Poor and ignorant people vote against gay marriage

Good post all around. It is frustrating when one makes intelligent, well-reasoned arguments, and the other side does not even understand them.

Thanks for the response. Often times, I think people just flat out refuse to understand arguments that go against their ingrained worldview.
But I can never know for sure, because the so rarely respond in the first place! And, when they do, it is so rarely rational.

I wonder why I try sometimes as well - they don't often respond with rational points. I suppose that the emotions and religion get ahold of them and they refuse to think

Its not like that ... Rights are not something that gets approved

Poor and ignorant people are likely to be young ... Educated people are more likely to be old people.

Just because there is a decline and fall of civilization does not mean there are people who do not see it ... as I fondly recall, a history professor of mine stated that history is marked not by a series of events that raised people up ... but there has been a line of events that just brought everyone else down to a lower level ...

Welcome, brave new world ...

They are ignorant of what LIBERTY and what the US Constitution and Bill of rights are for

To protect all and not let the tyranny of the majority to harm the minority

"start focusing on civil unions and leave marriage alone ...." Why? Why is it ok to give a certain group a different institution than others have? Didn't we already decide that that separate is NOT equal?

Leaving marriage along would be easy-peasy if it weren't ingrained in the damned legal system.

Remove the word marriage from ALL civil unions.
Keep the sanctity of marriage in the church, where it belongs.

(There are plenty of religions that already marry homosexual couples, and those unions are just as sacred as any other marriage)

Truly separate church and state, and all people will have much, much fewer reasons to bitch.

You apparantly do not understandthe concept of equality ... it the responsibility of the government to provide access ... but we are all different ...

The government does provide handicap people accommodations ... the provide women accommodations ... they provide minority accommodations ...

... people are different and are treated differently. Get a grip ... this is reality it's not utopia ... a person in a wheelchair is not going to step up stairs ... but you can make a ramp for them to access a building ...

... but when provisions that are crafted to provide equality [such as the accommodation though civil unions] and people reject that act and try to redefine stuff, you get want you have here ... it real simple ... instead of accomodation, it gets banned ...

I'm sorry but I don't understand how you can compare disabilities to gay marriage. It's not like a disabled person COULD walk up the stairs, if only they'd redefine some aspect of our culture. Disabled people are different, as you pointed out- should we restrict them to only "civil unions" as well? Isn't EVERYONE'S relationship 'different'? Maybe you could use some other examples to help me understand.

Is being gay / homosexual a genetic thing? Is there a choice?

If it's not a genetic thing and it's a choice, then the whole "civil rights" thing goes up in smoke ...

But if there is not choice and it's a genetics thing and people are born this way, then accommodation for them should be made ... the closest analogy is that of a disability ....

With genetic factors predisposing some to homosexuality, this has to be addressed.

An accommodation can be made for the pairings of gay couples ... an attempt was made to provide equality to this situation ... it was rejected ... then attempts were made to change a _significant_ aspect of humanity's structure ... this has been rejected by the majority ...

Because of such a rejection and extremist attempts to redefine society in contradiction to common sense, the possibility of accommodation is underway to be foreclosed [see below post by dabne] ... for the sake of gay people, please focus on civil unions and refrain from trying to contravene common sense ...

I'm sorry, that still doesn't add up to me.

Being black is genetic too- and interracial marriages were once illegal in most of the country. Should we have simply "made accommodations" for other races instead of opening our minds and marriage rights? Same thing for my "separate but equal" comment- if we had decided to "make accommodations" but not offer real equality to african americans, we'd still have segregated schools.
Women are genetically different than men- should we have "made accommodations" for them to have something LIKE voting because of that?

You see what I mean? Your logic can not be applied to anything else.

"redefine society in contradiction to common sense"- What's the common sense part? Does the majority always equal the voice of common sense?

Being black is not the same as being gay ... it fallacious to assume so ... and accommodations were made to allow other minorities to get an education [not just blacks but others too, such as women if you go further back in history] ...

Being a woman is not the same as being gay ... it is again fallacious to assume that ... and accommodations were made to allow women to vote ...

Being a homosexual is most akin to being disabled
... but having a disability does not make you a bad person ...

Being homosexual is a specific real world condition ... accommodation are being attempted to allow gays to form a union ... it is different than a union of a man and a woman [what everyone calls marriage]. This is and has been common sense ... it is a key component of humanity's structure socially for thousands of centuries ... do you really need for a lesson in the descendancy of humanity? It hinges on the unions of a man and a woman ... this has been recognized as a marriage ...

One point, which reminds me of how Scientologists discuss things with their opponents, is that you are ignoring a question ...

