When the conversation turns to opening up marriage to all sorts of people and all sorts of groupings, or when the conversation heads towards the removal of the term marriage for government, they (i.e. the spokes people for the lobby groups) tend to be very against those ideas and proposals. (Such as the case with the siblings who wanted to "come out" but were told to "go back in")

I'm all in favor of marriage being removed from the state purview. I think that's the better solution. While should unmarried heterosexual couples not be able to make arrangements for a life-long partnership? Why does it have to be a couple at all? Why can't a group of roommates who've been together since high school jointly own property? The realist in me says that it won't happen.

So, when you're asking if I'm opposed to opening marriage to all sorts of people and all sorts of groupings, I'm going to say no. Consensual polygamy? Sure. Marry your cousin? Better move to Arkansas, but go for it! You want to marry your dog? Bet you can find someone to do it.

I also think, in the long run, it would be better for the religious institutions. It is fully within the rights of any particular religious organization to say, "No, we won't marry you." Unfortunately, the religious majority takes offense at the existence of homosexuality. It's not just that they oppose gay marriage. They oppose the act of being gay.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringI...outh-index.aspx

There's a link to a very mainstream Protestant group. It's the 700 Club. It's aired on CBS, and you'd better believe that CBS is conscious of the mainstream morality. They would not make their only major religious broadcast an extremist one, especially since it airs when children are awake. Just glance through the Q&A stuff on that link. That is what is at issue. It's not something you can give a different title and whitewash. They object to homosexuality. The entire Western monotheistic tradition objects to homosexuality. The entire Western monotheistic tradition has an unhealthy fixation on sex, and it objects to pretty much all forms of sexuality, barring a narrowly-defined rendition of procreative, monogamous heterosexuality. It also objects to pretty much all forms of belief except its own, with the exception of Judaism in this regard. That's in the Q&A too.

So, you can toss out a nice little line about your values informing your voting, but my values say abortion is wrong, and I vote pro-choice. Why? Because I believe in American freedom. I believe that an education campaign that the government has no hand in is a better solution than using the law to enforce my beliefs. One would also think that you of all people, Daganev, wouldn't go barking up the religious majority tree. This happened once before, and it ended very, very badly.

yes yes, all religions are evil, anything that is old is immoral, and if we don't agree with you, we are bigots or idiots.

I'm not a big fan of the 700 club or other such organizations. But just because they and reasonable people agree on a conclusion, doesn't mean that the reasonable people are automatically wrong. Nor does it mean that the reasonable people agree on the final decisions for the same reasons.

Its like saying that because Nero was pro same sex unions, if we allow same sex marriage the capital is going to burn down. They are non sequators.

Reasonable people who agree on a conclusion. Right. I want you to try posting this:

"I believe that gays are immoral, and I am willing to act on this belief by voting in a way that affects gay people's ability to get equal rights under the law. Lots of people agree with me, so I'm probably right."

If this is not your stance, correct it!

I believe that homosexuality is immoral, and I will act on that belief and vote against gay marriage.

I'll be honest and open about that. It is my belief, and I will continue to vote for it. Sorry if somebody's feelings are hurt.

EDIT: And before you call me a bigot, i do NOT hate homesexuals. I disapprove of their lifestye, but I do not hate them as people. I even have a cousin who is homosexual, and I think he is a great person, but I still don't think what he is doing is right.

Good first step! You're missing two parts. Why do you believe this, and do you acknowledge the wider legal issues of voting against gay marriage?

I have my own personal religious beliefs, and debating that issue is just going to waste time, since we are both firmly set in our (opposite) positions. I do recognize the legal issues involved. Too bad. Marriage is a right, but that doesn't mean you can(nor should you be able to) marry anybody you want. You can't marry your sister, you can't marry a cousin, you can't marry plural spouses, etc. I feel homosexual relationships are wrong, and I will show it with my vote.

That's cool. Just wanted to see if there's someone on the right who's anti-American enough to say that the government should enforce religious beliefs even where it interferes with individual rights. Grats, Stangmar! Westboro's PR department will be sending you a cookie.

Hate to break it to you Xavius, but your individual legal rights are already FUBARed with the Eminent Domain decison of in Kelo v. City of New London.

The government has had set present before to violate individual rights for reasons it so chooses.

Eminent domain applies pretty strictly to property, and there are laws separate from that decision that govern when eminent domain applies. In addition, there's still the constitutional guarantee of payment on any property seized. It's not like the government is saying "Ok, so, gays can't get married, but in compensation, we'll grant free legal services to all gay couples who want power of attorney and joint venture paperwork and compensate for time spent in the form of tax credits on your 1040."

EDIT: And that doesn't violate any principles of separation of church and state. Where did this post come from?

"Should" and "is" are different. Whether or not individual legal rights are FUBARed or not has little to do with whether other individual legal rights should be FUBARed or not.

Also, bigotry: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I guess it depends on your definition of "tolerant" but either way your stance is close enough not to be worth trying to defend from calls of bigotry, Stangmar.

But the term "bigot" offends religious sensibilities. Maybe we should use the less value-intensive term "homophobic" instead.

I'm no Californian, but I figured I'd give my opinion anyway, because I'm a loudmouth and opinionated. (It's a terrible mix, and I expect people to quote it from now on to debunk everything I say )

Bigot, homophobe, call them what you will.

What so many people seem to miss out on is that even though we're not all the same, we are all equal.

