:. Question for those who oppose gay rights

I believe with the solution I posted, "they" (assuming you mean the government) would certainly be uninvolved in marriage.

Some sort of civil union is required, for purposes of insurance, taxes, hospital visitation, etc.

I don't think it is.

The government should be out of the business entirely.

Welcome to the moderating team...

Hopefully you'll never have to talk to me again <valentine>

Of course, you could also say, "If you are against murder, then don't kill anyone."

Weird poll for me; I'm not "for" gay marraige, per se, I'm just indifferent.

And I believe that the fact that it's not legal is a massive, major flaw in America today. I find it ridiculus for anyone to claim it is a truly free country until we stop discriminating so childlishly on something so incredibly minor as sexual preference.

Except murder actually effects other people and violates their rights, whereas gay marraige only effects those that are willingly involved.

Comparing Bob wanting to marry George to Bob wanting to kill George is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

This is interesting and fitting.

The dems are coming SO CLOSE - supporting civil unions is a huge step, and I'm happy candidates aren't scared to say that instead of the "let the states decide" avoiding-the-question-to-suck-up-to-voters BS, but it's not quite there.

Personally I'm against gay marriage as marriage was a religious institution that the government instituted. So really marriage was a religious ceremony centuries before governments instituted civil union and the only reaseon civil unions were instituted was because the government realized that through marriage or 'civil unions' a new population, a new generation of Americans would develop.

Also, when is it not enough that somebody is against something because of their beliefs? They don't need to give you a reasoning if they don't want to. It's their beliefs and I doubt by you questioning that you'll change it.

Cause if those personal values include forcing others to abide by your beliefs, then we have a problem. It's fine if you believe it's wrong, but not if you want to ban it for everyone too.

Until marraige is not part of the government, it can't discriminate, especially based on religion. If that's a problem, focus your efforts on making marraige unaffiliated with the state, not on taking away other's rights.

This post has been edited by Bonzo on Aug 9 2007, 10:14 PM

You are comparing an act of love (a victimless crime) to the act of murder, which clearly has a victim.

I can halfway agree with this. That is, eliminate all concept of marriage or civil unions from all government activities -- as others have proposed. What business is it of the government's whether I choose to be married, to "live in sin" with a single partner, to have polygamous relationships, or any such thing?

Get government out of my life.

Keep government from making me pay the several thousand or more in taxes I do every year simply because I am married as opposed to the exact same relationship with a woman who is not my wife?

Just an aside, I don't see a gay marriage ban as discriminatory, not that I support such a thing. This is because any man, gay or straight, can marry any woman, gay or straight. Totally moot point for this discussion, though.

This post has been edited by Isildur on Aug 9 2007, 10:23 PM

What if I started a religion where only gays were allowed to marry --we'll call it Fabulousianism. Now, I feel that only the word of the Fabulous God can determine what marriage is, and the fabulous God clearly states that marriage is between only a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

What if I then sanctioned the government to recognize my view of marriage, and that I believe all those straighties are defiling the sanctity of the ceremony.

Meanwhile, straight people getting married has done nothing to change the fundamentals of Fabulousianism.

Yet I demand that my view of marriage be recognized by the sate as the CORRECT form of marriage, regardless of how harmless straight marriage is to my own religion.

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/graham1.html

Cause if those personal values include forcing others to abide by your beliefs, then we have a problem. It's fine if you believe it's wrong, but not if you want to ban it for everyone too.

Until marraige is not part of the government, it can't discriminate, especially based on religion. If that's a problem, focus your efforts on making marraige unaffiliated with the state, not on taking away other's rights.

Don't be niave. Why do you think we vote for senators or presidents? We do it because we agree with their ideals and beliefs. Beliefs will always be brought into laws whether you like it or not. So I'm going to go ahead and say 'no' once again because I don't agree with it. There's really no other way to put it. I don't need a reason, I just don't agree with it.

And doesn't entitlement (or lack thereof) to "government-financed goodies" change the taxes payable?

I would suspect it does.

I know it does in the U.S.

My family, in the exact same situation minus the government recognized marriage, would probably save several thousand per year in taxes.

The only thing I've always wondered about is why gays would want to get married -- so they can pay more taxes?

What if I started a religion where only gays were allowed to marry --we'll call it Fabulousianism. Now, I feel that only the word of the Fabulous God can determine what marriage is, and the fabulous God clearly states that marriage is between only a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

What if I then sanctioned the government to recognize my view of marriage, and that I believe all those straighties are defiling the sanctity of the ceremony.

Meanwhile, straight people getting married has done nothing to change the fundamentals of Fabulousianism.

Yet I demand that my view of marriage be recognized by the sate as the CORRECT form of marriage, regardless of how harmless straight marriage is to my own religion.

Well for one I believe your religion would only be 'cult' status and thus not recognized for one. So really it's a moot point considering you wouldn't be government sanctioned. Good try.

That's good, because you don't really have a convincing one.

p.s.

Denying other's rights is not something you should be able to vote into office. This isn't a democracy and the majority doesn't always rule (thank goodness).

Christianity is a very popular cult. A lot of brainwashing goes on there.

Now, as for the rest of your "point" care to tell me why gays getting married affects your religion in any way?

Cause if those personal values include forcing others to abide by your beliefs, then we have a problem. It's fine if you believe it's wrong, but not if you want to ban it for everyone too.

Until marraige is not part of the government, it can't discriminate, especially based on religion. If that's a problem, focus your efforts on making marraige unaffiliated with the state, not on taking away other's rights.

Don't be niave. Why do you think we vote for senators or presidents? We do it because we agree with their ideals and beliefs. Beliefs will always be brought into laws whether you like it or not. So I'm going to go ahead and say 'no' once again because I don't agree with it. There's really no other way to put it. I don't need a reason, I just don't agree with it.

When you're in a debate forum it's sometimes a good idea to have a reason, especially when you hold a bigoted opinion.

Will you be the first Minister of the Church of Fabulousianism?