Gay marriage leaps ahead in Maine, New Hampshire

Score! That's another point for Team Rational! Only 44 more to go . . .

Referendum or not, it seems the elected representatives of Maine and New Hampshire realize that the two conservative views of "no gay marriage" and "minimal government interference" don't quite jibe with one another, particularly when one is talking about constitutionality. Opposition to gay marriage is rooted inarguably in Christian religious dogma, and any law passed in acknowledgment of any tenet of a particular faith clearly violates the separation clause of the First Amendment.

This issue will make it to the Supreme Court one day, and the Court will rule that this obstinate anti-gay marriage sentiment is simply institutionalized discrimination in yet another form, cloaked in the supposed benevolence of "Christian family values."

Good on Maine. Let's hope the other states hurry up and get in gear. Marriage has no meaning whatsoever so long as those who can love and bind with one another are limited and the rights of others are not included. Those that argue that marriage is a 'binding of MAN and WOMAN' need to drop the biblical dogma and get with the times. Otherwise, we may as well just throw the whole institution away.

Now the men in Maine can marry their main man!

We should lock them away, out of public view. What is becoming to our society when gay marriage is accepted by some. It sickens me, it's goddam unnatural and perverted.

LFRAgain at 09:45 AM JST - 7th May, I agree with everything except your prediction of the action of the Supreme Court. Of course, that should be their finding, but I am not so hopeful that even they can separate themselves from Christianity and the opinion of the masses for half a second and just vote straight reason.

Reason seems somewhat out of fashion in America. It hurts too many people's brains it seems.

OnTheRecord: We should lock them away, out of public view.

Irrational people? Agreed. But where to put them all?

What is becoming to our society when gay marriage is accepted by some.

Advancement.

It sickens me,

Eye surgery sickens me. But you don't see me trying to ban it.

Anyway, its not all about you and your little feelings and you should have figured that out around age 5 or so.

it's goddam unnatural and perverted.

ANY marriage is unnatural. You do not see deer weddings do you? You don't see bears exchanging rings.

And perverted? Now you are talking about gay sex I expect. Yes, its both unnatural and perverted. But so is lingerie, oral sex, shaving, adult toys, even when used between a man and a woman!

You are just applying what you are used to and comfortable with to define natural and perverted. You have nothing else to back up your opposition. And like I said, its NOT all about you and your little feelings. Its about people's rights, whether you like them or not.

I am a conservative, and this is the conservative position on gay marriage:

The true conservative position is that the government has no say in the business of marriage. Government cannot tell you who you can and cannot marry. It's up to two people to make that decision.

The only people who want gay marriage illegal are religious nutjobs, liberals, socialists and communists. True conservatives know that the government has no say in the matter.

Good move forward this. People should not be marginalized just because of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, talk about locking people up just because they are gay sounds more Germany 1930s and modern society. Even if you do find the gay lifestyle not to your own tastes, these people deserve the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us.

It's relieving to see some of these advancements on society and in American thinking. Of course everybody doesn't like gay marriage. If they did we'd be quickly declining in population numbers.

But for those who do want to marry some one of the same sex, I'm glad to see that opportunity coming about.

Someday it'll come to your state or a state near you. < :-)

TokyoHustla: ...the government has no say in the business of marriage. Government cannot tell you who you can and cannot marry. It's up to two people to make that decision.

The quote bit is right on the money TokyoHustla!

But in actuality, this is not about the government stopping a marriage. They cannot do that. What this is about is the government recognizing the marriage and granting the rights that married people are supposed to have, as well as regulating their relationship with eachother, ie setting a legal framework for the government to deal with them, and in case there is some trouble between the marriage partners requiring government or court intervention.

The question is not "Should gay marriage be allowed." That is a shorthand that is being misunderstood. The question is "Should gay marriage be granted the same legal and rights status as hetero marriage."

Gay marriage leaps ahead in Maine, New Hampshire

Maybe "prances" or "minces" would be a better verb.

Heh....Reality 1, Flat-Earthers nil.

There are some Indian tribes where brothers and sisters can marry. There are some cultures where parents can marry their children(I assume if they are of marriageable age). There are other cultures that can marry animals or inanimate things. Perhaps these too will come upon us after all states approve gay marriage.

"Heh....Reality 1, Flat-Earthers nil."

Well, if you want to be precise, it's actually more like Reality 6, Flat-Earthers 29, counting the number of states that actually passed legislation specifically banning the recognition of same-sex marriages.

Reality and Reason still have a way to go, but I have faith in people, believe it or not, to do the right thing when they finally realize how childishly paranoid they are truly being with regard to homosexuality in general.

It took almost 200 years for Americans to get past the idiotic premise that skin color determined one's "superiority."

It took almost as long for them to get over the idea that women might just very well be equal to men in all the best ways that make us human.

So it's really only a matter of time before one of the final barriers of human ignorance is finally breached. I'd bet my life on it.

Certainly not the values the US of A was founded upon. The society will not last. The right to free speech will be curtailed to enforce this unnatural behavior. When this unnatural behavior begins to be taught in schools the 97 percent will rise. I hope peacefully.

skipthesong:There are some Indian tribes where brothers and sisters can marry. There are some cultures where parents can marry their children(I assume if they are of marriageable age). There are other cultures that can marry animals or inanimate things. Perhaps these too will come upon us after all states approve gay marriage.

Could we just cross one bridge at a time please??? This bridge is safe to cross. And crossing it is right. That is all that matters at this time.

Sorry, it was just the score for one match...

OneForAll: Certainly not the values the US of A was founded upon.

This is not about values. This is about rights.

The society will not last.

What society has? This society won't last, but it won't be because a small minority of homos had their marriages recognized by the government. It might for not being able to see the forest for the trees though.

The right to free speech will be curtailed to enforce this unnatural behavior.

I hope not. But if it does it would not be the first time nor the most severe case. Even so, oppose that, IF it happens.

Skin color/gender are traits people are born with. Sin, a word people may hate, is a choice. Perhaps some are born with a greater tendency then others for sin through genetics and environment. Our society might not outlaw all these things we know are wrong, but it surely should not confuse right from wrong. We all know, don't we, the proper way. We just cannot do it. Should we make all of society say it is right? When it is wrong? This is what is happening. Just do your thing, let God be the judge and let society keep its eyes on what is right and proper. It is a sensitive issue and is better to let it rest. Please keep it away from children, is all I ask.

Please keep it away from children, is all I ask.

Keep what away from the children? So Adam and Steve across the street are married. So what? Most children barely have a concept of male female marriage. And they are not going to go gay for seeing Adam and Steve hold hands. They might grow up to flirt with bi-sexuality, but who cares? Its not like there will be any gay offspring.

And look on the bright side: There will probably be a lot fewer gays marrying the opposite sex just to make kids. This could actually REDUCE genetic homosexuality, IF you believe in such a thing. I do not.

Sin, a word people may hate, is a choice.

Pure homosexuality is NOT a choice. A true gay never chose to be that way. You can argue genetics and you can argue subconcious, either way, its NO choice, and its silly to suggest it is.

"The values America was founded included slavery, slaughter of Native Americans, and oppression of women, as well as gays."

You just make Americans laugh.

Staunchest opposition to gay marriage in America comes from the very same group that, as a single demographic, showed the broadest - indeed overwhelming - support for Obama.

But we can't talk about that...

You are funny likeitis. It is a sensitive issue and is better to let it rest. No one should be bothering any gays. Rights for all people in relationships should be there. I think they are. Child taking care of parent, two people living together platonically or whatever to cut costs, single moms/dads...all should have rights. I think they do. Come to think of it is not marriage a special case of a man and a woman? For something called a biological family? Perhaps I am wrong.

It took almost 200 years for Americans to get past the idiotic premise that skin color determined one's "superiority."" There are other countries where it took longer and there are still countries that believe that. The US does not hve a monopoly on that.

It took almost as long for them to get over the idea that women might just very well be equal to men in all the best ways that make us human." well, you need to start talking to a lot of so called "open minded ones" here on JT becasue they are usually jumping to the defense of those that still to this day do just that.

