Strawberry-rhubarb, please, please, please?
:)

it's sausage making. and we each will work to influence dhow we THINK we should. The institution of marriage is obviously revered. Most of us want it. Let's have some pie and discuss it in the morning....;)

Fred, your agreement or disagreement is solely in the 'mind of the beholder'... and that's YOU and your choice to make.

If you believe that I was attacking your faith by asking questions, that's your privilege, and, of course, you can find a bunch of people to agree with you if you make the effort.

But as I've said countless times before, Consensus is =/= [NOT equal to] Truth at all. It's just 'agreement.' Except for people for whom agreement IS = truth, unfortunately.

I just ask questions to determine if anyone can possibly respond with non-circular reasoning about the existence of their God or the whole 'how did it all start' "Creation Thingie."

I'm just curious. It's the science/engineering side of how my mind works. Just looking for answers.

Maph, what was that 'acceptance percentage' ten, twenty or fifty years ago. What direction is that percentage moving? Likewise, how many states... ten, twenty, fifty years ago, and what's the trend.

One point on a graph (today's numbers) do not indicate a trend, so please don't use it as a justification. That's very non-Objectivist! :)

Actually, my arguments, I hope, have not been about 'right to marriage,' which I support, but 'right to the list of legal privileges which have become attached to the 'marriage contract.'

Want a marriage? Fine... go get one. Want the legal rights that come with having signed a 'marriage license,' Fine... everyone should have the right to those 'rights' too!

But so long as religionists fixate on 'marriage' being a religious thing and the 'morality' of gay marriage being a 'sin' and therefore argue against ALLOWING gays to "marry," I find the whole thing to be rife with hypocrisy.

If I suggest changing the term 'marriage license' to some other terminology which would subsume the LEGAL privileges associated with 'marriage,' even that gets thrown back at me... to me, that's clearly an unwillingness to compromise or solution. Very rigid. And I don't see THAT as a 'good thing,' either.

And I would immediately request that you elaborate on the term 'hate group.' Many groups label other groups as 'hate groups' and other groups argue about why they label them as 'hate groups.'

Definitions and assumptions rule!

Fine, Robbie, but if marriage has 'no business being regulated by the state' (with which I agree...), can you imagine a world/society/nation in which the state has NO involvement with ANY of the LEGAL aspects that are associated today with 'marriage'?

Without a view/image/perspective that acknowledges that connection, I promise you that the 'debate' will be endless. But please notice that many groups, states and legal challenges are now reversing a LOT of laws created by equally enthusiastically and committed people.

As an 'outsider,' it's been a hoot to observe the process.

Cheers!

Well, aside from OCD, chronic depression (under control for about 20 years, now, and a probably Messiah Complex... well, hell, I don't know... :))))

On the other hand, I BELIEVE that my strong reaction comes from at least two sources... I've known and have had many homosexual friends and co-workers and I've NEVER experienced ANY of them 'making demands' that would in ANY way detract from the freedoms or rights of anyone else. So it boggles my mind that the 'other side' gets so up in arms about DENYING the right/privilege/LABEL of 'marriage' to be applied/allowed for gay people who want to enter into 'permanent' relationships which we tend to label and legalize under the term 'marriage'!

That cuts both ways, imnsho, but it seems like ONE side feels more emotionally 'threatened' by the idea and I just can not find any logical basis for such a strong reaction. "All the gays want," from my observations as an outsider to the community/group is to share in the LEGAL rights and privileges that accompany what we, today, call 'a marriage license.'

I object to 'historical justification' for denying such 'rights' because society's laws and acceptance of 'such things' does tend to change over years and decades. Things change. People change, social standards change. Many things that were taboo decades ago are more 'acceptable' today, belying previous fears that the World Will Come To An End if [whatever] happens.... Witness: "Frankly, I don't give a damn..." from Gone With the Wind...

I nor anyone I've ever experienced has EVER fit the accusation of DENYING HETERO COUPLES the 'right to use the term "marriage",' yet it seems pretty objectively clear that the converse is NOT true.

I strongly dislike that kind of dichotomy in terms of what _I_ see as 'unfair.'

So, until LAWS change or definitions or labels change so that anyone who wants to enter into some kind of 'contract to life with someone else' AND be eligible for LEGAL rights that, today accrue to 'marriage licenses,' I don't see this 'issue' being settled through these kinds of 'discussions.'

Maph, did you really mean 'homophobia' in these posts, or 'homosexuality'?

You're saying 'homophobia is an evil'?
I think it is!

I knew that second part was true long ago, Fred.
And, btw, I am NOT 'attacking your faith' at all... you have every right to it and I will defend your right to practice it.

I will also exercise MY rights to politely ask questions of anyone who, in MY opinion, eschews real logic in the defense of their views and beliefs.

Ciao!

I understand your assertion, but disagree. I would not deny anyone equal rights, but I object to the bastardization of language. A new word should be coined for a union of similar sexes. The government should award no special benefits to anyone married or otherwise. Two wrongs do not make a right.
April 6, 2014
"If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality..."
"... why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?" Andrew Sullivan
http://althouse.blogspot.com/search/labe...
April 3, 2014
"If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. "
"If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/04/if-...
Andrew Sullivan on Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/...
This state of affairs prompted Andrew Sullivan, a gay author and columnist, to essentially accuse gay activists of quashing Eich's First Amendment rights: "The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society," he wrote. "If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us."
Respectfully,
O.A.

You make a mistake by labeling marriage a "right" at all. It is not - neither for a man-woman marriage or anything else. Rights are individual: whenever you involve more than one person, it is a contract. Marriage is a specialized social contract recognized by society for its basic furtherance of society itself (children and the care and nurturing of such).

And marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony. Attempting to redefine marriage - an institution that has driven civilization itself for thousands of years - absolutely constitutes an attack on religion. When you can have sex with whomever you want in the privacy of your own home - irrelevant of gender - you already have the physical side. Civil unions give you the legal stance. If you were only concerned about "equality", that should have been sufficient. But it isn't, because the end game is the subordination of religion itself. Christianity (and Islam) oppose viewing homosexuality as normal and homosexuals can't stand that, so they seek not to be tolerant of others' beliefs, but to utterly destroy them.

You want to show me your tolerance? Be content with what you have. Stop shoving it in our faces. Stop trying to legally obligate us to accept it contrary to our beliefs. You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are not welcome to try to override mine through force.

A right must by definition be individual. You don't have a right to anyone else's person, their labor, or their property (including their intellect). By saying that marriage is a right, you are arguing that you have the right to someone else's most intimate physicality - regardless of the choice of the other person. To assert such is to justify rape as a "right". It's utter nonsense and an affront to both logic and decency.

Marriage is a specialized social contract - an agreement between two people recognized by society. Contracts aren't rights. That's definitional law.

We should probably take this to another post. I disagree that it is a "lifestyle choice" and it's kinda hard to keep a life partner and possibly a family behind closed doors. but that's for another post