You wouldn't take what I claim as my sources as the last word anyway, feel free to research all you want.

That's why I said "theoretically".

No, I said gay marriage is illegal, because it's uncommon, because it's wrong, it's wrong for a slew of reasons already stated above...not circular...a complete arguement.
A circular arguement would be....The Bible is the word of God. It's the word of God because the Bible says so. We can trust it because it's the word of God. It's the word of God because the Bible says so...and so on.

To claim that just because I'm against something makes me fearful of it is a fallacy. I'm disgusted with child pornographers too. Does that make me fearful of the people that take these pictures? Does that make me a closet pedophile? No, I just recognize that they are wrong. What you erroneously define as a homophobe, is the majority of Americans.

There was a time when blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Just because most people were against inter-racial marriage means that it should not have been allowed?

You wouldn't take what I claim as my sources as the last word anyway

Clever way to avoid having to give any sources for what you claim is science.

That's why I said "theoretically".

According to whose theory? Yours?

What you erroneously define as a homophobe, is the majority of Americans.

Source for this datum?

Perhaps.

To most. Again, I'll allow you the choice of using common sense on this, but you don't have to. Most will.

Polls are still showing the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Watch or read the news, it will come up.

Other anon user: Please read my first post. Comparing homosexuals to blacks is a shock tactic, not a legitimate discussion.

Ok...let us look back in history shall we? We will find that the same argument has happened repeatedly, and it is only a matter of time that marriage will change again. In revolutionary times, a wife became her husband's property, with no rights. In slave times, slaves (including free slaves) were not allowed to marry each other. I'm sure the government was saying "Marriage has always been between two white people, and will always be!" Sound familiar? And no, comparing gays with black people is not a rude comparison, because what it boils down to is fundamental prejudice. Gays have been prosecuted since the beginning of time because people seem to not like someone who is different.

Furthermore in history, as recently as 1967, sixteen states did not recognize marriages of mixed races. Many, many people felt "disgust, discomfort, annoyance, hatred etc." at mixed race couples.

Also some people believed and still do that mixing the races will end a "pure race" and ruin a white "civilization". Hmmm, just as much as gay marriages will deplete our 6 billion population because they do not procreate?

And really...how are gay people hurting us? How? The reason society doesn’t like cigarettes is because they kill over 4 million people a year, and give countless others lingering cancer. Are gay people killing 4 million people a year?

I really am not seeing the problem being rooted in homosexuality. I am seeing the problem rooted in the blind hatred that people have against differences in humanity, and I think that is wrong.

Not marrying somebody vs. legally getting whipped to death by your slavemaster for looking at somebody suggestively do not equal the same level of discrimination. Neither of these comparisons are extreme, but rather a common discrimination of their respective groups: So refrain from telling me that homosexuals have been killed as a result of discrimination too, I realize this. But a legitimate discussion about society works within the bounds of reality and avoids extreme examples.

I would not be ignorant enough to say that existence of gays is going to deplete the race, as it is painfully obvious that we are overpopulating. The point was more that their lack of ability to procreate goes agianst basic survival of the species and is therefore a logical and common sense reason to assume that it is unnatural. (a smart-ass may point out at this juncture that every homosexual is eligible for a Darwin Award since they are effectively taking themselves out of the gene pool)

It is my assumption (is use the word intentionally) that most society doesn't dispise cigarrettes because they kill, but rather because they stink everything up and cause unpleasantness in our lungs as second-hand smoke inhalers. Smokers are discriminated against more than any other "group" in America. Yet, alcohol kills more (innocents in car crashes being a large part), and there are still bars. Shit, even a cupcake is more deadly than a cigarrette if your speaking in numbers killed (heart disease from being the fat bastards we are), and I don't see a ban on eating sugar in public places. We as a society make some laws based on the comfort or discomfort of the majority, not their general walfare. If we did, cigarettes would be a lot more acceptable than alcohol and sugar because they destroy so much more.

