I just try to go with the flow. Which means I go with whoever has the best argument at that particular point in time ;)

The same reason some resist nationalized health care.

Most people don't think about how their opinions affect others before devoting their time into spreading those opinions.

Because it doesn't exist. Marriage is marriage. And that is defined as between a man and a woman. End of story.

So if they gays want to invent their own union they should go for it. As long as they can't sue religions for not letting them get married in their churches and that kind of stuff.

The question is why don't they want to make their own unions?

Well, for the same reason Atheists resist God, because it doesn't exist.

But, this doesn't mean that those who do believe in it should be denied by the government.

Probably because they have been exposed to one of those gay pride parades.

I have to say this argument made me sick. "Marriage is marriage. And that is defined as between a man and a woman. End of story." "So if they gays want to invent their own union they should go for it." If 'they gays'??? What kind of term is that. Being one of the only openly gay baby boomers I know, I would say believe what you believe but do not call us the gays!

Okay sorry. I won't use that term anymore. Anything els?

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Why do people resist gay marriage?

There's only three reasons

1. they think some god thinks it's bad.

2. they have no idea what being gay is, therefore think it can be learned, therefore think it's somehow bad for society, therefore they're just kind of dumb.

3. they're just assholes.

Despite the attempt to make it sound as if there must be more too it since so many people have a problem with it, which seems to be the basis of the description.

Every argument against ultimately boils down to one of those three things.

None of them the least bit legitimate.

1. we define words and can change the definition whenever and however we feel. ex. in the 18 century Africans were defined as inferior, and so enslaving them was just fine by "definition" link

Obviously that they were defined as such was not, and should not have been, the "End of story" right?

2. Marriage has several definitions anyway, only one of which is between a man and a woman. Another is simply a ceremony in which two people (notice the lack of sex in that description) are joined in a union,

another is a close relationship between any two things, "the painting was a marriage of contemporary and classical styles." You're not suggesting that styles of painting have sexual organs are you? I mean since marriage is "between a man and a woman. End of story."

As long as they can't sue religions for not letting them get married in their churches and that kind of stuff.

So... your fear is that gay people will sue, if they can't get married in a certain church?

Really? So, it's okay to discriminate against a group of people, in the off chance that if we stop discriminating against said people, they may at some point sue someone for something...

Brilliant logic there Jake.

I have a better idea. How about if we just let people get married if they want and stop worrying about what other people do.

The only argument is that a group of people is being discriminated against. And the majority of people are allowing it,

that's immoral, unfair, and quite unconstitutional.

No, that's about it, thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WTF does a gay pride parade have to do with opposition to gay marraige?

1. we define words and can change the definition whenever and however we feel

True.

Africans were defined as inferior

Nobody is doing that right now.

Obviously that they were defined as such was not, and should not have been, the "End of story" right?

Well hey, there's other options. I just think it would be easier for them to make their own union but they don't want to. Not my fault.

Really? So, it's okay to discriminate against a group of people, in the off chance that if we stop discriminating against said people, they may at some point sue someone for something...

What!? How is that discrimination? We have freedom of religion. If a religion doesn't believe homosexuality is right they don't have to marry homosexuals.

I have a better idea. How about if we just let people get married if they want and stop worrying about what other people do.

We tried that already. The people didn't vote for it. Remember?

Have you ever been to a gay pride parade? People half naked, wearing S&M;outfits. Does that sound like they'd fit in middle America? Does it sound like they're just like everybody else? Does it sound like the kind of people you want adopting children or teaching your children at school?

lol,

okay, so you think Africans in this country should make their own union?

You are officially retarded and I'm deleting you from my friend list.

They were born here, they have been here historically longer than almost anyone else (most Caucasians didn't migrate until well after slavery), to top it all, they didn't even choose to come here.

