Poll: Gay Marriage

[LimeJester]

Snip

Ok, these numbers are largely random, and almost certainly do not reflect the real numbers, but it shows that a 'homosexual' gene could have evolutionally value. Other factors include the possiblity of homosexual couples increasing the survival chances of the offspring of the heterosexual couple by either adopting the children in the event of death, or by aiding in community survival (more eyes on guard around a camp, men who can be trusted to guard the women in the event of attack, etc, etc, ad nausem for earlier societies)

While I am on your side and completely agree with you I must point out some of the benefits you point out are more social benefits. These benefits wouldn't be perpetuated in the gene pool by any of these actions, more individuals would survive because of these benefits, but more of these genes would not be passed to the next generation because the homosexual individuals would not have offspring. There are conceivable scenarios where the "homosexuality gene" is recessive and is transmitted through genetic carriers, but without homozygous individuals mating and passing on the gene, slowly through the generations you would see a drop off of the gene as it slowly gets replaced by more dominant genes.

Ahhh, logical mistake there; social groups share common genetic characteristics. Especially family members, which is where social bonds are commonly the strongest. We can imagine a group of brothers, Steve, John, and Bob, where Steve and John are straight and Bob is gay; Uncle Bob can baby sit John and Steve's kids, and in the event of Steve, John, and/or their wive's dying, Bob can adopt the kids. Because of the family relationship, the nephews and nieces all have alot of Bob's genes, and hence its an indirect way of Bob's genes ensuring they are passed on. We see this behaviour in species where the Alpha pair only get to breed, such as Meerkats, who are known for leaving the kids with one uncle/aunt to babysit them whilst the pack go searching for food and the like.

Hence, these 'social' benefits have real genetic value; this is the common mistake people make when they look at evolution - they only look at individuals within a species, not their species as a whole, or in the case of social animals, the societal grouping.

Social benefits do help individuals to survive, I am not arguing that. But no matter if Uncle Bob was there or not, the die is already cast, the genetic information in the second generation of individuals is already set. If those second generation survive or not, Bob isn't contributing with his genes nor can he change the genes already there. If those second generation of individuals do not carry Bob's recessive gene it won't pass on the gene pool. And even if they do, over many generations recessive genes eventually are eeked out by dominant genes. Without a heterozygous recessive individual mating this reduction of recessive genes will only happen faster.

 

[trelloskilos]

1. I shall refer you to Leviticus 18:22-25, and Matthew 5:27-30. Therefore, not only is the act terrible in and of itself, but even doing something terrible in your heart is as good as doing it. Since adultery was what was referred to as an example, I used it, since that is also a sexual sin.

Ahh...Leviticus. The only bit of the bible that actually explicity says homosexuality is bad, and the favourite of all the preachy Anti-Gay evangelists everywhere.

One problem with anyone choosing to refer to Leviticus as proof that God does not like homosexuals is that they haven't read the rest of the book.

The other problem is that they forget, it's not written by a devotee of God, just a Hebrew elder who wanted to impose some sort of rule system on his tribe, way before Christianity existed.

Leviticus has quite a few laws that we all ignore purely because they are simply absurd. Tell me, hand on heart, that you adhere to these Levitical laws. Go on....

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

How about stoning a woman to death because she's wearing a red dress? Or eating shrimp, or eating with the left hand? Yep! All these dumbass archaic laws which may have applied in some archaic way to a Jewish tribe in 500 BC do not apply to modern life in 2009 AD. I will only consider the argument regarding Leviticus from someone who has never shaved or cut their hair. If you have, then you have no right to use Leviticus as proof that God condemns homosexuality, because by the same token, God hates people with haircuts!

As usual, the Anti-Gay brigade are dipping into the bible, and finding those little choice passages that bolster their claim. However, there are more passages in both the Old Testament, AND the New Testament (You know...the one that deals with actual Christianity, and not Judaism), which preach tolerance, love, understanding, and a non-judgemental attitude towards other people.