So, cigarettes make the majority uncomfortable, we limit the freedom of smokers.
Homosexuality makes the majority uncomforable, we limit the freedom of homosexuals.

The point was more that their lack of ability to procreate goes agianst basic survival of the species and is therefore a logical and common sense reason to assume that it is unnatural.

Should incurably sterile couples be allowed to marry? What about elderly couples?

Shit, even a cupcake is more deadly than a cigarrette if your speaking in numbers killed (heart disease from being the fat bastards we are), and I don't see a ban on eating sugar in public places.

No, because ONE cupcake does less to destroy your heart than ONE cigarette does to destroy your lungs.

So, cigarettes make the majority uncomfortable, we limit the freedom of smokers.

Cigarettes make the majority PHYSICALLY uncomfortable. They make people cough and wheeze! If homosexuality invokes a physical, medical response from you, then you're a homophobe.

"9 people who want a gay parade surely has the right to trample the 9000 people who don't want it. Bah, whether it be religious, political, social, or racial.. To make exceptions for ONE person that inconviences MANY people..How isn't THAT IMMORAL?"

there was a time in this country when slavery was sanctioned by the majority as well, and it took a small minority to question it, when women's suffrage was just an idea in one person's mind, when the civil rights movement was just rosa parks not moving to the back of the bus. the majority is not always right and it takes a few adamant, educated people to say that they are wrong. i'm sure banning slavery "inconvenienced" all the former slave owners who lost all of the people that used to till their fields etc. and women's suffrage probably "inconvenienced" the homosocial male society that wanted to leave women without rights. and the civil rights movement was certainly "inconvenient" to all the people against equal rights in the south. being an inconvenience is no reason to stop fighting. if people submitted because they thought they were an "inconvenience," the world would be the worse for it. inconvenience means change. it makes people rethink their values and learn to be more accepting of things they previously did not understand. so suck it up. not everyone is as set in their ways as you are. thank goodness.

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. If I am not mistaken, (and I could very well be) civil union comes from the Vermont legislature as a way to allow for gay unions without having to deal with the fact that the feds had declared marriage to be between a man and a woman (when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act). I believe that a civil marriage service (ie. before the justice of the peace) is still considered marriage, not a union.

2. I personally don't fly with the separate but equal argument (civil unions vs. marriage)...for starters, I am a firm believer that the government has no right in religious matters AT ALL. Policy can not be based Christianity, Judiasm, Mother Naure or whatever you are choosing to practice. Separation of church and states is just as important, if not more so, today than it was when the founding fathers discussed it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Not allowing gay marriage is prohibiting the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

3. I have a problem with the idea that the traditions of the super-majority need to be respected--traditions that necessarily discriminate or violate fundamental human rights do not have to be respected regardless of how is purporting them.

4. I also do not believe that allowing gays to marry infringes upon the rights of heterosexuals...not one is stopping them from marrying...that's like saying giving women the vote was an infringement on the rights of men. Giving a minority rights does not go hand in hand with takiing rights away from the majority.

Bulbous Head: I'm still mystified by your ability to bring up points that are absolutely irrelevent to the arguement.
Didn't I just state that intelligent discussion on such issues must be in the realm of generalizations to be held as realistic by those that actually are looking to be informed. Comparing all homosexuals to the exceptions of heterosexuals is laughable.

That's why I clarified in numbers killed, not amounts consumed. And incidentally, that's more than likely not true. I would be a jack-ass and ask you to source your claim, but that's not my style, I can find out for myself. But I would imagine that if you ate 40 cupcakes a day, and smoked 40 cigs a day, both would be equally detrimental to your health.