You still have NOT answered my question ... is this a genetic thing or a choice? Personally, I do believe that it's a choice as no one is completely straight nor completely homosexual. Again, this is reality not an ideal utopia.

From a genetic standpoint, everyone may be inclined to like the same sex in differing degrees .... a person does though make choices to follow impulse and desires that are innate .... but a condition of predilection to the same sex is a defect from an evolutionary standpoint as it does nothing to further the species ... so I personally would be comfortable with treating it as a disability ... do note again that having a disability does not make you a bad person though ...

That's so unfair, I was using the same type of comparisons you are, I'm not trying to be fallacious. I REALLY still can't understand why you think being gay is most akin to being disabled, if anything you are making the same fallacious assumptions that I am. "Accommodations" weren't made for races, they integrated schools. "Accommodations" weren't made for women, they were allowed to vote. Similarly we should not make "accommodations" for gay people, we should allow them to marry.

"it is different than a union of a man and a woman [what everyone calls marriage]. This is and has been common sense" I don't think this is common sense. What is so different about it? Gay people still love each other, still want to marry, still can have a family, etc. What's so different? (Our species is overpopulated, so I don't want to hear a lot of stuff about not being 'able' to procreate. Lots of people, gay and straight, can't or choose not to procreate, science is more than able to help gay people have children, there are many homeless children out there up for adoption, etc)

No, I do not think homosexuality is a choice, but it comes to me as no surprise that you do. I have gay friends who will tell you it's not a choice, as a bisexual I can tell you it's not a choice, and there is a lot of research being done in the area so eventually science will have the last word on it.

Even if it was, why can't we redefine marriage to be "people" instead of "man and woman"? What's the big deal? It seems like a really easy step to me.

"I personally would be comfortable with treating it as a disability " I'm not sure if you realize just how offensive this is. Have you ever told any one who was gay that you consider them disabled?

Will have to agree to disagree ... being gay is most akin to being disabled especially IF it is a genetic thing ...

JIMO, it is a choice even if it's genetic [btw, there is research both ways on and most indicate that it's not absolute that it's genetic] ...

People may have a predilection to the same sex [and as I have said, no one is completely homosexual nor heterosexual] which comes from your genes, but as humans we can control urges and desires that are innate ... there are alot of things that people want, prefer, desire, and are drawn to but we as humans control these desires, urges, and passions ...

Why can't we redefine marriage to be "people" instead of "man and woman" ... because it's not ... that is why there has been attempts to address this circumstance in 'civil union' ...

What's the big deal? It a significant change of humanity's structure socially and is contrary to evolutionary lineage ...

I am starkly and painfully honest ... I do not mean to be offensive, but I am not going to lie or tow-the-line ... have I ever told any one who was gay that I consider them disabled in the evolutionary sense? Yea ...

WHY is homosexuality a fucking disability? Is it because they're not following damn Biblical law?

Focus on that drinking fountain over there, I'll drink where I please...

Ignorant.

@reddi ... in you profile you claim to be Libertarian it is strange to me that you are arguing for separate but equal.

How about just removing the word MARRIAGE from the Law completely and replacing all instances of it with "civil union" and husband/wife with "partner".

Though surely you know that the laws are separate from religion --

It is immaterial whether homosexuality its a choice or not

The only reason homosexuals want to be married is to have the same "Special rights" the the heterosexuals have.

Things like guardianship, adoption and probate rights why should these be denied to homosexual couples and their families.

They should have the right to choose that, like everyone else, even if it seems stupid to you.

so you don't care about marriage.

great.

so step out of my way, and let me get my fucking gay marriage.

thank you.

What if you love someone who is from a foreign country? What if you love someone and want to visit them in the hospital? You must be one of the low income, ignorant people.

D, Delia, Deliaster, The Deal ,
im not sure it always comes down to religion, i think a lot of people just don't know how to accept religion for themselves, and not impose their "structure" on everyone else. It's their closed-mindedness mixed in with what their beliefs are.

i know many Christians who understand how to separate their social and political views from their religious views.

Our job as xtians is merely to plant a seed, its up to the Big Guy upstairs to do the work.

agreed?

Your problem with gay marriage isn't a problem with gay marriage - it's a problem with the way specific people have behaved. Numerically speaking, way more hetero people have done the exact same things that you describe.

Sorry, you are on Current, you're bound to get responses! "I know gay marriage is the reason we are poor and ignorant" Can you explain this a bit?

Not one error in it? I rest my case.

Not the article for this topic I'm afraid.

The story clipper believes bringing religion into each post gives greater chance of tv coverage.

"The story clipper believes bringing religion into each post gives greater chance of tv coverage." It does, lol.

How do you know the Bible is fact?

Religion has nothing to do with this...