Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Voters in 11 states reject gay marriage

True, doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do, including A.

I pick E: You're all nuts!
Just make sure you completely fill in the bubble with your No. 2 pencil and don't leave any stray marks on your answer sheet or you might be labeled a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" If you finish your test early we suggest you go back and check all of your answers thoroughly.

NOTE: TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S 2:33 IN THE MORNING...

Man, you guys...

I wonder sometimes if y'all remember that this is wholly a car forum.

Anywho, I tried (really I did) to stay out of this thread and the political election thread, but this has gotten under my skin enough to generate a reply.

The bottom line is that a majority of America is still heterosexual. I don't believe that there is any specific "reason", so to speak, that there aren't more homosexuals in this country, or that the right to be granted the same rights as a heterosexual marriage exists at the present time.

Based upon my religion, I don't believe gays should have the right to use the term "marriage". In all essence, it boils down to this so called discrimination, which is a load of hoagey to start with. For all I know, gays could want to use the word "marriage" because it's longer than the word "union". Forgive my short-sightedness, but you can ask me why I feel this way, and the only answer I will provide is "because I just do." It's how a majority of the baby-boomers in age were raised. They've passed it down to our generation. Marriage equals a man and a woman. Perhaps this is just a milestone in the never-ending road of evolution.

However, this isn't a slash against homosexuals in general. They aren't much different than any other group of people in the world. I respect them as any other human being. They still have the same organs inside them and the same blood coursing through their veins. I just don't see how people can fling around the word "discrimination" so carelessly though. What if we took all the long "bling" chains, rap music and 26 inch rims away from the black community, saying it provokes violence? Or maybe Gothic people shouldn't be allowed to wear black because it reminds other Christians of Satan.

It will never end. For every opinion that each one of you posts (and they are ALL opinions) there will be somebody else out there to counter it with their own opinion. Nothing in this entire thread is factual, save for the way the voting turned out.

Take a look around. There's segregation all over this world, and it will never leave. Gays and straights. As an example, I went back to my high school today to meet with an old Trigonometry teacher. I took a peek inside the lunch room and it was the same as it was last year. All the blacks sitting together. All the "preps" sitting together. All the Gothic people by themselves in their own little dedicated corner. It hasn't changed and I don't believe there's a very high chance of it changing in the future.

All I can say with confidence is that the coming years are going to be very interesting...

For the people for Gay Marriages;

I am for Gay Marriages; it will not affect how I and my fianc�© view each other when we get married.

I just want the same rights as Gays. In the state of Cali, Homosexuals and their partners can claim themselves as life partners and get the same rights as people married, Insurance coverage being the biggest advantage, but me and my fianc�© can not. Tell me how that is right.

Thanks,

Myfastse

There will be no research, we've never been through this situation in the past.. But once you show people that you will give in, others will come and try to do the same with other things. I don't think kermits idea of a threesome trying to get married is far off. I don't think marriage should be redefined. I have no problem with gay people but if they want to be legally recognized it should not be marriage. If the majority of people don't want to redefine the term marriage then why the hell should we?! That would directly affect all of us, not just gay people. Call it a Civil Union? Sure i'm fine with that. It just seems like people are fighting so hard to redefine marriage but for what reason? Why not just focus to get a "civil union" and not piss the rest of the world off.

It seems we have collectively moved past the separation of state and church issue to focus on 2 key questions.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

---

Marriage is not a civil right; it is a right givin by laws, which were enacted by the people of this country. And I am leaving religous marriage out of that. What are laws, if they aren't the people of this country's moral values and belief systems set on paper, and enforced by the courts?

---

Is marriage (civil union) a right? If not a right, what then ââ?¬â?? a priviledge? Maybe the precedent has already been set to deny such a thing on the basis of a personal attribute. Maybe itââ?¬â?¢s just like a driverââ?¬â?¢s license and there can be any number of reasons to deny you one.

Perhaps marriage is a privilege to be earned by passing a test ââ?¬â?? age (already there), income, housing status, health, intelligence ââ?¬â?? these could all be really good criteria to assess your legal eligibility for marriage. Then of course you get into the trickier stuff that is typically considered civil rights issues ââ?¬â?? race, gender, and religion. Is sexual orientation a personal attribute in the same way race and gender are, or is it more like having poor eyesight, bad driving skills, or a prior bad record?

Perhaps even that question doesnââ?¬â?¢t matter ââ?¬â?? because even when it comes to civil privileges, there is no discrimination allowed on the basis of race, gender and religion ââ?¬â?? and, as it is in most western countries today, sexual orientation.

The essence of the question is � is sexual orientation a legal criterion to discriminate?


SLIPPERY SLOPE: Personally I find it hard to understand how you can equate recognizing gay marriage to opening the door to legalized polygamy or any from of marriage. Issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples doesn�t mean you then must issue marriage license to a man and two women.

I think what�s interesting, however, is that if you look at the precedents that have just been set by these amendments, that is in fact the precipice of the slippery slope. By putting the definition of marriage to a vote at the state level, you now in fact open the door to other redefinitions.

If, for example, the majority of people in Utah wanted to redefine marriage as being between one man and any number of women, there is now a clear precedent to do so. I would argue that the slippery slope to polygamy has already been created by the amendments themselves.

And perhaps other states will find other ways to redefine marriage ââ?¬Â¦ maybe limiting it to those of certain financial means, or health, or prior record ââ?¬â?? all of which are current legal criteria to discriminate for the purposes of civil privileges.

If you accept the statesââ?¬â?¢ legal right to define marriage in a discriminatory way (re: drivers license), you then accept the possibility that at some point you yourself may not qualify ââ?¬â?? because if it isnââ?¬â?¢t a right for some people, then it isnââ?¬â?¢t a right for anyone.