Again, your way too anxious to define me as a homophobe. This is the 3rd time you've done so. I'll say it again, because clearly it didn't sink in last time...Because I disagree with something, or find it repulsive, or whatever it is that one may describe their dissonance with homosexuality as being, does not mean I fear it. I'll use another example (this one will be a little more assinine than the last because clearly, assinine comparisons are the type that are being used by "your" side, so maybe you can relate to it a little better.). I don't like vegetables. Does that mean I'm going to run away screaming if I stumble upon a garden? No. It just means I don't like vegetables, no fear involved. Here's another...I think that people who dance to Swing music look like complete nimrods and I disagree with their choice. If they come up and talk to me does my blood pulse increase, followed by perspiration and a subconsious decision to fight or run? No, of course not, I just think their half-retarded for their decisions. That doesn't mean I fear swing dancing. So do us all a favor, stop assuming that disagree=fear or disagree=hate.
If it did, I'd be espouting classic hate lines like...ALL FAGGOTS ARE GOING TO HELL BECAUSE THE GOOD BOOK SAYS SO. And clearly I have not done that. Not once have I argued the morality of it or said that homosexuals are bad people. My argument has consistently been similar to Brad's...The rights of the super-majority take precidence. My point in posting in the first place was for those in the discussion to realize that the rights of homosexuals are not even close to the attrocities of Jews, women and blacks. Therefore the comparison is irrelevant and insulting to the groups that have actually been victimized for things they had no choice in being.

Okay, what 8 words are you going to take out of context and ask pointless questions to this time?
Wait...let me guess...So does that mean you think that people who dance to swing shouldn't get married?
Or how about...The comparison is irrelevant to who? You?


Shadesofgrey...To play Devil's Advocate...
In reference to your second point...In your opinion, what should policy be based on?
I think it should be based on "basic" morality and fairness. My definition of basic lies in the realm of common sense and the majority. Which really means to me, that all laws are relative and will change according to the society involved. Of course this is with the exception of worldwide common sense values of not killing, stealing, raping.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that religion is based on these same principles...the laws of man according to common sense and fairness. However, I do find this to be problematic, as each religion will always add other "laws" that serve the makers of that religion (yes, I just implied that religion is made by man in an attempt to create ancient law), and therefore are inapplicable in my society which is different. So...policy...based on what?

i do no want my new born going to school have someone telling my child that gay life style is ok because it is worng get on the stick you people in the goverment

Marriage isn't a "human right". Some people need to get a grip.

Marriage has been defined as being between a man and woman for thousands of years. I am all for gays having the right to civil unions that provide equal legal protections. But I do object to their attempt to re-define marriage for their political ends.

In a democracy, the majority rules. The only thing the constitution does is try to ensure that the RIGHTS of the minority are protected. Marriage isn't a right any more than driving or playing major league baseball.

I just wanted to say your article was very insightful. I'm sure if all the 30% or so of Americans read this, they'd re-think their position a little better. Again, thanks.

Didn't I just state that intelligent discussion on such issues must be in the realm of generalizations to be held as realistic by those that actually are looking to be informed. Comparing all homosexuals to the exceptions of heterosexuals is laughable.

Not when your objections are very specific. You object that homosexuals can not reproduce. I respond that elderly couples and sterile couples can not reproduce. You reject my argument on the grounds that it's too specific while not at all addressing the actual issue. Clever, but you didn't get away with it.

Again, your way too anxious to define me as a homophobe.

No anxiety involved; I just call them as I see them.

Because I disagree with something, or find it repulsive, or whatever it is that one may describe their dissonance with homosexuality as being, does not mean I fear it.

But in your particular case, I think you do fear it.

If it did, I'd be espouting classic hate lines like...

No, you refrain from spouting hate lines because you know they make you look stupid. But you're thinking them.

The rights of the super-majority take precidence.

What right of the majority applies here? What right of the majority is being infringed upon? The right to be the only ones getting married?

****

Marriage has been defined as being between a man and woman for thousands of years.

So? Masters and slaves had a relationship for thousands of years, too; that doesn't make it right.

But I do object to their attempt to re-define marriage for their political ends.

Political ends? They want to get married. That's it. It's not part of a sinister plot to take over the government. What "political end" is involved?

Marriage isn't a right any more than driving or playing major league baseball.