Basically what you're proposing is States based on race... ignoring that race isn't even accurate since humans are only one race and all other true "races" (there were only 21 we know about) died off thousands and thousands of years ago as far as humans are concerned,

ignoring how retarded that is. It's even more retarded to think that it would somehow be beneficial to anyone that any American should have to go "make their own union"

Sure, start with the Africans, then the Italians, then the Irish, on down the line... guess what Jake, we're all a little bit of everything, and you need to get a clue. Eventually you'll have three Americans left, each more incestuous than the next.

Next retarded point:

Yes, not giving a group of people a set of rights that another group of people is allowed is discrimination. That's the definition of discrimination. You cannot more accurately describe discrimination than that.

If a church doesn't want to marry two gays, fine, go burn a witch and worship you're invisible dude. No one is complaining about that. But STATES aren't CHURCHES do you understand that much at least?

So when a State does not allow gay marriage, it is discrimination and unconstitutional, and just kind of mean behavior in general. AND it is not even protected under "freedom of religion," as again, because I feel the need to repeat myself with you, States aren't churches. So go ahead, rattle off about god hating fags until you're blue in the face, how it's a sin, ladedadeda. Okay, good for you, you're another crazy person on the corner, congratulations.

But it's not the States place to decide others religion. And if a religion can be found (which it certainly can be) which wishes to marry a gay couple in any State of the Union,

it's the State's, and the countries, legal and moral obligation to recognize that marriage.

Last point. People also didn't vote to end slavery. In cases of discrimination the majority should not rule, as our forefathers (hypocritically granted) made very clear in the wording of our founding documents.

OK, I can only try and argue just one of your points. So, I'll do that ;)

Yes, not giving a group of people a set of rights that another group of people is allowed is discrimination.

Technically the sentence is absolutely correct. However, it isn't accurate in the given context. Here's why....

The context is gay marriage. What's being denied gays is really a set of benefits (not a right). If a gay person gets "married," by anyone who can perform a marriage, neither the gay couple nor the person performing the wedding will go to jail. Why? Because marriage is not a right that can be denied. So in this sense there is no discrimination since no right is being denied. Marriage hasn't really been denied to them.

What is really denied to them are the benefits that the government has decided to bestow upon heterosexual couples. The fact that the government calls it a marriage is of little consequence (except for gays who want those benefits, obviously) because the government could just as easily call it a civil union.

The government can grant benefits to whatever group it deems deserving. Like farmers, who get farm subsidies (a benefit). Now, when the government hands out farm subsidies, we don't yell "discrimination," do we?

I got two reasons, one is obvious the other is based on Christian belief.

1) Look at the flippin "plumbing"! Poop shoots are for exits only!

2) Most Christian believers know that its wrong cuz like the cute little saying goes "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

The government can grant benefits to whatever group it deems deserving.

Exactly, and the government by saying one group of people cannot is saying you're not important to society, you don't deserve this.

Government doesn't grant farm subsidies based on age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. It grants them to farms.

In the same way, government needs to grant all humans the right to marry another human if those humans want to marry.

That, or stop calling any of them marriage and get rid of all marriage benefits,

or stop making gay people pay taxes.

Those are the only options government has if it feels like being Constitutional.

What are you talking about? The government grants benefits to baby making couples because that benefits society.

sometimes it does, sometimes the kids grow up to be serial killers.

And those benefits aren't taken away if they choose not to have kids.

And gay couples should have every right to adopt a kid if the want, and so should be allowed the same benefits, along with the title.

Logic is not on your side Joe, no matter how far you stretch it, or how many debates you decide to create on the subject.

The whole purpose of having kids is for something called Replacement Reproduction. Adopting doesn't count because it doesn't add anything to the replacement reproduction thing.

1. That doesn't answer why married couples without kids are still allowed to be married.

2. I would argue that adopting kids who are a burden on society already is even more helpful than having more kids, since there's too many people and all, by your own admission in past debates.

OK, so if the government decided that all "marriage benefits" will now be given only to couples that produce children and then allow gays to be married, then you would be OK with that?

