My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[CellarDweller]

Civil Unions Vs. Marriage: Equality Knows No Exceptions


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/414159/civil_unions_vs_marriage_equality_knows.html

[CellarDweller]

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal


http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

[HerrKaiser]

That's a nice hypothetical analogy, David. 

Tell you what, I'm gonna say it, and I point no fingers at any individual, but I don't care who is offended:

Any gay person who is against gay "marriage," full "marriage" rights, exactly the same as available to heterosexuals, not some separate and allegedly equal category of "civil unions," has his own internal issues he needs to deal with and is probably internally homophobic.

Because there is no reason to oppose gay marriage except homophobia and prejudice.

There. I've said it. 

Well there you've said it...but many would wonder why such energy on an issue that is the same piece of pie but you want your neighbor's instead of the one you have.

[ifyoucantfixit]

      Back in pre civil war south.  There were people who owned slaves and held them in terms of chattel.  To say that it was a tradition and should be allowed to continue because it had always been that way.  Was completely unreasonable.  There were people who totally disagreed.  Not only the slaves themselves but the people of right mind and thought.  They knew that it was completely unreasonable and barbaric to keep those "traditions" in place.
    Just because something has been a tradition and always been that way,  doesnt make it right.  The holding of people as property, the owning of women and complete rule of every bit of their life, is still wrong.
    If we go to the middle east and ask the large majority of the Muslims if they think that their time honored beliefs and traditions are right.  We would certainly have the same responses that have been given here to argue against same sex marriage.  It isnt right, simply because it has always been that way.  It needs to be changed,  It needs to become a thing of the past.  We need to move into the future.  Give everyone the same rights.  Religious ideals are wonderful for having morals, but not the way to write all of our laws.  There are so many different religions that
there is no way to make those laws fit to all the different religions.
   I am still looking forward to someone giving me a rational reason that marriage to same sex couples is a threat or in any way deliterious to man woman marriage.  I think I know a bit about marriage, and having a successful long term marriage.  I have been married to the same man for fifty one years.  I dont see any way in this world that gay or same sex marriage is going to change my marriage in any way...................janice

[David In Indy]

I don't think that analogy makes sense at all. People are not restaurants, and no one is excluded from restaurants.

If you want a non-human analogy, try this. You or anyone else has the right to make a soft drink, market it, sell it, promote and distribute it, etc etc, but you are not open to using the name coca cola. Already taken.

What I do find interesting is that every here falls back on the name issue and not the core agenda of rights. By avoiding the admission that rights is the issue and if rights are guaranteed, then the name should not matter.

If you think the word is so important to have, why then can you not believe those that want that word specified for traditional use are any less entitled to it?

Marriage was NEVER on the table for gay rights until recent times. The institution was scoffed at by most gays as being too institutional, too traditional, too straight and too restrictive. Changing attitudes, whether they be originated by aging baby boomers who want the transfer of loot easily, or younger generations who desire more traditionality, or anyone else who just wants to be like Mr. and Mrs. mainstream USA....fine. But, it seems by most that the uncompromising need to carry the word 'marriage' on a legallly equal certificate is just a finger in the eye of traditional families who have every right to be traditional if they choose to be.

I never said people are restaurants! What are you talking about?

[opinionista]

      Back in pre civil war south.  There were people who owned slaves and held them in terms of chattel.  To say that it was a tradition and should be allowed to continue because it had always been that way.  Was completely unreasonable.  There were people who totally disagreed.  Not only the slaves themselves but the people of right mind and thought.  They knew that it was completely unreasonable and barbaric to keep those "traditions" in place.
    Just because something has been a tradition and always been that way,  doesnt make it right.  The holding of people as property, the owning of women and complete rule of every bit of their life, is still wrong.
    If we go to the middle east and ask the large majority of the Muslims if they think that their time honored beliefs and traditions are right.  We would certainly have the same responses that have been given here to argue against same sex marriage.  It isnt right, simply because it has always been that way.  It needs to be changed,  It needs to become a thing of the past.  We need to move into the future.  Give everyone the same rights.  Religious ideals are wonderful for having morals, but not the way to write all of our laws.  There are so many different religions that
there is no way to make those laws fit to all the different religions.
   I am still looking forward to someone giving me a rational reason that marriage to same sex couples is a threat or in any way deliterious to man woman marriage.  I think I know a bit about marriage, and having a successful long term marriage.  I have been married to the same man for fifty one years.  I dont see any way in this world that gay or same sex marriage is going to change my marriage in any way...................janice

Hey Janice, well said!

[Marge_Innavera]

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution.  But in order to ensure that gays have access to the same legal benefits of marriage that has been traditionally understood, without question, to exist for a married man and woman, I have no problem with instituting the concept of civil unions for gays.  I don't think it's necessary to call that marriage and I don't think it's the job of government to redefine the English language for the purposes of societal engineering, nor do I think gays are denied legal rights due to the definition of a word by society.

And this is the last comment I will make on the topic.

You might want to re-read my post.  It did not refer to marriage being in the Constitution -- the Constitution does not guarantee the right of marriage to heterosexual couples either. I was referring to equal rights under the law.

You seem to be rather snarked over threads expiring and being "sucked into" a discussion on marriage equality.  Threads on message boards never continue to infinity, and if you consider same-sex marriage an irrelevant topic I suggest you look around the forum a little more.  Its identity developed long before you started posting here.

[Marge_Innavera]

Perhaps others who would tend to agree with lextra may not find such a one-sided environment to be a place of interest.  

Participation in this and other Internet message boards are voluntary, and neither hosts nor participants have any obligation to shoehorn their opinions into a one-size-fits-all mold.  People who are opposed to equal rights for gays are likely to be in a minority here; so be it.  They can either be the loyal opposition or find another venue but demanding that the venue change to manufacture a faux "balance" won't fly.

[Marge_Innavera]

That is absolutely not the case. Take insurance policies, for example. They vary from state to state and are not transferable across state borders; a totally new and different contract would be required.

Precedents indicate it does apply to marriage contracts. Otherwise, interracial marriages would likey not be recognized in some areas.  For that matter, interfaith marriages might not either.

[Marge_Innavera]

Not sure how this comment lends itself to the gay marriage debate.

It goes to the argument that there is some uniform, unchanging standard for what marriage is, when in fact it's changed continually over time and in Western countries has changed in the past half-century.