If It's All The Same To You, Why Deny Others?

I have seen people, some very intelligent and some well educated and some plain old average or below voice with great passion their opinions about matters that don't seem to affect them one way or another. The subjects of the passions are the same perennial dead horses that have been repeatedly beaten in these forums. My question here is not meant to incite an argument but I think it probably will.

Today I drove past a women's health clinic and there were people picketing on the sidewalk out front of the place and shouting at cars that were entering the parking lot. There was an elderly man who was particularly loud and threatening in his manner. He held a sign that said, American abortions, Hitler would have loved it! Apparently the place does provide abortions but it is a general services medical clinic for all women. The protesters had no way of knowing why anyone was entering the clinic's parking lot but every one was a target of what could be very intimidating actions as they crossed the picket line. The old man seemed to be incensed about things that did not affect him in any way. I wonder why.

There are other things like legalization of prostitution, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and other drugs)to name a few. I know from the Miss America thread that we have opinions. I did put a poll on the gay marriage question not because I care what your opinions are but I would like to know why, if the issue does not involve you, why would you want to deny anyone freedoms that are enjoyed by others? The poll will give us an idea of the level of concern regarding the issue.

In Iran homosexuality is illegal. When he spoke at Columbia University the president of Iran was asked what his feelings were regarding gay rights. He answered, "We have no one like that in Iran." I wonder if the people in the USA who would deny gays the freedom to marry and enjoy all the same benefits as straight couples would be okay with legalized pursecution of homosexuals as in Iran.

Why do you care if it doesn't involve you?

Good post. Thank you, icedog.

Agreed, good post. To paraphrase a bumper sticker I once saw regarding abortion, "if you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one."

Rich

There could be indirect effects. E.g. perhaps that elderly man is dependent on government support and the loss of tax dollars due to potential citizens being aborted can affect him. Or may turn out that the abortions are economically beneficial to him if those potential citizens would live on welfare. It is more likely that these are not his primary concerns though.

I just thought I'd bring up that the 'effects' are often misevaluated or misrepresented by both sides on an issue.

Gugi,
Thanks for the response and I appreciate your speculation but speculation is why I asked the question. The old guy is simply an example. I am hoping to hear from him directly.

Brad

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

I think the debate stems from what marriage is. There are two facets to marriage- symbolization and taxation. Before there were marriage contracts, joint filing of returns, and health insurance, marriage was symbolic. Whether it was before God, your church, your tribe, it meant something in that arena.

Now we have marriage contracts, and having this affords you certain rights as a legal entity.

At the base of it, I say let 'em have equality. This equality thing cuts both ways- you don't have to let them get married in your church, etc. That's why there are judges.

If that's not good enough, then I say leave it alone at the national level. It's not the federal government's business anyway. Let it be decided on a state by state basis, and no one has to get angry.

Obviously this issue runs DEEEP and I don't begin to pretend I think I have the answer.

It seems though there there are really two separate issues here.

1) Same sex couples legally joined in some sort of civil union or otherwise legal union receiving the same legal benefits and rights as hetero married couples. That part of the debate is straightforward.

2) This next issue is much more convoluted; same sex couples being considered by "society" to be on par, equal to, be equated with or no different from married hetero couples ethically, etc. Change the law, and eventually have "society" regard same sex "marriage" as OK. Approved of and validated by "society". Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems homosexuals as a group not only want issue #1, they also want issue #2. Am I wrong on this?

Years ago, I worked in a data processing center where the women who worked there listened to Dr. Laura. I had never heard her before that, and didn't listen to her after leaving that job. Long story short, there was a homosexual man that called up because he was very irritated that he had come out of the closet to his family, had introduced his family to his partner but his Mom would not allow he and his partner to stay overnight at the Mom's house during a major holiday. He acknowledged that his Mom affirmed her love for him but his issue was that his Mom did not accept his lifestyle. Dr. Laura just laid into the guy. "Accept your lifestyle? You're not going to make your mother accept your lifestyle, she doesn't have to accept your lifestyle"...etc. His big problem was that she didn't think his lifestyle was OK. He wanted her to think his lifestyle was OK and to approve of his lifestyle.

I think proponents for same sex marriage that say their issue is simply with issue #1 above are not being totally forthright in what they'd like to have changed or to what level.

