Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, and as I've iterated before, being gay, straight, or bisexual does not automatically form an opinion regarding gay marriage. There are many gays opposed to gay marriage, just like there are many straight people pro-gay marriage.

I dare you to go into a gay bar and ask the people there if they want gay marriage legalized. I think you'd be surprised.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Which, if true, would tend to support a contention that gays are like any other group of people, individuals with individual opinions.

Therefore discriminating against them on the basis of the gender composition of their partnerships is even less logical.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

They're not being discriminated against. They have the same legal rights as heterosexuals: They can marry any woman of their choice. Same status before the law. Equality.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But they want to marry the person they love, and the law gets in the way of that.

What about multiple wives or husbands?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think you're misunderstanding a key point here, Jerrek. An individual gay person has the same rights as an individual heterosexual person. A gay couple, on the other hand, do NOT have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. This is the fundamental issue.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah thats different. Now you enter the world of opinion. And it is my personal opinion that marriage is for a man and a woman.

The law does not guarantee you the right to marry btw.

No I would not support that, neither would I support marriages to dogs, animals, children, or inanimate objects.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My best buddy and I do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple either, and we don't complain.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So they should have access to some sort of legal framework that gives them the same legal rights as a married couple, but not marriage.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Unless you and your best buddy are planning to pair for life and live together for your mutual comfort and benefit, and want your community to recognise this union, I don't think this is a valid point. If you are planning to live together in this way, I salute your union and wish you the best of luck.

If it confers the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple, then it is starting to look very much like marriage, under the 'quacks like a duck' principle. The exact terminology is fairly marginal to the argument though.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I disagree. The main thrust of this thread imo, is to keep the marriage ceremony for hetrosexual religious types. It isn't against homosexuals being legally recognised as 'married', for want of a better word, in the eyes of the law and the government. Or have I missed something here? (it's entirely possible :D )
btw....I like the 'quacks like a duck bit', that gave me a chuckle :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Answered via PM.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ahem!

Quoting from the European Convention on Human Rights:

In Europe the law *DOES* guarantee the right to marry. Just because the law in *your* home town doesn't (surprisingly!) mean that it holds true *everywhere*!

Also, on a strictly technical reading of the above, it only says that "men and women... have the right to marry" it doesn't say anything about the genders of the parties involved!

Please try to understand the distinction between *consenting adults* and "dogs, animals (aren't dogs animals?!), children or inanimate objects"

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I've kept out of this so far, but this comment just made me laugh for so long I thought it was worth bumping up to the front of the thread again! :LOL: :LOL: :rofl: :rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You don't believe in evolution then Jerrek ?