ralph, how does one “openly acknowledge their sexuality”? Is this act legal in public at this time or do more laws need changing?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Why do you enjoy making yourself look stupid and pathetic? You KNOW what is meant here you moron. Everyone KNOWS what is being said here but YOU take it as an opportunity to say LOOK AT ME, I am so stupid and pathetic please pity me. Get some self respect man. We already KNOW you are stupid and pathetic so it is redundant for your every post to make it clear just HOW stupid and pathetic you are.

I can watch Tamron Hall on TV all day.

No, it’s the *JOB* of the state to deal with marriage as it relates to rights, estates and the welfare of children.

It doesn’t have to be “marriage” they’re dealing with. They could call it something else, provided that everybody gets the same thing, and it affects all of the same rights in the same way. Civil unions could be set up to handle that, making the government completely marriage-neutral.

I think there are a lot of people who even if they’re not particularly religious, think of marriage as a religious institution. For the state to be deciding who’s married and who isn’t is thus a violation of the separation of church and state.

But it’s fascinating that the social conservatives aren’t pushing this option at all. More so considering it benefits their stance in other ways as well. For example, in order to determine who (other than judges) can sign marriage certificates, each state has to keep a registry of certified reverends, as well as legal churches to say who’s a reverend. As a result, most states acknowledge priests of the Church of Satan as legal reverends. Also, witches. Getting rid of state-sanctioned marriage entirely would eliminate the need of keeping those records, also eliminating state-”sanctioned” Satanism and witchcraft. If I was an evangelical, I’d be all over it.

…except that then teh gays would get their rights.

So it’s interesting that they’re not.

I will admit that there was tension- some in the black community were upset at what was perceived as an all too easy connection between the gay and black civil rights movements. There was anger directed at the black community for high instances of “no” votes.

I believe that the same-sex marriage activists have learned a great deal about solidarity, partnering with communities of color and specifically gay and lesbians of color to take the reins in outreach. There needs to be complete respect for the specific and horrible struggle of the black community for rights, and to not casually associate the glbt struggle with it. I think there’s a lot of mutual respect that is only gaining momentum right now, and I think it’s looking good for 2010!

I’ll ignore your exaggerated stereotype for a moment and head straight to the obvious quesion. What in the world does having a high income and/or economic power have to do with being able to marry legally or being able to serve in the military?

I believe Owl is trying to make a case for how disallowing marriage or military service to homosexuals is not a civil rights issue, by listing any difference he can think of between gay people and black people. Of course, this method fails all by itself. Disenfranchised groups are commonly disenfranchised in different ways. Applying the litmust test that they must all be disenfranchised in exactly the same way to qualify as a civil right issue could be used to imply that none of them are.

Example: “Blacks can get married and join the military. Gays still can’t.” Look, I just casually discounted the daily discrimination that all black people still face!

By the way, there are lots of poor gay people. It’s also legal in many states to fire somebody from their job just because they’re gay.

“As for polygamy, If you support Gay Marriage you should support this too.”
– Why? Can you explain how a gay monogamous marriage is like polygamy? It’s like saying that if you like tomatoes, you should also like walnuts. Gay marriage is no more like polygamy than interracial marriage is. And we heard the same argument back in the 60’s from people who believed that people of different races shouldn’t marry. Not only would it lead to the legalization of polygamy, but people would be permitted to marry animals next.

“I am in a relationship with 2 women. I love both equally and they get along.”
– I’m happy for you.

“Why can’t I marry both of them if they agree. What about my Civil Rights to be happy?”
– Because in this country, the rule is one spouse per person. This isn’t because the government doesn’t want you to be happy, it’s because the whole system of government benefits and entitlements is set up for each citizen to have a maximum of one spouse. Therefore, you only get one spouse recognized. But you can still shack up with as many women as you want. Talk to Hugh Hefner — perhaps he can advise you on this subject.

Gays have high incomes and economic power. Blacks still don’t.
__________________________________________________________

I’ll ignore your exaggerated stereotype for a moment and head straight to the obvious quesion. What in the world does having a high income and/or economic power have to do with being able to marry legally or being able to serve in the military?

Following this logic, all professional athletes playing in the major leagues of their sport should be denied permission to get married because, you know, they have “high incomes and economic power”. And let’s also apply this to corporate CEOs, movie stars, recording artists with major labels, etc. After all, they have “high incomes and economic power” as well.

Do you even SEE how ridiculous your argument is?

