Your thoughts on same sex marriage and civil unions.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Definitions of words change daily. Marriage also defines the close fitting joints in woodworking, or the combining of ideas, etc. Get over it.
But, if the church bitches about the term marriage, let ’em have it. Now NOBODY is legally married, because marriage is no longer a legal term. Every couple has to enter into a domestic partership, period. Now everyone is equal. If you want to get a preacher and have him read some words and pretend it means more, fine.
Homosexuality is not a choice. If you feel it’s not natural, it’s because you’re not gay. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
I’m sorry, the whole basis of what’s being touted as “traditional marriage” is rooted in religion. Why do we have laws now being based on religious beliefs? What happened to the separation between church and state, the exact thing that was put in place by the country’s founding fathers to keep people from being persecuted or discriminated against based on one group’s religious beliefs?
Again, a man marrying another man has NO impact on my hetrosexual marriage, or any other hetrosexual marriage. What the hell does it matter to people? How can we possibly say that two people in love cannot have the same rights granted by a legal marriage that the rest of us enjoy? Marriage is defined as a legal contract in this context, and to say that people cannot have the same legal rights simply because they are gay is ludicrous in my eyes.
Reading some of the above comments out of context one might be inclined to think they came from some backwards third-world theocracy where education and free speech are totally controlled by a governing religious body.
You people haven’t the slightest idea the damage you’re doing merely by thinking the way you do. If being gay makes you uncomfortable, then you’re just going to have to learn to live with it the way other hate mongers and racists have had to learn to live with their biases. I’d like to echo an earlier comment and call for even ONE person to give a detailed account of an instance where homosexual marriage hurt anyone.
Just say what you mean: You hate gays and the idea of them marrying makes you feel sick inside, because you see it as something unnatural. Stop trying to sugar coat it by using phrases like “sanctity of marriage,” as though there were some physical entity that embodied the concept of marriage, and that entity could somehow become corrupt.
For God’s sake this is hurting real people who’ve done nothing more than ask for the right to live freely with the one’s they love. They’re not asking for an endorsement of their lifestyle, just the right to be left alone with the same rights that straight people have. How can that possibly be bad?!
#23 – ManyLimits
>>Look it up. 200 years of history tells you that.
Big woop. Until recently, you could have made the same argument about slavery, women’s suffrage, inter-racial marriage, etc.
Even though there’s no law (yet) against becoming more enlightened, the Neanderthals among us fight against it tooth and nail.
If it doesn’t affect you, mind yer own fucking business.
# 7 Sea Lawyer said, “There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. You cannot ban something that does not exist.
What they are really complaining about is that people don’t want to go along with their desire to redefine what the word means.”
Bingo.
#11, Is it any less natural than a marriage between a member of The Master Race and a darkie?
The use of that comparison by many to base a discrimination equivalence is not valid since it is still dealing with a man and a woman, which is the defined standard for marriage, regardless of their physical appearance.
#23, It sure is unnatural. Just because animals do it does not make it right. They’re called animals for a reason. So we should call homo’s animals? Sounds good to me. For they are abominations. I believe they are in fact punished by god by giving them high HIV infection rates. Ha!
Humans are animals too; or did you not take the same biology class in high school that I did?
LibertyLover, Paddy-O’Brainless
Being “natural” does not mean it’s right. Obviously there are many “natural” things that are wrong. But this “natural” activity is between consenting adults. It doesn’t harm anyone, has no effect on anyone else. As I said before, someone PLEASE give me an example of how letting gays marry harms ANYONE ELSE’S marriage.
Paddy-O, LibertyLover, nolimit662, I’m calling you guys out. Give me an example of how allowing gay marriage harms a real person or a real heterosexual marriage. Put up or shut up.
I do not support it. I feel a little guilty about this since two of my close friends are gay.
I support gays having the exact same rights as married couples but I want it called something else. Gay marriage is not traditional marriage. It’s something new and should have a new name.