 

[Doug]

Snip

Ok, these numbers are largely random, and almost certainly do not reflect the real numbers, but it shows that a 'homosexual' gene could have evolutionally value. Other factors include the possiblity of homosexual couples increasing the survival chances of the offspring of the heterosexual couple by either adopting the children in the event of death, or by aiding in community survival (more eyes on guard around a camp, men who can be trusted to guard the women in the event of attack, etc, etc, ad nausem for earlier societies)

While I am on your side and completely agree with you I must point out some of the benefits you point out are more social benefits. These benefits wouldn't be perpetuated in the gene pool by any of these actions, more individuals would survive because of these benefits, but more of these genes would not be passed to the next generation because the homosexual individuals would not have offspring. There are conceivable scenarios where the "homosexuality gene" is recessive and is transmitted through genetic carriers, but without homozygous individuals mating and passing on the gene, slowly through the generations you would see a drop off of the gene as it slowly gets replaced by more dominant genes.

Ahhh, logical mistake there; social groups share common genetic characteristics. Especially family members, which is where social bonds are commonly the strongest. We can imagine a group of brothers, Steve, John, and Bob, where Steve and John are straight and Bob is gay; Uncle Bob can baby sit John and Steve's kids, and in the event of Steve, John, and/or their wive's dying, Bob can adopt the kids. Because of the family relationship, the nephews and nieces all have alot of Bob's genes, and hence its an indirect way of Bob's genes ensuring they are passed on. We see this behaviour in species where the Alpha pair only get to breed, such as Meerkats, who are known for leaving the kids with one uncle/aunt to babysit them whilst the pack go searching for food and the like.

Hence, these 'social' benefits have real genetic value; this is the common mistake people make when they look at evolution - they only look at individuals within a species, not their species as a whole, or in the case of social animals, the societal grouping.

Social benefits do help individuals to survive, I am not arguing that. But no matter if Uncle Bob was there or not, the die is already cast, the genetic information in the second generation of individuals is already set. If those second generation survive or not, Bob isn't contributing with his genes nor can he change the genes already there. If those second generation of individuals do not carry Bob's recessive gene it won't pass on the gene pool. And even if they do, over many generations recessive genes eventually are eeked out by dominant genes. Without a heterozygous recessive individual mating this reduction of recessive genes will only happen faster.

You're not getting what I am saying, Uncle Bobs individual genetic information might not be passed on, BUT a very similar genetic code will be. Its why we generally value family members over strangers - strangers have less in common genetically with us than strangers, and hence if they survive, the odds of our family lineage survives - in other words, IF closely related individuals survive, our own genes are passed on. In families where there is a genetic pre-disposition towards protecting family members even at the risk of your own life, the odds of those genes surviving increases because all or nearly all the family members will also share this gene. This is the argument I'm presenting here. As for recessive genes being 'breed our', I have to wonder why we still have blond people, and blue eyed people, given their genes are recessive.

Further still, I don't think any 'Gay gene(s)' are recessive or being breed out of us as the vast majority of non-human species have been observed engaging in homosexual activity (where applicable - bacteria, for example, don't count). I seems inprobable to me that homosexually can realistically be claimed to have little or negative evolutionally value as evolution has had billions of years in which it could have removed this behaviour from sexual species, and yet it remains today.

 

[Shaoken]

1. I shall refer you to Leviticus 18:22-25, and Matthew 5:27-30. Therefore, not only is the act terrible in and of itself, but even doing something terrible in your heart is as good as doing it. Since adultery was what was referred to as an example, I used it, since that is also a sexual sin.

Ahh...Leviticus. The only bit of the bible that actually explicity says homosexuality is bad, and the favourite of all the preachy Anti-Gay evangelists everywhere.

One problem with anyone choosing to refer to Leviticus as proof that God does not like homosexuals is that they haven't read the rest of the book.

The other problem is that they forget, it's not written by a devotee of God, just a Hebrew elder who wanted to impose some sort of rule system on his tribe, way before Christianity existed.

Leviticus has quite a few laws that we all ignore purely because they are simply absurd. Tell me, hand on heart, that you adhere to these Levitical laws. Go on....

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

How about stoning a woman to death because she's wearing a red dress? Or eating shrimp, or eating with the left hand? Yep! All these dumbass archaic laws which may have applied in some archaic way to a Jewish tribe in 500 BC do not apply to modern life in 2009 AD. I will only consider the argument regarding Leviticus from someone who has never shaved or cut their hair. If you have, then you have no right to use Leviticus as proof that God condemns homosexuality, because by the same token, God hates people with haircuts!