Pardon my long winded rambling above. I thought about this some more on the way home from work. "Marriage" has a moral connotation. One definition of moral: "founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom" from dictionary.com.

It seems to me that proponents of gay marriage are not only fighting for legal recognition of their union, unless I'm way off base, they're also fighting equally hard for their unions to be considered by society to be of "right conduct". We're half a generation away from that happening anyway; I think that's inevitable. I just don't understand why proponents of gay marriage aren't being more vocal about saying their goal is twofold: legal recognition and societal acceptance.

Chris L

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, and i'd include marriage in that. true, my marriage is a very boring breeder-on-breeder affair, but i still had to fill out a ton of paperwork and pay fees to the gov't in order for my marriage to be "legal".

letting the government say what does and does not constitute marriage is appalling. it's a democracy, and most amendments on the state level about this have been referendums, so let's play a little mind game:

a few years ago in texas this was voted on via popular referendum. now, being texas, most folks voted that the gov't should define marriage as one man and one woman. i was talking to a coworker of mine after we voted during lunch hour, and it went a little something like this:

him: so you voted to keep queers from marrying, right?
me: nope.
him: what?? you want queers to be able to get married?
me: i don't care in the slightest.
him: then why did you vote against the prop?
me: i don't want to set a dangerous precedent that mob rule gets to decide what marriage means.
him: what?
me: look, it's a proposition, right? a referendum, everyone that's over 18, not a felon, and bothers to goto a polling place gets a say, right?
him: yep.
me: so we're saying that the majority gets to decide what marriage is. i'm guessing the majority will prolly decide that marriage is one man and one woman.
him: yeah, so?
me: so, if 20 years from now, gays outnumber straights in Texas, they'll have a perfect legal precedent to vote again and outlaw straight marriage.
him: [deafening silence and a look of mild panic]
me: so that's why i voted against it. regardless of my personal feelings about gay marriage, i simply don't want mob rule telling me who i can and cannot marry.

needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

Whups. I meant to choose the middle option, but accidentally clicked the first. I kind of just glanced, saw the "yes" and thought it was for change. I don't really give a crap who gets married. It doesn't affect me and I don't really have any ceremonious idea of marriage. When I get married, I'm going to try my darndest to convince the wife to skip the stupid expensive wedding and go to the courthouse to just sign the papers. We can use the money we save to buy a big plasma TV and a golf vacation! And maybe a nice purse for her or something?

Its legal in Germany. So I voted with No. I don't think the government should discriminate for sexual orientation.

Just imagine having an accident and being in hospital intense care and they don't let your partner come visit you or provide him with updates. ... or your partner is in there and they keep you out and uninformed.

There are many benefits to those legal partnerships and the more people have them, the better for everyone.

I didn't choose any of the options in the poll, because my opinion wasn't up there.

What I would say, is that the government should have absolutely no hand in marriage of any kind, what so ever, no exceptions.

No marriage licenses, no legal divorces. It's none of uncle sam's business.

The bottom line is that there is no shortage of people anywhere in this world who feel their way is the right way and that's they way they see it. Unfortunately, many of these people if they had the chance would ensure that everyone did what they felt is right and don't give a damn about others rights or opinions. Its one of the reasons humans fight war after war throughout the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

I don't think we should deny their rights "because it doesn't affect us". Who's to say that it does or does not affect us?

---

I am asking the simplest question at the simplest level. Please take it at face value and forget about the long term consequences and statistical implications. I am curious about the passionate need to be involved or concerned with the choices of strangers.

An old man protesting violently against the legality of abortion. An abortion for any reason performed on a complete stranger does not affect this man. He simply wants all abortions stopped forever. It is something in his gut driving him. What? Why?

A middle aged woman married with children stands in front of a polling place screaming at a gay couple, "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" The gay couple are not related to her. Why would she so vehemently deny them the same deal she herself has enjoyed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

I didn't choose any of the options in the poll, because my opinion wasn't up there.

What I would say, is that the government should have absolutely no hand in marriage of any kind, what so ever, no exceptions.

No marriage licenses, no legal divorces. It's none of uncle sam's business.

---

I can dig that but the "legal marriage" provides benefits that are doled out by the government. That is the crux of the matter. The government provides tax breaks and other things for married couples.