Now, unless you're the "God says its bad so it is" type, I really don't see why the term marriage shouldn't be used, or why two people of the same gender should not be allowed to be married.

If it's because you don't think it's right, I have news for you: they're not trying to have sex with you, get over yourself! You wouldn't have sex with a homosexual anyway? Well, then, why do you care who they do and don't marry?

Now, Stangmar, I need to address something. Marrying relatives is quite different, and here's why. There's the potential for pregnancy. If one relative gets pregnant by another, the closer they are in relation the higher the chance of a genetic disease or mutation, which is why you can marry your second cousin but not your first cousin!

Back to addressing people in general, marriage isn't only a church term. Regardless of where the term originated from, when you get the pretty piece of legal document, it's not a "Till Death Do You Part" License. It's a "Marriage" License. It's a legal term. That means it's applicable to all. That's like saying two Hindus who wed shouldn't be allowed to get a Marriage License. Or two Buddhists. People of two separate ethnicities.

Unless one can come up with a logical, well thought-out argument as to why people who are homosexual SHOULDN'T marry that doesn't involve a religious reference, I think it's best they be allowed to do as they please.

Take what you will from this, or ignore it as many probably will.


PS: If you think I'm an atheist saying this, you're wrong, I'm Pagan!

Personally, I am completely and utterly for individual rights. Gays should be allowed to do what they want. If I get married or get a girl pregnant, I don't want her having an abortion, and I will do my very very best to convince her not to, but I will not stop someone I don't know from walking into an abortion clinic, even if it offends a few of my sensibilities. Life is about choice, you give heterosexuals something that gays don't have, you're taking away a choice not only in their life, but in their financial future, and their ability to adopt (And don't give me that crap about Gays not being good parents, there have been studies that have shown absolutely no difference.)

Also, if you want to bring religion against me. I'm an atheist, who is also a completely legal minister who, if my state allowed gay marriage, I would marry any same-sex couple who came to me with earnest intentions.

Need I remind you?

Picture didn't show.

It works fine for me!

Well, here's a link to it!
Link. Link. Link!

You seem to have missed the underlying point. There are very real, very tangible things going wrong with the legal system involving same-sex relationships. They can rectify this in a much quicker fashion by taking the Civil Union route, or they can continue to fight a battle of morals against the religious majority that resides within this country. There isn't even legislature going through the proper pipes regarding fixing some of the issues individually because they don't want to weaken the same-sex marriage platform as a whole by allowing fixes for the real issues. They don't mind "breaking a few eggs", that is to say harming those who need these laws the most, in order to advance their platform. I have some news for idealists like yourself that has already been said once in this thread: should is not is.

You brought up marriage licenses, which we've already covered under "marriage is a religious institution adopted by the government for convenience." This does not change the term marriage from a religious to a legal term, it means that the term has duality. You can say it all you want, but what it amounts to is Christians saying YUH HUH, and idealists who say NUH UH. Very simple fact, most religion is based around Ideas and how strongly people believe them. Call it faith or whatever the hell you want to. People do not like their ideas threatened in any way, shape, or form. People blow up buildings for these ideas, what's a little legislature?

Sure, in a perfect world that's what SHOULD happen, but our world isn't perfect. Every day that goes by where people want to argue over the word marriage, people get hurt that aren't covered by the legalities that a simple union implies. Lobbyists don't seem to care about those people. Idealists feel sorry for them, wag their fingers, and tell the religious majority to feel bad about it and to roll over on the word issue. The religious cling to their faith and ideas because they will not allow anyone to challenge those ideas.

Take for instance my friend's father. He's a good man, church-going, pillar of the community, etc. We had a discussion about this when the hospital visitation bit came up on a news story. He was actually rather taken aback and commented on how those laws should be changed. Now, fast forward a few minutes to where his daughter says it with "marriage" and you'd think the ground opened up with the maw of Hell staring at us. That's how people react when you draw in religion. Even anti same-sex marriage people understand that the legality of the issues needs to change, but the second you mention it in a manner that threatens their ideas, it gets hairy. You may go on to say "he shouldn't react that way." Ask birds not to fly. This is how people react in reality. Should != is.

My religion? Agnostic. I don't give a if you are part of the God-squad, using voodoo, or even wondering about that great big alien in the volcano. Doesn't make a bit of difference to me.

You're overly hopeful. The constitutions of both your state and mine explicitly ban same-sex unions that aren't called marriage. The religious right does not acknowledge human rights with any sort of deference. I'm glad that your father is a more reasonable man than most religious people, and I'm glad that he's the sort that would tolerate civil unions for the sake of equality under the law. That being said, two-thirds of the voters in both your state and mine said that even civil unions are a bad idea, and it's going to take two-thirds of the voters to ever reverse that. So, no. It's a given that there are more Stangmars and Palins in the Republican party than there are people like your father. And, as Stangmar so boldly displayed, it's not even that they don't know that they're expressing bigotry homophobia intolerance a lack of concern for the rights of the non-religious. Two-thirds of the voters in your state and mine came right out and said that it isn't an issue with the word. They said that gays don't really count, and religious rhetoric allows for the sort of mental cop-out that lets them still express themselves as good people. Nonsense like "love the sinner, hate the sin" that prompted Stangmar's edit. Sure, it's not bigotry, homophobia, or intolerance, because those are words that make the religious uncomfortable, it's love in the name of Jesus!

I live in Florida, and I'll vote, but I don't think it will matter anyway, since my vote will most likely get lost or miscounted.