Somerfrost and Brian,
I just have to tell you that I've enjoyed your polite exchange.
You are both gentlemen.
You both have respected each other's opinions, and through the discussing, have demonstrated that there is agreement.
May I ask of both of you, do you not realize that the topic of "gay marriage" is yet another bogus attempt to divert attention from some other more pressing topics? Is this something that demands the best creative mental energies of those that really care? Or can you both, see the "side-track" for what it really is?
Danzig said it well.
There are some areas that the government holds no right to, including but not limited to, what occurs between consenting adults.
Equality is inclusive of ALL! It's just that simple.
Everything else is a "smoke screen", and should be seen as such.
DTS

DTS,
I agree 100%, unfortunately there are more than enough folks in this country who would rather use valuable resources to deny others equality than force the political opportunists to deal with "real" issues! We can blame Bush et al but in the end, this non-issue would wither and die if the public wasn't willing to nourish it!

altho there are larger and smaller issues....and some may be more important in the 'grand scheme of things'...but, people need to live their life, and many times it's the smaller things that you deal with on a day to day basis. it's not as tho all day today, as i dealt with various work issues, i told everyone hey, there's more important things to worry about. for most people it is the smaller issues that you deal with--that's how life is. a big part of most peoples day is dealing with all the little things that make up their lives. all those issues are a part of the bigger picture.

as for sidetracking the govt--that's where flag burning type issues come into play.

I agree completely. I am saddened by the fact that as far as their political advocacy goes, the religious right has become a two-issue group. Abortion and gay marriage. For those that believe that abortion is murder, I can see what that is an important issue to rally behind. However, poverty, injustices, etc etc have gone unnoticed because these two issues rile up the base better than any other. It's sad because so many people are wasting so much time when there are so many huge, pressing issues in this country that we would be better served to address than gay marriage. I take comfort in knowing like I said in my last post, that this will be a non-issue in the next 10-15 years.

Thanks Somerfrost, Danzig, and Brian.
Well said.
DTS

I totally disagree with anyone that says people's rights are being violated if gay marriage is illegal. Nobody's rights are being violated. Everyone has the same rights. Every man has the right to marry a woman. The rules are the same for everyone.

I'll give you a few different analogies. I live in a condominium building. They have rules. Since most people go to bed around 11:00pm, you are not allowed to play loud music after 11:00pm. Let's say that I'm different from most people. I stay up very late. I go to bed at 3:00am. If I made the same argument as you guys, I could say that my rights are being violated. I'm a night person, so the rules should be different for me. I should be allowed to blast my music late at night. Otherwise, my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for everyone. Everyone has to stop playing their music at 11:00pm. Just because I'm different and am a night person, that doesn't mean that the rules should change for me. I can't expect everyone else to accomodate me just because I'm different.

I'll give you another analogy. Alcohol is legal in this country. Cocaine is not. Let's say that I dont like alcohol but I do like cocaine. I guess I could say that if I was a cocaine user that my rights are being violated. I could say that I'm not like most people. I don't like alcohol. I like cocaine. Therefore, the government has to make cocaine legal for me or my rights are being violated. This argument is silly. My rights are not being violated. The rules are the same for me as everyone else. We are all allowed to drink alcohol but we are not allowed to take cocaine. Just because I prefer cocaine, it does not mean that the government needs to change the laws for me.

You can't simply label yourself and then ask for special rights. You can't say, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man". If it was that easy, and all you had to do was label yourself someting and then the laws would change for you, it would be ridiculous.

I have a good idea. I'm going to label myself as a high-energy, fast-paced person. Therefore, I like to drive fast so I should not have to obey the speed limits. I don't care if the speed limit is 65 mph. I am a fast-paced person and should be allowed to drive 90 mph. My rights are being violated if you don't let me drive 90 mph.

You can't simply label yourself as something and then demand special rights. You can't say, "I'm gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man or otherwise my rights are being violated." It's a silly argument and that's the argument you guys are making. A couple of you have said that if someone says they are gay that they should be able to marry someone of the same sex or else their rights are being violated. I think that's a weak argument.

No the silly argument is your's...utter crap! Your analogies are all faulty...what you are in fact saying is akin to the following:
A black man wishes to rent an apartment and is told "whites only"...so, according to your logic, his rights aren't being violated cause the rules are the same for everybody, you're white, you can live there, if you're black you can't! Afterall, he's free to change his skin color right? Gay folks don't label themselves...they are labeled by society! Two people are in love and wish to marry...it's society that has a problem if they are of the same sex, and it's society that afixes labels!

Rupert,
I wasn't going to respond, because it doesn't seem that any amount of reason will change your views.
In answer to your first example, if you want to hear loud music late at night, put on headphones and blast away. Your actions will not interfere with others' sleep.
The "alcohol/cocaine" premise doesn't deserve comment.
Regarding driving over the speed limit, gosh, does it seem that doing so would jeopardize the safety of others?
So, again the questions...What do the actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms have to do with either compromising your safety, or causing you threat? What right do you have for denying them their rights (civil), or in human terms, the possibility of their expressing their love. Finally, why, other than for taxation purposes, shoud the government even be involved in citizens' private lives?
I just don't get it.
DTS

loud music infringes on the right of others, as does dwi...but how does a gay getting married infringe on anothers rights? it DOESN'T. it does allow him the SAME rights as others.
driving is a privilege, not a right. the analogy is a poor one.

amen, they are all terrible examples.

