America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

No Redheat, they should marry legally like everybody else. In most (all?) states, the definition of marriage is one man, one woman.

There is nothing in the law that requires the parties to love each other, give a flying fig about each other, or want to marry each other. It is a legal civil contract providing with certain requirements built in and certain benefits built in.

It is those benefits that gay people say they want. So would a lot of same sex straight people who, for whatever reason, would like to have those benefits.

To refuse to compromise in this matter is nothing short of pure ideology. The extreme right should back off and allow corrections of inequities that exist.

And the extreme left, including the militant gays, should back off and allow a national tradition of marriage to remain as it has always been for the benefit of children if for no other reason.

Let everybody have the benefits. The anti-gay marriage people shut up and leave the others alone. And the others pick another word than marriage for it.

In my way of thinking, those who cannot see the value and wisdom of this have far sharper bigger axes to grind than providing equal rights for gays

Once again, Redheat has the right handle on this issue. No one's feelings, sensitivities, religious beliefs or theories regarding tradition make a bit of difference here. Human rights are not subject to majority approval. If we are concerned with tradition, we need only remember that America is a country wherein the tradition used to be a tolerance for slavery, mysogyny and discrimination. But, in many senses we have overcome much of that "tradition".

The arguments from the right on this issue are silly and self-centered. You are looking for national policy to be formed on the basis of your personal comfort level with the issue. That is the last reason for continuing to discriminate against gays. Human rights are not to be determined based on your comfort level. It is simply a matter of law and equal treatment under the law.

Anti-gay groups often cite the "fact" that gays tend to be promiscuous. Still, when they want to enter into an institution that has its basis in monogamy, the right wingers whine about the Bible condemning it and how gays marrying will destroy civilization and benefit the terrorists. Grow up, righties. It's not about you.

The bottom line is that right wingers want to keep gays from marrying one another because they (the right wingers) do not approve. Tough. Nobody cares whether you like it.

The argument that gays are free to marry, so long as they marry one of the opposite sex is just stupid and unworthy. Please come up with a legal reason why they should not be allowed to marry or give it up. If your church forbids it, fine. Then don't engage in the practice. I have no problem with churches being able to refuse to marry gays. But, they have no right to foist their opinions on others who do not share the faith.

No one has presented an argument suggesting that gays do not make for strong families. There is much anecdotal evidence suggesting that they do. But, very often men and women do not make ideal spouses and parents. Yet, there is no outcry for banning heterosexual marriages.

Gays have the right to marry. Churches have the right to oppose or support gay marriage. Neither has the right to dictate to the other. By the way, can anyone tell me how allowing gay marriage would affect their own marriage negatively. I have heard this claim ad nauseum but never with an ounce of substance behind it.

Can we just let people marry who they choose and move on to important issues like the national debt, bush's mismanagement of the war and what we are all wearing to the Kerry inaugural?

Sagamore wrote:

Once again, Redheat has the right handle on this issue. No one's feelings, sensitivities, religious beliefs or theories regarding tradition make a bit of difference here. Human rights are not subject to majority approval. If we are concerned with tradition, we need only remember that America is a country wherein the tradition used to be a tolerance for slavery, mysogyny and discrimination. But, in many senses we have overcome much of that "tradition".

The arguments from the right on this issue are silly and self-centered. You are looking for national policy to be formed on the basis of your personal comfort level with the issue. That is the last reason for continuing to discriminate against gays. Human rights are not to be determined based on your comfort level. It is simply a matter of law and equal treatment under the law.

Anti-gay groups often cite the "fact" that gays tend to be promiscuous. Still, when they want to enter into an institution that has its basis in monogamy, the right wingers whine about the Bible condemning it and how gays marrying will destroy civilization and benefit the terrorists. Grow up, righties. It's not about you.

The bottom line is that right wingers want to keep gays from marrying one another because they (the right wingers) do not approve. Tough. Nobody cares whether you like it.

The argument that gays are free to marry, so long as they marry one of the opposite sex is just stupid and unworthy. Please come up with a legal reason why they should not be allowed to marry or give it up. If your church forbids it, fine. Then don't engage in the practice. I have no problem with churches being able to refuse to marry gays. But, they have no right to foist their opinions on others who do not share the faith.

No one has presented an argument suggesting that gays do not make for strong families. There is much anecdotal evidence suggesting that they do. But, very often men and women do not make ideal spouses and parents. Yet, there is no outcry for banning heterosexual marriages.

Gays have the right to marry. Churches have the right to oppose or support gay marriage. Neither has the right to dictate to the other. By the way, can anyone tell me how allowing gay marriage would affect their own marriage negatively. I have heard this claim ad nauseum but never with an ounce of substance behind it.

Can we just let people marry who they choose and move on to important issues like the national debt, bush's mismanagement of the war and what we are all wearing to the Kerry inaugural?

Well said was worth repeating!

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

my point is they are Americans and are equal. They are making a big deal out of nothing. Really nothing.

Are they being throne in prison no. So what do they have to complain about but some Christians that hate them. we all have people that hate us so chill.

There is nothing in the law that requires the parties to love each other, give a flying fig about each other, or want to marry each other. It is a legal civil contract providing with certain requirements built in and certain benefits built in..

I feel the need to point out, once again, that gays have the exact SAME rights as hetero's do. There is no discrimination.

McGentrix wrote:

I feel the need to point out, once again, that gays have the exact SAME rights as hetero's do. There is no discrimination.

On paper perhaps they do, but no one here is naive to believe they are not on the receiving end of discrimination.......there is a world of difference in being entitled to something, even by law, and actually receiving it equally in the real world........

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I feel the need to point out, once again, that gays have the exact SAME rights as hetero's do. There is no discrimination.

On paper perhaps they do, but no one here is naive to believe they are not on the receiving end of discrimination.......there is a world of difference in being entitled to something, even by law, and actually receiving it equally in the real world........

So are blacks, protestants, catholics, hispanics, women, children, poles, haitians, cubans, etc., etc...

What's the point? Everyone is discriminated against one way or another.

Answer my question bear, Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

*sigh* I didn't think you would.

As long as there are more catholics that gays in america, this debate will rage.

I would be all for dropping the word marriage as I have said repeatedly, but, it's your position that that is not good enough. You need to rub other peoples beliefs into the ground. For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament egaul to being baptised, and having communion. You are telling Catholics that they must believe something else now because the gays need to have special rights.