Miss California?

[smileyeagle1021]

it affects my insurance premiums so it's not just me being mean about it.

Please clarify, you are against gay marriage because it will affect insurance premiums?
You know what really affects insurance premiums? Obese people, smokers, people with genetic dispositions, diabetics, cancer patients, and yes, people who are getting joint insurance rather than individual insurance... that said, I'm pretty sure that married couples that get joint insurance are one of the smaller influences on premiums.
So, how bout we move on. What about the other couple hundred of legal protections, the larger of which being hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions, inheritance and probate rights, prenuptial protections, and tax benefits, just to name a few. Yes, a lot of those rights (sans tax benefits) can be achieved independent of marriage/civil unions, but rather than costing a nominal fee and an afternoon at the county clerk's office involves weeks if not months of time with attorneys and can cost several thousands of dollars. Unless you are a lawyer who makes those several thousands of dollars, the vast majority of those other rights will in no way affect you, and the rights that do affect you will be so minimal and be caused by more groups than just homosexuals, to be fair to blame on homosexuals exclusively.

And saying that it just aint natural is an argument that needs to be put to rest. "The penis is not meant to go into the anus" and little pieces of plastic aren't meant to be placed on the surface of the eye, sharp pieces of metal aren't meant to be inserted into the skin, machines aren't meant to be placed inside the body, joints aren't meant to be replaced, etc.
Humans rarely do anything 'natural' anymore, God has given us the ability to improve on nature, and we have used that ability.
I am able to see clearly because someone came up with the idea that you can place a lens on top of the eye's natural lens in order to create a clearer image. I am safe from many diseases because someone came up with the idea of injecting immunizations into the skin. I still have my mother because someone came up with the idea of using a needle to inject chemicals into the body to fight cancer. I am able to walk with my mother rather than push her in a wheelchair because someone came up with the idea to create an artificial knee. I was granted an entire two additional years with my grandma because someone came up with the idea of placing a machine inside her body to stimulate her heart. I challenge anyone to say any of those 'unnatural' actions were a bad thing.

Why then are people opposed to the idea of me spending my life with the man I love (when/if I find out who that is)? Why then are people opposed to the idea of me being able to enter into a CIVIL contract with that man for mutual protection? Because it's not natural? I hate to say it, but if that is your only answer (and not targeting you in particular Rubystars), then you are a hypocrite for accepting other 'unnatural' improvements to society while denying that one.

[blas87]

There are a hell of a lot bigger problems in this world to be worrying about, than going out of the way to bash gay people and make it illegal for them to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual people.

It's fucking disgusting.

That is all.

[Rubystars]

Oh homosexuality is perfectly natural but so are other animalistic instincts. It might also be considered natural to murder people who are your rivals (certainly human history is full of this, and chimpanzees kill other chimps). Morality is often about resisting base urges that we have as animals. It could also be considered natural to just take what you want. Let's say you're hungry and there is a display of candy at the store. You shouldn't just open it and start munching away and then go about your business as if nothing happened. You're supposed to pay for the candy first. Children have a lot of base instincts that they have to be trained out of, such as learning table manners, not biting other people, etc.

I think having sex as something that married men and women do is another aspect of a healthier society.

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is. "Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage. It's none of my business what you do in private, and I respect your right to make personal choices about your sex life or who you love and hang out with. I do get a little irritated when you want to take that and force the public to acknowledge it as something on the same level as traditional marriage.

If you're gay, then I will still be nice to you just like I would anybody else. I'm not out to beat you up or burn your house down or any of that other really "hateful" stuff. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you do in order for me to be a good person, now, does it?

[linguist]

"Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage.

ok, this is the second time you've made some variation of this ridiculous statement. it's not only insulting in the extreme, it's dehumanizing toward homosexuals. you say you don't hate homosexuals? dehumanizing them is about as hate-filled as it gets.

It's none of my business what you do in private,

it's none of your business what anyone does, period.

[Rubystars]

It's not my intention to dehumanize anyone. Of course they're human beings with feelings and needs just like the rest of us. Human beings do things that don't make sense all the time. Just look at the customers suck board stories. The human SCs do all kinds of things that are illogical or strange. It doesn't make them inhuman or less human. To me expecting society at large to recognize a homosexual couple as "married" is pretty silly, but I wouldn't say the person saying that was necessarily a bad person. I just don't agree with what they're saying or what they want from the rest of us, which is to acknowledge them as normal.

[blas87]

What's not normal about being gay? Just because they aren't attracted to someone of the opposite gender, they are not normal?

Serial killers, child molesters, rapists, cannibals, people who screw dead people....THOSE people are not normal.

[Rubystars]

The other people you mentioned are really evil people. I would consider them to be a heck of a lot worse than a law-abiding homosexual. Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean that the person is cruel or evil. I'd expect about the same proportions of really awful behavior like that would exist in homosexuals as non-homosexuals.

[Nyoibo]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is.

(bolded for emphasis)

No it's not, that's what a narrow religious interpretation of marriage is.

Werriam-Webster

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

[AFPheonix]

Interestingly enough, it took a lot of the gay marriage bans to actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Previously, most states had the law defined as between two people. Also, as has been previously stated on this thread and others, marriage as a sacrament did not come into being until the 16th century.
Furthermore, marriage has had many definitions over the ages in different societies than what is acceptable nowadays. There's no reason why marriage cannot be simply defined as a contract between two consenting adults.

As for the declaration that you're not denying gays any rights, you are. Here's a whole laundry list of them.

The declaration that children might learn about homosexuality in school is a bit of a red herring as well. I suspect that you consider being gay to be a choice, when it has been proven that it is not. It is a result of genetics and uterine environment. There is a social evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

Look, we understand you don't like butt sex. Whatever, that's your opinion. It's not right, however, to deny an entire group of people legal rights simply because of an act that hurts no one, including yourself. You won't be forced to enter into a gay marriage, it has no effect on your ability to get a marriage license. What's the problem?

[Nyoibo]

It's a sad day when a country that was condemned for apartheid becomes more progressive and accepting than the countries that condemned it.

[smileyeagle1021]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is. "Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage.

for the sake of semantics, would you approve of something like Civil Unions which provide the same legal protections? Since really that is what the argument boils down to, does a homosexual couple deserve the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple. So if we leave marriage out of it, if we are only talking about providing legal protections, would you support it?

And for the record, comparing homosexuality to bestiality (which you do by comparing it to marrying your dog) is dehumanizing no matter how you spin it.

[Rubystars]

I didn't really mean to say that homosexuality itself was on the same level as doing it with a dog, although I can see why it looked that way. What I was trying to say was that I consider the idea of gay marriage to be just as ridiculous as the idea of marrying your dog. It's just not marriage either way. Homosexual sex is different because both partners are willing (unlike a non-human animal, which can't give consent) and consentual sex is not abusive, while doing it to an animal is automatically abusive. Plus in my opinion doing it with an animal adds a whole other level of sickness to the equation.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding about that.

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

[linguist]

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

because 'separate but equal' has worked so well in the past

[AdminAssistant]

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

Besides, many groups are no longer advocating civil unions because it's been proven that the whole "separate but equal" thing didn't really work out.

Look, you can have your own personal feelings about homosexuality. But this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Gay couples should be able to be legally wedded in a union and have the same rights and priveleges as straight couples - insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, legal standing for things like wills, that kind of thing.

[Rubystars]

I'm not really even comfortable with the whole civil union idea. I have a big problem with the government giving homosexuality an equal status with heterosexual marriages no matter what they call it. It's not the same and it's not equal.