weid, whee's dee R

There actually aren't any compelling arguments *for* gay marriage. It's a (very much) minority group asking for a rather large favor for which they don't really plan to offer anything in return. They tend to ridicule the opposition rather than offer any incentive for moderate people to grant them a rather large set of privileges. The whole thing has become a hot-button issue that has been beaten to death, and is politicized out of proportion with it's actual relevance to contemporary culture.

The problem with your argument Al, is that you see it as "privileges" whereas everyone else see's it as "rights". They aren't asking for a favor, they are asking to be treated equally, to have the ability to marry the people they love, just like everyone else is allowed too. The restrictions seem to stem from religious opposition which is "supposed" to be separated from government. So to flip your argument around, I think that the religious members of society are asking for a rather large favor to continue these restrictions for which they don't really plan to offer anything in return. I don't necessarily care one way or another, just pointing out why that's a poor argument to restrict "pursuit of happiness" which is a right of all American's.

@jmo

Thank you. That is the *first* coherent argument that I've heard for that position. My congratulations.

Ridicule the opposition? This coming from the misogynist who rails against effeminate men? What on earth do serial philandering deadbeat husbands offer in "return" for the "favor" of marrying? Children would are unpaid for? Surely you didn't offer anything except psychological abuse if heaven forbid any woman dared marry you.

"The whole thing has become a hot-button issue that has been beaten to death, and is politicized out of proportion with it's actual relevance to contemporary culture."

Funny considering your ilk brought it up in 2004 for the sole purpose of pandering to the haters on the right to win an election. The only issue it's been "beaten to death" is because Republicans think it will bring about the end of civilization and cry about it all the time. It's a rather banal bourgeois movement that doesn't threaten anything. Just get out of the way.

Why is asking to be allowed to marry another consenting adult a large favor and why should anyone be asked to give anything in return?

Your assumptions that jmo lays out, namely that marriage is a privilege reserved for straight people is hardly a coherent argument in itself.

The coherent argument on our side, which underlines every argument is that marriage between to consenting adults is a right, that our nation, being separate from the church, should not define marriage on religious grounds, and that one religious belief should not hold power over the lives of those who do not subscribe to it.

What century are we talking with this contemporary culture? Because if you haven't noticed that the whole pro-gay marriage argument is about equality and not privileges, I doubt your idea of contemporary entails a century anyone of us lived through.

The only way the homophobes could make a coherent argument is by saying that the State is making an investment in families for the purpose of increasing the population & raising them within stable family structures. So the state is exchanging a bunch of benefits and perks in exchange for more people, which same-sex couples cannot provide. But the problem with that argument is divorce is rampant about opposite-sex couples and we don't actually need more people anymore, so we shouldn't incentivize reproduction.

And they don't make that argument anyway because they don't care about the welfare of the country, they just like to hate people.

not to mention that heterosexuals that can't reproduce get the same benefits.

The thing is reproductive marriage entails so many handouts, tax breaks and government benefits that any hardcore fiscal conservative should fight it wherever he goes.

Marriage is a religious term as defined as one man and one woman, therefore the government should have nothing to with marriage. A civil union on the other hand is a legal contract between two adult individuals, and legal contracts should be enforced by the government. At the same time, the government should not be encouraging individuals to enter into contracts by creating special privileges such as tax breaks. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights to enter into a civil union, but they should not garner a privileged status from the government for doing so.

"Marriage is a religious term as defined as one man and one woman, therefore the government should have nothing to with marriage."

Says who?

Sorry, but that's ONE religion's term for it....

And that does NOT govern the laws of the land.

I'll AGREE that in the RELIGIOUS sense, sure, a church has the right to be as bigoted and backward as it wants within the law and deny marriage in ITS definition...

But let's be practical--

Most people will still say and use "marriage" as the term, NOT civil union, even if the latter is more legally workable.

2,000+ years of that will not be undone.

So, gay MARRIAGE should be allowed...and churches can just chose whether or not they consider that marriage "kosher" (hehehe) or not...but the government should consider all such marriages LEGAL.

"Most people will still say and use "marriage" as the term, NOT civil union, even if the latter is more legally workable.

2,000+ years of that will not be undone."

That is exactly why marriage has the definition that it has, because it has been that way for thousands of years. I suppose the definition of a word can be gradually changed over time, but I define marriage as a religious term for both reasons that it has been that way since ummmm forever and to prevent the government from being involved in it.

I think the south park "butt-buddy" compromise is the solution I've seen so far.

I'll will try to formulate an argument in opposition to gay marriage. I do believe it should be allowed, because it's not my business who's married to who, but for the sake of argument:

The problem with gay marriage is that it is not overwhelmingly accepted by society yet. There is indeed a majority in the society that do, but I believe the percentage is at 54% to 42%, hardly overwhelming.
Ordinarily, this would not be a problem. But marriage often has this next step of having kids. Obviously, a homosexual couple can't have kids so they will have to adopt. The problem is, when 42% of people, a significant part of the population, are against gay marriage, it may become difficult for the son or daughter of a gay couple to fit in. We don't want such discrimination to occur, so why not wait till gay marriage garners more overwhelming support?

I'm sorry, but when have we ever waited for widespread, universal acceptance of minorities to give them their rights? If we had done that with slavery there'd still be plantations.

post#199 (since this seems to be an issue for you people over there): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