So it's really only a matter of time before one of the final barriers of human ignorance is finally breached. I'd bet my life on it." How do you know you are right?

Staunchest opposition to gay marriage in America comes from the very same group that, as a single demographic, showed the broadest - indeed overwhelming - support for Obama.

But we can't talk about that...

You know, you have a point here.

What is becoming to our society when gay marriage is accepted by some. It sickens me, it's goddam unnatural and perverted.

I have a hard time accepting that God considers one of God's creations as unnatural and perverted.

And that doesn't even touch on John 3:16.

Taka

Staunchest opposition to gay marriage in America comes from the very same group that, as a single demographic, showed the broadest - indeed overwhelming - support for Obama.

I would really like to see some facts to support that but really, your statement simply states that even the people who have the "staunchest opposition to gay marriage in America" were smart enough to see that the War in Iraq, the economy and affordable health care were all more important than the right-wing shrieking points about gay marriage and flag lapel pins.

Taka

Taka

You just make Americans laugh.

Its a more clever response than trying to deny it, I will give you that. I am not falling for it though.

Ah the "flat earth" people are up in an uproar again. Well that must only mean more States are allowing people to get married.

Wonder why the far right bigots would worry about people getting married? Why would they feel so threatened by humans that love each other putting rings on their fingers?

You know fear is really a killer. Did you know that people are not born hating others. Hate is taught at an early age by their parents/churches/religions/groups? But no one is born hating anyone else.

Well there is another reason to hate something or someone. You hate them because you are hiding from the fact that you admire them and really wish to be like them.

Ever wondered why Ted Haggard was so opposed to gay people when he was one himself? Real simple, you hate what you are.

Sad really, if only parents/churches/religions/groups would not teach the young to hate what a different world we would live in today....

LA Times:

70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds 12:10 PM | November 5, 2008

Same sex marriage is not about rights....it's about wrongs. To those of you who like the genetic argument, I suggest you update your information. It has been proven that genetics IS NOT the determining factor of a person with a same sex attraction disorder...And since several of you brought God into this, God has provided a way of healing for those suffering from this affliction.

I don't think any amount of Tea-bagging wil help the radical right defeat Gay marriage. Heh, I'd like to mention clenched fists, but it makes my eyes water..

OneForAll: " Please keep it away from children, is all I ask."

Let's not let kids see a woman working outside the kitchen, while we're at it! (sarcasm). If kids seeing a gay couple holding hands (with rings on them) leads to them being more comfortable with the human sexual preferences (and their differences) in general, and leads to less homophobic morons in the world, all the better. Don't confuse it with exposing kids to gay sex -- kids shouldn't be 'exposed' to sex at all (as in, seeing the act), regardless of who is engaged with whom.

Homosexuality is biological, and occurs in creatures other than humans (and hence it is natural). Not my cup of tea, but it's entirely up to those who are gay if they wish to marry or not, and is a right that cannot be denied by people with outdated and bigoted concepts of what marriage should be.

sharky1: "To those of you who like the genetic argument, I suggest you update your information. It has been proven that genetics IS NOT the determining factor of a person with a same sex attraction disorder"

Where are you links, bud? And don't waste our time with the pages of religious nuts and bigots.

"And since several of you brought God into this, God has provided a way of healing for those suffering from this affliction."

Always confirms who the real nuts are when they come out with statements like this. What's more, it always proves just how wrong you are in opinion and fact. Wake up -- it's the 21st century.

Being gay is a lifestyle choice, as recently proved by church experts.

If you can'T live be society's norms then you should not reap the benefits of normal hardworking tax payers like myself.

OnTheRecord,

Could you explain how the church experts proved what you assert?

Taka

OnTheRecord: "Being gay is a lifestyle choice, as recently proved by church experts."

The latter part of your statement says it all. They also 'proved' that the world was square, among other moronic things and ludicrous ideas. Church experts are experts at nothing but church, and even then their expertise can be called into question.

Let's get away from God a moment.

Two men or women want to get married. They want to live their lives together, they want the tax advantages, they want health benefits, they want heir benefits, they want all the things given to hetrosexual couples without God's blessing. It's called equality.

When did any of you posters last speak to God and he tell you that gay marriage is wrong?

Just look at the simple polls that JT does. They show a majority of posters want equality and gay marriage should be allowed. It's just that the minority of people don't want it. Slowly your majority will get smaller and smaller. There will always be people that believe that gay marriage is wrong. Just like there will always be men who believe that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or that blacks should be an oppressed race. Or that Iraq still has WMD buried there.

Gay marriage is here to stay. < :-)

"Could you explain how the church experts proved what you assert?"

I'm wondering if he means Super Latent's like my old bud, evangelist and former W bush Whitehouse spiritual advisor, Ted Haggard. Let's face it, after closed door sessions with other like-minded religious dudes he was decared "completely hetrosexual".

I guess that puts him back on the street to speak out against gay unions, though I'm at a loss as to where he'll get his meth and the odd (cough) massage...

After 8 years of Bush and other related flat-earthers, it's nice to see the US moving forward again, whilst the extreme right becomes more marginalized each day.

A marriage or any union should only be between man and woman. Same sex relationships are immoral and in a better society would be punishable with lengthy jail sentences. This gay business is just an trend, something weak minded people are dragged into. They need to be re-educated to lead decent lives and banned from marrying, that is a must.

"Same sex relationships are immoral and in a better society would be punishable with lengthy jail sentences."

Go live in Iran, or go back in time to Nazi Germany.

"They need to be re-educated to lead decent lives and banned from marrying, that is a must."

Your comments are getting funnier and funnier... and I don't even think you're being serious anymore. No one who makes such comments could actually think such things.

smithinjapan: Some of us believe in living a moral life and wish to grow up in one not tainted by deviants.

Gay marriage encourages sexual deviation and will begin the breakdown of the very fabric of our society. It is a shame so many posters here support this vile practice, dirty, dirty, dirty!

"Gay marriage encourages sexual deviation"

Hmmmm....I know you're trolling, but I'm wondering how hetro-sexual "deviants" become that way. Is that because of gay marriage too?

Madverts: Normal folk who are deviants, ie going to hookers are punished by the law, so why not gays? Marriage, it will be banned soon. May the moral majority be victorious.

OnTheRecord you believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't.

You believe that gay marriage is diviant behavior. I don't.

Many conservatives believe the way you do. A poll was taken last week about how many people associate themselves as conservative republicans and the poll registered less tham 30%.

OnTheRecord your minority of believers is dwindling. < :-)

My posts are totally serious. As a god fearing true American patriot i am saddened by the lack of morals these days, including this gay marriage fad, which hopefully will be outlawed of fade away like other fads.

Moderator: You've already made your point numerous times. Please move the discussion on and refrain from making inflammatory remarks.

OnTheRecord you can rise up all you want. You're mission to abolish gay marriage was over a long tiome ago. It will never be pushed back behind closed doors any longer and the world will change around you while you sit there wanting to go back to the days of yore.

It's like I used to tell my grandfather, The world's changing whether you want it to or not. < :-)

Gay marriage is wrong, decent folk hate the idea of it. None of my circle of friends approves of gay marriage or of same sex relationships.

On the record,

Who cares what adults do or how they live on their own. Why dont you homophobes care about something that really matters like poverty or improving the horrible divorce rates among born-again bible belters. Or incest which happens far to often in the USA.

Time for good old fashioned morals, respect for authority and good manners to return. I hark back to a golden era of prosperity where gays were not even mentioned, let alone seen and allow to "marry". A wedding can only be between a man and woman, anything else is a farce.

Smithinjapan...where are your links bud...I am a psychologist...

I hark back to a golden era of prosperity where gays were not even mentioned, let alone seen and allow to "marry"

Prosperity? You mean like during civil wars, panics, and depressions? Your bleating of this "golden era" is nothing more than a myth.

The real golden era, if it ever comes into existence, will be when people can look upon their neighbors with genuine love and tolerance. The reason that nobody in your "circle of friends" approves is that you would likely reject anyone who did.

