posted May 27, 2004 05:35 AM              

Personally, I believe that if two people want to make this kind of a commitment to one another, it should'nt' matter what the gender. Love is love. Commitment is commitment. If that is who they are, and that is what they want...who are we to judge?

posted May 27, 2004 04:31 PM            

There are arguments other than the religious one.

I personally think marriage is between a man and a woman (and I am in fact not at all religious), and that if gays want to marry they can have civil unions, which can be for all intents and purposes the same thing. But then you're going to get polygamists marching for their rights, and supporters of beastiality marching for their rights to marry their animals, and well hell, why even have an age of consent anyway - I mean, why not marry our children off in Jr. High School, I mean, what about their rights? If a 35 year old man wants to court someone's 13 year old daughter, why not? They all have their rights to not be discriminated upon because of their age don't they?

I just think it opens a can of worms legally, not to mention, I find it ironic that people who by and large shun heterosexual mores feel so compelled to embrace marriage (a decidedly heterosexual construct) in the first place.

I could care less about someone's sexual preferences just so long as it doesn't involve non-consenting beings (children, animals, dead people)...but the legal morass that will ensue is IMO undeniable, and should be considered with caution.

posted May 27, 2004 07:18 PM            

quote:

---

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

---

It's like saying because alcohol is legal eventually it will be legal for children to drink. Society will always draw the line somewhere. It is socially acceptable for gay people to exist in our society, as it should be. Some of our television characters are even homosexual. Yet they are all barred from something like 1,000 rights that heterosexual married couples are entitled to. That is unjust in my eyes and an ever growing segment of the rest of the US population's eyes.

That is why this is to be like the all the other human rights struggles in our history and I see it's outcome equally as inevitable as the abolition of slavery, women's voting and the end of segregation. Besides arguments of false logic and religion, the opponents have no leg to stand on.

posted May 27, 2004 09:51 PM            

It is a legal slippery slope, whereever you may choose to copy and paste a definition from (according to my source for the definition as it's used in the context, Dictionary.com defines it as: Slippery slope - A tricky precarious situation, especially one that leads gradually but inexorably to disaster). My concerns may not bear out, but mark my words, whether successful or not, legislation approving gay marriage will lead to lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, asserting the rights of others to marry whomever and/or whatever they please. At the very least it will be yet another burden on a system which is funded by tax money.

Like I said before, I could care less what someone's sexual preference is, and if the majority vote in favor of gay marriage, I certainly won't be out protesting against it. I do take issue w/ judges biasedly legislating from the bench. However, if gay marriage is voted in by referendum, then by all means, I will acquiesce to the majority opinion.

Like Randall said, if they want the headache and liability of marriage, I wish them the best of luck. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...

posted May 28, 2004 12:54 AM            

That quote was from the subject of a string I started called "Guidelines for proper debate". It's based off a book by Carl Sagan.

Concerns about frivolous lawsuits isn't a big enough concern to keep people from having the same basic rights as everyone else, IMO.
Example- gay partners have to fight for the precarious right to make medical decisions for their life partner in life or death situations. I can't remember what that is called but it's really really crucial and even when some gay couples win that right for themself through ardous legal procedure I've heard of stories where it's challenged and taken away.
People who have committed themselves to a life partnership should not have to fight for all the same legal rights that hetero couple get so easily.

posted May 28, 2004 02:11 AM            

Interesting how it's ok in your eyes for a judge to legislate "rights" based on his interpretation of the constitution when it comes to something you are a proponent of. I'm certain if a judge wanted to legislate complete and total right to bear arms (ALL arms) per his conservative pro-gun interpretation of the second amendment, you'd be screaming bloody murder about it. It's ok to subvert the legislative process when it is for something you approve of?

posted May 30, 2004 11:24 AM              

The fact that you think marriage is between man and woman, IMHO, is irrelavent.

A man marrying a man doesn't effect your life in any way shape or form.

... and I think we all are mature enough to know that it is just simply juvinile to equate gay marriage with beastiality.

Really,.. what business is it of ours who wants to marry whom.

Gay marriage only effects gay people. If you're not gay, why the hell do you care?!

I really think people should mind their own business in this matter and let them do as they please.

I wonder if there is a connection between Anti-Gay Marriage people and Homophobics.

posted June 01, 2004 08:59 AM            

Oh, yeah, Isis, I'm planning on marrying my hamster this fall.

And Lioneye, I second that about the girlfriends