Why is gay marriage such an important issue?

[NYbrah]

Susan can marry Joe. Fred cannot marry Joe. Susan has more rights than Fred. That's called inequality.

[kate00]

In American law, the need for substantive equality is well established.

There are churches that marry gays, the marriages are not recognized.

So yeah, anti-gay cry babies are also generally anti-freedom of religion when it comes to gays.

It's just so silly. It's like these asshat's parents never taught them how to mind their own business.

It's really amusing to me that the liberal and conservative stereotypes are reversed on this issue. It's the conservatives that turn into whining babies that run to big mommy government because something hurts their feelings.

Them freedom loving conservatives.

[NeverStopMoving]

nothing to say?

[1devil]

A lot of people are obsessed with gay rights, I can understand if a homosexual is fighting for gay rights, but why are liberals so obsessed with it? Gays are probably not even 1% of the population yet it is constantly a major issue that is brought up, there are bigger issues out there that need to be fixed instead of us worrying about whether Adam can marry Steve, thoughts misc brahs?

I think it's one of those chicken or the egg discussions. Do liberals simply choose to make an issue out of it for any number of reasons, or are liberals merely responding to conservatives making a huge issue out of somthing that's really not a major issue.

[MrShenanigan]

Yes there is.

It's a violation of the 14th Amendment that's why. It's called sex discrimination and the state has no legal compelling interest to deny marriage solely on the basis of sex, just like they couldn't deny marriage solely on the basis of race.

Which has what to do with the law? Gays do not have equal rights. Blacks and Whites could both marry their own race in the 60s, and over 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. So why wasn't that viewed as equal rights? Why isn't interracial marriage still illegal?

Homophobes are such pathetic excuses for humans.

Good try. No, you can call it sex discrimination because it suits you but it isn't. They also require you to be 18. They probably don't explicity say in the law that it bans 2 men marrying does it? It probably just defines what marriage is which is between a man and a woman. Why do you think you have the right to change the definition of marriage? You don't win by calling someone a homophobe or a racist or a bigot or anything else like that either. *******.

[Mr Beer]

It's really amusing to me that the liberal and conservative stereotypes are reversed on this issue. It's the conservatives that turn into whining babies that run to big mommy government because something hurts their feelings.

Well, it's not all that much of an Opposite Day, traditionally sex is the issue that has that effect.

[JFizzle23]

nothing to say?

Logical and reasonable arguments don't work with people like NYbrah. You're better off convincing a wall.

[GrokTheCube]

Well, it's not all that much of an Opposite Day, traditionally sex is the issue that has that effect.

Yeah, I suppose. It just still cracks me up.

All those tough thick skinned conservatives telling people to suck it up when it comes all the PC BS are the first to turn into whiny babies on the gay marriage issue. Seriously, they should take their own advice, wash the sand out of their vaginas, and let people do their thing. If you don't like something, don't friggin do it.

I mean really, what do you tell a 4 year old that says, "Mommy! I don't like the game that Johny is playing!". You tell them, "Well, you don't have to play it." you don't tell them "My God! How dare he! I will make a big to-do about nothing and see that this stops at once!"

[ZenBowman]

Religion

/thread

[GrokTheCube]

Religion

/thread

The real ironic thing is that all the Christians who rant against gay marriage because it offends their sensibilities laugh at Muslims who want drawing Muhammad banned for the same reason. Just as Muslims can simply choose not to look at pictures of Muhammad, Christians can simply choose not to get married to a person of the same sex, or go to a gay marriage ceremony.

[SierraEcho]

You do realize most gays aren't like that, and why do you think it's ok for obnoxious, aggressive men to hit on women who want nothing to do with them, but god forbid a gay guy hits on you? You should consider it a compliment, because gay guys have notoriously high taste. Unless they are physically molesting you, just be like "Thanks for the compliment, but I'm straight". Any decent gay guy will accept that.

Straight guys who are secure with their sexuality have nothing to fear from being hit on by gays. Only those with insecurities are some how repulsed because a guy happens to think you're attractive.

And again, welcome to what straight guys have been doing to women for all of human history.

I'm not generlizing ALL of them togeather, just saying, I don't like those ones.
The "Oh, you don't like flamers hitting on you, Homophobe!" arguement is a bit old. I've had a gay guy tell me he loved me, who I had just met at the party, not 30 minutes earlier. Was just as akward as if a female I just met 30 minutes ago said it.

And, you say not to lump all gay guys togeather, then you lump all straight guys togeather. Really?

[germanyt]

Because an uncle and one of my cousins cannot marry the person they love. And the symbolism of the ceremony isn't even the issue. They could live with their partners for 50 years building a life together and then be kicked out of the hospital room when the other is on their deathbed. They can be passed over in a will for a family member that hates them. It just isn't right to deny these kinds of legal protections to some while freely allowing them to others.