As usual, the Anti-Gay brigade are dipping into the bible, and finding those little choice passages that bolster their claim. However, there are more passages in both the Old Testament, AND the New Testament (You know...the one that deals with actual Christianity, and not Judaism), which preach tolerance, love, understanding, and a non-judgemental attitude towards other people.

I have to agree with this; Leviticus as I said has a lot of rules, and only two of them are followed by the people who quote it. There's the law against homosexuality, and the law against masturbation. Ergo anyone who quotes Leviticus is a hypocrite for ignoring 99% of the content.

 

[TyphoidMary]

I didnt say Marrige was invented in the Bible, i said it was described in the Bible. Homosexuality does not occur in nature. animals establih dominance, not make love. If you do not recognise God as legitimate, there are other things ot look at. If your evolutionist, wouldnt we have evolved a way for homosexuality to have some kind of effect other than aids? if thats not your thing then look at everything else, opposites attract etc etc. Your right about the prop 8 thing i did get it backwards. my bad. People will have to face it someday, homosexuality is not right/natrual/good in any way. And the Bible was written by many different people many dfferent times. Most versions say homosexuality is not right as do most religions. If any love is actually felt in homoseual relationships its because of a chemical imbalance in the brain, otherwise they are probably just mad that daddy didnt love them enough.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
I realize it's a wiki page, but if you google/yahoo/internet search it you'll find countless articles about it and other lists with the same information. It isn't only in humans, or even only mammals.

2. AIDs didn't evolve from gay people. And if it only comes from homosexuals, why are there straight people who have it too?

3. All emotions are from chemical reactions, including hetero love.
As for the "Daddy didn't love me" stuff, that doesn't make you gay. It makes you insecure and incredibly harsh on yourself, which is something totally different.

Yes, there are people who become gay because of traumatic childhood experiences, but there are people who become straight that way too. Not all people in the GLBT were molested/abused as children.

 

[Shaoken]

Yes, there are people who become gay because of traumatic childhood experiences, but there are people who become straight that way too. Not all people in the GLBT were molested/abused as children.

Shhh, don't go ruining their points with logic! How else will they claim to know better? [/sarcasm]

It's funny how these people keep arguing that children will grow up messed up with two homosexual parents, that Gays actively seek to turn children Gay, that AIDS only targets homosexuals, etc. etc. when they have conducted no studies to try and find out if they're telling the truth and all the evidence supporting the exact opposite conclusion. But then again it's not like anyone thought they were being rational about this.

 

[TyphoidMary]

Yes, there are people who become gay because of traumatic childhood experiences, but there are people who become straight that way too. Not all people in the GLBT were molested/abused as children.

Shhh, don't go ruining their points with logic! How else will they claim to know better? [/sarcasm]

It's funny how these people keep arguing that children will grow up messed up with two homosexual parents, that Gays actively seek to turn children Gay, that AIDS only targets homosexuals, etc. etc. when they have conducted no studies to try and find out if they're telling the truth and all the evidence supporting the exact opposite conclusion. But then again it's not like anyone thought they were being rational about this.

I forgot, logic is their kryptonite... I apologize, won't happen again, officer.

 

[Shaoken]

Yes, there are people who become gay because of traumatic childhood experiences, but there are people who become straight that way too. Not all people in the GLBT were molested/abused as children.

Shhh, don't go ruining their points with logic! How else will they claim to know better? [/sarcasm]

It's funny how these people keep arguing that children will grow up messed up with two homosexual parents, that Gays actively seek to turn children Gay, that AIDS only targets homosexuals, etc. etc. when they have conducted no studies to try and find out if they're telling the truth and all the evidence supporting the exact opposite conclusion. But then again it's not like anyone thought they were being rational about this.

I forgot, logic is their kryptonite... I apologize, won't happen again, officer.

I'll let you off with a warning this time.

 

[TyphoidMary]

Yes, there are people who become gay because of traumatic childhood experiences, but there are people who become straight that way too. Not all people in the GLBT were molested/abused as children.