Gay marriage is as different from traditional marriage as polygamy is. All of the arguments for gay marriage work just as well for polygamy. If any two consenting adults who love each other can marry, why not 3 or 4?
I never heard the term “Gay Marriage” until (at most) 10 years ago. Marriage is a couple of thousand years old. I think we should take our time changing it in such a fundamental way.
Mostly, when I tell people I am married, I do not want to have to add “to a woman”.
There may be a little selfishness in my opinion buit there is no hate.
Of course it should be legal for homosexuals to get married.
I agree that you can not force a religion to allow religious marriage for homosexuals but I can’t think of one reason why ‘legal’ marriages between homosexuals should not take place.
I am convinced that in 20-30 years gay marriage will be the most normal thing on the planet.
I’m all for fags and dykes having the right to marry.
#19 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>I realize that the concept of a premise used to
>>support an argument is too “nuanced” for you…
Do you have a point here, Paddy-RAMBO?
>>What they are really complaining about is that
>>people don’t want to go along with their desire to
>>redefine what the word means.”
>>
>>Bingo.
If it’s just semantics, why not err on the side of personal freedom and liberty? I’da thunk that you of all people, with your “deep understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant”, would be down with that concept.
#31, Just say what you mean: You hate gays and the idea of them marrying makes you feel sick inside, because you see it as something unnatural … …
I have no problem with homosexual couples getting married. I just enjoy being the Devil’s Advocate because I think many of the popular arguments used to support it are flawed ones. I also resent the use of the courts to enact it outside of the proper legislative process.
#40,
I would be interested to see any of the founding fathers writings on marriage.
Yes, let gays marry.
Olbermann had a good comment about this last night, 11/11/08 on Countdown.
-Carrie
#21 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Then why haven’t I EVER seen you up here championing
>>the rights of polygamists?
Because polygamists are not asking for those rights, at least not in any forum I have seen.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7)
I have no problem with polygamy either, as long as it doesn’t involve 11-year-old brides. What do I give a shit if some guy out in the wilds of Utah thinks he’s A-hab the A-rab, and wants to keep a harem? As long as he’s happy, the harem is happy, it’s none of my business.
# 40 Mister Mustard said, “I’da thunk that you of all people, with your “deep understanding of what the Founding Fathers meant”, would be down with that concept.”
Oh yes, none of the Founding Fathers disagreed with the definition of marriage as written & understood at the time. Nor did they want to have it changed.
Does that help you?
im amazed to see all these comments against it. i feel like the question is fairly obvious. If you dont think gays should be married, you are discriminating against their way of life. i dont understand why anyone would be happy with themselves discriminating against anyone. the idea that you can argue what the “definition” of marriage is, is meaningless. definition of things change as cultures change them. the word “gay” itself changed to mean something other than what it was intended for. i dont see the difference between discriminating against gays and racism. and it is discriminating, deciding that they are different and live by different rules, i.e. discrimination.
#36 – BdgBill
>>I never heard the term “Gay Marriage” until (at
>>most) 10 years ago.
That’s not much of an argument against “gay marriage”. 30 years ago, “gay” meant “happy”. In fact, the next town over from where I grew up used to have a school song that went “Stand and cheer for XXX high, cheer for the blue and white so gay”. They don’t sing that song any more.
If your biggest beef with same-sex marriage is that you are concerned people will think you’re a rump wrangler if you don’t add “to a woman”, it sounds like you have no beef at all.
Sheesh. Talk about trivial reasons to deny other people basic civil rights.
@Phydeau #35
It hurts marriage as an institution. The same way that easy painless divorce has hurt it. Gay marriage will open the doors to polygamy and who knows what else.
I do think that gay marriage will eventually be approved. I believe this will eventually lead to the end of marriage as an institution.
From a political point of view, I can’t see how a free society can deny people the right to get married or choose what gender those people can be. I’d make the same argument for polygamous marriages. As long as those involved are consenting adults, then it really shouldn’t be up to the state to decide the criteria.
