Re: McCain Backs Gay Marriage Ban

Thumper wrote:

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:52:04 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxx>
wrote:


emily2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:


On 30 Aug 2005 06:01:54 -0700, "Poppy - San Francisco Bay Area"
<GoldenStatePoppy@xxxxxxx> wrote:



I think you are correct.  John McCain will gain a great deal of support
by opposing gay marriage.  As a nation and culture, we are not ready
for that, and may never be.


I wish someone would explain to me what it is about gay marriage that
we're "not ready for". Is there some objection other than that based
on something in the Bible?

Please allow me to try. Marriage, as defined and practiced for millennia has been an aggregation between a man and a woman. Many people myself included, object to altering that well understood concept because of personal preferences. Simply put, a couple which consists of a homosexual couple is NOT the same as couple which is heterosexual, and no amount of rhetoric by proponents is going to make those couples the same, no matter how much some may wish.


The CONTRACT is the same. 

No.  The terms and conditions of the contract are the same.

As far as a biblical objection, to be sure, there are those who would cite that, but that is not my argument. The simple fact is that the nature of the couples are different, will always be different and consequently, can not be made to be the same.


My mixed race marriage is different than yours, I'm sure, and at one
time people with your mind set argued against it for precisely the
same reason.  "It isn't the same."  Therefore people felt perfectly
fine with keeping rights and privileges from "those people."
The fact is that it is a civil rights issue and withholding civil
rights from a group of people because of your personal preference is
disgusting.

But your situation was different, because the miscegenation laws clearly presented a discriminatory element and unequal treatment under the law, a very important concept, Thumper, which you ignore. The reason why miscegenation laws were discriminatory, is that under the LAW marriage was limited only to same sex couples, a qualification of the law and a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. But once the law defines marriage by practice as between a man and woman, ANY man can come with ANY woman. Thus, by practice there is NO discrimination UNDER THE LAW as there was with miscegenation laws.

But these circumstances are NOT the same. For UNDER THE LAW, an aggregation of same sex couples is NOT permitted. YOu believe their should be. Fine. Then let a same sex couple appear before city hall and request a legal contract which grants them the same rights as married people and when they're denied, then sue for a lack of an alternative contract which accommodates their lifestyle, and to which they'd be entitled. But this, they do not do. You should ponder WHY, before you go off half cocked with mistaken interpretations because you do not consider the in depth implications.

Apparently, what gays want is NOT equal rights,but nothing less than forcing the majority to adopt THEIR egalitarian definitions, which, I am surprised, you do not see and should be against. the majority rebel, as do I, because the majority knows and understands that there are differences between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple which can NEVER be made to be the same, regardless of how irrational gays and their supporters become. And consequently, the issue of equal rights can and should be separated from the issue of forcing others to change their beliefs when a perfectly legitimate compromise is available.

I have heard the slippery slope argument, and find it ludicrous. I
just don't believe there would ever be a huge number of people lining
up to marry their dogs, their sisters, or six women. And if they did,
I can't see that it would be any skin off my nose.

The issue of the slippery slope may indeed be true. After all, one can legitimately ask, "Where will it stop?" If well understood concepts are changed at the whim of personal satisfaction, then that argument can indeed be made. However, I choose not to make that argument.


I don't see why so many of us feel it necessary to regulate other
people's behavior.

Then perhaps you should ask why gays find it necessary to force their concept of marriage on others. did that ever occur to you?

Alan 


.