Sure, that's one route. Another is to allow benefits to all marriages gay or straight, another is to simply not recognize marriage at all and only offer such benefits if one has kids no matter marital status. There's probably a hundred ways to make it fair. Right now though, it is blatantly not fair.

The point is that it's not the State's place to say one group of people can do something, and another group cannot.

Religions can say it. You can say. I can say it. Anyone else and any religion is allowed those freedoms.

The State though is not. If it recognizes one, it Constitutionally needs to recognize all. That's what equal rights means.

You might not always like it, but that is what this country is founded on, and it's the moral and right path to take. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a dude. I'm certainly not gonna marry another guy. But if two guys or two girls want to marry each other, it's not hurting anyone.

But traditionally fairness doesn't enter into the equation. For example,

If a man wants full custody of his child (i.e., he want to support his child to the fullest), the woman can say, "screw you." and abort it.

If a man doesn't want custody of his child (i.e. he doesn't want to pay child support), the woman can say, "Screw you." keep the child and force him to pay.

Where's the fairness in that?

1. two wrongs don't make a right.

2. you really can't get enough of the abortion debate can you?

It's a woman's body, and a man cannot force her to do anything at all with it, whether they've had sex or not.

And child support is supposed to be for the child, not the woman. Though I will grant you the laws in that arena are skewed far far far to the woman's side.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with gay marriage, except maybe you're now for gay marriage as there's no chance of anyone suing anyone for child support.

2) Most Christian believers know that its wrong cuz like the cute little saying goes "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

1. If you believe in a god, you believe he created everyone. And people are born gay, so he did create adam and steve.

2. It's moot anyway, because we evolved over millions of years, and every mammal and every generation of every mammal has had a percent of gay members.

lol,

okay, so you think Africans in this country should make their own union?

You are officially retarded and I'm deleting you from my friend list.

Why do you assume the worst? The answer is no because race is different than being gay. Next?

Go ahead delete me I don't care.

I'm just against giving anyone 100% control over anything. In other words, I am against not holding a person responsible for their actions. There has got to be consequences. You need to be held accountable for your actions.

If a woman can force me to pay child support for a child I didn't want then she's enslaving MY BODY. Or, since child support is "for the children," the baby is enslaving MY BODY to work on his behalf.

So, to recap, a woman has 100% control over her body and she can deny the fetus the nutrients it needs to survive by aborting it. Her body is not forced to support the fetus for 9 months if she chooses not to. Her body is not enslaved in the service of the fetus if she does not chose it to be.

But a man does not have 100% control over his body and he can be enslaved by the same fetus to provide the monetary funds it needs to survive (not for 9 months but for 18 years!). When it comes to the man, "it's for the children." When it comes to the woman, the same argument does not apply. it is a one way street.

I agree that a man should not force her to do anything she doesn't want to do but that should be a two way street. If a woman is not able to provide for the child on her own and the father doesn't want the child then she should have considered that before getting pregnant. She either provides for the child herself or she gets an abortion. It's her choice. In other words, she should be made responsible for her participation in the pregnancy. She needs to be held accountable for her role. There needs to be consequences. She should not have 100% control over the outcome.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? It makes me feel the frustration and the unfairness of the system. Except that I am for gay marriage and no one sees it, which adds even more to my frustration. I'm trying to explain to the gay community that I feel that their movement is stalled based on the California voters overturning gay marriage in spite of what the courts have said. I feel that this is not the time to fight for the word marriage. I feel that they should divide and conquer. Fight for your benefits now because you'll have an easier time getting that now. In a few years down the road, fight for the word marriage when people will be more opened to it.

But I don't have any recourse. As man the laws are skewed against me in favor of the woman and no one offers me any advise to navigate the system and get around the obstacles.

Yeah! Fuck them homofags and their pride and their dressing up all half naked and stuff! That's totally gay n' shit. Fags. They should totally like, go do that somewhere private n' shit. Or like, we should nuke 'em n' shit.