Public support solidly for gay marriage

Okay then, but while each person or couple can decide if their marriage is sacred or honorable, there's no reason to go around claiming that all marriage as a whole in this nation is sacred as well, not when close to 50% of marriages ending in divorce disprove that. And there's no sense in moral superiority when the end result can essentially be dictating how someone you'll never meet in life and has never wronged you, can live that part of their lives.

 

That almost 50% is not a failing of the institution, but of the people themselves. People who do not take it seriously enough for the commitment it is. Concidentally Im sure much of this same segment are the same people who have no issue with allowing Marriage to be any number of willing genders and bodies.

I cannot base my view of Marriage around other peoples failings, and wouldnt take the opinion of what a Marriage should be from people who couldn't even honor their own commitments in this regard.

We're going to disagree I'm sure on this issue micfrranklin, but thanks for the respectful discourse.

 

So why cant homosexuals take it seriosuly? Why cant homosexuals commit?

 

For the most part when looking at a person one might surmise that a woman would look to a man as her marriage partner and a man would look to a woman. If someone is a homosexual or not may not be obvious. Your position is that homosexual marriage is akin to voting rights or an academic opportunity attendance choice for a black person in the South several decades ago? In your case/position are you not looking to claim a status that was defined by a skin color generations ago versus your behavior today?

One can choose to be defined by acting on a free will choice but that is a behavior choice, what choice does anyone have in their natural skin color? Why should society change an institution defined in the manner marriage has been, components (man and woman) of that definition are innate and factual for something that is defined by an act, a choice?

 

Didnt say they were incapaable at all, my response was in regards to a close to 50% divorce rate which was brought up. I didnt even mention homosexuals in my response.

As to the question...like with divorce rates, Im sure there would be a similar ratio of those who would commit. Humans are going to be Humans, some are going to honor their commitments...some will say they will, but walk when the going gets tough. Gay or Straight, I think this assumption is going to fit.

 

So then why such opposition to gay marriage?

The overall divorce rates are lower in stated that allow gay marraige. It seems those states 'values' marriage mroe than the rest.

 

If sexuality is a choice (which it is not), then why does heterosexual behavior come with possiblity of gaining 1400 over homosexual behavior? How is this "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." per the 14th amendment?

 

Havent I already explained this a bunch of times? Marriage is what it is. I believe that's all it was ever meant to be, and thats all it ever should be. 1 man, 1 woman coming together to create the family unit. Nowhere was it ever a knock on gay people..polygamists, or those who would love to marry their siblings. I simply do not believe Marriage was ever intended to be offered to any other grouping. to open it up to any and everything, diminishes its meaning to me.

 

Then you are attempting to deny millions of Americans their ability to obtain the 1400 rigthts that comes with marriage, and that is unacceptable my friend.

 

Gay people can marry according to the same rules as everyone else.

There are not "1400 rights" married people get; it is a bullcrap, made up number on nonsensical crap, from an LGBT website,and is utter nonsense.

Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else; what they seek is SPECIAL PRIVELEDGE, based on their sexuality.

 

No Im not.

Any Gay man can get Married today, he simply needs to follow the same rules we straights do in order to get them. We arent denying them, they simply do not fit the criteria through their choices. It's not our responsibility to re write customs like this, to make it fit with a minority segments choice that it was never meant to fit with.

John Travoltas got his 1400

 

You forgot the "Q" Grok. It came to my attention in a thread recently that it is now the "LGBTQ". If society doesnt quickly change it's customs, no doubt there will be more redundant letters tacked on to make it sound more important.

 

Nonsense. Being gay implicitly says that a gay man can not love, have sex with, be involved with, commit to, etc with a member of the opposite sex.

You know this and this is why this gay man can get married argument is nothing but bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and 100% disingenuous.

 

To believe this would mean no Gay man has ever had sex with, Dated or Married a member of the opposite sex. We both know this is absolutely false, so lets redirect that 100% disingenuous to where it really belongs.

 

So your gonna point to the few gay guys who are being disingenuous to then themselves, their spouse and marriage? Really? Unreal.

 

Most marriage laws do not specify that the participants must be one man and one woman.

They typically exclude people, like how blacks couldn't marry whites, or cousins couldn't marry, or how a man couldn't marry multiple wives.

Anti gay folks like you are simply expanding marriage laws to disclude gays.

That's why Republican politicians in mostly red(neck) states have to pass a contitutional amendments or laws that specify the exclusion of gays, by narrowing the definition of a qualified marital participant.

See Grok.....gay marriage hasn't been illegal, because people in the way back didn't even consider it. Thier opposition to it may have been a likelyhood if gays would have wanted to get married in the olden days when the vast majority of marriage laws were written, but those people are dead now, and it's we who are alive...so we should make laws that suit our morality today. We are at the historical tipping point, where public opinion is in favor of gay marriage. In 1980, it was 18%, now it's 40-60% depending on how backward thinking the state is.

You're trying to hold back the tide of history Grok, and it's futile.

 

What is 1400?

What about the obvious? A male has a penis and a woman has a vagina. These are complimentary structures for procreation. This procreation is considered something that is for the greater good of society.

In my post that you responded to could you explain how physical characteristics are the same as someone who identifies oneself with an elective act?

If you are a man than you have the exact same rights as every other man or if you are a woman you have the exact same rights as every other woman. If you haven't been allowed to exercise you rights contact the department of justice. They can investigate and defend every constitutional right any of us have.

 

Have they really been disingenuous? If you believe in the born gay angle, then yes this would seem to be the case.

However knowing both of our stances with regards to that, you know I do not believe that. Therefore it only reaffirms my belief that this is a choice. Maybe they just got bored with the regualr routine, tried something else and found they liked it? Why is this never considered as a possibility?

With that in mind perhaps it will further illustrate just why i feel no need to change Marriage to accomodate.

 

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

There are 1400 rights that automatically come with marriage.


Procreation has nothing to do with marriage. IF this was a requirement, then old peope coupld not marry. Heterosexual couples who cannot have children could not marry.

Givign out right to everyone equally is for the greater good of society.

In 1950 a Black man could not marry a White woman and a White man could not marry a Black woman. It was equal for all right?

 

Were you born straight or did you wake up one day and go, hmmm, I think I would rather be heterosexual than homosexual?

 

All people have the urge to have sex and procreate. Some are simply getting confused on where they should be seeking it, and many in society seem to think we should be promoting it. In America, if someone wants to do that...more power to them. noone would care. Some might find it an odd choice for sure...but who would care.

We are now at a tipping point where acceptance is not enough, now we are being forced to somehow validate it with things like marriage. this is where I disagree.

 

Nice nonanswer.

Were you born straight or did you wake up one day and go, hmmm, I think I would rather be heterosexual than homosexual?

 

A lesbian couple can procreate by buying some sperm.

And a gay male couple can buy some eggs and hire a surrogate.

Gays can procreate just fine.

 

I believe everyone was born with the same urges. I do not believe some were born "straight" and some were born "gay" at all. I believe this to be a choice that people make. We all have an innate urge to have sex and procreate. if we didnt we wouldnt be here talking about it.

 

Their is no homosexual behavior that can lead to conception. Borrowing from the behaviors of others, is not that.