OnTheRecord, how old are you? When was this golden era you speak of? Have you lived through this golden era or did you read about it somewhere? < :-)

OnTheRecord.... as a fellow godfearing true non-American patriot, I can hardly disagree with you more.

The moral majority you seem to represent are on the backfoot and will, hopefully, be nothing but a bad memory in my lifetime.

Fascinating again to see that a thread about gay marriage becomes for the int'l Left a referendum on organized religion. Yet, it is only in the advanced nations of the world - all Christian, it hardly needs pointing out - where the issue of gay marriage is even raised.

And, as we see with some of the "progressives" supposedly in favor of gay marriage they are not above insinuating (essentially insulting) that resistance to it means you must be 'closeted' or 'light in the loafers' (as zurcronium once put it).

it is only in the advanced nations of the world - all Christian, it hardly needs pointing out - where the issue of gay marriage is even raised.

in spite of, not because of christians

For the record, lest anyone take his/her posts too much to heart on either side, OnTheRecord is and has always been couching his/her posts in a hefty dose of over-the-top sarcasm. My compliments to him for accurately portraying the most ardent homophobes among us.

LFRAgain- a nice point. OnTheRecord is almost too much the perfect homophobe to be true. S/He is saying all the (Christian) right things to set the hackles standing.

Now "Liberals" want marriage to mean more than a bond between just two:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/threesome-marriages/

teleprompter now you figured it out. We liberals want threesome marriages. Everyone of us want multiple marriages so we can all have sex with multiple women every night.

Yeah teleprompter we liberals want to go the extra step. We want to go past gay marriages, right on into threesome, foursome and maybe fivesome marriages.

This is actually a comspiracy derived by the phariceteucal (sp) companies in an effort to sell Viagra. Once we get into our older years we can buy Viagra to keep up with these numerous women.

Then it's a conspiracy by the Funeral Directors Group. The more threesome and foursomes and fivesomes we have then men will die off faster. They'll get to perform more funerals.

< :-)

Teleprompter,

" . . . is only in the advanced nations of the world - all Christian, it hardly needs pointing out - where the issue of gay marriage is even raised."

Not that I need to point out to anyone here your legendary selective interpretation skills and liberal cherry picking of facts, but what sets many Western nations apart from nations that don't allow free discourse on the topic of homosexuality is not necessarily their "Christian-ness" but rather – dare I say it – their liberal traditions, traditions, need I remind you, that hold sacrosanct the unfettered right to worship freely– or NOT worship – as each individual sees fit.

America is not a Christian nation; it’s a nation that values the protection of religious freedom.

Why has this turned into referendum on organized religion? I would think that was obvious, even to you: Organized religion – American Christianity in particular – makes up the vast bulk of opposition to gay marriage, gay unions, gay rights, or gay anything.

Organized religion has managed to mobilize its considerable power to influence public policy and law, to the point where it is quite honestly constitutionally illegal. No one wants to admit as much, ignoring that particular white elephant in the middle of the living room, but there it is: Any law that specifically reserves certain social, economic, and political privileges for one group at the exclusion of another is an unconstitutional violation of civil rights. Period.

Incidentally, there isn’t a single state among the 26 that currently prohibit gay unions from using the term “marriage” that has provided a compelling legal argument dispelling the unconstitutionality of this 21st Century version of “Separate But Equal.” Not one. And when pressed, opponents of gay marriage can only fall back to blubbering about something they may or may not have read in the Bible once.

And at the end of the day, when all you have left to prosecute your empty rationale against gay marriage is religion, how seriously do you really expect people to take you? Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with economics. It has nothing to do with declining birthrates. It has nothing to do with health risks. It has nothing to do with increased crime rates. It has no more to do with declining social morality than say, Bristol Palin getting knocked up, heading off to a shotgun wedding, then calling the whole thing off later to inevitably raise the baby on her own as a – gasp! – single mother!

When even the best arguments against gay marriage wither away in the face of facts and truth, opponents invariably fall back to the religious argument, brandishing archaic mishmash pulled from a “holy” text so rife with contradictions and hypocrisy as to suggest it may be no more than the collected rantings of a victim of acute schizophrenia.

One thing the opposition does have a lot to do with, however, is cloaking personal distaste for something in religious doctrine, as if applying a veneer of religion to a given position, no matter how outrageous, is all that’s need to convey legitimacy. But make no mistake that the veneer is a thin one that Americans are starting to see through with increasing frequency and clarity.

Religion and the politics of religion are the ONLY reason there is any organized opposition to gay rights at all in the US. And in a nation founded on LAW and REASON, that’s not only shamefully insufficient, but it’s also unacceptable.

LFR,

Good post.

LFR +1, very good post.

Truth is, same-sex marriage is here to stay...

Gay marriage makes me cringe. Accidentally running across gay porn on the net makes me sick.

LFRAgain at 02:59 PM JST - 8th May

That post is as good as posts get. Worthy of Platinum font I would say.

Still, I have to disagree with this:

Religion and the politics of religion are the ONLY reason there is any organized opposition to gay rights at all in the US.

Actually, I think religion is a mere excuse for what boils down to a personal distaste and/or a belief that gay marriage, despite how few there would actually be, will destroy society.

The last one is odd though. The ancient Greeks and Romans too did pretty well without such homophobia, and I cannot say I have ever heard of anyone claiming that their declines were due to widespread gay love.

Likeitis - you hit it on the head when you said we fear the loss of our freedom.

I discussed this subject today at my golf club. Not one of my buddys agreed gay marriage ir right, so much for me being in the minority folks!

Gay supporters,when the US becomes like Sodom in Biblical times, don't start whinging because it was all your fault. Get some morals now and join the campaign to ban same sex marriage and criminilise homosexuality.

the anti-gay marriage folks are just haters, that is all. They fear what they do not understand, which is a lot apparently.

Ontherecord, you are in minority in the USA as most polls show support for civil unions for gay folks. Most people do not care what others do in their own homes or how they live. Only the uptight self-righteous zealots christians try to pretend they are better than others and can tell others how to live their lives. Meanwhile they divorce at over 50% rates insulting the very institution of marriage anyway. In Vermont the gay divorce rate is below 5%. Which group really honors marriage?

If anything is unnatural it's marriage. You don't find marriage in the animal kingdom. Marriage was a way that people could force a man to take care of his children, for a man could simply deny that a woman's child was his thereby avoiding responsibility. A man's wife was his property and therefore all things that derived from her (i.e. children) was his responsibility. Adultery was a crime of violating a man's property as the charge didn't apply to married men who went to see hookers. The church only didn't like gays because they couldn't produce children who could be inducted at birth into the folds of the religion thereby increasing it's power base, propogating the faith. In those days Christianity was fledgling and this law would help increase the numbers.

I aint no hater , far from it. I love living life in a moral way, in accordance with my beliefs.I love all my fellow men. I do not hate homosexuals only their deviant behavior.

Nature tells us a union should only be between a man and a woman. I intend to drum up support, to ensure the next Republican government makes gay marriage and homosexual practices illegal. It will make the country a safer and better place for us all and our future generations.

Woo-hoo! I'm happy for them, and happy that I live far enough away where I won't be buying any wedding gifts. But maybe this is how gay marriage is going to happen, state by state. My parents were so miserable being married that I used to pray that they'd divorce, but they never did. If I could've chosen between (a) my arguing hetero parents with lots of passive-aggressive "pay-backs" or (b) happy gay parents, I would've had my tiny suitcase packed in 5 minutes and been saying adios muchachos. I won't say anything about the neanderthals right now, only that they won't win.

I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and wish i could educate the less moral on this site, to change their misguided immoral views about homosexuals.

I spoke to my friends today and none of them were against gay marriage. They all supported gays in their endeaver to live a happy and fulfilled lives. I guess I'm in the majority.

I was raised in the Baptist church. Everything was immoral including playing cards on Sunday and dancing. Dancing no less.

I went off to the military, served with gays who of course they weren't open about it, but that did their jobs just like me.

Left the military and retired from civil service, have many gay friends and found in my 57 years that gays are no difference then anybody else except their sexual prefence. There are conservative gays on the right side of the aisle and liberal gays on the left side of the aisle.

