What to do about the gays?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Poll shows growing California support for gay marriage
By LISA LEFF

(AP) — More California voters now support allowing same-sex marriage than oppose it, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The poll found that 51 percent of respondents backed legalizing same-sex marriage and 42 percent opposed it, DiCamillo said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90UOE5O1

[Harlan Huckleby]

I read the rest of that article, and there is another survey that showed just the opposite result. So it remains to be seen what California is really gonna do.

What is clear is that there is no consensus on what "marriage" should mean, and no consensus is likely to emerge for generations, if ever. Whether 51% of the country believes one way or the other hardly settles anything. People are impossibly divided, largely along religous lines. It seems obvious to me that the gay movement is making a mistake pressing for marriage. Civil unions are more appropriate. I think the word "marriage" should be defined by religious groups according to their own beliefs, and the state should ONLY confer civil unions, to either straight or gay couples.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's a California poll--which is going to be slanted much more for gay marriage than a national poll.

Why can't we just agree on gay civil unions and no gay marriage and get it over with?

[Tarlam!]

Why can't we just agree on gay civil unions and no gay marriage and get it over with?

Because gays are so romantic. They wanna be brides and say "I do".

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think gays have made a mistake. I understand emotionally why they demand marriage as a matter of principle. But there is no hurry. So what if it takes a couple more generations? Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?

[texaspackerbacker]

I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that this is no big deal--basically a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. They really aren't hurting anybody.

I'd still like to see homosexuality labeled an abomination--legal, but taught to be wrong/bad--kinda like gambling, smoking, prostitution in some areas, etc., but even that isn't really that important.

[Tarlam!]

We're turning full circle on this issue. I don't give a toss if Gays marry. i just don't want 'em raising kids.

But guys, we've done this before...

[Deputy Nutz]

I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that this is no big deal--basically a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. They really aren't hurting anybody.

I'd still like to see homosexuality labeled an abomination--legal, but taught to be wrong/bad--kinda like gambling, smoking, prostitution in some areas, etc., but even that isn't really that important.

Now you have crossed the line.

[the_idle_threat]

Better to accept legal equality, from that position they achieve greater acceptance over the years.

Legal equality? Depends what your definition of marriage is. What is marriage supposed to mean? A union between one man and one woman with a religious basis or a glorified civil union that's marked with the pomp of a modern wedding?

Change "pomp" to "pomp and cash-grab," and you have my definition.

Let gays marry. So what if they do?

What I don't get is this: I've always been sold the idea that conservatives are all about people being responsible and making commitments. But when a gay couple wants to be responsible to each other and make a commitment, it's "no marriage or civil unions for you!" And then anti-gay conservatives rip on gays for supposedly being promiscuous and unable/unwilling to form commitments.

I can understand the religious roadblock to calling gay unions "marriage." Marriage has historically been a church-sanctioned thing and gay marriage goes against pretty much any religious teaching (nevermind the fact that "religious" people do all kinds of things that go against religious teaching). So I agree with Harlan that the best compromise is to sanction civil unions that give all the same legal rights as marriage.

But when the religious types get all up in arms about gay marriage and pass "defense of marriage" constitutional bans on it (an abuse of democracy if I ever saw it) why do they usually also ban civil unions (as Wisconsin's amendment did)? How do civil unions threaten marriage? They don't.

[LL2]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

[Freak Out]

WTF? No Poll?

[Deputy Nutz]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

[Tarlam!]

Because it's friggin' wrong, nutz. Basta!

[bobblehead]

Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt kids, but if they want to live together that is their business.

Why, do they have some kind of disease?

I think gays raising children in this country is the least of our worries, but go on concerning yourself about gays raising children above all the fatherless children out there, and all the children that are sexually and physically abused by fathers. Gee, I don't know what is worse.

I've always been right in line with gays shouldn't get to raise children or adopt simply because it exposes children to ridicule at school, things too big for young children to understand, and an unnatural environment. I don't think pointing out bigger problems in other areas is an arguement FOR exposing children to this.

That being said, I am all for civil unions, if John and Bob want to build a life together they should be afforded all the rights of a married couple. To allow them to MARRY is to change the definition of the word, and marriage is founded in church, so I respect that side of it.