Listening to the arguments on gay marriage

Respecting the rights of the majority

Published on February 5, 2004 By Draginol In Personal Relationships

The United States is premised on the separation of church and state. But over time, what that separation means has changed. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that people were free to practice whatever religion they wanted. Moreover, they wanted to ensure that the government did not establish any official religion. You will regularly hear the ACLU refer to the "establishment clause" of the US constitution as the basis for their various lawsuits against states.

It's a sticky situation because for such a long while, the percentage of Americans who were Christians were so high that religious concepts made their way into government policy. This wasn't intentional in most cases. If you're a true believer many things that are religious in nature just seem natural, common sense, normal. One such thing is marriage.

In hindsight, it was probably a bad idea for the government to recognize marriage as anything beyond a civil union. But it's easy to understand why this happened. Marriage is such a normal part of human life that how could the government not recognize it? As an agnostic, it's never bothered me either way. I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not feel threatened by people's religions. In fact, I embrace their beliefs because it helps create a deep tapestry of culture that enriches us all.

I also believe in two social principles: 1) That the traditions of the super-majority should be respected and protected. 2) The rights of the minority should be protected.

I think government should get out of the marriage business entirely. I support the right of any two people to "get married" regardless of sex. However, the super majority don't think the government should recognize these unions. And by our constitution, that's pretty much that. Marriage isn't a "right". The 10th amendment makes pretty clear that anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution is left to "the people" (in the form of their democratically elected representatives).

That said, gays should have access to civil unions that have the same legal punch as marriage. It may seem like semantics but to millions of Americans, it's not. There is a principle involved here. The same people who argued that the Super Bowl nonsense with Janet Jackson was "no big deal" are likely to not see why people object to gay marriage. The majority of Americans believe in these traditions and they have been with us for literally thousands of years. All around us, however, small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on those traditions. Marriage is a cultural phenomenon, not a religious one. And as long as the majority of Americans practicing it believe it should be between a man and a women exclusively that is what it should be. It's their tradition. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

The government should work to ensure that civil unions have the same legal meaning as marriages. Two consenting adults, regardless of sex, should have the right to form a legal union. For that matter, I believe that any number of consenting adults should be able to form civil unions (whether you're into "Polyamory" or whatever). But marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.

Comments (Page 8)

106

anonymous

on Mar 03, 2004

My apologies for all of those copies. I was confused and kept correcting myself, so I kept stopping and resending the info.

107

Dillon273

on Mar 03, 2004

I dont remember exactly what the name of the city was but back in the day in some ancient city, the majority of the people thought it was ok to commit infanticide. archaeologists founds something like 500 infant skeletons in a sewer system. Just because the majority believe something doesnt make it right. All of you can sit here and rant and rave about why homosexual people shouldnt get married, but I can promise you that none of you could explain to a homosexual person straight to their face why they dont deserve the same things that you do. All this is a new form of discrimination. I once worked with a gay person hes the only one I know probably because of where I live, but he was one the greatest people that Ive ever met, I dont care what his sexual preference is. and from a biblical standpoint God will judge them its not our job. Unless you all think that you are equal to him. Your not. People feel the need to put down groups of people to make themselves feel better about themselves. " The real issue in America is not who is going to bed together, but whether or not they will have jobs when they wake up in the morning" -Rev. Al Sharpton. Its interesting the things that George will bring up to take peoples attention off of a failing economy, and the loss of over 500 american lives in a war that was started on false pretinses. Narrow-mindedness is a dangerous thing

on Mar 03, 2004

on Mar 03, 2004

Probably three times as many people will be struck by lightening this year in the USA as have been involved in a gay marriage so far this year. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. You aren't threatened in any way by any one getting married, you just won't admit to yourself that you'd marry whoever you wanted to, but you enjoy ragging at other people-goodnight.

110

USC Student

on Mar 05, 2004

Actaully the country is evenly divided on the issue. For every person who appose gay marriage, just as many are for it. 9 out of 9,000 isn't that actualy statistic. By the way...calm down. Idiot.

111

James Nonegan

on Mar 05, 2004

I think the author is a homophobe.

112

Randy Spire

on Mar 05, 2004

I agree James Nonegan.

CONSTITUTION OF OREGON
Article 1, Section 20.

Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

113

Randy Spire

on Mar 05, 2004

As for the reason the country is split with nearly half on either side, is because one half doesn't know the law, the other half does.

114

messybuu

on Mar 05, 2004

Somebody who is against homosexual marriages isn't necessarily a homophobe anymore than those who support homosexual marriages are homosexuals.

115

WAA

on Mar 06, 2004

First: Straight, white, middle-class, athiest, male.

