My sexual orientation and my positions on gay rights

[letxa2000]

The question would be:  "Why are there two different names for the exact same rights?"  What is the point - other than discrimination?

Tradition, and respect for tradition, and a little but of "give" on the part of the gay community when the conservative community is "giving" quite a lot by accepting the option of civil unions.

It would be a case of separate-but-equal legislation and it would be on very shaky ground.

It would be a case of equal but equal.

Having said that, if you think that by calling yourselves "married" that you will be free of discrimination, that's obviously silly.  If anything I think that it would simply heighten discrimination and negative attitudes against gays.

[letxa2000]

Tradition changes, and for good reason. 

On the other hand, tradition doesn't always change.  And when it changes it's not always for good reason.

[brokeplex]

gay man, strongly in favor of same sex marriage which I believe will be a reality in most of the 50 states and DC in the near future. civil unions are a stop gap measure in the right direction, but when I marry Dusty, I am going to MARRY DUSTY. which is going to happen right after this election is over. he finally said, "looks like a plan".  

[brokeplex]

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.

I think that you have it reversed from what is politically doable. the states will take the lead in both civil unions and marriage. there is no federal consensus to accept a constitutional amendment in this matter, and remember TX, there are extraordinary constitutional hurdles to go thru in order to a constitutional amendment to pass and become a part of the working constitution.

[brokeplex]

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.

I disagree with you here, the "full faith and credit" clause takes care of recognizing interstate contracts, and marriage is just such a contract. no difficulties will be found in some states having same sex marriage or civil unions, and others not having them.

[letxa2000]

Exactly, Clyde and Amanda. In the end, lexta's arguments, like all the arguments against gay marriage, simply come down to one word: Prejudice.

How do you figure that I have prejudices?  Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays.  That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.

[letxa2000]

I disagree with you here, the "full faith and credit" clause takes care of recognizing interstate contracts, and marriage is just such a contract. no difficulties will be found in some states having same sex marriage or civil unions, and others not having them.

Difficulties have already been had.

[Clyde-B]

Tradition, and respect for tradition, and a little but of "give" on the part of the gay community when the conservative community is "giving" quite a lot by accepting the option of civil unions.

Traditions are constantly being modified.  "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1951.  Should we yank it back out?  Anti-Miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 opening up interracial marriage.  Should we go back to allowing marriage only to couples of the same race?  Traditions and the concept of marriage are not static. Your contention that they are is in error.

Sometimes the best way to respect a tradition by expanding it to be more inclusive.

It would be a case of equal but equal.

You have yet to establish a need for two separate sets of legislation.  (A real need as opposed to just wanting it that way.)
 

Having said that, if you think that by calling yourselves "married" that you will be free of discrimination, that's obviously silly.  If anything I think that it would simply heighten discrimination and negative attitudes against gays.

Why is there a negative attitude toward gays?  And who has this attitude?  You?

[Ellemeno]

How do you figure that I have prejudices?  Believe it or not, the fact that I don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean I have prejudices against gays.  That is similar to calling me racist just because I won't vote for Obama, and I won't have it.

Now whose argument isn't sound?  You are saying that equal rights for ALL citizens is the same as not voting for ONE candidate?

[letxa2000]

Traditions are constantly being modified.  "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1951.  Should we yank it back out?  Anti-Miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 opening up interracial marriage.  Should we go back to allowing marriage only to couples of the same race?  Traditions and the concept of marriage are not static. Your contention that they are is in error.

You're equating relatively minor modifications to marriage law to monumental changes in the overall concept of what marriage is.  I'm getting the very distinct impression that you just don't understand how significantly radical what you're asking for is in the eyes and hearts of many people.

Sometimes the best way to respect a tradition by expanding it to be more inclusive.

And sometimes the best way to respect tradition is to leave it alone.

You have yet to establish a need for two separate sets of legislation.  (A real need as opposed to just wanting it that way.)

And you have yet to establish a need to for the union of gays to be called marriage of civil unions provide the exact same rights and benefits.

Why is there a negative attitude toward gays?  And who has this attitude?  You?

I don't, actually.  I don't understand the preferences of gays but I have no ill-will towards them nor do I care what they do in their bedrooms and I wouldn't hold that against them in my dealings with them.  A decade and a half ago I had friends that were gay and it didn't bother me in the least.  However, I am offended by an insistence that I be forced to bend society's traditional definition of something as basic as marriage to accommodate their preferences.  I'm willing to give you the legal rights.  But if you push me to call it "marriage," no.