Spain ok's Gay Marriage...Europe is ahead of the times

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

Where does it say that? What law does it say that you have to allow all special things if you allow another.

The point is that gay marriage is not special, it is normal. It is not aberrant behaviour, it has been around for a very long time. The only reason it is looked upon as 'wrong' is because modern society considers it socially incorrect, just as society a few decades ago consider interracial mixing to be socially incorrect. Views change, times change, and people change with them.

"Special things" is also a very very broad term. The U.S. allows immigrants across the border. It does not allow every single immigrant to cross the border. Just because it allows some immigrants across the border, it should not allow all immigrants across the border.

The word "person" used to mean a human male. Now it means a human of either gender. People with forward-thinking minds changed the definition of a single word, a word that is more dear to us even that the word marriage, in order to uphold the rights of women.

It has been done before.

It will be done again.

[Arellia]

May I make a point. (I promised myself I would not come back. However, I must defend RM here. Note I will try NOT to come back. )

RM's religion (Which encompasses mine) is FINE to base his opinion on. (Other than the alternate defenses of morals) Religion is not some game, or some constraining, unscrutinized thing that people believe for no reason. Atheists have their opinion because of their non religion. Those with religion have opinions JUST as valid. We believe in our faith as much as you believe in...well, nothing. It is not closed-minded. It is opinion. One could call atheists/secularists close minded for the same reasons. There is little or no difference. I recommend you not go there, as it's rather hypocritical.

But please, do continue.

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

Yes, I respect convictions based on religious belief. However, there is a fine line between stating your personal opinion and imposing it upon others. RM's doing a great job along that line, he's stating his personal opinion.

Therefore, go ahead and do not support gay marriage because of your religion, I respect that. But if it does come down to a constitutional amendment that forbids the marriage between two people of the same gender, I sure hope that it doesn't mention the word "religion" at all, because that would be imposing religion upon others.

I wasn't referring to illegal immigrants. I meant legal applicants who get rejected.

How would gay marriage be a big change? You wouldn't be affected by it. Couples would be allowed to marry. It would only be a big social change--just like changing the definition of person was.

And banning it totally would cause more damage than not allowing it at all. What about all those people already married? How would they feel to suddenly know that they are forbidden to be married?

EDIT number infinity: I keep on coming back to my computer, after swearing I'd go to bed, but thinking of something else to say.

Children need balance, eh? What about all those children who have single parents? All those children with split families? Shall we remove them and place them in a family with one mom, one dad? Shall we assign them a uniform number of grandparents so that every family is exactly balanced?

Gay couples are just as able to raise children as anyone else.

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

[Republican_Man]

[Hitchhiker]

I can see the headlines now . . . "Huge influx of immigrants as Canada receives gay couples wanting to get married" . . . "Human rights activists frown when a right is actually denied by the constitution."

Just don't? I thought the slogan was "Just do it". My mistake.

Okay, this time I am going to bed. Truly and really. I shall reappear sometime in the conceivable future.

[Republican_Man]

[Founder]

[Republican_Man]

[Arellia]

Okay, I knew I'd have to comment again.

Founder: Gays can have a religious ceremony and religiously get married. With the laws as they are even now. That is not their issue. And the government cannot (And, really should not) mess with the Bill of Rights, in which the government cannot dictate religious ceremony. That's an even harder line to cross than what we're trying to do already in banning it.

[Founder]

[Arellia]

[Founder]

[Arellia]

[Five - seveN]

[Hitchhiker]

Back before the word person was changed to include women, women were not people. At the time, yes, they were scientifically similar to male humans, but remember--the same men who did not consider women people considered Black people animals until that changed too.

I'm not trying to say that marriage is just a word. Obviously it means a lot to people, but what I want is for everyone to be able to have it.

Otherwise, marriage is no longer a thing for the people, it is a thing for the conforming part of society. You force people to conform in order to get married.

Civil unions may be all well and good, but they still aren't marriage.

Remember the episode from Voyager, "Author, Author". The Doctor wasn't a person, he fought to get that right. But even at the end, all he could settle for was being declared an "artist". Being an artist is still not a person, just as having a civil union is still not a marriage. Just as the Doctor said, it would be a "hollow victory".