Shhh, don't go ruining their points with logic! How else will they claim to know better? [/sarcasm]

It's funny how these people keep arguing that children will grow up messed up with two homosexual parents, that Gays actively seek to turn children Gay, that AIDS only targets homosexuals, etc. etc. when they have conducted no studies to try and find out if they're telling the truth and all the evidence supporting the exact opposite conclusion. But then again it's not like anyone thought they were being rational about this.

I forgot, logic is their kryptonite... I apologize, won't happen again, officer.

I'll let you off with a warning this time.

Thank you. =D

 

[SirSchmoopy]

Gay Marriage should not exist.

Gay Unions are fine.


The problems most people see with gay marriage comes down to religion. If you want to get married in say a Catholic church well it doesn't matter what the Government says, the Church won't let you. If you want to fight the church about that well now you are just being silly. Why join a religion that oppresses you in the first place? To rebel? Start a new religion or find one that caters to your life style which brings me back to the point at hand.

Gay Marriage should not exist. When none religious people get married, they aren't really getting married, thats just a union between two people for the sake of simplicity. So the real issue with all of this should not be "Should we allow Gays to marry?", it should be "Should we allow gays to form unions together?" which to be honest there is no reason for anyone to vote against this. It doesn't effect anyones quality of life.

But marriage? Yeah don't use that word because it's not helping your cause.

 

[Shaoken]

Gay Marriage should not exist.

Gay Unions are fine.


The problems most people see with gay marriage comes down to religion. If you want to get married in say a Catholic church well it doesn't matter what the Government says, the Church won't let you. If you want to fight the church about that well now you are just being silly. Why join a religion that oppresses you in the first place? To rebel? Start a new religion or find one that caters to your life style which brings me back to the point at hand.

Gay Marriage should not exist. When none religious people get married, they aren't really getting married, thats just a union between two people for the sake of simplicity. So the real issue with all of this should not be "Should we allow Gays to marry?", it should be "Should we allow gays to form unions together?" which to be honest there is no reason for anyone to vote against this. It doesn't effect anyones quality of life.

But marriage? Yeah don't use that word because it's not helping your cause.

Your arguement is wrong because A) There are religions out there that allow Gay Marriage and B) Marriage is not an exclusively religious idea. All manners of cultures have the concept. So no religion can claim a monopoly on marriage because they are not the only ones who practice it.

Athiests get married all the time, and the governments refer to it as a marriage. Ergo the governments have decreaed that Marriage is not exclusively religious and there's plenty of historical precident to support that conclusion. Especially considering the number of countries that have legalised Gay Marriage and not collapsed shows it's a working concept.

 

[SirSchmoopy]

Your arguement is wrong because A) There are religions out there that allow Gay Marriage and B) Marriage is not an exclusively religious idea. All manners of cultures have the concept. So no religion can claim a monopoly on marriage because they are not the only ones who practice it.

Athiests get married all the time, and the governments refer to it as a marriage. Ergo the governments have decreaed that Marriage is not exclusively religious and there's plenty of historical precident to support that conclusion. Especially considering the number of countries that have legalised Gay Marriage and not collapsed shows it's a working concept.

Completely missed the point. We as a people should simply leave the word out when it comes to Government. It is obvious that a lot of people on both sides get upset by a simply "Title". Marriage should simply be a religious word that they define and unions between people do not have a counter argument. Look at this thread, people are quoting RELIGION as a reason why Gay marriage should be abolished. If you simply remove religion from the equation and simply call it a gay union then there is no problem. Atheists who get married not in a church? They can call it a wedding and a marriage if they like but it's a union of people.

The problem is the word and if you remove that every argument against "Gay Marriage" crumbles but to keep trying to allow Gays to be married simply doesn't help the cause. Don't fight for a word because it just disrespectful to both parties. Are there really any gay people who would be absolutely offended that if the official term for Gay Marriage was Gay Unions? I mean all "Marriages" are simply unions to begin with and the only reason to get Married with state/province is for tax purposes so why can't we remove the religion from the equation.

 

[Shaoken]

Completely missed the point. We as a people should simply leave the word out when it comes to Government. It is obvious that a lot of people on both sides get upset by a simply "Title". Marriage should simply be a religious word that they define and unions between people do not have a counter argument. Look at this thread, people are quoting RELIGION as a reason why Gay marriage should be abolished. If you simply remove religion from the equation and simply call it a gay union then there is no problem. Atheists who get married not in a church? They can call it a wedding and a marriage if they like but it's a union of people.

