Poll. An emotional month for GLBT Americans

My question is what is wrong with "unions" with full legal ramifications as in "marriage"?

Three words my friend: Seperate, but equal. Anyone who asks us to "compromise" our very innate human dignity and accept status as second class citizens can go to @!$%#ing hell. Its not a matter or majority or minority, its a matter of right and wrong. Gay rights is no more a "viewpoint" than racial rights or women's rights. If you think otherwise, you're part of the problem.

Spider- it is simple- they are people, just like you or I. They have the same rights, and the government does not have the right to deny them these rights to cater to religious bigotry.

You have all recorded history

FALSE

and all religions against you.

FALSE AGAIN

People are using the legal system to change culture.

As has done before. Or do you somehow think that interracial marriages were always part of our culture and that a court verdict was not needed to change it?

My question is what is wrong with "unions" with full legal ramifications as in "marriage"?

That's like asking what is wrong with having whites drink out of a special fountain only for them or entering through the front of the building while everyone else needs to enter around back. Do you see a problem with that? Then why don't you with this? In both cases a group is being treated differently despite the end result (access to water, access to building) being the same.

By asking society to change the most important element that describes the backbone of humanity into something different is a tall order and probably a mountain that need not be crossed in order to achieve "the pursuit of happiness"

Did you even read what you just wrote? If marriage is an important element to society at large, why would it not be to gay people as well. We strive for the same thing. Someone to love who loves us back, a special day where we get up in front of friends and family and make that pledge to each other, and then get all the rights and recognition that go with that. Not some half assed civil union that won't even cover us once we hit the state boarder.

This gay marriage concept is akin to changing the meaning of the essence of marriage, which is to nurture and raise children.

Utter BS. First, marriage has changed throughout history. Secondly, you do not have to have children to be married and you do not have to be married to have children. Therefore, child rearing is a separate issue. Oh...and gay people raise children too. And the kids of such couples deserve the same protections of having their parents actually married, that the children of straight parents do.

My advice is to accept a compromise and use the word "unions" for legal contracts involving same-sex partners.

Gee, do you tell a horse jockey who is coming up in a race to slow down and settle for 3rd place too? Why would we "compromise" when there is ALREADY GAY MARRIAGE IN FIVE STATES, PLUS DC, and PLUS the existing SSM in California?

Gay marriage is not a future concept. IT'S ALREADY BEEN HERE IN THE USA FOR SIX YEARS!!!!

the tenth amendment of the Const. states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...........................

I am not arguing for or against marriage between male and females, just indicating that the US Const. does not address this issue. If it did, we would not be having this discussion.

However, since it does not address the issue, that means it is up to the people to decide.

to greg and jeff.... just reminding you of the cold-hearted facts guys. you have a big hurdle to cross in trying to change our cultural viewpoints about gay marriage.

i wish you luck in your relationship. i dont like the idea of divorce, and gay divorce rates are much higher than straight divorce rates. in sweden a study showed homosexual partners had 147% the rate of straight couples.

So to all of you out there, straight, gay or whatever..... dont walk down that isle unless you mean for all time.

This is more damaging to the concept of "marriage" than any thing else.

One more point: straight people really have no say in the matter.

Second more point: what ages do you think are reasonable or legal for two males to marry?

I hear all this scare tactics about NAMBLA.

Is it true that gay men intend to marry young boys like 8-12 years old?

This was common in Greece, correct?

Just like the famous prophet Mohammed married a young girl of age 6 and had sex

with her at age 9.

Any rules?

The age of consent should be the same as it is for heterosexuals.

Is it true that gay men intend to marry young boys like 8-12 years old?

While there may be some sick individuals with that idea, it wouldn't be anymore so then a straight guy wanting the same thing with a girl as you pointed out in your Mohammed example. Despite the lies that constantly get branded about, gay people really aren't that different from heterosexual people. We want someone to love who loves us in return and have a nice life together. Oh..and so we are clear, we want that someone to be of legal age, not a horse, dog or cat, and not an existing family member either.

So why do you bring this up? Do you really not know? Do you have no gay friends to draw experiences from? It strikes us odd that someone cannot know this in 2010. 1950 maybe. But 2010???