You are correct that with a couple of those examples, there is the issue of infringing on others, while there is no such issue with gay marriage. I agree with that. However, with the cocaine analogy, there is no such infringement. If a person wants to do cocaine, he is not hurting anyone else.

I completely disagree with your analogy. I don't think it is the same at all. In your analogy, you are telling a person of color that he can't do the same exact same thing that others are doing. In the gay analogy, a gay man is allowed to do the same thing that others ae doing. He is allowed to get married to a woman. You want him to be able to do something different and be able to marry a man.

I don't know you can say that gay people don't label themselves. Of coure they label themselves. Plenty of people come out and say they that they are gay. Soceity may label them too, but that doesn't mean that they don't label themselves.

Somer, I usually find you to be reasonable and open-minded on most issues. But once in a while like with this issue, you just can't accept anyone else's view point and think that your view point is the only reasonable one. I completely understand the pro gay-mariage view point. I can see the argument. I think there is some merit to it and I think that some of it makes good sense. I still lean the other way, but I respect the pro gay-marriage view point. I think that there are reasonable people who make good sense on both sides of the argument. Brian is in favor of gay marriage but he still understans and respects the views of people who are aginst it.

By the way, if they legalized gay marriage tomorrow, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I am against it, but I don't think it's a huge deal.

By the way, the definition of mariage for the longest time has been "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

That is what the definition is. Maybe we should change it to accomodate all kinds of other relationships. I don't know. I don't think we should but that is just my opinion. If we do change it, should there only be one change? Should it just be changed to include same-sex one-on-one relationships? Or are there even other alternative lifestyles that could be included? I think that is a legitimate question. If you're going to change the definition of something, how far do you go?

Yep, when there is nothing else to say, you can cry about how I'm personally attacking someone or closed minded to points of view other than my own...you know, I really try to play nice and I realize that no matter how many times I confront your faulty logic, you won't accept it. You'll go on arguing forever and, to quote Willow, "bored now". What I should come right out and say is the simple truth about the mindset of folks who want to deny others equality based on some perceived "difference"...but I'll just stop before my remarks become..."not nice"! End of my input on this thread!

The cocaine one is sort of left field though, Rupert. While it hurts nobody else -- many laws are codified in order to force people to not hurt themselves as well as others. Allowing gay marriage hurts neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals, so while the analogy was well-intentioned and I see where you were going with it...it doesn't really work.

I can say the exact same thing. When someone is losing an argument, that's when they want to come out and attack the other side. They want to call them racists or biggots or whatever. That's an easy way out of an argument: You can think you know that you're point of view is right and anyone who disagrees with you must be a racist or biggot or whatever. I think around 60-70% of Americans are against gay marriage. If you want to believe that all those people are some type of biggots, you can belive that. You are totally wrong, but if that's what you want to believe, that is fine.

I respect your view about gay marriage and I respct the fact that you are passionate about it. What I don't respect is the fact that you want to villainize everyone who disagrees with you.

I think an important question is where do you draw the line with marriage. If you're going to change the defintion of marraige, how far do you go? Let's say that I'm a 50 year old guy that is abstinent that lives at home with my mother. I have no interest in dating. My mother is my best friend. Should I be able to marry my mother? Why not? I'm not hurting anyone. Shouldn't I be entitled to the same tax benefits as others? If me and my mother live together, we are two people living together. I shouldn't be punished financially just because I am not your typical guy.

Anyway, my opinion on the previous example is that they guy should not be able to marry his mother. I have nothing against the guy. His lifestyle choice is totally up to him. But that does not mean that I am in favor of changing the definition of marriage to accomdate every possible life style. I think the vast majority of people out there feel the same way as I do. They don't think the definition of marriage should be changed. I don't think it has to do with homophobia or biggotry. Sure there are some homophobes and biggots out there, but I think they only make up a small minority of the people that are against gay marriage.

I appreciate debating with you. Even though we may disagree, you are open-minded and are tolerant of opposing views. That's really all that I am asking for.

It seems that you toatally understand why the majority of people are against gay marriage. You may not agree with them, but you appreciate their viewpoint and you respect it. You realize that good people can differ on this issue and just because someone is against gay marriage, that does not make them a biggot or homophobe.

I think that strong arguments can be made in favor of gay marriage. But I also think that there are strong arguments against it.

Rupert,
I'm a bit confused. You've answered others but somehow left me out. See my post #48. The questions I asked remain unanswered.
Also, I'm also awaiting a "strong argument" in opposition to "gay marriage".
Do you have one?
DTS

See Rupert's post #56. I don't really agree with the slippery slope argument -- but that post is a good example of why many rational people don't favor gay marriage.

Though, I would contend that on the flipside of that rational argument there is a huge group of people who don't favor gay marriage because of their fear and ignorance regarding homosexuals. There are a great number of people who hate homosexuals and are bigots and are homophobic and are therefore against gay marriage -- but not everyone who is against gay marriage is a homophobe or a bigot...see how that works?