Honk If You Support Gay Marriage

"You forgot the finger of oppression"

(horrified gasp) "Please... there are ladies present." Clue :-)

This is true... to suppress rights is a travesty. But to suggest it mentions anywhere in the consitution that there is a "right" to marry is an insult to the intelligence of everyone on both sides of the issue.

We do have laws that dictate all standards of living in the states. We say you have to be a certain age to vote. We say only certain people can drive and we also have criteria for that. And we have laws (and more are being made) which make the criteria that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The argument of oppression is about as convincing as teenagers complaining they cannot drink.. or a blind man that he cannot get a license to drive. Ok.. perhaps the second instance was more extreme but it does show the level of importance this argument truly warrants in the daily life of average people. :)

__________________________________________

"Your argument doesn't hold water. We give everyone every possible right out there and we set our boundaries where we believe that people may hurt themselves or others."

(sigh) No my friend... we do NOT give people rights.. only the constitution does that. And again, marriage is not a right. If you want it to be a right, simply use due process and get them to add it to the constitution. Any other thought on the matter would simply be using emotionalism to attempt to avoid the law.

"Both of your examples? Fall precisely in this category (do I really need to explain this in detail? I hope not)."

Well, both examples cited we have laws and whether they are liked or disliked by a marignal percentage of the population; is not relevant. What is relevant is if they violate the constitution. And because no rights are being violated, the new laws and ammendments are all passing consitutional standards. As for the laws being made for not hurting someone.. what about not selling alcohol on Sundays? If we really wanted to keep people safe and the alcohol was so dangerous.. why make it legal at all? That law was made just to service the will of the majority of the people. And, as odd of a law as it may seem to be to many, it violates no constituional standard and is therefore upheld.

"So if you claim gay marriage can be limited because of the same rationale, you're really saying that someone out there is hurt by it."

I did not claim anything of the sort; you did. You may wish it to be viewed this way if you were looking to gain the appearance of a victim for support. So the point is moot. But even if you were correct, as I said, whether someone is hurt, offended, or scorned by a law is not relevant. So long as no right is being stamped on, it is a government mandated by the will of the people.

"Is that what you're saying? Is that what you're THINKING and BELIEVING? Check yourself. If it is, it's plain homophobia."

It is human nature to try to justify oneself. But do not allow yourself to be brainwashed into believing the pointless rhetoric. The word homophobia is overused so often nowadays, it has become a weapon.. not a defense. Homophobia is the fear of homosexual behaviour. I do not fear homosexuals even if I do not necessarily approve of their lifestyle choices for many reasons. But sadly, you have lowered yourself to the level of the hate mongers who name call in your futile attempt to self justify. I have had civil discussions with several on this board and respect them. So I disgaree with them one one issue.. big deal. I agree with them on countless more :)


-------------------

"I believe that gay people should have a right to marry. I might be biased as I am gay but at the same time, I believe in the rights of all people to express their love in a way that does not harm others. I am sure that some clever person reading this will reply, "Does that mean that I can run naked down a street etc. to declare my love and that would make it ok?" My answer would be no. As that would be breaking the law."

So you are saying that if the populace makes a certain law, it should be upheld? We do say people have to be a certain age to drive... or to drink.. that standards are maintained. So, if a society defines marriage between any two people, or people of a certain age, or multiple people, or one man and one woman.. they ahve the right and the obligation to set their own standards. That kind of defeats your own argument there.


"Marriage if you think about it is such an unusual idea. Many societies, both long ago and today, are quite happy for a guy to have multiple wives or partners and the idea of sticking with one person is crazy. But, people nowadays realise that when you meet the right person, you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Marriage is just a public way of saying that. Gay people should have the right to that."

But why state it in a public way? If the love between two people is so absolute, then having it embraced and accepted by society should not be important in the slightest; no piece of paper tells you that you are married any more than that same piece of papers can tell you that you are not. And there is no "right" to get married.. at least not in the USA; thats just an overused term and people invent rights for their own agenda.

"However, marriage has a lot of legal issues too. In Britain, until a couple of years ago, if a gay partner was injured and was taken to hospital, only family or a wife would be allowed to see him, not his gay partner as he did not have the legal right. That I think was an abomination and a real slap in the face to gay people."

People should be able to sign over medical proxy and other benefits to whomever they wish whether it is traditional or non-traditional family.

"Why should there be one set of rules and rights for straght couples and another set for gay people."

A circle is not a square no matter how many times you want to call it that. But I guess you mean you want your activities to be looked at as equal; that will never be.. but never in history have people universally agreed on anything socially so your problem is not unique.

"My Christian friends, who are born again, do not think that gay people should be married in a church but they think that it is wrong for gay couples to not have the same legal rights as straight couples. Thankfully, as far as I know, in Britain, gay couples have the same rights as straight couples."

Most people recognize homosexuality is much like being colorblind in that it is a biological defect that prevents their organs from acting in their designed purpose. However, until we can stem that disorder, we can treat these people with civility and kindness and they should still have the same benefits. It is only a short term solution.

"Hopefully, America will one day become enlightened and live up to its name of being the land of the free."

Actually, in this sense, America is years ahead of its counterparts. In America, the population is in control on its own standards. We not not lower them to satisfy an emotional conjecture for a smaller percentage of the population. As we vote, we are truly free and hold ourselves to a higher standard foreign to others who think the failed philosohpies of emotionalism will somehow start to make sense. It is possible other countries will become educated enough and enlightened enough to be able to recognize a simple case of brith defects and work hard for a cure instead of justifying the disease.