[Weightaholic]

Because an uncle and one of my cousins cannot marry the person they love. And the symbolism of the ceremony isn't even the issue. They could live with their partners for 50 years building a life together and then be kicked out of the hospital room when the other is on their deathbed. They can be passed over in a will for a family member that hates them. It just isn't right to deny these kinds of legal protections to some while freely allowing them to others.

Yup. Even if it's not "marriage" by name, they at least need the same legal rights the rest of society takes for granted.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I see that NYBrah has posted ITT. Before I say anything else on this topic, I want to make you gents aware that NYBrah has never had sex. You see, according to NYBrah, the sole purpose of sex is procreation - anything else is unnatural. If you ask NYBrah how many children he has fathered, he will tell you that he has fathered no children. Ergo, he has never had sex.

Has this relationship (or rather, lack thereof) with sex colored his views on gay marriage? You be the judge.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

Total self control is the natural human state. Those that are against gay marriage are afraid of the implications of total self control, for themselves, and for everyone else. In a nutshell, they hate freedom.

[Mr Beer]

The real ironic thing is that all the Christians who rant against gay marriage because it offends their sensibilities laugh at Muslims who want drawing Muhammad banned for the same reason. Just as Muslims can simply choose not to look at pictures of Muhammad, Christians can simply choose not to get married to a person of the same sex, or go to a gay marriage ceremony.

Yeah well, the one thing all religions have in common is retardation.

[w00tasaurus]

It's such an important issue because you can replace "gays" with any other minority and then check out how it sounds:

A lot of people are obsessed with black rights, I can understand if an African-American is fighting for black rights, but why are liberals so obsessed with it? Blacks are probably not even 13% of the population yet it is constantly a major issue that is brought up, there are bigger issues out there that need to be fixed instead of us worrying about whether Jamal can marry Tashika, thoughts misc brahs?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

It's such an important issue because you can replace "gays" with any other minority and then check out how it sounds:

A lot of people are obsessed with black rights, I can understand if an African-American is fighting for black rights, but why are liberals so obsessed with it? Blacks are probably not even 13% of the population yet it is constantly a major issue that is brought up, there are bigger issues out there that need to be fixed instead of us worrying about whether Jamal can marry Tashika, thoughts misc brahs?

The rights of others are the rights of us all.

[Tekkendo]

it is only important b/c of this

[lasher]

It's such an important issue because you can replace "gays" with any other minority and then check out how it sounds:

A lot of people are obsessed with black rights, I can understand if an African-American is fighting for black rights, but why are liberals so obsessed with it? Blacks are probably not even 13% of the population yet it is constantly a major issue that is brought up, there are bigger issues out there that need to be fixed instead of us worrying about whether Jamal can marry Tashika, thoughts misc brahs?

I fully oppose Jamal marrying Tashika.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

it is only important b/c of this

Nobody is forcing us to talk about those topics.

[Dave22reborn]

Is gay marriage even a topic in European countries?

[kate00]

Is gay marriage even a topic in European countries?

There are religious right-wingers in European countries as well

[Dave22reborn]

There are religious right-wingers in European countries as well

Don't the right-wingers in those countries focus more on immigration, and the economy though?

[anonymousceleb]

There was more of a rationale for people to oppose interracial marriage back in the day as well as more of a reason for the government to ignore them. Not that I'm saying interracial marriage is a bad thing.

It effects people who aren't deliberately involved in it. A homosexual is essentially off the market so denying him or her marriage to OTHER homosexuals is not impacting on who heterosexuals marry or who they're involved with in general. It's one demographic marrying within itself. Thus, if I want to marry a black woman, that is more likely to offend people in and of itself than if I were a homosexual and wanted to marry another man. Those people would already be offended by my homosexuality and there's no reason for them to be even more upset if I was also married to another man. It's just a bunch of misdirected hatred for homosexuals sublimated into something that's a moot point.

[tk217]

Basic civil liberties issue.

Why is white people voting such a big issue?

[kate00]

Don't the right-wingers in those countries focus more on immigration, and the economy though?

Don't worry, they leave enough room to hate gays as well.

[Mrs Grudge]

A lot of people are obsessed with gay rights, I can understand if a homosexual is fighting for gay rights, but why are liberals so obsessed with it? Gays are probably not even 1% of the population yet it is constantly a major issue that is brought up, there are bigger issues out there that need to be fixed instead of us worrying about whether Adam can marry Steve, thoughts misc brahs?

Using that logic, blacks would never have gotten their rights.

[pointbreaker]

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves. In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union. In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled. They argue against a "ban on gay marriage" but marriage has for centuries meant a union of a man and a woman. There is no gay marriage to ban.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights. If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes.

Despite attempts to evade these asymmetries with such fashionable phrases as "a pregnant couple" or references to "spouses" rather than husbands and wives, these asymmetries take many forms and have many repercussions, which laws attempt to deal with on the basis of experience, rather than theories or rhetoric.

[kate00]

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

It used to be, until they changed it and removed the racial discrimination from the laws to allow for interracial marriage.