Remember blacks and white dating? The uproar? The people murdered? Even through all that, people of color and white still become friends, lovers and parents.

Believe what you like, live your life not harming others and allow others to live their lives as they want. < :-)

wish i could educate the less moral on this site, to change their misguided immoral views about homosexuals.

by repeating the same bigoted nonsense over and over again. good luck with that

One could easily be persuaded that OnTheRecord is the most pro-gay marriage person here. He is giving the Christian right a very bad name and drumming up massive support for gay marriage with his extremist posts.

One could easily be persuaded that OnTheRecord is the most pro-gay marriage person here.

They'd be among that special 10 percent?

Far as I'm concerned, what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom, is their own business. I think its wrong, but if you want to do that kind of stuff, you're adults. With marriage though, thats essentially trying to get society to come out and say that homosexuality is ok, and a lot of people, myself included don't agree. Its not ok, its just not my business. Kind of like Abortion. Its wrong, but I shouldn't be telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. Thats freedom for you.

i was reading an interesting thing on the net the other night. the argument was that heterosexual men should actively support the legitimisation of homosexuality. the argument was that the easier it is for men to come out, the more will, thus putting them clearly off the heterosexual market and thus increasing the value of "in the market" heterosexual males.

quite an interesting argument, i think!

OntheRecord I with OntheRecord and Molenir. This all just muddies marriage which should be as the ceremony tries to make it. Does not always work. "...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever, is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things." I am moving off this subject folks. Cheers and may we all get along. Agree to disagree, ne. Catholics still hold the sanctity of marriage and will always. A home for many.

Molenir,

You seem to be obsessing on the sexual aspect of homosexual relationships, which, to me, seems to suggest you think that’s all there is to them, which would be ignorance of the highest order, but since that’s the key sticking point for you, let’s look at that: Is it anal sex that makes you squeamish? Many heterosexual couples do it all the time. Utterly shocking, yes, I know. In fact, many states have eliminated anti-sodomy laws from their law books in order to accommodate the apparent regularity of sodomy in committed relationships.

Is it fellatio or cunnilingus that turns you off? Many heterosexual couples enjoy both, and it seems to be the favorite fallback for teens taking “Abstinence Vows” in the face of unrealistic promises to curb the powerful teen hormonal impulse to go forth and procreate.

The things that go on in some heterosexual bedrooms would curl the toes of even the most ardent pervert. But it’s somehow more acceptable for heterosexual couples than same-sex couples because of the vagina/penis ratio? If you can't actually explain how one is right while the other is wrong, I mean other than, "Well, that's just the way it's always been done," then your argument is purely irrational. And you can't make laws based on irrationality.

With regard to your clear anxieties about changes to the status quo of marriage, I offer this short tidbit I wandered across today while on a Snipe hunt for one of Teleprompter's arguments. Not my words, I admit, but they speak well to your argument about attitudes towards marriage and what constitutes right or wrong in the society's eyes:

"An off-the-cuff list of fundamental changes to marriage would include not only divorce and property reform but also the abolition of polygamy, the fading of dowries, the abolition of childhood betrothals, the elimination of parents' right to choose mates for their children or to veto their children's choices, the legalization of interracial marriage, the legalization of contraception, the criminalization of marital rape (an offense that wasn't even recognized until recently), and of course the very concept of civil marriage. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29169.html

Each of the changes mentioned above faced considerable resistance from society, with claims running the gamut of how fast and completely such revisions of what constitutes marriage would bring about the collapse of civilization. And yet marriage still chugs along as a human institution, in spite of – or perhaps thanks to – these changes.

Moderator: Back on topic please. The subject is gay marriage, not heterosexual behavior.

LFR - another fine post, sir. The sexual aspect does seem to be what make many of the opponents of gay marriage bristle, something I wholeheartedly agree is their own irrational fear of gay sex - which in turn makes me wonder why....

Madverts : LFR - another fine post, sir.

Agreed, with all but the "sir".

LFR: And you can't make laws based on irrationality.

Again, one small complaint from me. Yes you CAN make laws based on irrationality, and there are plenty. But there should NOT be.

It was simply intended as a mark of respect - eleqoent, reasonable and cool-headed postings. JT hasn't seen the likes of that in a while and I commend it, hence the "sir". Heh, hopefully LFR isn't a ma'am....

Heh, hopefully LFR isn't a ma'am....

She is. I approve of the respect, we just need a neuter gender word.

"gay marriage"

If gay people want to be partners for life, they can certainly do that, but it's not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Sarge: Marriage is between a man and a woman. What is so difficult to understand about that?

If that is your definition, fine. Keep it. Just don't force it on everybody.

If gay people want to be partners for life, they can certainly do that,

They can. But at present they are being forced to do it without legal recognition of the fact. What is so hard to understand about how unfair that is?

"She is"

Whoops. Sorry, LFR....,ma'am :D Bollocks to neuter gender words Likeitis, we're all made how we are. Heh, though speaking latin languages hasn't helped me explain all that...., despite everything having a sex.

"despite everything having a sex."

And I meant adjectives by that.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Why? Because you say so?

"Why? Because you say so?"

No, because that's what it is. Why, do you think marriage is between two men, or two women?

Sarge: Great post buddy. Marriage is indeed for man and woman. Same sex relationships and marriages are deviant and repulse decent folk.

Homosexual relationships and marriage must be outlawed to keep our society and children safe.

Madverts said:

(quoting Sarge)

"Marriage is between a man and a woman."

M:

Why? Because you say so?

Sarge said:

(quoting Madverts)

"Why? Because you say so?"

S:

No, because that's what it is. Why, do you think marriage is between two men, or two women?

Madverts, Sarge is using the typical logical fallacy of circular reasoning. It's all hes got.

"No, because that's what it is." doesn't cut it. It is whatever the law says it is and nothing else. As these states change their laws then what "it is" will vary from state to state until the bigotry is finally over and it is the law of the land throughout the U.S..

LFRAgain - I don't know why you seem to think I'm hung up over sex. Thought I was pretty clear in my previous post, guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm against gay marriage because it is essentially giving a pass to homosexuals. It is saying, what you are is ok. As someone who is against this, I am against gay marriage. You have to understand the difference between public and private here. What someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom, isn't my business. I think homosexuality is wrong, but what consenting adults do in their bedroom isn't my business. Its when its open in society that I start to have a problem. The reason for that, is because it encourages people who otherwise would have fought those feelings they have, and that would have otherwise engaged in a normal healthy lifestyle. I'm not going to get into the subject of what is healthy about a normal lifestyle, as this is about gay marriage. A lot of proponents of gay marriage like to stop you hear and talk about divorce rates etc, which is off topic and beside the point.

We all have issues, and fighting the parts of us that tell us to do something wrong, is part of life. By encouraging homosexuality in society, you are saying its ok, and quite frankly its not. By pushing gay marriage, you are essentially pushing your values and beliefs onto me. You are saying, this is right, and fair, and society should, when a lot of people are not ok with this.

Likitis - If that is your definition, fine. Keep it. Just don't force it on everybody.

My point exactly. Don't try to force your morality on me. Thank you.

Look at the pathetic name calling by the honosexual supporters, doesn't surprise me in the least.

Those of us unafraid of the PC crowd who support the latest fad at all times, have the moral high ground. We do not name call those who beleiev in gay marriage or make unfoiunded allegations about them.

I know i am right in saying marriage is for man and woman and i am sure everyone on here would agree, if they weer not afraid of looking un pc, very sad.

I don't believe that the conservatives who oppose gay marriage are gay. There are ardent opponents to gay marriage that do not appear like one who is on a tirade. It is obvious why Ted Haggard and the Congressmen who bellowed out their moral outrage turned out to be gay. It was an inner conflict. I don't see that inner conflict displayed by hatred in any posters here; well except one.