[Republican_Man]

[Arellia]

[Five - seveN]

[Phade]

Well, I see that this thread has taken on a life of its onw. This is good, debate, is always welcome. I would like to add some points.

By saying that by banning gay marriage, is not discrimination, you are WRONG. This is denying a group of people a benefit that others recieve, based on a belief that there is something wrong with them. Therefore, that is descrimination. As to my point about them taking other things away (making us sit in the back of a bus, different restrooms, etc), I was not implying that the gay population was discrimnated as badly as blacks were historically; though I was pointing out that once you take one thing away from a person based on something you think is wrong with them, then it becomes easier to take other things away, and to see them as inferior (as the blacks were seen as animals, etc...). I in know way compare my fight for equality and acceptance to thier burden that they had; though in some ways, it is similar.

I am not saying that anyone on here is wrong for thier religious beliefs. I fully support peoples rights to believe what they want based on anything that they feel is correct for them. I do not share RM's (and others) view on religion, though I do consider myself a religious person. I have morals just as any of you do, and I prefer to think that the morality of things, is that EVERYONE should be treated EQUALLY, period. Not just under the law, under the beliefs of religion; but in ALL ways. I respect that you may disagree with my beliefs in any way, and I will gladly speak to you about them.

Let's see, as to civil unions. Bah! I say. You can take that and forget about it. That is a second hand definition, for a second class person, IMO. In this it does NOT confirm upon a person the equality to which they are due. It is saying that you can't have what another person has, because you are not as good as them. Again, that is how I see it. Legally, it may be all well and good the same thing, but it is not. I don't care about legality, I care about rightness! This is not right, and should not happen. Marriage should!

As to chruchs allowing same sex marriages: there are some out there that already do. Of course the couple don't get the same legal right entitled to a "regular" married couple, but for all purposes they are recognized in the church as being married. In this I am not just referring to those groups that seem them as a church, but those that are in fact churches, recognized by the prevading religion they preach, be that Catholic, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, what have you. They just don't get the protections under they law that the "regular" marriages get, which is not right. What happens in a case of domestic abuse? What happens in the case of one of the people being incapitated in a hospital?

As for this leading to polygamy marriages and marrying an animal and what not: I think that in some ways this could possibly lay the groundwork for other groups to base arguements allowing for such things. However, I don't think that these things will happen. Ok, yes there are some states even now trying for the right for polygamy; from what I know, those groups are basing thier arguements in religion, stating that it is thier beliefs, and that they should be respected. Which, technically, under the Constitution, I suppose should be allowed to happen. Do I agree with this? Nope, I sure don't. Should we allow it? I don't think so. Legally do we have a responsibility to allow it? I think so, since thier rights to religion are protected by our Constitution. Still doesn't mean I agree with it. And seriously, who would want to marry a dog, or a cat, their chari, or car? This is not a valid arguement. This is something that we all agree on, and will not be allowed. Ok, say that a group bases the marrying a dog on religion...I think we will draw the line at that. Will it be right to do so though; I can't say.

I can say this as well: (since so many people seem to have to state it) that Yes, I AM gay! This, of course being my biggest arguement to allow it. Since I think that I should be respected as a fellow human being, and accorded the same right as everyone else. I do NOT want to be classified as second class (with a civil union), nor do I wish to have anyone take away any thing else to which we are ALL entitled to have. I like to think of myself as a very moral and just person, and that each and every person should be accorded the same treatment, period. I don't care that a person is a Jew, Asian, Black, Straight, Star Trek fan, Star Wars fan, Gay, Transgendered, Communist, Republican, or anything: I simply care that they are a fellow human being and treat them according to how I want to be treated in return. That is all, nothing special, just equal. {note: this is not who I am...it is just a small facet of the whole overall person that I am, I do not allow this to affect all my decisions in life}

Well anyhow, there are some more thoughts for y'all. Tear me apart at your lesiure.

Safe journeys...
Randy

[Phade]

Well I came across some interesting facts on the 'net today, and thought that I would share them here. Its about DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), and how the different states have, or have not implemented it, and some of the consequences.

Safe journeys,...

[Five - seveN]

^ that's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot.................. and once again it shows Europ is ahead of times