I think this is about belief.
People do not like to feel insecure, but as soon as you show them an alternative way of doing the things they believe in, they will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I am asking the simplest question at the simplest level. Please take it at face value and forget about the long term consequences and statistical implications. I am curious about the passionate need to be involved or concerned with the choices of strangers.

---

Because, in their mind, it does affect them. Somehow, someway, they believe it. Whether it's their morals being encroached upon because they might have to explain to their children why two men are kissing and wearing wedding rings or that God will destroy the country via fire and brimstone.

I think you'll find that if they believed that it truly did not affect them, they would not be so vehement about it. Ask that same woman about the HIV epidemic an Africa, and ask that old man about the recent Pirate Bay ruling in Sweden. Whether they know it or not, those issues probably do affect them, but they perceive that they don't, and therefore likely won't be picketing about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

i've never wanted the gov't to have the power to control my private life, ...

...needless to say, it gave him some food for thought.

---

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire for thought. Watch this: The American form of government. (Video)

It's an interesting little essay that sums up some of the arguments here, but in the most general fundamental terms as it relates to who gets to decide the issues as a democracy, or the standard against which decisions are made, as in the law.

My signature takes on a whole different meaning given the current state of the economy. The economy can take on the same force as the single issue of gay marriage, or abortion, or the war on terror, or global warming, or ________ the issue du jour.

What happens is that the politicians/media can make the herd move based on simple fearful inflammatory values couched in single issues. They polarize the voting body. The herd will not move if it's educated and moderate. If the herd is afraid and moving, the thin veneer of civilization will last about thirty seconds.

As Jockey's example points out, the swinging pendulum has the most danger in becoming stuck in one extreme or the other. That's where the most money is made.

I do not understand the mob rule argument. If one group ends up outnumbering another, generally that group, under the democratic ideal, will have more sway in all matters whether it be gay marriage, gun laws, or anything in between.

Am I missing something? As long as people bother to vote, and vote based on their ideals, isn't democracy in essence mob rule? I understand the checks (cheques!! :D) and balances nature of a modern democracy, but bottom line is that if 90% of the population agree with Gay marriage, and vote their representatives in based on that, then whatcha gonna do? Hasn't the mob spoken?

Oh, and I am all for Gay marriage, btw. Although I doubt it is the "marriage" part that Gay people care about - it is the acceptance and equality it represents that matters, I suspect.

James.

The government should not restrict anything regarding marriage unless it somehow stands to violate the government protected rights of someone.

But since the US government does have its multi fingered hand dipped into every aspect of its citizens' personal lives, I would prefer it not to recognize a "marriage" between same gender people. To me that is doing it wrong twice and I'd prefer the state just stay out of it completely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

I'll add a little more fuel to the fire for thought. Watch this: The American form of government. (Video)

---

I did spend the 10 minutes in which the author(s) started with 5 general forms of government and proceeded to reduce them to a choice between two. The other three were dismissed as either a cover for the 'negative' one, or a temporary transition towards it.
Some of the arguments for doing so were speculative, others were interpretations of history.

I learned a new thing. Apparently historical examples of 'government type A' ends and gives way to 'government type B' can mean either that 'government type A' is inherently doomed to failure, or that 'government type A' is one of the only sustainable possibilities.

No, I'm not that gullable.


Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. The US constitution has been amended 27 times so far and it's safe to assume it will be amended again.

For example I'm pretty sure currently there is a minority of people who consider slavery as a good thing, slaves should have no right to marry, and inter-racial marriages should not be allowed either. When the US constitution was written these people were a majority and these things were then legal.

I expect that the same thing will happen with the gay marriages/unions/rights. And then it will be some other issue which today seems very clear cut to us but in few generations it would be up for debate.

Of course gay people would like to be accepted in the society, black people probably wanted the same thing when the founding fathers created the US constitution.

Bottom line is things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I would prefer it not to recognize a "marriage" between same gender people. To me that is doing it wrong twice

---

Are you saying only heterosexuals should be screwed by the government? But the homosexuals are the ones who insist on getting the favor, are you saying you're for them being protected from themselves then?

Shouldn't we consider the value in some things remaining taboo?

There was a time when showing two people in the same bed, even clothed, on television was a no-no. I remember the "Dick Van Dyke Show" never showed the main characters, although married to each other, in the same bed. They had separate beds. And back in the 1960's partial nudity on the silver screen was considered very racy, full nudity was scandalous.