Most of us have seen examples in real life also. That is one of the reasons that so many heterosexuals support gay marriage. They have seen the fight and struggle that gays have fought just to be allowed to bedroom. We have no doubt that many now saying "What they do in the bedroom is their business" were not saying that in the past. It is so funny that it is not gay people making the accusations. It is straight people. We have often enough seen the gay tirades to recognize those who are over the top. There will be 5 to 10 conservatives debating and one will stick out like a sore thumb.

The straight conservatives have pretty much come around to the position of civil unions. They understand that people don't choose to be gay. But the gay conservative (closeted ones) who says homosexuality should be totally illegal is really fighting an internal struggle. They must not tolerate anything gay lest they tolerate themselves and then they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

OnTheRecord, your kids will be gay. It's called karma and it'll come for you. Meanwhile, those of us who are progressive are more intelligent and we know what's right. If it was against nature to be gay, there wouldn't be any gays. They're not going away and neither is gay marriage and gay rights. GET USED TO IT. Make peace with it and be a better person.

I know homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and should be criminilised not being made acceptable by marriage. Our society is sinking, what with, narcotics, hookers, gun crimes and now the awful gay marriage craze.

America come back to your senses, the old days , truely were the golden days, and we didn't have gays on our televisions or parading down our sidewalks.

For the record, I’m not a “ma’am.” I’m a heterosexual male – for anyone who might be keeping track of demographic data at JT. ;-)

Molenir,

"I don't know why you seem to think I'm hung up over sex."

Because when you boil down every argument against gay marriage, and indeed homosexual behavior in general, it invariably comes down to sexual behavior. Period.

All other aspects of a relationship between two consenting adults are, for all practical purposes, the same. They speak to each other with the same respect and affection. They comfort one another in crisis the same way. They argue with the same degree of petty vindictiveness. The only difference is how they express sexual desire. For those of you who believe homosexuality is “wrong,” you have to at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that much in order for this conversation to progress in any appreciable way.

"I think homosexuality is wrong, but what consenting adults do in their bedroom isn't my business. Its when its open in society that I start to have a problem."

So, what you’re saying here is that by accepting that gays have the right to calling a civil union marriage, you somehow become more privy to what happens in their bedrooms? As opposed to the cluelessness and mystery you experience when pondering the ramifications of a heterosexual marriage?

Look, you know perfectly well that the idea of a heterosexual marriage is coupled hand-in-hand with the idea – indeed, the expectation – that sex is going to happen. In what capacity and variation, certainly we don’t – and shouldn’t – know. But calling a gay civil union a “marriage” isn’t going to magically make all of society aware of the goings-on of any given homosexual couple’s bedroom – at least not any more so than we are regarding what goes on in a heterosexual couple’s bedroom.

Are you offended by the implicit knowledge that sex in all its myriad forms goes on in the bedrooms of heterosexual couples? Probably not. But you know it’s happening, right? Your argument about homosexual marriages somehow forcing you to be more aware of their sexual activities makes little sense on multiple fronts.

”The reason for that, is because it encourages people who otherwise would have fought those feelings they have . . . “

You mean like how heterosexual teens are unsuccessfully fighting those feelings that compel them to have sex with classmates they’re attracted to? Again, not to belabor the point, but two words: “Abstinence Vows.”

”A lot of proponents of gay marriage like to stop you here and talk about divorce rates etc, which is off topic and beside the point.”

No, it’s not off the point at all – and doesn’t magically become so because you refuse to address it. It speaks very strongly to the supposed sanctity and inviolability of marriage, the cornerstone of anti-gay marriage proponents’ arguments, namely that marriage is a sacred institution not to entered into lightly. Well, statistically speaking, gay couples seem to hold marriage in greater esteem than heterosexual couples by a margin of 5 to 1, staying married and faithful more consistently than their heterosexual counterparts. Don’t know why, don’t know how, but I’m not making that up, the data is out there.

” Don't try to force your morality on me. Thank you.”

We, as Americans, force our morality on one another daily. Desegregation? Covered. Mormon polygamy? Put the kibosh on that. Legal age of consent? That’s covered in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Suffrage? Check. Arranges marriages? Nope. Raping one’s own wife by right? Sorry. Forcing our morality on each other is nothing new. You shouldn’t be suddenly put off by it now.

Let’s get something straight (no pun intended) right here and now: The idea that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle is a theory so riddled with holes to the contrary that no reasonable thinking adult should be even presenting the suggestion in a serious debate. Reams of data exist proving without a doubt that there are indeed specific genetic differences, particularly in male homosexuals, that set them apart from their heterosexual counterparts. Yes, homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon that finds expression in 5 to 10% of the population. No, it’s not a lifestyle choice, not for everyone, at least – after all, who would willingly choose to be a social pariah? And no, it can’t be “cured.”

Slapping a label of “wrong” on homosexuality is akin to slapping the same label on a blonde born amidst a village of traditional brunettes or a child borne with albinism. Being homosexual for most has very little to do with the completely arbitrary societal constructs of “right” or “wrong” and everything to do with being just what is it: Homosexual.

Furthermore, what you are suggesting with regard to homosexuals resisting their attraction to members of the same sex is no different from religions expecting followers to resist the heterosexual temptations of the flesh before marriage. How’s that been working out so far? Premarital heterosexual sex: Deviant? Wrong? Somehow, I don’t think you apply the same yardstick to heterosexual premarital sex, despite it being against all the social norms that anti-gay marriage advocates constantly brandish as talismans against so-called deviant behavior. That’s called hypocrisy where I’m from.

I’m not gay, but I have a lot of friends who are (always wanted to say that). If you want to understand why I am so fervently against this idea of society pursuing blatant discrimination against a significant percentage of the American population, the vast majority of who are productive members of society, then that’s where the answer lies. I know waiters, waitresses, cooks, beauticians, sales clerks, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and college professors who are gay – and most of them wouldn’t cause you to bat an eye if you didn’t know they were gay. They pay taxes, worry about the economy and property values, have mortgages, families, and pets. They interact with me no differently than any of my heterosexual friends do, and I respect the vast majority of them for being just plain decent human beings – just like my heterosexual friends.

Are there gays who are sexually deviant? Sure. Just as there are sexually deviant heterosexuals. Some of the offensive garbage I’ve heard come out of the mouths of male acquaintances in reference to females they are either currently dating or would like to conquer at some point make me want to knock their teeth out. But “gay” isn’t all that they are. Just as “heterosexual” isn’t the sum of who you are.

You seem stuck in this rut that equates homosexuality with the most deviant behavior imaginable, with gays being undeserving of even the most fundamental considerations of due process and civil liberty. And I’m here to tell you that the reality reveals a long trail of hypocrisy and double standards that would make Kim Jong-il blush.

The bible thumpers cant stay married long, this is a proven fact, so why should they care who else gets married?

50 years ago it was blacks they hated, and if a black married a white all hell broke loose. That battle is done now so the same hate first understand never crowd chooses to hate gays. After they lose this one it will be one-eyed midgets that do not have the right to vote or get married. If it were not so pathetic it would be hilarious what the wingers choose to make important to themselves. Fact is no one else cares anymore.

well said zurconium

America is going to hell anyway, so might as well allow gay marriage.

Likitis - If that is your definition, fine. Keep it. Just don't force it on everybody.

Molenir: My point exactly. Don't try to force your morality on me. Thank you.

What morality is being forced here and how?

Your stance is like saying there is one religion the government should officially recognize, allow to be non-taxable, and perform legal wedding ceremonies. Because if you recognize two religions, it will be forcing the second one on the first one.

Bizarre dude. You need to rethink what it means to force something on someone. What we are talking about here is two systems living side by side. Your intolerance is not compelling.

Look, you will still be free to be down on gay marriage. You will be free to tell your kids, your neighbors, your fellow Sunday worshippers, and even a married gay couple that they are not really married in your eyes, the eyes of the Lord, or whoever. You can still say they will be going to Hell.

I'm against gay marriage because it is essentially giving a pass to homosexuals.