From a personal point of view, I think (like any marriage) it depends on the couple and depends on the reasons. Some people should get married because it is what is best for them, other people shouldn’t get married because it is just not their thing. Being gay or not has nothing to do with it really.
As for anyone who comments on the naturalness of homosexually I am sorry to say that any argument about homosexually being “unnatural” isn’t really supported by observations of the natural world. Google “Homosexuality in nature” and you’ll see what I mean. Its also worth noting that while pair-bonds do exist in nature amongst some species, ‘marriage’ as a ritual does not, so arguing that any sort of marriage or ritual is natural doesn’t really hold much truth to it.
#44 Paddy-O
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
— Thomas Jefferson
#36 Bdgbill Thank you. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t agree with it, but at least you make a case, unlike the other people here.
Abolish marriage all together …. let the government certify civil unions …. if you want to get “married” go to a church. The civil union will be for all things legal, the “marriage” will be for those who feel they need a spiritual connection as well.
# 45 eric said, “the idea that you can argue what the “definition” of marriage is, is meaningless. definition of things change as cultures change them.”
Right, and definitions change when the majority of people accept and agree to the change. That hasn’t happened, as evidenced by the vote in one of the most liberal states AND the rejection in 29 others shows.
Now, if you think that definitions should be changed when a minority wants it and not the majority, I’d think I’ll change the definition of murder to, “standing on ones head”.
Please don’t call the police when someone shoots another dead. It’s no longer murder and therefore not illegal…
#47 Bdgbill
It hurts marriage as an institution. The same way that easy painless divorce has hurt it. Gay marriage will open the doors to polygamy and who knows what else.
I don’t understand how this hurts marriage as an “institution”. Will it discourage heterosexuals from getting married? Will it cause married heterosexuals to get divorced? Who exactly will it harm?
#48, From a political point of view, I can’t see how a free society can deny people the right to get married or choose what gender those people can be. I’d make the same argument for polygamous marriages. As long as those involved are consenting adults, then it really shouldn’t be up to the state to decide the criteria.
In the case of civil marriage, the government is granting certain benefits and immunities, therefore it decides what those benefits are and what the qualification are to receive them. This has nothing to do with “rights” and “free societies” because if it were, you wouldn’t have government licensed marriage to begin with, only the enforcement of private contracts.
Either gay marriage should be legal, or all “marriage” should be stricken from all laws and replaced with “civil unions”. Anything else is not equal protection under the law.
This whole issue is a confusion between religious marriage and legal marriage as pointed out by others above.
I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court case of a gay couple married in Massachusetts and living in another state but not allowed to (insert any marriage right here). The Constitution could not be any clearer that any contracts made in one state are legally binding in all other states. As long as one state has gay marriage, all other states must recognize it.
Oh and any one who uses the “polygamy” argument is using a logical non-sequitir. Essentually you are saying that polygamy is bad and therefore homosexuality is bad. In other words its an excuse to be homophobic.
#44 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Oh yes, none of the Founding Fathers disagreed with
>>the definition of marriage as written & understood
>>at the time. Nor did they want to have it changed.
Do you have anything to back that up? I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers had any opinion on gay marriage, just as they had no opinion on DRM, nuclear power, space exploration, microwave ovens, or HDTV.
I’m willing to review any evidence you may have that the FFs were against personal liberty in this regard.
I have to dissagree on the polygamy issue? If a partner wants to leave, imagine the problems custody. It cant ever be good for the kids.
#51 Paddy-O’FalseEquivalence
The majority of people were against the various civil rights laws and court judgements when they were passed. But the majority of people came to understand that they were the right things to do.
Constitutionally speaking, the government has no business having any opinion on marriage at all. There should be no such thing as a marriage license, because marriage is an exclusively religious institution. The government took it over as a way to make money and control the people, plain and simple.
It’s no business of any of us who gets “married”. It is only the business of the two (or more) individuals involved.
In other words, mind your own damn business people, and that includes you, government morons.