The problem is the word and if you remove that every argument against "Gay Marriage" crumbles but to keep trying to allow Gays to be married simply doesn't help the cause. Don't fight for a word because it just disrespectful to both parties. Are there really any gay people who would be absolutely offended that if the official term for Gay Marriage was Gay Unions? I mean all "Marriages" are simply unions to begin with and the only reason to get Married with state/province is for tax purposes so why can't we remove the religion from the equation.

And what you fail to understand is that Marriage is not exclusively religious. So to remove it completely from legal terms would piss atheists and agnostics off to no end, not to mention be a complete legal headache and require convincing an entire population that their definition of marriage is now exclusively religious. Like I said, marriage has been created by non-religious means too, so your arguement doesn't hold water. If anything it would only create amonisty towards religion (for having a monopoly on the word) and gays (for "forcing" the word change).

And the whole reason why Gays want marriage is because they want to be considered equal. Calling them Gay Unions implies that they are inferior to Marriage, because if they have the same rights as Married people, why not call it a marriage? If one apple is the same as another apple, why call the second one anything other than an apple?

The fact that you even asked if Gay people would be offended by that shows you haven't been paying all that much attention to the debate over the past few years.

 

[JugglerPanda]

Completely missed the point. We as a people should simply leave the word out when it comes to Government. It is obvious that a lot of people on both sides get upset by a simply "Title". Marriage should simply be a religious word that they define and unions between people do not have a counter argument. Look at this thread, people are quoting RELIGION as a reason why Gay marriage should be abolished. If you simply remove religion from the equation and simply call it a gay union then there is no problem. Atheists who get married not in a church? They can call it a wedding and a marriage if they like but it's a union of people.

The problem is the word and if you remove that every argument against "Gay Marriage" crumbles but to keep trying to allow Gays to be married simply doesn't help the cause. Don't fight for a word because it just disrespectful to both parties. Are there really any gay people who would be absolutely offended that if the official term for Gay Marriage was Gay Unions? I mean all "Marriages" are simply unions to begin with and the only reason to get Married with state/province is for tax purposes so why can't we remove the religion from the equation.

And what you fail to understand is that Marriage is not exclusively religious. So to remove it completely from legal terms would piss atheists and agnostics off to no end, not to mention be a complete legal headache and require convincing an entire population that their definition of marriage is now exclusively religious. Like I said, marriage has been created by non-religious means too, so your arguement doesn't hold water. If anything it would only create amonisty towards religion (for having a monopoly on the word) and gays (for "forcing" the word change).

And the whole reason why Gays want marriage is because they want to be considered equal. Calling them Gay Unions implies that they are inferior to Marriage, because if they have the same rights as Married people, why not call it a marriage? If one apple is the same as another apple, why call the second one anything other than an apple?

The fact that you even asked if Gay people would be offended by that shows you haven't been paying all that much attention to the debate over the past few years.

As a homosexual, I can officially say that you do not represent the desires of the gay community on this matter in any way, shape, or form.

The gay community wants the economical benefits from marriage, such as join tax submission. Most of us don't care about the title that comes from being married, since most people who are religious shun the gay community anyway. There's little interest in any church marriage. That's why this is up to debate in the first place, because religion has a say in a matter that should be left up to the state.

 

[Shaoken]

As a homosexual, I can officially say that you do not represent the desires of the gay community on this matter in any way, shape, or form.

Just because you're homosexual doesn't mean that you share the views of every homosexual in the world. I'm an Australian White male, but I would be an idiot to ever say that I represent all men, white people or Australians in any way.

And your statement is pointless since I never said I represent the desires of any community at all. I have simply been stating my opinion as have every other poster these past 19 pages.

The gay community wants the economical benefits from marriage, such as join tax submission.

I don't dispute this and if it wasn't already apparent fully suppor this.

Most of us don't care about the title that comes from being married, since most people who are religious shun the gay community anyway. There's little interest in any church marriage. That's why this is up to debate in the first place, because religion has a say in a matter that should be left up to the state.