1) They are not hurting you. 2) Anyone whose morality is dictated by the government is truly lost. Restaurant owners are free to charge 1 million dollars for everything on the menu. Its legal. You can tell your kids they are useless wastes of space from the day they are born. Its legal. It does not mean you should do those things, and most people know that. 3) They do not need your free pass. It has no real effect either way. Gay will not become widespread for this, nor will there be less gayness for cracking down. People don't wake up one day and say "Hey, I can be gay if I want to, so from today, I will be gay!" It seems you just want to hide gay sex, but you don't seem to understand that it will still be hidden.

Zurc: 50 years ago it was blacks they hated,...

You should not blame the religious types or even the pushy religious types for the things you mention. The people you mention are haters. Haters gravitate toward religions, its true, because it gives them a perfume of legitimacy to cover their foul air. It does not make them truly religious.

LFRAgain: Another great post. Respect, sir.

LFR: And no, it can’t be “cured.”

That would depend on what you mean by "cured". If you meant a true homosexual no longer desiring the same sex but only desiring the opposite sex as strongly as I do, then you are correct, there is no "cure"

But if you mean simply abstaining from gay sex, as the hater and the religious types mean, then that does sometimes happen given enough religious brain-washing and threats of eternal damnation. But such a hit-miss circumstance is hardly deserving of the word "cure", even in quotation marks, except in a very non-sensical mind. It just muddles the situation for the sake of appearance, negatively affecting the lives of the "cured" person and the unfortunate member of the opposite sex they may have married.

Further, false data gets generated on the subject as the "healers" come across bi-sexuals and people who just dabbled in gay sex, convince them to abstain from gay sex, and take their fervor for the opposite sex as proof that the "cure" worked. This is the work of the exact opposite of a scientific mind.

LFRAgain - Because when you boil down every argument against gay marriage, and indeed homosexual behavior in general, it invariably comes down to sexual behavior. Period.

You're leaving out the most important component of the issue. I don't know if you prefer not to deal with it, or just are ignoring the issue. Its not a sexual issue, but a moral one. Thats what the arguements come down to, not to sex. Again, I don't know why you seem to be so hung up on sex.

You're idea that homosexuality is inborn, and can't be controlled while widely accepted, is also wrong. While people do have inborn tendencies, they also have the ability to make choices. Many people are normal for years, and then only later, after they've had kids etc, decide they're gay. But its not only one way. I've known people who were gay, who decided for whatever reason, they didn't want to be, and so got counseling, and overcame their desires.

Whats amusing, is the hypocrisy in this argument. On the one hand, you want people to be born gay, to not have any choice in the matter. What they fail to accept, is that everyone is predisposed towards certain behaviors. When I was 15, I was predisposed to have sex with any girl who would look at me. I came to the realization that if I wanted to have a relationship with a girl, and not just a shallow one night stand, I needed to change, and deny that part of me. Homosexuals are no different. And thats why I'm opposed to acceptance of homosexuality in society. Morally, its wrong. For me thats what it comes down to. It has nothing to do with sex.

Some people might think that because I'm morally opposed to it, that I somehow hate homosexuals. But theres another thing at work. Freedom and choice. While I believe its wrong, I also believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions. As long as you aren't hurting someone else, as long as its between consenting adults, then its none of my business.

So, to sum up again, gay marriage, bad, homosexuality, bad. People, well everyone makes their own decisions, good or bad, and we have to live with the consequences of those choices.

50 years ago it was blacks they hated, and if a black married a white all hell broke loose. That battle is done now so the same hate first understand never crowd chooses to hate gays.

Perfect example of what the Left's focus on 'outcomes' does to the capacity for rational thought. And of course with the 'argument' from zurcronium we get the adolescent emotional blackmail the Left increasingly resort to in order to try and end debate - If you oppose gay marriage you must be some kind of "hater".

Yes, interracial marriage was a big deal fifty years ago. For many even marrying outside one's religion was. That view was hardly limited to the US of A. Fortunately much progress has been made since then.

But to equate agitating for same-sex marriage with the struggles of the civil rights movement is to me a slap in the face to black Americans and minorities who lived through that era before equality, and an even graver insult to those who never lived to see it.

I have deep suspicion of the real motives of anyone who could look at what blacks in America or Native Americans faced at one time and even try and say that a gay couple faces the same today.

Anyone who comes here with that has no grasp of or respect for the lessons of American history.

If - to use the scenario people like zurcronium often bring up - a "white" woman chooses to marry a "black" man and with the traditional goals and purposes of marriage in mind the physiological diff between him and any potential "white" male partner are, when you get down to biological considerations, nil.

Thus, it seems to me that the very facts and considerations that make interracial marriage acceptable, reasonable and just to most civilized people in the modern world argue quite clearly against same sex marriage - if you understand the word marriage to mean what it has in every culture:a union between a man and a woman.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. The subject is gay marriages, not interracial marriages.

Molenir: While people do have inborn tendencies, they also have the ability to make choices. Many people are normal for years, and then only later, after they've had kids etc, decide they're gay.

Decide? Did you "decide" you like the taste of natto, or "decide" you didn't? Of course it was neither. Decide is completely the wrong term. The term is, you figured it out.

And its quite possible for an oppressed gay man to try like hell to not admit he is gay, "appear" normal for years, have kids, and then realize one day that he is gay.

And woe to his wife and kids, and thanks to people like you for not accepting a simple fact that it does you no harm but still oppressing it.

But its not only one way. I've known people who were gay, who decided for whatever reason, they didn't want to be, and so got counseling, and overcame their desires.

I think the key words here are "I've known people". This does not remotely account for all. And if you have known people who did not go straight, would you tell us? If you did, would you simply blame them for failing, and punish them by barring gay marriage?

Even if you firmly believe what you say about people you have known, what about all those you don't know who can't change?

I came to the realization that if I wanted to have a relationship with a girl, and not just a shallow one night stand, I needed to change, and deny that part of me. Homosexuals are no different.

No different??? If you wanted a relationship with a girl, and to get it you had to have sex with a man (and like it) do you think you "make the change"? Because for a true homosexual male, having sex with a woman is as freaky as you having sex with a man.

Or is asexual marriage a fair option in your head?

While I believe its wrong, I also believe everyone has the right to make their own decisions. As long as you aren't hurting someone else, as long as its between consenting adults, then its none of my business.

If you believed those things you would have accepted the legal recognition of gay marriage by now.

Excellent post - LFRAgain at 02:21 AM JST - 10th May.

Interesting that you try to define the modern world based on "what was".

Oh, yes. Not only the modern world but also the future world. And its also interesting that despite the definition, the anti-gay marriage crowd had to make a sudden change to state constitutions to spell out that definition. In a way, what you claim is old seems kind of new.

Obviously we can't stop the momentum of same sex marriages, but it is wrong to legally force me to accept same sex marriage as something good and proper. It is wrong to make laws that say it is unethical for me not to accept people in same sex marriages because, unlike some in public office, I stand by my principles. You want same sex marriage, go ahead, but don't expect me to be obligated to cater to you just because you are in a same sex marriage.

sharky1: but it is wrong to legally force me to accept same sex marriage as something good and proper.

Nobody is. Its not part of the legislation. You will still be free to openly feel its disgusting, along with bi-racial marriage, or whatever you consider to be deviant heterosexual relationships or whatever.

You want same sex marriage, go ahead, but don't expect me to be obligated to cater to you just because you are in a same sex marriage.

Nobody is demanding you invite Adam and Steve over to a BBQ. Relax.

But if your store is offering a discount to married people, you better give Adam and Steve that discount. But when you do, you are still free to tell them how disgusting you think they are. Then you can tell your employees, your family, and your customers the same. Clear?

likeitis: great posts!

This issue boils down to simple common sense:

Do Americans have the right to interpret a religious book according to their own consciences? (Certainly, we see the vast differences between the Christian sects and offshoots from Mormonism to Seventh-Day Adventists as evidence of the allowance of differing interpretations.)

So, if the answer is "yes," then there is nothing to stop one group of individuals from deciding on the interpretation that a same-sex partnership is acceptable as a marriage. Once this is done, it puts government in the position to decide which theology has the correct interpretation -- something that the separation of church and state prohibits in the US.

Once you accept that the government has no right to say which group's interpretation is the correct one, it follows that the government has no right to deny what two consenting adults have agreed upon in the form of a contract.