Now, full nudity and profanity are both commonplace via cable or satellite TV. Even network stations have loosened up, and everyone in America got a good look at Dennis Franz's naked butt on NYPD Blue.

Not good.

So, whatever happened to our polite society? I remember when only bums and vagabonds wore their pants down around their butts exposing their undergarments in public. Now it's "fashionable." What a joke. Are we a better off society by breaking down our mores and violating our taboos, or is there a good reason for keeping them intact?

I think all this relativism is hurting us either directly or indirectly.

Sorry, wrong party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

And if we look a little further back the 20's were a time of immense sexual freedom. Before that, Victorian sensibilities. It's not a one way directional growth, it's a cycle.

X

---

So X, you are saying its cyclical. Kind of like...hmmm:thinking:....you know...whats that word? Damned memory anyways!! Oh yeah! The weather!!:w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

So X, you are saying its cyclical. Kind of like...hmmm:thinking:....you know...whats that word? Damned memory anyways!! Oh yeah! The weather!!:w

---

I think a bike would be a better example of something that's cyclical. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Are you saying only heterosexuals should be screwed by the government?

---

No, what I am saying is what I wrote! Silly gugi! Oh no! Look at the exclamation marks! I'm turning into JMS! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

But the homosexuals are the ones who insist on getting the favor, are you saying you're for them being protected from themselves then?

---

I am not suggesting that any same gender sexual relationship would endanger anyone else's rights more than any traditional one. Only that this is the only time I think a government should have a mandate to step in and do anything. Of course this issue of the government granting rights not enumerated in the Constitution is apparently up to the voters in our local governments in the US, but if I were the only voter it would not happen. My personal view on the matter is that the government (for both my personal view of the immorality of homosexual relations and my personal view of the role of government) should not be giving such a relationship a title of marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Sorry, wrong party.

---

Too late, you've been quoted :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No, what I am saying is what I wrote! Silly gugi! Oh no! Look at the exclamation marks! I'm turning into JMS! :P

---

I resemble that remark!:D

One of my biggest issues with these two issues in particular is the religious grounding of the arguments against both abortion and gay marriage. Last I checked, the bible said it was God's job to judge, not mine. I think it's unfortunate to use these arguments and perpetuate negative stereotypes of religion. Any God I'll respect loves. Period. I have no use for a vengeful God- those are human emotions, not those of a perfect being.

Also curious about how anyone can justify the argument that this is not the same thing as the civil rights movement of the 60's (talking gay marriage now). How is this not about civil rights? We're preventing a percentage of the population from certain rights simply because it's tradition or different than the "norm". I don't see how that can ever be acceptable under our Constitution. I only have faith that this country has a history of righting these wrongs, and hopefully it'll go the way of slavery, segregation, and having women as second class citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

...No, I'm not that gullable.

Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. ....

Bottom line is things change.

---

I wouldn't want anyone to be gullible. The video is only a point in the discussion, not meant by me to be the end of any debate. On it's face it can be taken in just about any political direction.

Your point about change is on target. The question is whether the inertia that apparently resists the inevitable change gives us time to learn or whether the chaos that results from eliminating the tempering inertia is better. There are groups who thrive at either extreme.

I think philosophers have questioned how many times around the cycle of destruction and rebuilding we have to go before we realize the futility and develop a more stable social environment that is less polarizing and more tolerant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I did spend the 10 minutes in which the author(s) started with 5 general forms of government and proceeded to reduce them to a choice between two. The other three were dismissed as either a cover for the 'negative' one, or a temporary transition towards it.
Some of the arguments for doing so were speculative, others were interpretations of history.

I learned a new thing. Apparently historical examples of 'government type A' ends and gives way to 'government type B' can mean either that 'government type A' is inherently doomed to failure, or that 'government type A' is one of the only sustainable possibilities.

No, I'm not that gullable.


Society, morals and values do change and eventually the government does reflect these changes. If it can't happen via peaceful evolution it will eventually happen via revolution and civil war. Laws just provide some inertia to this. The US constitution has been amended 27 times so far and it's safe to assume it will be amended again.

For example I'm pretty sure currently there is a minority of people who consider slavery as a good thing, slaves should have no right to marry, and inter-racial marriages should not be allowed either. When the US constitution was written these people were a majority and these things were then legal.