And used to feel the same way about gays and church marriages, until I mentioned this in a similar debate a few years ago and was promptly confronted by a homosexual who wanted to be married in a church and knew several others who felt the same way.

Besides you're wrong here anyway about the title; Gay Unions have constantly been brought up by people against Gay Marriage as an alternative but it always gets shouted down. Going by actions the gay community as a majority wants Marriages, not Civil Unions. And I don't see any gays complaining in Canada, New Zealand etc. that they can get married instead of a civil union. Unless you have proof that this is only a vocal minority of the gay community, I am going to conclude that you are merely presenting your own views on the subject as fact.

So don't generalise; there are plenty of religious people who don't shun the gay community and plenty of homosexuals who want to be married in religious events. In fact; there are such couples who have been married in religious ceramonies by religious denominations that believe in gay marriage (granted I'm not sure about how legally binding some are, but that's besides the point).

Anyway, I agree with your conclusion that the whole debate comes from relgion getting involved in government business (internationally speaking not all states have the right to legalise Gay Marriage; it has been legalised twice in my territory and both times the Federal Government overruled it due to marriage being under their exclusive control).

 

[SirSchmoopy]

The fact that you even asked if Gay people would be offended by that shows you haven't been paying all that much attention to the debate over the past few years.

Fighting for no reason makes me believe less in the cause. I thought this argument was about a believe not a word and to proclaim the word IS the believe simple tells me the fight is over and nobody has won.

You can legalize marriage across the states but then you still have this massive population of people who think it is wrong, mind you this is a trend we see less and less of because it is mostly an older population of believes but it still doesn't solve an issue that can easily solved for both sides. Religious people (Of religions who think gay marriage is wrong, durr stop taking points out of context) believe gay MARRIAGE is wrong, if you simply change marriage to civil union 90% of that problem goes away.

Most gay couples I would assume don't really care if legally the word has to be changed if it means they can live there life the way they want too and not be breaking any laws or at a social disadvantage, I'm sure for some that won't be enough but the point here isn't which side is wrong or which side is right (Mind you I am fully with gays on this side as religion should not effect others peoples lives) what I am trying to get across here is a solid ground in the middle where both sides can live together without every couple years having to vote if something should be illegal or not.

You don't have to always barrage the castle and kill the king to win the war here and thats basically what I'm trying to get across but by all means you guys are already taking head and state in this reform, it's just if people would settle down about oppression this and unfair that and just come to understand that there was a time when this wasn't socially acceptable and some people are simply stuck in that headset then it would be easier to make everyone happy.



If in 45 years there is a group of people who want to marry cats, I think everyone on this forum would agree thats pretty strange and you don't want to see people making out with cats in public. We would cry animal rights and they would cry free will. This is a terrible example but to everyone here that is not normal and we are grown up knowing that humans mate with humans, not cats. If a trend in society changed, when were all 75 years old most of us are still going to think that marry cats is still weird. Thats exactly what you have today and if you stand back and understand these people are just not going to accept you, you might just have a better chance understanding how to win.

 

[Shaoken]

The fact that you even asked if Gay people would be offended by that shows you haven't been paying all that much attention to the debate over the past few years.

Religious people (Of religions who think gay marriage is wrong, durr stop taking points out of context) believe gay MARRIAGE is wrong, if you simply change marriage to civil union 90% of that problem goes away.

Most gay couples I would assume don't really care if legally the word has to be changed if it means they can live there life the way they want too and not be breaking any laws or at a social disadvantage, I'm sure for some that won't be enough but the point here isn't which side is wrong or which side is right (Mind you I am fully with gays on this side as religion should not effect others peoples lives) what I am trying to get across here is a solid ground in the middle where both sides can live together without every couple years having to vote if something should be illegal or not.

And this is where the fight boils down to; the majority of Gay people don't want "Civil Unions." They want to be equal. I know a lot of people will disagree with my comparison, but look at the time before the civil rights movement. The policy in place was "Seperate but equal." Whites would go to white businesses, use white drink fountains, sit in the white part of the bus and blacks would do the same. This was a middle ground from what the situation was before (ie between slavery and being treated as equals), but did the leaders of the civil rights movement just sit back and say "Well, things aren't so bad now. We should just settle for this and wait a few decades for things to change." To everyone who supported these policies assumed that black people would be just happy to be free.

