Gay MarriagesWhy the Hell Not?

[skeleton tree]

I frankly dont understand what the big deal is. If two people truly love each other then nothing should stop them from getting married whether they are straight or gay. It astounds me how many people in this day and age, in a time where things are constantly changing, to be opposed to gay marriages. I guess in some sense I understand where all those Christians are coming from. In fact, I believe in God myself, but that doesnt stop me from believing that all people, no matter who they are, deserve rights and deserve to be respected. Yes, it is true that the bible condemns homosexuality, but the bible was written a really long time ago, in a time when even women did not have rights themselves, and look at where we are now. If God is against homosexuality then why does He create homosexuals? Being gay is not a choice, those who are, are born that way. Gay men and women are not asking all you straight folks who are against homosexuality to be gay with them, so why is it your concern? Why cant love just be love?

[Goat]

Wow, that's a new one...foreign relations.

I guess I'm thick...how does gay marriage threaten foreign relations?

It upsets my Russian Mail order bride.

[k-nug]

If God never said anything about homosexuality, how many of the Christians in this thread would still be posting in here with reasons like gay marriages add to the tax burden?

[micatala]

I look at it conversely. IMHO, if a lot of people didn't have a natural "yuck reaction" to gays, would they be quoting the Bible to bash gays? The fact that the Bible is not used much anymore to bash women, or blacks, or Jews when at one time it was says to me that some people simply use the Bible as a convenient justification for whatever their pre-existing attitude is. When that attitude goes by the wayside (out of the the mainstream population), the use of the Bible for the purpose also goes by the wayside. If it were really only the Bible that led to the attitude, I don't think that would happen to the degree it does.

I'm not saying this dynamic is universal, but I have observed it enough to believe that it is prevalent.

[twobitsmedia]

I look at it conversely. IMHO, if a lot of people didn't have a natural "yuck reaction" to gays, would they be quoting the Bible to bash gays? The fact that the Bible is not used much anymore to bash women, or blacks, or Jews when at one time it was says to me that some people simply use the Bible as a convenient justification for whatever their pre-existing attitude is. When that attitude goes by the wayside (out of the the mainstream population), the use of the Bible for the purpose also goes by the wayside. If it were really only the Bible that led to the attitude, I don't think that would happen to the degree it does.

I'm not saying this dynamic is universal, but I have observed it enough to believe that it is prevalent.

There's no way to prove your assertion beacause you are suggesting what will happen in the future. I will disagree, though. I think people will hold to the Biblical standard...even to the point of arrest, which I think is coming on the horizon in the form of "thought" and "hate" crime legislation. I don't have a "yuck"reaction to adultry, but I don't hold it as Biblically acceptible.

[Cephus]

Any American citizen has equal protection under the constitution. So why is the gay rights movement going through each state asking for amendments to get them especially noted? And we are not talking about a ethnic group. We are talking about people who have sex with each other.

Isn't that what heterosexual couples do too? Why should they be "especially noted" and given tax and legal breaks if you're going to deny them to homosexual couples? You are talking about people who are forming a legal family unit, it's very shallow to simply see it as people who have sex with each other.

[Rayosun]

Chalk up another for micatala!

"The fact that the Bible is not used much anymore to bash women, or blacks, or Jews when at one time it was says to me that some people simply use the Bible as a convenient justification for whatever their pre-existing attitude is. When that attitude goes by the wayside (out of the the mainstream population), the use of the Bible for the purpose also goes by the wayside. If it were really only the Bible that led to the attitude, I don't think that would happen to the degree it does.

I'm not saying this dynamic is universal, but I have observed it enough to believe that it is prevalent.

Amen !

[micatala]

Moderator Note

Chalk up another for micatala!

"The fact that the Bible is not used much anymore to bash women, or blacks, or Jews when at one time it was says to me that some people simply use the Bible as a convenient justification for whatever their pre-existing attitude is. When that attitude goes by the wayside (out of the the mainstream population), the use of the Bible for the purpose also goes by the wayside. If it were really only the Bible that led to the attitude, I don't think that would happen to the degree it does.

I'm not saying this dynamic is universal, but I have observed it enough to believe that it is prevalent.

Amen !

While I appreciate the sentiment, Rayosun, my duties obligate me to point out that this is against the rules.

9. No unconstructive one-liner posts are allowed in debates (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

[WWFStern]

People who oppose gay marriage base their opposition upon a book of ancient Jewish folklore. It's utterly nonsensical, in my judgment.

What Bob and Steve down the street do is none of anybody else's business. Some couple's marriage and sex life simply is not the concern of anybody else. Whether it meets with your approval or not is utterly irrelevant, since you are not a participant in the marriage and, thus, have no right to an opinion.

[ivansayer]

Hi Fellow-Disputants,
Is somebody ever gonna mention the property-bound aspects of marriage ? If a 'straight' wife and husband build a business worth twenty million and one of them gets wiped out by a drunken driver before making a will, the dead partner's share of the business defaults to the live partner. Why should this change when both people are same-sex. After all, it could be that the dead partner's nominal next of kin is a worthless scavenger who never worked in his/her life, and is a person to whom the dead person bears no real obligation.
Ivan

[servant]

Is somebody ever gonna mention the property-bound aspects of marriage ? If a 'straight' wife and husband build a business worth twenty million and one of them gets wiped out by a drunken driver before making a will, the dead partner's share of the business defaults to the live partner. Why should this change when both people are same-sex.

They could it's called a Limited Liability Corporation. They don't need marriage to protect themselfs in case of horrible accident to their partner.