<p>
</p>
<p>Notice the words I think in my statement, compared to your statement as fact that the black community is against gay marriage. Therein lies the difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If gay marriage becomes legal that i have to recognize it, hospitals have to recognize it, certain professionals have to recognize it, they are a married couple like me, in contracts i enter with them etc…and this is what i dont like. But again if democracy accepts this then fine. Or if their idea of “marriage” is changed to different standards, different name, different liceensures then people mtie be more receptive</p>
<p>I have read several articles about how the black community is against gay marriage. If you want to take the time, you can do a google search yourself. </p>
<p>The genetic thing was discussed already on this and another gay marriage thread, brand_182.</p>
<p>Well obviously you are just going to point me in different directions in order to avoid the topic. I doubt you actually answered the question I’ve posed before, but if you’d rather not, that’s fine.</p>
<p>what question</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>10 characters…</p>
<p>i dont no about him, i wouldnt change my opinion. But on the flip side if u discover homosexuality is not genetic? then what?</p>
<p><to pose=“” the=“” question=“” of=“” what=“” causes=“” homosexuality=“” is=“” actually=“” a=“” judgment=“” about=“” homosexuals.=“”></to></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.web4health.info/en/answers/sex-homo-causes.htm[/url]”>www.web4health.info/en/answers/sex-homo-causes.htm</a></p>
<p>It’s hypothetical, HH. If homosexuality did turn out to be genetic, it would be comparable to race and sex (which we’ve also been discussing). I wanted to see if you would still want to give homosexuals <em>limited rights</em> if their preference was uncontrollable…it would say something about your character, depending on the answer you gave. However, since golani answered it, it gives me an idea of what kind of person he is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it’s not genetic, then we go on as we do now, but homosexuals’ argument for same-sex marriage would probably be weaker because their preference would be easily condemned as “unnatural.” </p>
<p>If it did turn out to be genetic, I find it strange that you would not change your opinion. As I stated before, their preferences would then be known as uncontrollable (as are race and sex) and you would be discriminating against someone based on something they are unable to change. Thus your answer to my question, golani, is disappointing.</p>
<p>I have an interesting question to pose: how about hermaphrodites? They don’t get much air time, but as we all know, they are born as a male and female. Are they allowed to marry anyone at all, or would that be considered same-sex marriage?</p>
<p>Let me tell you why i would not still support gay marriage in the form it is being asked for. Either way marriage is a guy and women. Lets assume ur born gay, that doesnt change the definition of marriage that just changes the def of gay. If that were the case i would support “a marriage” as long as it were absolutely seperate from a straight marriage like i mentioned before. They would have different laws, regulations etc that were specific to the concerns of the gay community.</p>
<p>Regardless of your definition, the point still remains: you would be limiting political rights to a person that the rest of the population receives because of who they are (that cannot be controlled).</p>
<p>Like I’ve said before, I see no problem with homosexuals getting the same thing but just giving it a different name. However, for some reason, it seems they do. All other points aside, it is the principle of the matter: you would be denying people the same right granted to everyone else.</p>
<p>Its not a right granted to everyone else its a privelage that belongs to men and women. Thats all. Just because they are born gay(and this is a hypothetical situation) does not mean they can partake in marriage. </p>
<p>If the gay community does not want a union with a different name and in a different legal form than they should not get anything at all bc they have to be willing to compromise if americans have to compromise their values and recognize their union</p>
<p>Golani - this is what a “tautology” is, if you were wondering what I meant when I described your “arguments” as nothing more than that:
Argument by tautology is essentially pointless. You state a definition of your own choice, and then say that anything that fails to correspond to that is “wrong.” Simply repeating it doesn’t make it any more valuable as a part of the discussion.</p>
<p>kluge - Was it you (I cannot recall as there have been so many posts here) who dismissed someone’s (golani’s?) reason for being against gay marriage because it merely relied on religion for its authority and legitimacy? If so, I need to point out to you that religion is a very important authority on moral issues – which I think we can agree this one is – for many, many people. Do you really think that by belittling religion you make it less important for its followers?</p>
<p>I don’t think we should be belittling religion, but religion is not a sufficient reason for laws in this company. Should no food be served during daylight hours of Ramadan? Shoud we all eat Kosher? I don’t see that our laws regarding marriage necessarily have to follow the dictates of some - not all - sects of Christianity. That’s not reason enough.</p>
<p>What “company” ? – mathmom, you need to do some serious rethinking about just what kind of entity you are living in. ; )</p>
<p>Hmmm…perhaps the company of 6+ billion people with different beliefs and religions living on one planet. </p>
<p>Mathmom makes an excellent point, but you refuse to consider it.</p>
<p>I also hadnt had my question answered about annullments
Some heterosexuals ( many apparently-), have had their previous marriages annulled- that is made invalid even if there are children, so that they can remarry, in the Catholic church for example which does not permit divorce.
<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week431/cover.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week431/cover.html</a></p>
<p>However, from those who are permitted annulments, the reasons seem to include- wanting to marry someone other than your 1st spouse means you must have been under some duress/drugs/false delusions at the time- so I still fail to see the difference in results, other than divorce is quite a bit easier to get.</p>
<p>
But for those who are affected in their viewpoint of a societal construct because of others behavior- please explain how your view of marriage is not changed by a religious institution allowing thousands of couples every year to “reverse” their marriage ceremony- but your views would be changed if two people who happened to be same sex were allowed to marry in this country</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Leanid, that wasn’t me. My position is that “marriage” should be exclusively a religious title, devoid of any legal significance, and that the state should only issue civil partnership licenses which would carry the same legal significance that marriage now has - to gays and straights alike. (I would grandfather in all existing marriages.) Get married in the church of your choice, but fill out the legal papers as well. Or skip the religious ceremony, as many now do already. </p>
<p>I understand the psychological connection between “marriage” and religion, and don’t wish to compromise that. But to base legal rights on religious tradition is wrong as a matter of common decency toward those disfavored by the majority religions as well as violative of the first amendment. The civil institution that marriage has become, with all its attendant legal rights and responsibilities, is a good thing which I believe has social value independent of religious ties, which is why I would extend it to gay couples as well.</p>
<p>Sometimes I just like to kick back and observe how the Catholic church drives some people NUTS. :)</p>
<p><world population=“” of=“” roman=“” catholics:=“” 1,098,366,000=“” or=“” one=“” out=“” six=“” human=“” beings=“” (1=“” 6).=“”></world></p>
<p><the catholic=“” church=“” is=“” not=“” only=“” the=“” largest=“” christian=“” church,=“” but=“” also=“” organized=“” body=“” of=“” any=“” world=“” religion.=“”> :)</the></p>
<p>Wikipedia</p>