Now granted there is some differences here; blacks in general had laws descriminating against them that were a lot worse then what gays experience in the western world, "seperate but equal" translated to "blacks get stuck with the worse stuff," couldn't get employment outside of certain fields etc. etc. But while gays don't have it nearly as badly as blacks did, there are similarities in the motivations behind both movements.

Anyway, like I said in my last point Civil Unions has been brought up before in numorous states and countries before and have been rejected by their respective gay communties. They want equality, and just like "Seperate but equal" Civil Unions don't work.

 

[zagazsano]

The fact that you even asked if Gay people would be offended by that shows you haven't been paying all that much attention to the debate over the past few years.

Fighting for no reason makes me believe less in the cause. I thought this argument was about a believe not a word and to proclaim the word IS the believe simple tells me the fight is over and nobody has won.

You can legalize marriage across the states but then you still have this massive population of people who think it is wrong, mind you this is a trend we see less and less of because it is mostly an older population of believes but it still doesn't solve an issue that can easily solved for both sides. Religious people (Of religions who think gay marriage is wrong, durr stop taking points out of context) believe gay MARRIAGE is wrong, if you simply change marriage to civil union 90% of that problem goes away.

Most gay couples I would assume don't really care if legally the word has to be changed if it means they can live there life the way they want too and not be breaking any laws or at a social disadvantage, I'm sure for some that won't be enough but the point here isn't which side is wrong or which side is right (Mind you I am fully with gays on this side as religion should not effect others peoples lives) what I am trying to get across here is a solid ground in the middle where both sides can live together without every couple years having to vote if something should be illegal or not.

You don't have to always barrage the castle and kill the king to win the war here and thats basically what I'm trying to get across but by all means you guys are already taking head and state in this reform, it's just if people would settle down about oppression this and unfair that and just come to understand that there was a time when this wasn't socially acceptable and some people are simply stuck in that headset then it would be easier to make everyone happy.



If in 45 years there is a group of people who want to marry cats, I think everyone on this forum would agree thats pretty strange and you don't want to see people making out with cats in public. We would cry animal rights and they would cry free will. This is a terrible example but to everyone here that is not normal and we are grown up knowing that humans mate with humans, not cats. If a trend in society changed, when were all 75 years old most of us are still going to think that marry cats is still weird. Thats exactly what you have today and if you stand back and understand these people are just not going to accept you, you might just have a better chance understanding how to win.

Amen.

 

[Lathos Zan]

I agree with Schmoopy, but I completely see what Shaoken means. Gay people, well some, do want to be married in the religious sense, but the law has no place to say they can't. Instead of separate but equal, Schmoopy is suggesting unified, equal and new. Take all of the religious crap out of the legal crap. It's pretty much like that already, no ceremony is even necessary for Ms. Thompson to be recognised as Mrs. Smith, but because we commonly use the term 'Marriage' the religious community gets all defensive about it. It's not that gay people should have their own marriage type, but that everyone has civil unions. Marriage should be ecognised legally in the same light as prayer and worship. it's a religious ceremony. If the couple WANTS to have a gay 'marriage' ceremony in the religious terms, that's between them and their society. But if two men/women want to live together, share property, both be considered the guardians of their adopted child, take care of their partner when they die with insurance policies, they should be able to. I know many people who think being gay is wrong (I'll never understand the way they think personally) and i know plenty of other people who don't mind gay people, but do not believe gay marriage is right. The latter is the majority of the decreasing majority that is anti-gay-marriage I find and the people of that group have said that they think they (the gay community) should be allowed those legal rights, even if they still believe that they shouldn't 'marry.' I think that's the point. It's not "Straight people get married, gay people have civil unions" it's that "everyone gets civil unions." And the law is creeping that way. In many states, if two people (in some of those states, these two people must be of opposite genders, un-related by blood, yadda-yadda) live together for, I believe it's 7 years, they are considered legally married or at least have those rights. That is the same as the separate but equal Shaoken was talking about... wow, I ramble alot...

by the way, I voted that it shouldn't be a legal institution... i just find it kinda silly... hard to explain.... just go with my above post...