I find this guy’s blog to have very sound arguments to deal with all of this nonsense, specifically the anti-same-sex marriage debate:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/01

What is sad that most Americans are against Gay Marriage.

Well, I know I don’t want to get Gay Married so you could say I’m “against” it. But it’s none of my business if somebody else does, and therefore I don’t have the right to tell them they can’t.

.

The Wise Owl Says:

Gay Mariage and Civil Unions are 2 differnt subjects. I am refering to Marriage, not Civil Unions. The tructh is that Americans oppose Gay Mariage, but support Civil Unions. Let us not spin this. This is the truth.
I say we settle for Civil Unions, that is the best deal this society will give us.

I’d be willing to do that if all legal marriages were converted to civil unions, all laws referring to marriage instead referred to civil unions, and the government were taken out of the “marriage” business altogether. Ultimately that’s the most correct solution (separation of church and state, y’all) but I don’t see any significant voices proposing it. I find it extremely interesting that none of the social conservatives are even entertaining the idea.

But without that, it’s like saying “I’m all for black people having drinking fountains, I just don’t think they have the right to the same drinking fountain that white people use.” Before you accuse me of being specious, exactly this comparison has been supported by multiple court rulings.

.

The Wise Owl Says:

Marriage is between Man and woman. Always has been, always will be.

Marriage always had been defined as a permanent bond, until Henry VIII changed it to allow divorce. Thus, we should outlaw divorce, according to your logic. It’s interesting how so many of the people resisting “redefinition” of marriage are on their second or third. Using their logic, I could well argue that they’re expecting society to approve of a lifestyle choice that is nothing more than state-sanctioned adultery.

.

Proud Says:

Gay/straight who cares when someone chooses to serve their country. White, black, red, green purple it does not matter and should not be an issue. A soldier is a soldier and he/she should be recognized by their service, not by any other criteria.

This is the sort of issue that patriotic pro-military folks on both sides of the aisle should be able to get behind. Our military needs the widest source of talent and commitment available, and should therefore exclude no one.

.

The Wise Owl Says:

Max Anax junius -1,
If a Man loves more than one woman, why can’t he marry them all if everyone agrees? Isn’t the argument for Gay Marriage that it is up to consenting adults?

Sure. So?

You aren’t going to get me to argue that polygamy is bad, or that it’s not a similar issue. However, it does differ in this regard: everybody, regardless of who you are, gets the legal chance to marry somebody they’re romantically attracted to… unless they’re gay. Thus, there is a set of people who get to marry zero people. Wanting more than one is not exactly the same thing as being denied any.

How you came up with “wise owl” user name, baffles me. Your sounding more like what they drop on the ground after a full meal. Stop wasting our time and just crawl in your nest and go to sleep?

The irony is that none of this is of consequence to you at all. You’re just another pathetic person using tired and laughable arguments given to you by others to justify your own prejudice, wasting everyone’s time here. Get a life. Go outside. Be with your loved ones. None of that will change or has changed because other people are allowed to marry who they love and to be who they are.

Read this again Owl, keep reading it until it sinks in.

Dear Owl,
If you let me marry another man, how is that a threat to your marriage?
… In the closet much?

.

Dear Owl,
Whats a bigot?

.

Save your sorry-ass hypothetical questions for Philosphy 101 at Bob Jones University. Here on planet earth, our society is debating same-sex marriage between two people, because that’s what people are debating. There are many laws that are construed by many groups to be against their moral values, citing this “slippery slope,” which have not historically born out.

It’s with an evolving sensibility that people have already seen NO NEGATIVE outcome from same-sex relationships recognized by the state. You may have a philosophical anxiety, but that’s not the problem of the state. Your ideas of outcome are for (shoddy and bigoted) debate, not for the pragmatism of a state interested in the rights and pursuit of happiness of its citizens- stated objectives, I might add.

The irony is that none of this is of consequence to you at all. You’re just another pathetic person using tired and laughable arguments given to you by others to justify your own prejudice, wasting everyone’s time here. Get a life. Go outside. Be with your loved ones. None of that will change or has changed because other people are allowed to marry who they love and to be who they are.

The Wise Owl Says:
I love both equally and they get along. Why can’t I marry both of them if they agree. What about my Civil Rights to be happy?

The problem is if you work and get say health benefits for your spouse then your employer is forced to pay benefits for two women instead of one. Which would mostly be an issue if your worked for the government because they’d be the entity forced to pay for it by it being legal costing the taxpayer lots of money. Of course if we had a national health care plan it wouldn’t be so much of an issue.