Guys- why bother answering Spider? He doesn't get it, and never will. I'm straight, and pedophilia is as abhorrent to me as it is to 99% of ALL humans gay, straight, or bi. But pedophilia is the same excuse the Boy Scouts (an otherwise excellent organization) uses to discriminate against gay leaders. The saddest thing is, the OUTWARDLY straight pedophile is still more likely to go for boys than the openly gay man is. The only gay man I've met with any connection to pedophilia was a victim of it at 13. He tried to discuss his awakening feelings for men to a guidance counsellor, and the man effectively raped him. I'm sick of all the lies told about pedophilia and gays. The same average percentage of gay men as straight men are prone to it, but since there are many more straight men than there are gay men, STRAIGHT pedophiles are far more prevalent.

Dustin, I agree with Neale. I've seen blackspider on other vine posts dealing with the gay rights issue and he/she always has the same things to say and just goes around and around with them. Good luck trying to discuss this issue with him/her.

black spider . "Your battle will never end." Even scripture states that you are wrong here.....

Amen, Peter, and Blessed Be.

That's saying that homosexuality is a moral issue, which it really isn't. It's made into a moral issue, but it's actually a genetic issue. It really comes down to civil rights. Just because religions choose to take exception doesn't mean gays should be required to tow that line. Additionally, gays being married has absolutely no real impact on anybody elses lives beyond their own. You can continue to object to homosexuality, but it doesn't grant you the right to legislate it, which is what you are suggesting in #9. That's simply reprehensible. It wasn't long ago that thge church taught that blacks and native americans were sub human and shouldn't be treated equally. The Mormons long taught that blacks were black because they were sinners and god had burnt their skin to mark their sins.
Bottom line...this is America, not christianaca or muslimaca or jewishaca ad infinitum, and ALL Americans are due the same basic inalienable rights. Anybody read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution or the Emancipation Proclamation or the Bill of Rights.....? Do you actually know you live in America, and not your own plane of judgemnent and self righteousness? I mean really, I'm not even gay, but this kind of bigotry is sickening!

That's saying that homosexuality is a moral issue, which it really isn't. It's made into a moral issue, but it's actually a genetic issue.

As to the first part, the Bible does say this:

Leviticus 20 (NLT)

¹³ "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

So for Christians it is a moral issue. Understand that Christians are not bound by the law, and not all laws and regulations provided in Leviticus were intended for anyone other than the ancient theocracy of Israel. That said, my personal belief is that the original intent of the above law (if not the penalty prescribed for the ancient theocracy of Israel) still applies. As to whether or not homosexuality is a genetic issue, evidence exists both for and against that assertion, though in neither case is in conclusive.

Bottom line...this is America, not christianaca or muslimaca or jewishaca ad infinitum, and ALL Americans are due the same basic inalienable rights.

Concur, though I suppose the definition of basic human rights is what comes into play here. I reject the analogy between race/ethnicity and behavioral lifestyle choice - one is readily apparent, while the other is a behavioral-based choice, with no apparent physical traits. Homosexuals are not prevented, as civilians, from practicing what I and other Chrisitans believe to be an immoral lifestyle, but I cannot in good consciousness vote for representatives that would attempt to normalize that lifestyle, simultaneously knowing that most others (not being Christians) will. But then that's simply the gears of a democratic republic in motion.

Actually, Reality, marriage is a government thing first, lest why the need for a marriage license even with a "religious" ceremony. We are not trying to force churches to marry us, we just want the right to be legally married with all the rights that that entails. Perhaps checking on the history of marriage might be a good starting point for your further reading enjoyment.

Peter, well said. Thanks!

Peace!

This is NOT a religious issue. currently many churches allow not only gay priests, but perform gay marriage as well, before GOD. we HAVE the religious freedom, it is the CIVIL one we seek, but are denyed, because you want YOUR religon to be rule of law, violating the same amendment that allows you to worship as you please,, that is being very hypocritical.

'm sorry, but we ALL have the rights to our own set of morals. ALL of us. And by trying to force your way into gov't, allowing church and religon to force people to legislate their religious and moral beliefs, is just wrong as can be.

