Don't we already have equal marriage rights?

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So you're saying that separate but equal could work if one demographic doesn't hate another demographic. Why would something need to be separate in the first place if they are both equal? Is it because if same-sex marriage was allowed it would "redefine" marriage? What harm would there be if marriage is redefined from being between a man and a woman to being between two consenting adults regardless of gender? Am I suddenly going to stop loving my wife? Is the sky going to fall?-Sun_Tzu-

Education Code Section 51933:

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] There are a couple of things. Mass recall of school text books to show families with two moms or two dads, which you can probably understand why many parents wouldn't approve. Churches that keep to themselves and their congregation would be turned into hate-groups, that aren't really hate-groups. The majority of the US is against gay marriage, but not against equal rights. LikeHaterade

Education Code Section 51933:

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How does a child who is exposed to a family with two moms or two dads constitute as a bad thing? Are their children going to suddenly turn gay from seeing that? What is this mass recall of school text books? Do you have any evidence of any of that? II_Seraphim_II

Education Code Section 51933:

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

Are you implying that it's unfair for families that do not agree with heterosexuality? 

Opposite-sex couples have the right to get married.

Same-sex couples do not.

Ergo, unequal rights.

Qooroo

Are you implying that it's unfair for families that do not agree with heterosexuality? 

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Are you implying that it's unfair for families that do not agree with heterosexuality? 

II_Seraphim_II

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] Im saying teaching kids about Heterosexual couples only would lead them to believe that those are the only valid couples. What if your parents are homosexual? Where do they fit into the grand scheme of things? Shouldnt they be considered too when dealing with marriage and committed relationships or are their relationships considered invalid?Qooroo

This argument holds about as much water,... **** I can't even think of a good example.

People getting squicked out by homosexuality is not a good reason to not expose kids to it. That propogates the myth that there is something wrong with it. Normalizing homosexuality from a younger age can only be good from a perspective of minimalizing bigotry.

And you keep saying that gay marriage is different from racial issues because it's not based on hate. Being anti-gay marriage is a form of bigotry, which is harmful in and of itself. It doesn't matter if your motivations are hatred of gays, or desire to preserve traditional family structures, or cause God said so, or cause it squicks you out. It's still bigotry, and bigotry is bad.

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.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Are you implying that it's unfair for families that do not agree with heterosexuality? 

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]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.

Tell me where I'm wrong.

AirGuitarist87

Hes high on teh bible

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] Im saying teaching kids about Heterosexual couples only would lead them to believe that those are the only valid couples. What if your parents are homosexual? Where do they fit into the grand scheme of things? Shouldnt they be considered too when dealing with marriage and committed relationships or are their relationships considered invalid?TheFlush

EDIT: Wait a minute, are you using that as an argument to justify the enforcement of kids learning about homosexuality in school... 

[QUOTE="TheFlush"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] How do you figure that? The fact that we have gay people today disproves that. When kids begin to mature, they learn for themselves that it is ok to be in a gay relationship. However, learning that in school at a young age could get to children which the majority of parents would be against. LikeHaterade

EDIT: Wait a minute, are you using that as an argument to justify the enforcement of kids learning about homosexuality in school... 

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="TheFlush"] What the.... I don't want to learn about relgion, yet it is taught at every school. In my area, the majority is atheist and still we have to learn about religion. It is forced on me.TheFlush

EDIT: Wait a minute, are you using that as an argument to justify the enforcement of kids learning about homosexuality in school... 

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

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

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

Tell me where I'm wrong.

yoshi-lnex

Also, since it might not be clear, my argument in my first post was not my argument against gay marriage, only a comment on one of the tactics they use.  

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

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

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

Tell me where I'm wrong.

mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"] No, it's not the same argument, because I've made it clear a number of times that by "redefining marriage" I mean changing it to mean something besides a union of a man and a woman. Treating whites and blacks equally did not redefine marriage in the same way letting gays marry would, since it was still between a man and a woman. More than half of the California voters, including nearly 70% of African-Americans, understood this. Funky_Llama

What makes it that redifing marrriage in this way is somehow 'wrong'? And do us all a favour and avoid the religion thing entirely...that debate has been played out.

