Same-Sex Marriage (Minneapolis, International Falls: apartment, credit card, luxury)

[Glenfield]

Why should marriage be restricted to gay or straight couples? Isn't that discriminatory?

Three people enter into civil union in Brazil - Telegraph

[Govie]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Why should marriage be restricted to gay or straight couples? Isn't that discriminatory?

Three people enter into civil union in Brazil - Telegraph

Are you asking (implying) that from the beginning of time humans have been discriminatory until this very moment?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Govie

Are you asking (implying) that from the beginning of time humans have been discriminatory until this very moment?

That does seem to be the basis of the argument in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, doesn't it?

[Govie]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

That does seem to be the basis of the argument in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, doesn't it?

No it seems to me that now a very small minority wants to control the majority, more like. Not saying I agree with or against homosexual marriage but please don't make me out to be a villain.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

That does seem to be the basis of the argument in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, doesn't it?

My argument in favor of gay marriage isn't really in favor of gay marriage; rather, it's government staying the hell out of peoples' private lives. Government should have absolutely no role in who can "marry." It should be renamed a "civil union" for everyone. Then churches or whoever else can perform "marriages" that can be ceremonial or symbolic, but not legally-binding. If the Catholic Church declines to perform gay marriages, or declines to wed interracial couples, or carry out whatever other 19th-centrury beliefs they push, they're fully within their rights.

Govie's comment about a minority controlling a minority has some merit, I believe. But I think it goes beyond control. Some people in this country are extremely fearful of social change. They believe that if they can enshrine discrimination, xenophobia, and hate in the constitution, they've reclaimed some turf. They've held on to the "good old days" for at least a bit longer. They can pretend it's 1950 again. They sleep better at night knowing that people they never met aren't doing things the xenophobes don't like. I think this where the element of control comes enters the discussion.

Luckily, there are signs that some in the GOP are beginning to get the message. They've started to realize that they simply cannot be the party of rich white men forever. When you discriminate via the constitution, you've not only alienated everyone directly affected by that discrimination, you also alienate the many people who believe it's wrong to do that. Acceptance of gay marriage grows every day. Constitutional homophobia can't live forever.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

My argument in favor of gay marriage isn't really in favor of gay marriage; rather, it's government staying the hell out of peoples' private lives. Government should have absolutely no role in who can "marry." It should be renamed a "civil union" for everyone. Then churches or whoever else can perform "marriages" that can be ceremonial or symbolic, but not legally-binding. If the Catholic Church declines to perform gay marriages, or declines to wed interracial couples, or carry out whatever other 19th-centrury beliefs they push, they're fully within their rights.

Govie's comment about a minority controlling a minority has some merit, I believe. But I think it goes beyond control. Some people in this country are extremely fearful of social change. They believe that if they can enshrine discrimination, xenophobia, and hate in the constitution, they've reclaimed some turf. They've held on to the "good old days" for at least a bit longer. They can pretend it's 1950 again. They sleep better at night knowing that people they never met aren't doing things the xenophobes don't like. I think this where the element of control comes enters the discussion.

Luckily, there are signs that some in the GOP are beginning to get the message. They've started to realize that they simply cannot be the party of rich white men forever. When you discriminate via the constitution, you've not only alienated everyone directly affected by that discrimination, you also alienate the many people who believe it's wrong to do that. Acceptance of gay marriage grows every day. Constitutional homophobia can't live forever.

So if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with Govie's proposition that approval of gay marriage is an effort to end discrimination that humans have practiced since the beginning of time. Can we assume that you're also in favor of the tri-party civil unions, as in Brazil?

[Beenhere4ever]

I voted "no" but not because I think people should be forced to marry heterosexually. I just want the government out of the marriage business. I don't want government sponsoring marriage at all. Look at the state of marriage, look at what sponsorship has produced. You really think government sponsorship is going to "save" marriage? When the country loses the values that supported marriage, don't expect somehow government to step in and undo the damage. My parents had more difficulty than any of today's divorced people can imagine. They were married when my father died.

It crack me up that social conservatives are leading this fight. Because out of their next breath, they will be decrying all the harm coming from government. They have no idea what government should be. But they want it saying no or yes to marriages. Jefferson said you can't be stupid and free. He should be here today.

[dravogadro]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

So if I understand you correctly, you are agreeing with Govie's proposition that approval of gay marriage is an effort to end discrimination that humans have practiced since the beginning of time. Can we assume that you're also in favor of the tri-party civil unions, as in Brazil?

Gay unions have been entered into since the beginning of time and haven't always been discriminated against. Are you stating that there be restrictions on legal contracts that consenting adults enter into that can permit hospital visitation, asset distribution and access? Should these be capped at a certain number of person(s)? What number interferes with your rights?

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

I voted "no" but not because I think people should be forced to marry heterosexually. I just want the government out of the marriage business. I don't want government sponsoring marriage at all.

I respect your belief, but I think you'd better make your point by divorcing your spouse (if you have one), rather than voting down what others want for themselves in the name of your belief. At least then only you'd be the only one affected by your belief that government shouldn't sponsor your marriage. Remember that this affects real people's lives other than your own.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by dravogadro

Gay unions have been entered into since the beginning of time and haven't always been discriminated against.

Not so well known is the fact that same-sex marriages were practiced in the early Christian Church, and that the Catholic Church had official rites for same-sex marriage until the 1600s.