Today, I can go shopping, on a SUNDAY. that used to be against the law, because churches mandated, we keep the day sabbath, I remember as a kid, the only place open on a sunday, was the pharmacy, you could buy a newspaper, but the magazines had cardboard blocking their purchase.... BLUE LAW

Reality Check said

civil unions are not not remotely comparable to separate drinking fountains for different races

Yes it is. It's exactly the same thing.

This is about religion. Marriage is a religious tenant, not a governmental one

Wrong again, marriage is totally a government concern. It has nothing to do with religion. One can get married without ever stepping foot inside a church. It is the government that grants 1100 the rights and responsibilities that come with a government issued marriage certificate.

if we can make it legal, then we can force everyone to accept our orientation

I really don't care if you accept it or not. My getting married has nothing to do with you

Some people do believe homosexuality is wrong, and that's their right

Totally, 100% agree with you. My marriage won't change that at all.

Why do you need to force gay unions into churches? Why do you need to force Christians et. al, who believe homosexuality to be a sin, to perform ceremonies that go against their religions

Not sure where you got this information. Churches and Synagogues don't have to perform ceremonies that they don't believe in and my marriage won't change that. Are churches currently forced to perform Jewish wedding?

I'm sorry, but we ALL have the rights to our own set of morals. ALL of us. And by trying to force your way into churches and religions and demand that the govt. force people to change their religious and moral beliefs, is just wrong as can be.

Your summation is completely flawed. While I feel the emotion behind your words, the emotion is misplaced. Granting me the right to marry my partner has nothing to do with your or anyone elses morals. It's all about equal civil rights. I don't want your recognition, I don't need it either. This is a personal matter between me and my partner. When we do get married, you will know nothing about it and your life will continue just as before.

Hey, Jim, our High's Ice Cream store was open in the town where I grew up here in Virginia on Sunday during the time of the "blue laws". Never could figure out why we could buy ice cream, but not other things on Sunday. (My favorite was Butter Brickle) I know, totally off the subject.

Mike, well said.

I think I left out the point, that in the past, we allowed churches to regulate commerce, which now, i think all agree, violates separation from church and state, and that just because religon/church likes it, it doens't make it right, nor the American thing to do......If I remember, I could buy gum and mints , milk and bread, but not candy. but that was in PA.

This certainly seems like an attempt to go after the religious; thinking that because a lot of religions condemn homosexuality, that if you can force the churches and followers to accept it, that somehow everything will be great.

Ironic, considering it is the church people attempting to force others (including gays with their anti-gay ballot initiatives) to live by their standards.

And forcing homosexuality into/onto churches and religious people, is exactly why you are facing opposition.

Let's see...the religious have forced their religion into city halls, forced their religion into the pledge of allegiance, and even forced their religion onto our money that we use...even the atheist. Then there are the aforementioned ballot initiatives. Who's forcing their lifestyle onto people? Here's a hint, it's not the gays!

and we don't want it forced on us, and we don't want our churches, our priests, etc. to be forced to perform ceremonies, etc., which go against their beliefs".

Apparently you forget the example provided by the Catholic church. They will not remarry divorced people, or couples of mixed faith, and that is in their right. Same thing applies here. Denying rights to an entire group of people because of what erroneous thing you think might happen is not only untrue, it's downright ridiculous.

Why do you need to force gay unions into churches? Why do you need to force Christians et. al, who believe homosexuality to be a sin, to perform ceremonies that go against their religions?

Where do you come up with this stuff? No one is doing that. On the other hand, why do people force their religion onto other religions that WANT to perform legal gay marriages? Things like Prop 8 deny certain religions from practicing their faith the way they see fit. Unacceptable.

And make no mistake, that is exactly what this is. And should gay unions become recognized as legal marriages, that is what will happen.

Bull****. Gay marriages have been legal in MA for six years and in some other countries even longer then that. This has not happened.

That's why I loathe these debates.

Then why are you here?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with civil unions

Fine. Then you go have one instead of a full marriage if there is nothing wrong with them. Put your money where your mouth is.

Good points, all, Greg&Jeff. Especially the "why are you here?" one. On another NV article that we've been on someone else made a similar comment. One does wonder why, if they find the discussion so awful, they bother to do anything. I just move on by articles that I know I will have issues with and move on to something that I can discuss with folk in a rational manner.