Naturally, this would lead to a review of the laws against polygamy, anticipating questions about that.

Fortunately much progress has been made since then.

agreed let's keep moving forward. civil rights are civil rights, no matter how much blood was shed to get there. It's not a contest so belittling gay rights in context to black rights is pathetic.

likitis - This does not remotely account for all. And if you have known people who did not go straight, would you tell us?

Are you asking if I know any gay people? Honestly, I don't know. I certainly don't currently have any gay friends. There are some people who I work with who might be gay, but I haven't asked, and they haven't come out and said. I've known "out" gay people. I worked with a guy for several years who was like that. He was a pretty good guy. We had some interesting discussions on the subject of homosexuality.

Decide? Did you "decide" you like the taste of natto, or "decide" you didn't? Of course it was neither. Decide is completely the wrong term. The term is, you figured it out. And its quite possible for an oppressed gay man to try like hell to not admit he is gay, "appear" normal for years, have kids, and then realize one day that he is gay. And woe to his wife and kids, and thanks to people like you for not accepting a simple fact that it does you no harm but still oppressing it.

Actually, decide is the right word. As I mentioned before, everyone has certain tendencies within them they have to overcome. Its part of becoming an adult. Previously people who had these unnatural desires would fight them, and work to overcome them. To have a normal healthy life without giving in. You seem to think its impossible for someone with homosexual tendencies to get excited over a woman. Every guy who decided he was homosexual after having a wife and kids, can tell you differently. By making homosexuality ok, it means people who previously would fight their urges, now give in to them. Go back to my example of when I was 15, and think about what that would mean for me. I still lust after women, my girlfriend however would be seriously pissed if I slept around on her. We'd break up, and I'd lose everything we have. So, I look, but I don't touch, and I trust that she does the same. Thats my inborn tendency. Should I be like a homosexual, and give in?

Again, for me, its a moral issue. I realize that everyone has their issues. Many people do give in, have an affair, get caught get divorced. However while I accept that everyone has their issues, I don't go out of my way to celebrate their problems. I don't rejoice when someone has an affair. And I don't think that greater societal acceptance of Homosexuality is the way to go either.

The haters from the christian right will never understand this issue, its like their belief in WMD in Iraq. Somehow the order comes from God in their small minds. Which of course is a sad hoax.

What this is, as with minorities before, is the uptight religious hater types wanting to tell other people what to do. Even though as is well documented the haters cannot stay married themselves for all their religious goofiness.

No one has disputed the fact that if god exists he has consistently through the ages made gay people gay. Maybe god is gay too, not sure. But here on earth we can only control how we treat each other and preventing one group from the same rights as another is wrong. It was wrong against blacks, jews, the irish, and the christians too back in the day.

Anyway the haters will again lose, they know it, as they lost with hating blacks. Now a black is president and someday a gay person will be as well. At least openly gay, there are so many gay republicans who stay in the closet we may have had one already.

As opposed to the haters on the left who can't believe anyone could honestly disagree with them, and not be worthy of contempt. Perhaps the haters will win this time too. Gay Marriage does seem to be advancing despite all reason.

Yeah, the American people are divided, quartered, and distracted by the issues of the 5 G’s in u.s. politics (Gays, God, Guns, Gambling, and Gynecology), resulting in the political campaign issues that really matter and impact the lives of each and every citizen to be ignored. Does this mean the United States or New Hampshire can finally move on to the issues that really matter?

Molenir,

"As opposed to the haters on the left who can't believe anyone could honestly disagree with them, and not be worthy of contempt . . . Gay Marriage does seem to be advancing despite all reason."

I hope the contradiction in your own words here isn't lost on you. I seem to think my argument is quite reasonable. If you want respect, you've got to be willing to extend it as well.

I hear what you're saying about morality. I really do. But one man's morality is most certainly not another's. If for no other reason than because I brought her up earlier to illustrate a point, let's look at Bristol Palin's now-in-hiatus nuptials with What's-his-face. Personally, I can't think of anything more morally offensive than two horny teenagers screwing around without taking any sort of contraceptive precaution, getting knocked up, and responding with, "Well, guess we should get married 'cause it's what mom, dad, and the neighbors say is the right thing to do. Never mind that we haven't graduated from high school yet."

Shotgun weddings seem to be widely acceptable to some. For me, raising a child in a "Oops-a-daisy" household is simply unfathomable in the degree of irresponsibility and casualness that would preclude such a decision to get married without weighing all that such a civil union involves, including having the financial and emotional means to provide for the child's upbringing. But such a practice is codified as legal in all 50 states. That, to me, is immoral.

It's because of the vast differences that exist in America regarding what one person or another considers "morally right," that our Constitution is a marvelous thing. It allows for a broad variety of people to live under one roof in relative peace and prosperity. When it comes to civil rights, the simplest litmus test is this: If it isn't infringing on another's constitutional rights, then there's nothing inherently wrong with or legally ban-nable (I made that word up) about it.

Unless someone can illustrate to me how gay marriage will hurt other Americans in any way that deprives them of life, liberty, or property, I can't see the rationale in the argument against it. Hurt feelings or being personally grossed out just don't count in a court of law.

LFRAgain,

Please understand that my previous post was partially in response to the one above it. I find it both hypocritical and sad, that the people who preach tolerance and respect for everyone, have none for those who disagree with them. Apart from the white supremacist nuts, the people who spew the most hatred towards others seems to be those on the left who preach tolerance and love. Thus my response by calling zucronium a hater.

Regarding your argument. I hear what you're saying. Different people have different morals. I personally find nothing objectionable in the idea that if a girl gets pregnant, the 2 of em decide to get married. I view it as taking responsibility for their actions. Doesn't mean they're going to stay married, but at least on one level, it suggests the guy is taking responsibility for knocking up the girl. And the girl for allowing it to happen.

With regards to gay marriage. I definitely see what you're saying. You're asking how does it hurt others? I'll approach that in 2 ways. The second will be my answer to your question, though I have no doubt you'll disagree. The first part of my response is that, gay marriage is illegal. Whats being asked, is not to unban this, but to create a new definition of marriage. To say, gay marriage should be allowed, when never in all of recorded history, has it ever been allowed. It wasn't even contemplated until about 10 years ago. I don't see how keeping the status quo is hurting or infringing upon the rights of anyone. I hate pulling out these cliche arguments, but well, saying sorry, you can't marry your goat. Or sorry, you can't marry 10 wives. How is this any different? Who does it hurt really? And that gets into my response to your question.

The reason we ban polygamy, or being able to marry some farm animal, has nothing to do with depriving people of anything, but rather the greater harm done to society. I mentioned in one of my posts above, that those with homosexual tendencies, used to fight them, eventually they'd get married, have kids, all the while fighting their unnatural desires. Due to increased acceptance in society, this is no longer the case. Instead they're giving into these desires, and asking them to be accepted by society. Thus, in my view, it is not the individual being harmed, but society in general. Again, I know we aren't going to agree here. This is a very personal issue to a lot of people, and when it comes right down to it, people decide what they think is right, and then generally stick to it.

The US of Gay? :p I thought Freedom was a big issues in america? is the banning of same sex marriage not against freedom of choice? Interesting religious arguments, so it is natural to marry your cousin who is barely left her dyper, but same sex marriage is unnatural.

I wonder why some folks want to push deviant behavior as 'normal' in society.

I don't care if one dude's tea-baggin' another behind closed doors, but I don't think we oughtta be tryin' to 'celebrate' this stuff in society as normal, natural or healthy for that matter.

Actually USARonin, committed relationships are very healthy, and not only is homosexuality a natural phenomenon in humans, but also other mammals. And without bigorty, it is perfectly normal.

I love how all these anti-big-government types have no problem with government regulating who can and can't get married...

DenDen, no. Homosexual behavior in humans is deviant behavior. It deviates from the norm by about three or four individuals to a hundred. Not in any sense of the meaning of the word is homosexual behavior 'normal'.

You can use your argument to better rationalize that males spreadin' their seed in and outside of the animal kingdom as 'natural'.

