I don’t want to control anybody’s thoughts (persuade them otherwise? maybe). I am not very offended by people who will go on about why homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. I actually find it a little pathetic. What I do find EXTREMELY offensive is that those people are actually having an effect on legal matters in my life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Panther, you don’t seem to understand what it is I am saying. I believe that this world should hold some values and understandings, namely that men and women are meant to procreate. This belief, I say, is essential. </p>
<p>I do not believe it is okay for people to grow up knowing that you can marry who ever you want. By your argument, that gays are “natural,” then aren’t people who are in love with objects and animals also natural? They are a much smaller population obviously, but then by your reasoning they should be able to marry too. Equal rights, and no separation then right? No. In this world there will always be unnatural things. Kids born with disease, kids born disabled, etc. To open up marriage to include gays is to say that kids born with down syndrome are normal and deserve to be in the same classes with straight people. </p>
<p>Separate but equal has a place in this world, and in referring to gay marriage it serves to maintain an understanding of what “normal” is, so that future generations know that men and women were meant to love each other. Thus, to do otherwise would suggest that any man can marry another man if he feels like it, and same for women. This to me is blasphemous. Keep the understanding that straight = normal, and give homosexuals their rights and also avert religious conflict. That is what civil unions do. </p>
<p>Btw you seem to say that heterosexuality is a “tradition.” I believe that we are made this way on purpose, that a God had man and woman in mind. I have refrained from saying God to avoid the idea that I am an ignorant Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin and a choice, because I am not that and do not what that suggested. But it cannot be avoided that I believe in God because that is what gives me the idea that men and women are a sacred unity because certain things in this world are divinely decided. Basically what I am trying to grasp is that what is “normal” for the human race has a degree of sanctity, not just an changing value that is subject to the human race’s interpretation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This idea that gay will be taught is perhaps a simpler way of debating. Basically, extending marriage to include homosexuality implies that “gay” is a new norm. If it’s completely normal, then children will learn about it. I’ll reference the example where kids in school learned about the story “the king and the king.” Do you believe that future generations should learn that boys can love boys and girls can love girls? NO! Extending marriage does this! Thus, civil unions are good because they keep the understanding that boys love girls, not just by coincidence, but for reason, and STILL give homosexuals their rights!!</p>
<p>if we know anything from history, it’s that “separate but equal” cannot last forever. gays will be able to “marry” sooner or later. </p>
<p>ralec, i don’t like the slippery slope argument that if gay marriage becomes legal marrying a dog will become legal too. it’s just not very likely, because dogs (using this as an example. feel free to substitute whichever animal or object you like) are not smart enough to communicate through words and thus a dog/man relationship wouldn’t work because the dog can’t give consent. plus dog/man sex is dangerous i bet, so it would be banned for the same reason certain drugs are banned. </p>
<p>also, gay marriage will limit population growth, which is sorely needed. if you’ll look at history, there was a time when having 10 children was the norm. now, you’d probably think the mom was crazy. today, having 2 or 3 kids is normal. i’m sure that in a hundred years having NO kids will be normal. what better way to ensure this than to marry someone of the same gender? </p>
<p>and i see nothing wrong with gay marriage being normal. you didn’t provide any reasons as to why (from what i’ve read) making gay marriage “normal” is bad. </p>
<p>oh, i found a reason. you said it was “blasphemous.” not everyone is a christian lol (or a member of the many other religions of the world that condemn gay marriage)</p>
<p>Is there a religion that is really fine with gay marriage/union?</p>
<p>SERIOUS QUESTION D:</p>
<p>^Yes, many. Quakers, Reconstructionist Jews, Reform Jews, some Lutherans, More Light Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Satanists, and most Buddhists approve of gay marriage. I’m referring to the official position of the religions, so if I said some/most, that means that there’s disagreement among sects of the religion.</p>
<p>No Ralec, I don’t believe that heterosexuality is a “tradition” in any way. I believe that only allowing marriage between heterosexuals is a tradition, and a stupid one. </p>
<p>That men and women should procreate is not a belief - it is an instinct in HETEROSEXUALS. Open your eyes. The majority of people are heterosexual, and the majority will be heterosexual in the future. There is no shortage of procreation on our planet - quite the opposite, actually. So don’t get worried that the acknowledgment that homosexual people exist and fall in love with each other will cause the downfall of the human race.</p>
<p>Our disagreement comes down to this: I don’t believe in the bible. I’m agnostic, so I believe we can never prove there is or isn’t a god. But I certainly don’t believe that the bible is correct. So to say that humans were meant to do anything is stupid to me. And to me, to have the need to believe in a god or an ultimate purpose for humans is a weakness. I don’t think life is made meaningless if there is no god. We create our own goals - why must there be a spiritual goal for humankind? Rather, why don’t we all do what comes natural to us? Then heterosexuals will end up procreating, homosexuals will end up being happy and putting a limit on population size, and nobody will worry about interfering in anybody else’s lives. That seems more intuitive to me than enforcing some biblical law based on a very flimsy supernatural belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More important question - should it really matter?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>YES! Because they can.</p>
<p>Many of my peers often say “that’s so gay” and “stop being a ■■■■■■” or “you’re a homo”, which really irritates me, but then many of those petty ignoramouses also say ■■■■■■ and chink.</p>
<p>i think a lot of people on this thread isn’t saying that we should not give equal rights to gays. just that we don’t need to call it marriage… because quite simply we don’t NEED to call it marriage.</p>
<p>people will argue that it’s a label that brings attention to their… abnormality? yes, i agree, but tolerance and whatever takes time and compromise will ease the transition. eventually, gay civil unions could be called marriage but i think that for now, we should give them equal rights but don’t call it marriage. after all, marriage is just a word which legally does not mean much. you can’t control people’s thoughts anyway. you can only control the legal aspects which this “plan” or whatever will bestow.</p>
<p>btw- i’m not for or against gay marriage. at this point, i’m kinda indifferent so i think the best way to go about this is to compromise one way or the other.</p>
<p>Give people more rights? WHY NOT?</p>
<p>People often forget that marriage comes without thousands of federal benefits that a civil union does get include. Marriage for everyone or marriage for no one (I prefer the latter).</p>
<p>For such a brilliantly smart community, I am finding an awful lot of stupidity…</p>