I know this subject has been done to death but to avoid hijacking the abortion thread I am asking specifically OMG a Black Conservative what his stance is on gay marriage.
Since his anti-abortion stance stems from the fact that life starts from conception and that every single life should have the same rights as every other person, I would like to know if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else and be able to get married?
If not, why not?
May as well throw the floor open and invite anyone opposed to gay marriage to explain their reasoning, with a polite request that if someone wants to just be coy and throw off some lame joke (i.e. “I don’t want gays to suffer through marriage like us straights, derp derp derp!”), they should refrain.
Yes thanks Brian!
I’ll try this take on it again, and I hope it’s taken in the spirit is intended.
For my money, the government should not be in the business of making sure gays can marry. I also think that the government should not be in the business of making sure heterosexuals can marry, either. I know that sounds like a joke, but I’m serious.
I have no problem with religious people saying stupid stuff like, “that isn’t a real marriage,” or whatever. Fine, have your dumb little rules.
I am of the mind that the government should be in the business granting domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it, to any two people who want to be domesticaly partnered and leave the “marriages” to the churches, or mosques, or temples, or VFW’s, or Shakey’s Bar n Grill, or whoever wants to host one.
In a nutshell … I’m not hung up on the word, “marriage.” I don’t think it should apply to government sanctioned contracts - which is essentially what a marriage is (in the eyes of the gevernment - they don’t care what your vows were, only that you’re filing your taxes jointly). This way, everyone would be on an even playing ground, and the churches can tell everyone that only the marriages that *they *sanction are the real ones … and really, who cares what they say but their own members anyway.
I used to post things like this in gay marriage threads. My beliefs didn’t change, but my understanding of the appropriateness of such posts did: while I think you’re right, I also think posting in gay marriage threads about how the gummint shouldn’t be approving any marriages is about as appropriate as posting about how there shouldn’t be a gummint at all. It’s a hijack of the thread.
GIVEN THE REALITY of a government that sanctions marriage, and given the incredibly low chance that this reality is going to change any time soon, compared to the really high chance that the types of marriages sanctioned are going to change soon, what do you think about gay marriage? It’s very helpful to confine such threads to such parameters.
Well, given the lay of the land, obviously I vote for parity. But in a perfect world … that’s the way I see it.
It’s just the most opposers seems to be desperately hung up on the word ‘marriage’ and I just don’t see that word as that special. I don’t think it’s incredibly outside of reality to think that the government might one day announce it was only sanctioning “domestic partnerships” and letting the realm of “marriage” be for whoever wants to use the word “marriage.”
I’m sure he thinks that every gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that every heterosexual person has. And that every heterosexual person does not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, just as gays do not.
Is it really that hard to figure out?
ROFL you actually sound just like him. Actually you’re probably right. I’m sure that’s exactly what he thinks.
Couldn’t care less, henceforth why you never see me get involved in gay marriage debates.
You’re a regular Miss Cleo.
No, it isn’t. Either you consider the present situation a given (first part of your statement) or you contemplate possible change (second part of your statement). In the former case, the entire discussion is pointless; in the latter case, you’re arbitrarily ruling part of the subject out of bounds.
Yeah I am 
How did you guess LOL. So you really don’t mind if gay people get married or not?
You sure seem to be.
“Marriage” is *already *the name we have for a government-sanctioned union between two people.
If I get married by a justice of the peace, I’m still married. I don’t have to go through any religious ceremony to make it official.
On the other hand, if I have some sort of church ceremony but DON’T bother to file the appropriate paperwork with the government … what do you know? I’m NOT really married!
If a church doesn’t like gay marriages … they don’t have to perform them. They can leave the officiating to the civil authorities, just like they do when they refuse to marry people of different denominations.
Again, I know that’s how it is now, but in the grand scheme of things what difference does the word itself make.
I’m talking about how I think things should be; the old “when I’m king” thing. It seems weird to me that what is basically a contract between two people should be sanctioned by a church at all. That’s for all the fluffy spiritual under God shit.
It’s two separate things to me: married in the eyes of the law; married in the eyes of religion. It makes no nevermind to me what you call either one - and let me be clear, I’m all in favor of gay people marrying and calling it being married and actually being married and the whole schpiel - I just don’t get all emotional because what is in fact a marriage is referred to as a “civil union” or whatever. I’d be all in favor of calling all marriages civil unions and let the churches call them whatever they want.
It seems this always gets misconstrued. I’m not demanding “marriage be left alone and let gay people have civil unions,” I’m suggesting we all grow up and call a spade a spade. Two people who enter a union with each other, civilly sometimes, are in a civil union whether they like or not – we just call it “marriage.”
Semantics.
The words “civil union” never came up when I married my wife. We got a marriage license from the State of New Jersey, not a “civil union” license. What, now you’re going to retroactively declare that my marriage is “really” a civil union?
The only reason the term “civil union” exists is to create a second-class version of marriage for the gays. We don’t use it to describe other marriages that churches don’t approve of – mixed-denomination marriages, interracial marriages back in the day. Why should we change the existing term we use to describe a legal union between two adults? To accommodate feelings of bigots? Screw that sort of politically correct bullshit! They’re losing the fight anyway – in a generation we’ll be back to calling all marriages “marriages” and the “civil union” euphemism will sound as quaint as “colored” or “spinster”.
I’m not even sure you read my whole post at this point.
Civil unions and marriage are legally different; that’s the point of civil unions. To create a ghetto version of marriage, to lock prejudice into law before changing public opinion renders the bigots powerless to do so. Rather like racial segregation; which while it was of course better than slavery, created a whole new legally imposed system of racism and massively held back blacks for many decades. The point of civil unions is to shove same sex couples into a grossly inferior ghetto “marriage”, and then when they complain say “But we gave you civil unions! You’re just whining!”
Oh, but I’m supposed to “care” about YOUR issues of equality? Since when are your rights more important than mine?
Ok. I’m going to try one more time; if I’m still perceived as being against gay marriage after this … well, I’m not sure how else to explain it.
Bob marries Susan - it’s a civil union. They call it a marriage.
Jeff marries Steve - it’s a civil union. They call it a marriage.
Mazel tov!
I did. You seem to be convinced that there’s something called a “civil union” that exists apart from efforts to deny marriage rights to gays.
Here’s a hint … there’s not. The only reason the term “civil union” exists is to create a “second-class” marriage for homosexuals.
Governments have been involved in certifying unions for centuries, and they’ve ALWAYS called the unions they certified “marriages”. The fact that the church also uses that term doesn’t mean anything. If you’re heterosexual, and you get married by the government with no church involvement, you’re still married.
I see no point in abandoning the standard term for a government-certified union. It’s not like doing so will make it any easier for gays to achieve equality. If anything, caving to the demands of the bigots to create an alternate form of marriage just for gay people will just delay the day when they truly have equal rights.
I’ll just assume you didn’t get to my next post before you hit submit … or - fine, you win. This is ridiculous.