Then again, human beans are not animals. Well, most of us anyway.

ComBiniBento, 'marriage' is between one man and one woman. It's that easy.

-No need to regulate anything beyond that.

'marriage' is between one man and one woman.

Of course except in Maine (and soon will be in New Hampshire) - where it is also between two men, or two women.

TJRandom, or also soon to be also be between a man, a horse and a cockatoo.

I never said anythin' about outlawin' private homosexual behavior. As long as they keep it down after ten at night, I don't care who's pitchin' and who's catchin'.

or also soon to be also be between a man, a horse and a cockatoo

Fine with me - as I am not affected, and have certainly not made a lifelong commitment to any of those.

TJRandom, do you aspire to live in the United States of Anything Goes? (-As long as it doesn't personally affect you though.)

And I never said anythin' about outlawin' private homosexual behavior.

Right, but it sounds like you favor restrictions on their rights based on their behavior. "Outlaw" was a poor choice of words on my part. I suppose I meant "regulate the behavior of." If you have no problem with who's pitchin' and who's cathin', seems like you should not be bitchin' 'bout who's proposin' and who's acceptin'.

Anything Goes

Yes of course - In a country where people have the same freedoms and rights under the law. Allow marriage (tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc.) benefits for some, then allow them for all.

TJRandom, see there you go... You want deviant sexual behavior 'normalized' in my society.

No.

I'm less opposed to 'civil unions' where the word 'marriage' isn't bastardized, but not by very much.

ComBiniBento, again you want deviant sexual behavior normalized in society.

I'm sayin' let two consentin' adults do pretty much as they want without changing a whole society to accomodate a very small group's self-centeredness.

@USARonin

My post said nothing about sexual behavior, deviant or otherwise. Also nothing about normalisation. Just what is legal.

TJRandom, you want deviant sexual behavior observed as the norm in American society.

TJRandom, you want deviant sexual behavior observed as the norm in American society.

I want nothing of the sort. I want equality under the law.

USAR, I will admit right here on the record that I see now problem with "deviant sexual behavior" (whatever the hell that means) being "observed as the norm." The more deviant the more fun it is. But how that has anything at all to do with gay marriage or its legality is beyond me... Guess it's fair to say you really don't have anything substantive to say about the merits of a gay person's constitutional rights...?

TJRandom, neither you nor a number of homosexuals "understand the issue of marriage". (Many homosexuals do.)

If you did, you'd know "marriage" is between one man and one woman.

(On the other: Convicted felons are not equal under the law. -Lost voting privileges, right to the Second Amendment...)

Well you got me there on convicted felons. Not sure why that is. But, I know - short attention span, so please let me remind you. Except in Maine.... where it is between, oh you know the rest.

It's goin' to be another issue when other state's won't recognize these special couplings.

It ain't gonna be like one state recognizin' another's drivers' licenses.

It's goin' to be another issue when other state's won't recognize these special couplings.

Already is. Rhode Island, also in New England, doesn't recognize the marriages from other states. Couple in RI, went accross the border, got married, came back to RI, few years later decided to get divorced, tried to get divorced in RI, since thats where they live. RI wouldn't recognize their union. Course they got all pissy and sued, but the RI supreme court said, no.

RI wouldn't recognize their union. Course they got all pissy and sued, but the RI supreme court said, no.

Sounds a lot like the principles involved in Dred Scott.

That's where the struggle of gay people resembles the stuggle of African- Americans. And there is no doubt that the momentum is now such that progress is assured. As Iowa goes...

God. Help. Us.

God. Help. Us.

ask him all you want, but leave the sensible lawmaking decisions to the rest of us

Sounds a lot like the principles involved in Dred Scott.

The Dred Scott decision involved slavery, the other, not recognizing a marriage that doesn't meet the states definition of marriage. How anyone can compare the Dred Scott decision to gay marriage is beyond me. In fact I'd go so far as to say it is extremely offensive. I am quite frankly amazed to even hear the two mentioned together. They are in no way similar. And thats all I'll say on the subject.

The Dred Scott decision involved slavery, the other, not recognizing a marriage that doesn't meet the states definition of marriage.

The decision involved the condition of a human being -- property or not property -- where one state declared him a human being and other said he's just property.

So, in one state, the act of two committed people living together is recognized as a civil union. In another state, their union is treated as worthless and something not deserving of the protection of the laws involved.

I am quite frankly amazed that some folks can't see the parallel.

Moderator: The Dred Scott decision is not relevant to this discussion.

If you did, you'd know "marriage" is between one man and one woman.

In other news, a Popular Mechanics writer was arrested in Oregon for describing a hybrid engine as a "marriage" between the internal combustion engine and an electic motor. His statement was a clear violation of the Oregon State constitution which, since 2004, has defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman only." (sarcasm off)

“You are making a decision that is not well-founded,” warned Plowman.

I am not sure if her name is funnier as an opponent of gay marriage, or if she were a proponent!

the Oregon State constitution which, since 2004, has defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman only."

By the way, 2004 was a REALLY long time ago. I mean its like eons ago if you were a fly.

So, uh, if the issue has leaped ahead, so to speak (nudge-nudge) in Maine, and in New Hampshire, well maybe Obama will be forced to give it the push to federal.

As libertarian wags like to say - If Clinton was our first 'black president' it looks like Obama's party wants him to be our first gay president.

If two people want to marry- let them. Why does God have to be involved? What two consenting adults do together is no-one's darn business.

Those who are up in arms and oppsoing gay marriage are fools. And history will laugh at you.....very bitterly.

teleprompter: So, uh, if the issue has leaped ahead, so to speak (nudge-nudge) in Maine, and in New Hampshire, well maybe Obama will be forced to give it the push to federal.

If that happens, I am going to blame the people who upped the ante by taking it to state constitutions. If it goes to federal, it serves them right. They never should have made it a constitutional issue. I sincerely hope it blows up in their faces as much as I wish it had never gone that direction at all.

Why are some folks tryin' to have deviant human sexual behavior and desires 'normalized' in society?

Live and let live, but let's not push deviant human sexual behavior and desires as a 'norm' for the culture. That would be, well... just pauliewallNutz.

PaulieWalnuts - Put that legislative decision to a public referendum, and see how far it gets (so far, traditional marriage is 26-0 in the USA when everybody gets a chance to vote).....

Why are some folks tryin' to have deviant human sexual behavior and desires 'normalized' in society?

Why would society cater to its most narrow-minded and intolerant to draw the boundaries of what is normal and what is deviant? In a free society, an agreement made between two consenting adults should be sufficient. The people of six states seem to get this.

Put that legislative decision to a public referendum, and see how far it gets...

Only hold a referendum on the issue every two years and look to see how the trend is going against the position of the troglodytes. Within ten years it will be plain to see who is standing on the wrong side of history and progress. (As they always have.)

Only hold a referendum on the issue every two years

I don't know Yabits. That sounds too much like true democracy. I think they were playing for opportunistic imaginary democracy.

But I think we should be voting on other things every two years rather than whether or not to deny consenting adults their human rights.

In other news, a Popular Mechanics writer was arrested in Oregon for describing a hybrid engine as a "marriage" between the internal combustion engine and an electic motor. His statement was a clear violation of the Oregon State constitution which, since 2004, has defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman only." (sarcasm off)

I can't help it, I must admit, I laughed when I read this.

"Put that legislative decision to a public referendum, and see how far it gets (so far, traditional marriage is 26-0 in the USA when everybody gets a chance to vote)....."

You shouldn't really be crowing too much about the validity of public referendums. Do recall that it took federal intervention with National Guardsmen to force communities to end years of segregation in public schools. The public overwhelmingly supported making sure those who were different were kept from partaking in the fruits of full American citizenship.

We have a representative democracy for a reason. It's to prevent mobs from dictating public policy, to the detriment of minority voices. You only have to look as far as today's headlines regarding the Taliban's latest outrages in Pakinstan's Swat valley for an example of "mob rules."

When it comes to civil rights, anyone who seriously sees "majority rules" as a valid trump card against reason is a complete imbecile.