I expect that the same thing will happen with the gay marriages/unions/rights. And then it will be some other issue which today seems very clear cut to us but in few generations it would be up for debate.

Of course gay people would like to be accepted in the society, black people probably wanted the same thing when the founding fathers created the US constitution.

Bottom line is things change.

---

For the first time since I joined this forum, I completely agree with your entire post. Well said sir, well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

My personal view on the matter is that the government (for both my personal view of the immorality of homosexual relations and my personal view of the role of government) should not be giving such a relationship a title of marriage

---

Lee,

Thanks for being honest. The question I have is why do you label the love between two people of the same sex as immoral? I have many gay friends in solid loving relationships. I am very close to a lesbian couple who are doing a wonderful job raising three children. If you were to meet them you would not find any reason to judge their relationship immoral. I also have some straight friends who are married with children and spend alot of time sleeping around, selling cocaine and using cocaine. There appears to be no morals in some households regardless of sexual orientation. So why do you judge people without knowing them?

Brad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

So why do you judge people without knowing them?

---

I haven't judged anyone. I've judged homosexual relations - and because of the taboo nature of the subject and the emotions on the forum regarding the topic, I'd prefer to leave it be here in the thread but if you are curious you know I don't mind sharing my opinion in private :)

Besides all that, let the government stay out of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I haven't judged anyone. I've judged homosexual relations - and because of the taboo nature of the subject and the emotions on the forum regarding the topic, I'd prefer to leave it be here in the thread but if you are curious you know I don't mind sharing my opinion in private :)

Besides all that, let the government stay out of it

---

Fair enough my friend.

I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time I think same sex couples should have all the legal rights that a married man and woman have, just call it a different thing.
But ultimatly if same sex couple get the right to marry I won't say anything against them. It doesn't effect me.

Even when I was against gay marriage, I never understood calling it something else. It's all a matter of semantics. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The English language changes so rapidly anyway. Case in point, if you went back to the 20's and told someone you were gay, they would likely think you were having a good time. Now it's coming to mean that something is ridiculously stupid. If you're going to give gays every right they should have, why not give them the word marriage too?

I went for the third option as well. They can have a bunch of rights, all the rights they want as far as I'm concerned. I disagree with their lifestyle and many of their choices but they're THEIR choices so they can do whatever they want.

On the other hand, certain things just cannot be.

A fish is not a bird, a man can not bear a child and two people of the same sex can not be married.

It might be semantics but that's the way life is. Mariage is for a man and a wife, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

If they want to make a civil contract, or a promise to each other or a covenant with each other that's just fine. But it'll never be a mariage because a mariage is a union between a man and a wife.

Anything else is not a mariage, they may be partners but they're not each others spouse. Complaining about that is like complaining that the sky's blue. You might not agree but that's the way it is and no matter how much you complain it's not going to change just because you don't like it.

I voted the government should not deny anybody the rights, no. 2

first, I will state as I have before and will many times before I die, I do not think the government should prohibit or otherwise punish people for their lifestyle choices as long as they don't harm others. If the government does, and it does, recognize marriage and afford those people certain rights, than it should be equal to everybody.

IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME, unless I choose to let it. they don't teach it in school, contrary to popular ad. messages, my kids would learn about it like most people learn their beliefs and prejudices, from me and their mom.

I see the way people vote on this as two part 1. do they believe in government interference in their lives and the lives of everybody else? (I like the idea of a constitutional government, stripped down to the bare minimums it needs to ensure our national safety, facility international and interstate commerce) 2. People's personal beliefs. All I can say to that is God will sit in judgment on that day (for those that believe the Bible) and it'll be Him passing judgment.

This was where I was really going to stir the s*#t but deleted the paragraph, probably worthy of it's own thread.

My last two things in response to stuff in the thread. I wish I had been born in time to be enjoying the free love era. (the second time around, not the 1920's version, I can't imagine the outfits were nearly as sexy). Also, in regards to what is on television now. there are on the top of my head three actresses in television that I would LOVE to see sans clothing. I say lessen restrictions!!! keep it to certain hours so parents can keep their kids from seeing it. that B.S. about protecting kids and not having to see it yourself is just that B.S. I have hundreds of channels, I don't HAVE to watch anything. and if kids want to see something they will, trust me. (especially if they try ;) )

Red
PS
Minka Kelly, Olivia wilde, Kristen Bell (that's without even thinking!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

I have seen people, some very intelligent and some well educated and some plain old average or below

---

Maybe you should avoid insults about people's intelligence, even if you think they are well hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

An old man protesting violently against the legality of abortion. An abortion for any reason performed on a complete stranger does not affect this man. He simply wants all abortions stopped forever. It is something in his gut driving him. What? Why?

