Don't we already have equal marriage rights?

I hear the idea of "equal rights for all" being thrown around a lot by supporters of gay marriage, but isn't that something we have already?    

Listen:  there's nothing stopping a homosexual man from marrying a woman.  Likewise, a straight man can't marry another man, the same as a homosexual man.  We're all treated equally already.  Proponents of gay marriage want to redefine marriage, not give equal rights, since that already exists.    

Tell me where I'm wrong. 

So we'd have equal marriage rights if you could only marry members of the same sex, and you'd be fine with that, right?GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]So we'd have equal marriage rights if you could only marry members of the same sex, and you'd be fine with that, right?mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]So we'd have equal marriage rights if you could only marry members of the same sex, and you'd be fine with that, right?GabuEx

Tell me where I'm wrong. 

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] No, because that would be redefining marriage, and I'm NOT okay with that. mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="GabuEx"] I never said a redefinition would undermine equal rights. What I'm saying is that they're misguided when they argue for equal rights, since that's something they already have. Funky_Llama

now all gay people really want is to have the same rights as anyone else who gets married....bsman00

Don't they have the same rights?  I can't marry someone of the same sex either, and I'm straight.  I have the same restrictions they do.  

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]So would it be equal rights if you could only marry a man, and women could only marry a woman? That'd be fine, right? After all, it'd be equal marriage rights.mysterylobster

now all gay people really want is to have the same rights as anyone else who gets married....bsman00

Don't they have the same rights?  I can't marry someone of the same sex either, and I'm straight.  I have the same restrictions they do.  

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]So would it be equal rights if you could only marry a man, and women could only marry a woman? That'd be fine, right? After all, it'd be equal marriage rights.mysterylobster

now all gay people really want is to have the same rights as anyone else who gets married....bsman00

Don't they have the same rights?  I can't marry someone of the same sex either, and I'm straight.  I have the same restrictions they do.  

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

Dark_Knight6

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]So would it be equal rights if you could only marry a man, and women could only marry a woman? That'd be fine, right? After all, it'd be equal marriage rights.mysterylobster

now all gay people really want is to have the same rights as anyone else who gets married....bsman00

Don't they have the same rights?  I can't marry someone of the same sex either, and I'm straight.  I have the same restrictions they do.  

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

mysterylobster

There's a large difference between loving someone and being in love with them.  

[QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="Dark_Knight6"]

Here's the thing, a heterosexual man can marry the person he loves, a homosexual cannot.  And I don't think many  homosexuals really care what it's called, they just want the rights that come with marriage.

socked_feet

I strongly disagree with you, TC.

This is wrong. 

What is wrong with changing the definition of marriage?

What is it to you?

Will it hurt you?

Will people die?

Why take away rights from these people? 

Why? What is wrong with it?

We are all human.

We are all beautiful.

[QUOTE="socked_feet"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] I love a lot of people I can't marry under the law, including members of my own sex, so I'm not being treated any different than homosexuals in this regard.

 

mysterylobster

Since when did people get married based on their sexual urges? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

Opposite-sex couples have the right to get married.

Same-sex couples do not.

Ergo, unequal rights.

Qooroo

......bsman00

Also, since black people can get plastic surgery to make them white a la Michael Jackson, racial segregation isn't preventing equal rights, because they can change their race. >_>Funky_Llama

Isn't the love a homosexual man has for his partner just a little bit different than the love you have for say, your best guy friend?Qooroo

Since when did people get married based on their sexual urges? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

If people get married because of non-sexual love, then we're already equal. As i said, I love people of the same sex, but I can't marry them even though I'm straight. In this regard, I'm in the same boat as the homosexuals. So what pro-gay marriage people really want is for sexual desire to be the main factor in deciding who they can marry. You can see how looking at marriage in this way creates more inequality than before. Previously, we were all treated equally under the traditional definition of marriage, but now others will claim unequal rights because they can't marry whomever they desire.

......bsman00

Wouldn't that be painful?

Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry the person of the same sex which they are attracted to, which gives them unequal rights as heterosexuals. Sure, a homosexual can always marry a person of the opposite sex, but would they be just as happy and/or satisfied?

Mysterlobster, why do you wish to deny the fundamental rights of others? Why deny the opportunity for two, peaceful, loving homosexual partners to live under the benefits of marriage? Why do put the standards of marriage higher than the rights that everyone should be subject to? Your current viewpoint on the matter, sadly, is biased and inhumane.

[QUOTE="Qooroo"] Okay, so we're at the crux of the matter now. What the pro-gay marriage people are really saying isn't that we should have equal rights (although that's how they frame it); rather, that one's sexual urges should be the main factor in deciding who someone can and should marry. Where am I wrong here? mysterylobster

Since when did people get married based on their sexual urges? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

If people get married because of non-sexual love, then we're already equal. As i said, I love people of the same sex, but I can't marry them even though I'm straight. In this regard, I'm in the same boat as the homosexuals. So what pro-gay marriage people really want is for sexual desire to be the main factor in deciding who they can marry. You can see how looking at marriage in this way creates more inequality than before. Previously, we were all treated equally under the traditional definition of marriage, but now others will claim unequal rights because they can't marry whomever they desire.

So what pro-gay marriage people really want is for sexual desire to be the main factor in deciding who they can marry.

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

So what pro-gay marriage people really want is for sexual desire to be the main factor in deciding who they can marry.

GabuEx

The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.LikeHaterade

The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

So what pro-gay marriage people really want is for sexual desire to be the main factor in deciding who they can marry.

GabuEx

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.mysterylobster

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.GabuEx

No it isn't because half the black drinking fountains didn't work.LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.LikeHaterade

Nitpicking his analogy doesn't solve any problems.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]No it isn't because half the black drinking fountains didn't work.GabuEx

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="GabuEx"] Giving "marriages" to opposite-sex couples and "civil unions" to same-sex couples is basically the same as having "white" drinking fountains and "colored" drinking fountains. Both white people and non-white people can get a drink of water, but that doesn't mean that equality has been achieved.-Jiggles-

Nitpicking his analogy doesn't solve any problems.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, not a man and whomever that man desires.mysterylobster

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]The main idea behind gay marriage is to redefine marriage. If they were fighting for equal rights, they'd be fighting for civil unions since the majority isn't against it. However, it seems that redefining the word is more important than achieving those rights.LikeHaterade

The problem is, the homosexual community shouldn't be fighting over this at all. The right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to is a fundamental right that belongs to each and every citizen in the United States, and yet they are being unfairly hindered only due to their sexuality.

Why let a majority choose to hinder the rights of a minority?

It's different on a physical level. If the majority of the people weren't against it and there was no disenfranchising taking place, I would think that it wouldn't be wrong. That happened because blacks were looked down upon. I don't see another reason as to why that would happen.LikeHaterade

So you'd be fine with having "white" and "colored" drinking fountains as long as they both worked and a majority of people supported that?

Yes, but we didn't redefine it to mean something other than between a man and a woman. mysterylobster

A redefinition is a redefinition, and allowing people to marry who couldn't marry before is as obvious a redefinition as you can get. If you're against the redefinition of marriage in general, you would have been against allowing interracial marriage.

What you don't want is specifically this redefinition.