Equal protection under the law is a right.

Mmm. Not necessarily the specificity of the arguement, but rather the specific example of one side compared to the broad generalization of the other side. I don't entertain the argument because I find it rediculous.

Ha ha, well then I guess I'm helpless to defend myself against your namecalling. Curious...do you think it's possible for a person to strongly disagree with homosexuality without fearing it? Or is it like the war in Iraq: if you speak out against it, you aren't supporting the soldiers? I personally think both responses are childish and more of a reactionary snipe because the debator lacks suffucient intelligence to appropriately argue the other side. But then again, I'm a homophobe, so what would I know.

How nice of you to know what I'm thinking. You make your point in a very eloquent manner. Oh wait, no you don't.

You know the answers to these questions. The right to democracy. When the majority believe in something, that thing should be represented appropriately. Your questions are just going round and round in circles meriting the same responses over and over again.

Masters and slaves: Violated life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Homosexuals have all of these. If they choose to persue happiness in an illegal way, then that's the individuals problem, not everybody elses. Again with the extreme comparisons *shakes head*

Equal protection from what? Nobody is saying that an individual cannot get married, they just have to abide by the same rules that every other person in America is abiding by.

I don't entertain the argument because I find it rediculous.

Then consider exactly two couples, a pair of 25-year-old homosexual men, and a man and a woman, both 75 years old. They are equally unable to have children. Why can the latter marry and the former not?

do you think it's possible for a person to strongly disagree with homosexuality without fearing it?

I think that the only possible way to disagree with it is to fear it, since disagreeing with it is, to me, completely illogical.

The right to democracy. When the majority believe in something, that thing should be represented appropriately.

We do not live in a democracy. Al Gore got more votes.

Masters and slaves: Violated life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Homosexuals have all of these. If they choose to persue happiness in an illegal way, then that's the individuals problem, not everybody elses.

So slavery is wrong because it's wrong but homosexual marriage is wrong because it's illegal? Slavery was legal not long ago; did that make it okay before its abolition?

Again, the exception of one group vs. the rule of another, they are different.

So, because you lack the ability to empathize with my position, I must be fearful of yours. That's assinine.

Representative government is a democracy, just not the way you think it should be.

No; slavery is wrong because it violates life, liberty and the persuit of happinees. Marriage being limited between a man a woman is not wrong because it does not violate anybodies life, liberty and persuit of happiness. No, it did not make it okay because it violated these principles. Yet another reason that you can't compare the two.

Perhaps this is why you see me as a homophobe. It is my understanding that you are assuming that I think homosexual marriage is wrong. That is not the case. I think that limiting marriage between a man and a woman is not in violation of anybodies rights, and since it's the choice of the majority and their representatives it should remain this way.

Again, the exception of one group vs. the rule of another, they are different.

Translation: "I refuse to address the question you pose."

Representative government is a democracy, just not the way you think it should be.

No. Representative government is representative government; democracy is when the will of the majority rules. If everyone in the United States wants a law passed, but 535 people in Washington don't, guess what? No law.

Marriage being limited between a man a woman is not wrong because it does not violate anybodies life, liberty and persuit of happiness.

Um, it limits liberty and pursuit of happiness. Gays want to have the liberty to marry. Gays want to be happy by marrying.

Round and round we go. Correct, I refuse to address an irrelevant point.

Those 535 don't will their way into office. They get their through people voting. But you know that, so go ahead and continue with your laughable counter-points.

Liberty? Really? Who exactly is it that homosexuals are slaves too? Last time I checked no homosexual was a slave. (with the exception of Mr. Slave on South Park)
Persuit of happiness, not a guarantee of it. If you're persuit is illegal, tough shit for you, choose a legal persuit.

Those 535 don't will their way into office. They get their through people voting. But you know that, so go ahead and continue with your laughable counter-points.

All I'm saying is that once they're in, the will of the populace is irrelevant. Yes, they are elected democratically, but that does not make the government a democracy. It makes it a republic with democratic elections.

