My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[Fran]

Straight female

I support gay rights (including gay marriage).

[Wayne]

   Yay! It's Gay Rights Day here at the Twist Family Bible Study!   

[letxa2000]

My positions are:

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.

Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.

[Wayne]

Unnh?! 

[CellarDweller]

Civil unions are acceptable only at the federal level. I do not believe individual states should pass laws that institute the concept of civil unions, but I think it would be reasonable for the federal government to do so with a constitutional amendment--as long as that amendment also specifically states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman.

So in other words, you are ok changing the Constitution with an amendment that will discriminate against a whole segment of society.

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.

Traditionally, the marriage vows also state "foresaking all others until death you do part".  It's not gay people who want to change the definition of marriage.  It's the straight people who keep cheating on each other and divorcing.

[optom3]

So in other words, you are ok changing the Constitution with an amendment that will discriminate against a whole segment of society.


Traditionally, the marriage vows also state "foresaking all others until death you do part".  It's not gay people who want to change the definition of marriage.  It's the straight people who keep cheating on each other and divorcing.

Well said sir.

I am a straight woman and I believe all humans should be treated equal, and granted the same rights and protections.

The International bill of human rights, states,  "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"

That being the case any marriage should automatically be ratified.That is of course unless people are suggesting gays ar not human beings.

Why are we always having to fight for something, votes for women, equal pay for women,equal rights for gays. It exasperates me.

The sentence above seems crystal clear to me, EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS,  there printed it larger ,so anyone against gay rights can see it. If not then may I suggest you consult a good Optometrist,I happen to know one, and if she finds nothing wrong with your eyesight, then maybe a neurological exam is in order.

It maters not whether people like it, the right is implicit.

Mass murderers on death row can marry,children as young as 14 in some places can marry,paedophiles can marry,the insane can marry,mentally retarded can marry, for goodness sake in some places they even have marriage ceremonies for pets !!!!!!

It is time to stop all this ludicrous posturing and just accept it.

Right feel better now,I will just hop down off my soap box.

As you can see I'm pretty much on the fence with this one, just swaying with the breeze,oops no, that was the dog just farting !!!

[Clyde-B]

My positions are:

Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. This is the traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents, both religiously and in a civic sense. There should be no pressure or expectation to change this time-honored institution, and no explanation beyond that should be necessary.

Similar arguments and reasoning would have  denied women the right to vote, and kept slavery.

And "no explanation beyond that should be necessary."  Is not going to carry much weight as a valid argument on this forum.  It's too close to "Because I said so."

 

[serious crayons]

Not to mention that the "traditional and historical understanding of what marriage represents" has varied widely in any number of ways over the centuries. Keep in mind that even the concept of marriage as the union of two people who love each other is relatively new.

[Brown Eyes]

Keep in mind that even the concept of marriage as the union of two people who love each other is relatively new.

Yes, this is certainly true.  And, deep into the past, marriage existed as a kind of institution the most modern women (or men for that matter) would never be able to bear.  There have been some very grim, historical realities regarding marriage.   And it seems that questioning and refining the concept of marriage, even for straight people, has been very beneficial.

And, contrary to letxa's comment, marriage has clearly evolved in terms of expectation and levels of equality between partners even in straight unions.

[letxa2000]

I'm in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that provides for civil unions that have the exact same legal status as marriage.  If what you want is equal rights then that'll do the job and I support it.  If what you want is to intentionally offend people that have a more traditional view of marriage then, well, I don't support that endeavor and you shouldn't be surprised that others don't, either. 

The reason I don't support these efforts at the state level is because if you get into a situation where different states have different rules regarding the matter than you have a headache such as one I read about somewhere where some state (RI?  VT?  Don't remember) couldn't grant a divorce to a gay couple because the state where they wanted the divorce didn't recognize the marriage in the first place.  To avoid that kind of incompatibility, any legal changes should be at the federal level.