---

You can work that out. He thinks it is taking a life. If you believed the same you might be standing beside him joining in.

I don't share his belief or respect his way of airing his opinion, but I can at least understand his motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Why do you care if it doesn't involve you?

---

Because it is a change being imposed on my culture. Why is it that I am expected to celebrate other cultures and embrace diversity, when MY culture is fair game for attack at every opportunity?

I am not against same-sex marriages because I want to deprive anyone of anything. I am against it because it is a contradiction in terms.

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a woman.

Clearly it is not possible for a same-sex couple to engage in a "union between a man and a woman." At least not with each other. The institution as it stands simply does not apply to them.

There is no need to redefine marriage, there are other, better ways to give same-sex couples all the rights they seek.

So let me turn your question round a bit:

Why do homosexuals care about marriage when it doesn't involve them?

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Maybe you should avoid insults about people's intelligence, even if you think they are well hidden.
I don't believe observing the stratification of intelligence in the human race is insulting to anyone. In fact I would place myself in the lower group. I am certainly not in the higher.

You can work that out. He thinks it is taking a life. If you believed the same you might be standing beside him joining in.

I don't share his belief or respect his way of airing his opinion, but I can at least understand his motive. I am assuming you meant the old man thinks he is saving a life. Well according to the law that is not true and once again, it doesn't affect him. If he is interested in saving lives he would do much more good opposing war or working as a crossing guard for the school system.

Because it is a change being imposed on my culture. Why is it that I am expected to celebrate other cultures and embrace diversity, when MY culture is fair game for attack at every opportunity? If your culture propogates repression it should be changed.

I am not against same-sex marriages because I want to deprive anyone of anything. I am against it because it is a contradiction in terms.

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between a man and a woman. That would be one very narrow definition. The issue is exactly that. The straight (and apparently homophobic) community have assumed some self ritcheous monopoly on the word and are dug in for war. This again brings us back to my original question, it doesn't hurt you if others get married. Why do you stand so vehemently opposed?

So let me turn your question round a bit:

Why do homosexuals care about marriage when it doesn't involve them? If homosexual couples get married it does involve them.

Maybe an analogy might help. Homosexuals wanting marriage is like non-Jews wanting Bar Mitzvahs. Sure it does little harm to allow it, but what's the point?! Your analogy is convoluted or at least incomplete. If we wanted to correct your analogy I think it would be better to say homosexuals wanting marriage is like a certain group of Jews who have been arbitrarily blocked from having bar mitzvahs asking to be allowed bar mitzvahs.

---

It appears the thread is self-limiting to one topic, gay marriage. So we have thus far arrived at only one conclusion. People who stand vehemently opposed to same sex marriage do so because they feel it is "taboo". They are resistant to change because, "some things should just be taboo." Well we have come full circle. My question is that the arbitrary assignation of a taboo status on same sex marriage is just fine and dandy to some people. If it doesn't hurt anyone to remove that taboo status then why is there opposition?

The reasoning "it doesn't affect me now" is one that does not and never will work. Because eventually it might affect you.

Consider that the law would find it ok that people should be sacrificed for religion's sake. Human sacrifice.

At first you say, well, I don't mind that because I don't know anyone who'd want to do that.

And then your SON joins a cult that does, and he's selected to be sacrificed.

You USED to not have a problem with the fact that it was legal. But now you think it is.

Humans don't just judge something by how it affects them right NOW. But also by how it might affect them in the future.

For many people mariage is a very sensitive thing. It's considered sacred by many individuals. When you start changing the definition of it in some way they become affraid of it being changed in other ways in the future. The very thing that Jockeys gave as an illustration (what if in the future gay couples become majority and decide that straight mariages aren't lawfull) becomes their fear. So of mariage is left for what it is, a union between a man an a woman, that fear leaves.

Hell, create another word for it if you like, call is a ssunion, or a gayriage, or awhatever you like. But don't call it mariage, that's just asking for trouble.