Liberty? Really? Who exactly is it that homosexuals are slaves too? Last time I checked no homosexual was a slave. (with the exception of Mr. Slave on South Park)

Liberty is not the opposite of slavery.

Persuit of happiness, not a guarantee of it. If you're persuit is illegal, tough shit for you, choose a legal persuit.

I am amazed that you can not see the illogic in this. YOU CAN NOT SAY THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL. Guess what! If you make gay marriage legal, then it's not illegal anymore! Everyone's happy!

True, but the will of the populace is heard through the people it elects, which was the original point.

Yes, liberty is the opposite of slavery.

Hold off on the caps their hero. I'm not saying something should be illegal because it's illegal. Re-read this caveat of the discussion further than the literal words in front of you. It states that limiting marriage to man and woman is not illegal because it does not violate these principles. All men and women are allowed to persue their happiness in the same manner, within the confines of the law. In other words, every man is given equal opportunties.

And since I know you're going to say.."Well when blacks blah blah blah..." I'll just address it now instead of waiting.

The Supreme Court intervened with blacks because it was shown they were not being treated equally. The laws made were to ensure equal opportunities, not different opportunities. Homosexuals are being held to the same standard as everybody else and given the same opportunities as everyone else. To claim that your different so the rules shouldn't apply is not the same as claiming that you're not being treated equally.

That would be like me saying..."Well, I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in sin, so I should be able to committ adultery." That's crap, just because I disagree with the laws doesn't mean I get to change them to suit me. Especially when I'm in a democracy (or representative republic) and the majority disagree with me and are giving me the same rights as everybody else.

BulbousHead: It has been a great dance, but alas, my work week is through. Next week it's back to the field. Enjoy your crusades, as I shall enjoy mine. And it's alright, you can admit that you agree with me wholeheartedly. Nobody's going to hold it against you Afterall, my points are entirely too sinister to not be truth And with that, I bid you adeaux.

True, but the will of the populace is heard through the people it elects, which was the original point.

WIth that I can not disagree, but you should say what you mean.

Yes, liberty is the opposite of slavery.

No. www.m-w.com

Homosexuals are being held to the same standard as everybody else and given the same opportunities as everyone else. To claim that your different so the rules shouldn't apply is not the same as claiming that you're not being treated equally.

It depends on what the nature of the "equality" is. You're coming from the point of view that a homosexual man is free to marry a woman the same way that a heterosexual man is. I'm coming from the point of view that a homosexual man should be able to marry someone he loves the same way that a heterosexual man can. Superficial equality is not justice; suppose that you hate chocolate ice cream and that I love it, and suppose that someone gives us each a bowl of chocolate ice cream. I can say that we were treated equally since we both got the same ice cream, but you can say that we were not treated equally because I got what I like and you got what you hate.

..."Well, I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in sin, so I should be able to committ adultery." That's crap, just because I disagree with the laws doesn't mean I get to change them to suit me.

No, but it doesn't mean you can't work to change those laws, either. My point was that you were using the law to back up the reasoning behind the law. Besides, the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and one could quite plausibly argue that gay marriage can not be prohibited because such a ban would be unconstitutional.

And with that, I bid you adeaux.

Or adieu, if you're one of those correct-spelling types.

ha ha, no time to get into the rest...but it's French. Who really cares if it's spelled right anyway.

Nearly half the people in this country believe they should have the right (even if they don't personally want to exercise that right) to marry a person of either sex. There's no "super-majority" of people who think marriage should be limited to a heterosexual union. They're super-cranky, certainly, but not a super-majority, unless you think that 50-60% is a staggering proportion of the population.

Secondly, marriage doesn't belong to this slight majority, simply because they have a certain opinion about it. It's not "their tradition," as you say. The people who oppose same-sex marriage aren't any older than the ones who favor it. They didn't invent marriage. The institution of marriage belongs to everyone equally, and everyone has an equal say in how to define it.