Qooroo

Because it says that the foundation of marriage can be changed just because of someone's sexual practices.  If you're going to do that, you might as well grant the benefits of marriage to everyone or no one.  

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"] There are a couple of things. Mass recall of school text books to show families with two moms or two dads, which you can probably understand why many parents wouldn't approve. Churches that keep to themselves and their congregation would be turned into hate-groups, that aren't really hate-groups. The majority of the US is against gay marriage, but not against equal rights. LikeHaterade

Education Code Section 51933:

(7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           -Sun_Tzu-

There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia. Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama. He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else. Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal." mysterylobster

The christians are winning so whats the point the majority is on your side... you and ever other christian will never open there mind..... christians think they will turn gay if they let same sex couples get married? WHy are you trying to convince people so much... waste of time

There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           mysterylobster

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"]There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Hah, like I give a flying one what Obama thinks about it. What are the reasons for marriage remaining as between a man and a woman, then?-Sun_Tzu-

There are reasons why marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman, and it has nothing to do with homophobia.  Just ask President-elect *shudder* Obama.  He's said numerous times that he thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman.  Curiously, he wants to grant marriage rights to gay people, but call it something else.  Basically, he wants to create a new ****of people based on their sexual preference and make them "separate but equal."           mysterylobster

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Hah, like I give a flying one what Obama thinks about it. What are the reasons for marriage remaining as between a man and a woman, then?Qooroo

Wow. That's both vague and speculative to an astounding degree.

[QUOTE="Qooroo"]

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"] His supporters are getting furious! Anyway, a man and a woman form the kind of dynamic union that two members of the same sex cannot, and it's on the strength of these unions that human culture has grown strong. Funky_Llama

Wow. That's both vague and speculative to an astounding degree.

all I see different-sex couples do is fight. Same sex not so much.links136

No, it's not the same argument, because I've made it clear a number of times that by "redefining marriage" I mean changing it to mean something besides a union of a man and a woman. Treating whites and blacks equally did not redefine marriage in the same way letting gays marry would, since it was still between a man and a woman. More than half of the California voters, including nearly 70% of African-Americans, understood this.

Also, since it might not be clear, my argument in my first post was not my argument against gay marriage, only a comment on one of the tactics they use.  

mysterylobster

Interracial marriage: "We already have equal marriage rights, because both whites and blacks can marry, as long as they marry a member of the same race.  We cannot redefine marriage simply because a white man might be sexually attracted to a black woman."

Gay marriage: "We already have equal marriage rights, because both men and women can marry, as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex.  We cannot redefine marriage simply because a man might be sexually attracted to a man."

There is absolutely no difference other than the contorted differences you attempt to find after the fact to justify the conclusion that you have already reached beforehand.  If you do not support gay marriage on account of the fact that it is affirming sexual attraction between men and other men, then you should not support interracial marriage on account of the fact that it is affirming sexual attraction between blacks and whites.

^gabu you mean to put same sex, not same race :PII_Seraphim_II

Why the hell should homosexuals be allowed to be married in a church? I just don't get that. Where in a bible does it say homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church. Devour2Survive

Why the hell should homosexuals be allowed to be married in a church? I just don't get that. Where in a bible does it say homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church. Devour2Survive

Why the hell should homosexuals be allowed to be married in a church? I just don't get that. Where in a bible does it say homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church. Devour2Survive

[QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]Why the hell should homosexuals be allowed to be married in a church? I just don't get that. Where in a bible does it say homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church. GabuEx

Good, then don't get married in a church and nobody will have a problem with it.Devour2Survive

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Devour2Survive"]Why the hell should homosexuals be allowed to be married in a church? I just don't get that. Where in a bible does it say homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a church. Devour2Survive

Except that Christian extremists would still have a problem with it if it happens outside a church or not.

Apparently, Christians think they invented marriage.