[KillBill]

While there are many homosexuals who have sex with anyone (I have the misfortune of knowing one), there are also those who do enter into committed relationships. And in an era when the "sanctity" of marriage at the state is violated beyond repair, what harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause? I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married? The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business.

"Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays." - Barry Goldwater

[rdb3]

A marriage is defined as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex.

Gays can have whatever relationship they want, but it can't be called marriage without totally redefining the term.

Show 'em my motto!

[explodingspleen]

And in an era when the "sanctity" of marriage at the state is violated beyond repair, what harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause?

Q: Why not give a "Congression Medal of Honor" to everyone who want one?
A: Because then they would have no value.

Same thing with marriage. You don't give marriage licenses to just any person who wants them for any reason whatsoever because then they don't mean anything. The are specific guidelines which determine what can and cannot be a marriage and if you allow those to be stretched then marriage doesn't mean anything.

I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married?

I am allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex; not the same sex, nor sheep, nor pigs, nor am I allowed to marry multiple other peoples, just one, nor am I allowed to marry relatives closer than a second cousin. And yes, I'm a-ok with that.

The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business.

If you really think that is valid, why are you interjecting your own opinions instead of just ignoring the issue and hoping the rest of us traditional marriage fiends mind our business? You can't have it both ways. If the issue warrants no activism it follows you shouldn't be involving yourself in it.

Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality.

The only just implemenation of the law is as a moral instrument. Murder, rape, theft, these are all moral issues. Laws which punish these are rooted in the premise that they are immoral actions.

But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

Laws which say "homosexuality is ok" are every bit as morally loaded as laws which say "homosexuality is not ok". It follows that a law forbidding discrimination against homosexuals would in fact be "legislating someone's version of morality".

Again, you can't have things both ways.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

[W]hat harm could allowing gay marriages possibly cause?

Gay marriage is not a Conservative family value.

Legal marriage is purely a social institution between two people who "love" each other, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Traditionally, it's been between a man and a woman.

If you could show that a sheep "loved" you, I'd be out here arguing there shouldn't be a law against marrying sheep.

You're really whacked!!

A DUmb lib just trolling?

[little jeremiah]

Barry Goldwater was wrong about homosexuals. Maybe if he had known more about their stated goals and planned methods to achieve their goals, he wouldn't have had such a blind spot.

Have you read "After the Ball"? If not, you should at least read the summary which is archved on FR. Do a search on it or ping me and I'll post it again.

Homosexuals activists and their supporters do not want to be left alone. Their aim is to change society into a sexually libertine free-for-all that suits their sexual proclivities. Did you know that the original "Gay Rights Platform of Demands" in 1972 called for not only "gay" marriage but plural marriage? AND the total elimination of the age of consent? IOW, they want to legalize child/adult sex. Of course, that one quickly went under the radar screen.

Most people such as myself who are opposed to same sex marriage and the promotion of homosexuality as normal and natural - especially in schools - do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But homosexuals do not want privacy. They want to invade public bathrooms, the schoolroom, the Boy Scouts, the priesthood, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, become foster and adoptive parents, and on and on.

What about "hatespeech" laws? Such laws are current in Canada and countries in Europe. Homosexual activists want them enacted here as well. Do you think that speech warning of the dangers of homosexual acts should be illegal, as it is in some other countries?

[backhoe]

I happen to live next door to a homosexual woman who is one of the nicest people, and best neighbors, I've even known. Since she's only involved with other consenting adults, and discreet about it, I have nary a problem with her.

That said, you really need to read all- and I do mean all- of the vast information here:

-A Gay ( or not! ) Old Time- GM links--

[gogeo]

I mean, how would you feel if they didn't let you get married?

How would you feel if someone held you down and poked burning cigarettes in your eyes?

Irrelevant question? No more so than yours.

[bk1000]

"The best answer is to ignore them and hope they mind their own business."

Wishful thinking. Gay pride parade, bath houses, etc. Wear blinders to a public park (watch your step though),& stay the heck out of the bathroom at Home Depot. Homos will NOT mind their own business. Tolerance leads to acceptance, leads to deference. I can not see this movement as 'progress'.

[Politicalmom]

They aren't GOING to "mind their own business", they are going to become more aggressive, and continue to try to teach other people's children that their "lifestyle" is hunky-dory.

I want them to keep their agenda AWAY from MY children.