There have been a lot of comparisons of gays being the modern-day blacks. The ignorant simplisitc thought process that pro-gay-marraige advocates spit back to the other side after making the majority-rules argument is "By that rationale blacks would still be slaves, women would still be in the kitchen and Jews would be eradicated"

Being black/female/Jewish are not lifestyles/habits/inclinations they are distinct and irrefutable biological differences. Furthermore, they are distinct and separate classes of people. I don't make these claims based on insignificant differences in lifestyle and personal endeavors, I make them based on biological fact.

It is ignorant to presume that just because you are more attracted to your own sex that you deserve your own definition of class with it's own rights that violate societies laws. Alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers are also genetically proned to their drug of choice (it's called an addictive personality disorder) This is backed up by the same double-blind twin tests described earlier with gays. But that doesn't give them the distinction of a seperate type of class that is deserving of rights that stomp on the social norms of society. Second-hand smoke has still not proven to cause cancer, yet we piss on the rights of smokers more than anybody "class" based on this assumption, but the truth is, smoking stinks and makes us uncomfortable as a whole, so we restrict it's effect on the majority, while limiting the rights of the minority because it's the decent and common sense thing to do. "Do that on your own time, but don't wave it around in my face." This is a more appropriate comparison to the rights of homosexuals because it is a genetically proven disposition, like recent research is showing homosexuality to be. But I don't see many gays touting the rights of smokers are being stifled, because they are part of the majority in that case.

To compare yourself to a religious people that suffered the worst genecide in mankinds history and centuries of slavery, beatings, rapings and truly second-class treatment from both women and blacks is laughable and an insult to these groups. Let's be honest, one kid gets brutally murdered by a bunch of stupid rednecks in Wyoming and you start acting like you were the one hanging on that fence...try 6 million of your people slaughtered before you start the comparisons.

Let's recap: You're not getting discriminated on nearly to the extent of the groups you try to compare yourselves to did, so stop it, it makes you look uneducated.
You're class status is the same as smokers: Genetically proned to be different, but your inclinations make the rest of us uncomfortable, so do it all you want, I won't argue it's immoral, but stop waving it in my face.

116

on Mar 06, 2004

So Mr. Anonymous,

You believe someone sitting next to me giving my family and I cancer is comparable to a couple sitting next to me holding hands (and they happen to be the same sex)? I am missing something. Sorry to hear you smoke (talk about ignorance). I don't think others should have to die of lung cancer because of your habit. Are you going to die of insecurity because of a married gay couple sitting next to you? It was offensive to many 50 years ago for a couple of different races to be together. So does that mean we shouldn't have pushed equal rights for all races?

Who is looking for their own definition of class, gays want to be treated like everyone else.

By the way, middle class, straight, white, male, atheist, parent.

Are you a little homphobic? Common, admit it. We are dealing with your insecurities.

117

messybuu

on Mar 06, 2004

You believe someone sitting next to me giving my family and I cancer is comparable to a couple sitting next to me holding hands (and they happen to be the same sex)? I am missing something. Sorry to hear you smoke (talk about ignorance). I don't think others should have to die of lung cancer because of your habit. Are you going to die of insecurity because of a married gay couple sitting next to you? It was offensive to many 50 years ago for a couple of different races to be together. So does that mean we shouldn't have pushed equal rights for all races?

No. People don't choose their race. People do choose to be gay, unless that gay gene has been proven yet and ONLY gay people have it.
I also won't die from homosexuals anymore than I'll die from somebody smoking around me, but it annoys me nonetheless when people force others to be around that stuff.

118

WAA

on Mar 06, 2004

I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear....Second-hand smoke has not been scientifically proven to cause lung cancer.
We (society) don't like smokers because they stink and make us cough (uncomfortable), not because they give us cancer.
We (society) don't like homosexual practices because they go against social norms (uncomfortable), not because it is immoral.
No, I'm not a homophobe, but I see the argument made by the majority and I agree with it. The counterpoint is weak because it tries to make comparisons that aren't there. This is simply my attempt to correct that rationale.
No, I don't smoke, it's a disgusting habit and destructive to the person that is doing it. I'm also glad that we limit where people can smoke. But I don't lie about it and say that it is because I might get cancer, I'm glad their freedoms are limited because I (the majority) prefer to not be around it.
Are we seeing the parallels yet? A little more appropriate than genocide and slavery isn't it?

119

BulbousHead

on Mar 06, 2004

Second-hand smoke has not been scientifically proven to cause lung cancer.

Common sense will tell you that second-hand smoke isn't making your lungs fresh and clear.

I'm glad their freedoms are limited because I (the majority) prefer to not be around it.

Why would allowing gays to marry suddenly force you to be around married gay people?

120

Ryan Clarkson

on Mar 06, 2004

Uh, CP, people aren't BORN gay. They become gay, it's a thing you develop as you get older. 5 year olds aren't running around saying they're gay, it's a personality trait that they devlop after years of living, after their hormones kick in. They decided if they want to be gay or not. It's a feeling, not a genetic inheritance, and, unless you can prove me otherwise, then you stand defeated. YOUR statement was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 'nuff said.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!