Should gays have the right to marry?

AJC.COM ^ | July 18, 2003 | SHAUNTI FELDHAHN DIANE GLASS

[cc2k]

.... Laws against gay marriage ....

There are no laws against gay marriage

There are laws that define what a marriage is, and what rights and privileges are granted to a married couple. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you don't want to have that, don't get married.

As I said, an analogous law concerning bah mitzvahs, if you want to construct such an analogy, would be a law that required bah mitzvahs to be performed for anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, and a that required the privileges and benefits of bah mitzvahs to be conferred on anyone, not just on those who believe in the Jewish faith.

[tdadams]

There are no laws against gay marriage... There are laws that define what a marriage is

Maybe you have an aversion to logic, or maybe just to the obvious, but if the law defines marriage in a way that precludes gay marriage, there is a law against gay marriage.

I'm simply bewildered that that even needs to be explained.

[Eastbound]

Just trying to avoid making condemning statements, lest I convict myself for more sins than I can remember. There are three sides to a coin. Sometimes the edge holds the solution.

But I will opine that this whole 'gay' agenda sounds to me like a strange doctrine designed to allow man to escape the guilt and penalty of sin. Who needs forgiveness and atonement by God if the supreme court can wipe away the penalty with the stroke of the pen without shedding a drop of blood?

Will the court re-write the laws again, as it did in Texas recently? I suppose it will. The slope is very slippery and is imbedded with all manner of stepping stones on the way up that will become stumbling blocks and cause many to charge head-first into hell on the way down.

The 'Gem of the Ocean' is beginning to look more like the busted shards of an empty beer bottle.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Who said anything about law? I said definition, a definition that goes back thousands of years.

You might as well argue that circles should also be allowed to be defined as squares. We wouldn't want to exclude circles from the squares of the world and hurt their poor widdle feelings, would we?

So, no, your "circular reference" doesn't hold water because no one was talking about the law, as your example requires.

If people saw on television two men pounding each other in the butt, the public view of fags would radically change to the negative.

[cc2k]

Maybe you have an aversion to logic, or maybe just to the obvious, but if the law defines marriage in a way that precludes gay marriage, there is a law against gay marriage.

You are the one with logic problems.

Following your logic, are you saying that there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits?

I've never served in the military, and I'm probably to old to serve now. Since the law defines veterans in a way that precludes me from being a veteran, there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits. That's not fair. We should change the law so that anyone can be a veteran, regardless of military service.

There is no reason that gays can't get married. However, if it isn't a man and a woman, it's not a marriage. How difficult is that to understand?

[VRWC_minion]

My small mind cannot comprehend the "Logic" of the above paradox. Perhaps some more enlightened folks can clue me in on this.

Its the same process of destroying marriage. THe more the defintion of marriage is watered down, the less meaning it has. By example, if you have a glass of wine and start watering it down at some point it no longer exists, it becomes water for all intents and purposes.

[yianni]

Society bestows "financial and social benefits of marriage" for the couple to create the next generation for that society. It is not to solemnify "shacking up".

[VRWC_minion]

and take out a restraining order.

If so, your issue is with the judge and the legal use of restraining orders. I'm personally hard pressed to see how someone could get such a restraining order issued as you suggest. Therefore, your example to me is pure and simple bull$hit.

[ShandaLear]

I am a conservative and a Christian (not necessarily in that order) and I have to come down on the side of the rebuttal on this one. The institution of marriage is much more at risk as a result of no fault divorce than it is if homosexuals are allowed to be legally married. Frankly, I do not understand the fear over this. Absolutely no one is personally effected by gay marriage except the gay couples who marry. The ONLY argument I have against it is that I can see gays eventually attemtping to sue churches for refusing to marry them and calling it discrimination. I doubt they would get far with that, but who really knows.

If we believe in traditional marriage as an institution (and I do), then it is up to each one of us to keep our marriages and families healthy. With divorce rates in heterosexual marriages what they are, this belly-aching about gay marriage seems a little disingenuous to me.

As Christians, if we expect any worldly government to stick up for our traditions and beliefs, we are putting our hope in the absolute wrong place.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

You will see that and gays marrying silly old queens for their money , and gay divorce, can you imagine the hubris. Custody fights over adopted or children born of artificial insemination. All due to gay marriage. It seems to me a legal contract between two people forming a partnership is adequate.If it's the actual wedding,white bridal gown and morning suit they can do that at the signing, who really cares! They are not however, marriageable to the same sex partner. No matter how they shriek and scream.

[tdadams]

I'm sorry, but that's just a completely disingenuous argument. It's a complete non sequitur. I'm sure you realize that. If you don't realize it, then trying to reason with you is futile.

[ShandaLear]

Wow! These gays sound just like heteros to me. LOL!

[tdadams]

You didn't have to state "the law" specifically. If we're talking about the status of marriage in the U.S., we're talking about the law.

If people saw on television two men pounding each other in the butt, the public view of fags would radically change to the negative.

Charming.

[Republican Wildcat]

Male superiority and female subservience? Oh, wait. That already exists. I blush. I should try to pick a more outlandish example. Sorry.

My. Such ignorance.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

EXACTLY!!! Only with more vitrol and emoting! Just wait, if gay marriage is made legal 'cause it will cause a bit of a mess for the gays. They simply want to force their wants on a society that resists. They already have all the equal rights everyone else has. Now we will have a whole bunch of new laws for special rights. The hate thought one is a favorite!

[breakem]

Help me out here. Two women we know got married by their minister. In the US people have the freedom of religious belief. They are married in the eyes of their church. The government does not recognize the marraige. Are they married or not?

[tdadams]

With divorce rates in heterosexual marriages what they are, this belly-aching about gay marriage seems a little disingenuous to me.

Me too. The hysteria about gay marriage is wholly based on the false dichotomy that either marriage is preserved as it is today or the entire institution is rendered meaningless. I don't think that's the case.

If marriage was extended to gays (which I'm not in favor of, BTW) the institution would simply encompass another 3% of the population with little noticeable effect on anyone other than gays themselves.

[gitmo]

Homosexuals DO have the right to marry. Same rules as for heterosexuals: someone of the opposite sex who is not related and who is not already married.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Who needs forgiveness and atonement by God if the supreme court can wipe away the penalty with the stroke of the pen without shedding a drop of blood?"

The SCOTUS cannot wipe away God's penalty.

[gitmo]

Following your logic, are you saying that there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits?

I've never served in the military, and I'm probably to old to serve now. Since the law defines veterans in a way that precludes me from being a veteran, there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits. That's not fair. We should change the law so that anyone can be a veteran, regardless of military service.

If I'm not mistaken, our government applies this logic to taxpayers.