(OT)...Although I know a guy who's married to his cars. I suppose that's polyautoamory?

There are many complexities to the gay rights issues, but marriage shouldn't be one of them. Marriage is a contractual agreement, and contractual agreements between members of the same gender are pretty common in our society. The only possible objections, then, are ultimately based on religious morality, and so any laws attempting to restrict same gender marriages are in fact impositions of religion upon law.

Or so I feel. YMMV.

Is gay marriage permitted by the governments of China, Cuba, Japan or Finland or are all those governments in Pat Robertson's pocket too?

Not as far as I know. I'm not particularly enamoured of living under the governing precepts of *those* countries, either. In fact, aren't a couple of them Communist regimes, typically not known for their liberal human rights handling?

I would be interested in knowing how much debate there is over the issue in the countries which you cite, and what reasons are given for disallowing the practice there, though.

I'd also be interested in hearing some non-morality based points in favor of the continuing ban on gay marriage.

Turns out Finland recognizes civil unions between gays, which takes care of the legal issues. If those who are so registered then decide to have a ritual, find someone to solemnize it, and call it a marriage, I'm thinking that is between them.

I'd be good with that same sort of deal here in the US. I don't really care if people want to say that a gay union isn't a real marriage, as long as they don't deprive a united same sex couple of their civil/property/benefits rights.

Looks like it is still naughty in Japan, from what I'm reading online.

I suppose my points that I've done so poorly at describing here are based on letting the legal machine crank on with regard to this issue.

It's not that I'm personally opposed to it but that I dont see the push for legalized worth pushing for right now. I do not see that not legally allowing GM is somehow anything near the comparison to the Black civil rights issues of years ago. Call me an ass.

The thing that I'm most worried about, respectfully, the thing that most people here discount totally, is the size and scope of the Christian population and how the changes they make in large numbers might affect all of us. Like boycotts and such.

Even worse, Imagine instead of 1 abortion bomber, 100 "GM bombers" or something similar but less violent. What would the drain on resources and our freedoms be in bringing that sort of thing back in check? Sure, worth it to defend the rights of gays, but really necessary? I dont think so. Let the issue crank through the legal system.

In that way, just knowing that this group is as large and committed as it is, the non-religious argument against GM is to keep force on those things that will decide all the legal cases as quickly as possilbe.

That might be tomorrow but I'm guessing not.

Yes, I know that many of you here hate the Christians. Yes, I also know that they are clearly wrong in most everything that they do. They must represent a large influence here in the US or this issue would have been slam dunk a long time ago.

I picked a few commie countries just to make the point that its not just about religion. I'm obviously not a big fan of China's government either. I can tell you that it has actually been voted on in China's parliament but did not come close to receiving the required number of yes votes. I should have known better than to choose Finland but did not dig deep enough to verify their position on the matter. Suffice it to say that there are quite a number of countries who do not recognize gay households who do not base their position on religious texts.

I just have a problem with the gay rights advocates painting everyone who does not agree with them as either religious bozos or homophobic bigots. There are a lot of people who aren't on their side (not all of whom are necessarily opposed - just not in favor) who are neither.

THAT would be a lot more reasonable at this time IMO. Unfortunately, this is not good enough for many. Many even here in this forum.

What I see the reasoning behind this is, is to retaliate against the group, Christians, that have been at odds with them for so long.

Why not let the intermediate step here suffice for the moment?

I do not hate Christians (and I realize you weren't directing that comment at me, Slang...I'm pretty sure that you and I can debate almost anything as pals)...far from it. Those Christians who follow their own teachings are among the kindest, most honest and decent people I know. As with any fringe group, it is the hardliners and fanatics that make it tough for everyone.

The problem with attempting to legislate morality is that you automatically demonize or disenfranchise those who do not share your vision of what is moral, yet are causing no harm to others. The fact that we use a Conservative Christian yardstick of morality on issues such as gay marriage is, in itself, and from my perspective, immoral.

The only arguments I ever hear in support of gay marriage bans seem to be related to the welfare of children of such unions, and I just have to laugh. There are far more dysfunctional heterosexual family units than there will ever be in gay unions (simply by dint of their larger numbers), yet these are not legislated against, apparently due to their inherent "morality", since the round peg goes into the proper oriface in accordance with God's Plan. Not very logical. As to other arguments vis a vis property, benefits, etc, all I can say to that is, "bullshit". If the partners in question were to turn around and engage in a heterosexual, legal marriage, then there would be exactly the same amount of rights and benefits being granted had they been granted to the gay union.

No, this is moral, purely and simply. Any other notion is disingenuous. As to whether or not there are more pressing issues to be dealt with in this country at this time...ask the gay attorney who cannot provide insurance for his dying partner because the partner isn't a legal dependant, despite the fact that they've been together for 20 years (this is a hypothetical case for the sake of discussion, but I bet that five minutes of Googling would bring up an actual case not too different).

True enough Ep. I dont believe that the gays are suffering anywhere near those of Blacks though and that in itself is a part of the stuggle for gays.

Those that have fought injustice at a much greater degree, rightly or wrongly, see someone that cant apply benefits to their partner as something dramatically less of a big deal. These same people might see the insistance on allowing GM as opposed to civil unions as pushing too far at this time and just being unreasonable

Those people that believe this would be from the middle of the spectrum too. Many of whom see gays as having more money than themselves, having a better lifestyle and compare this to the civil rights struggles of the 60s.....and just chuckle to themselves because they dont see any valid comparison.

Rich, you know that I like you, your lovely family, and hold your ability to barbeque in high regard ...

but.

How is it that you can equate the deaths of 6 million Jews and countless others with gay marriage? There aren't any death camps, and as far as I can tell, nobody's being systematically killed.

Ok--I've not read the above with the sober eyes of Muhammad--Or, Jesus, or Y*w*H, or, God-De-Jour. I'll tell you this:

Stupid humans! LOVE one another! Honor me thru your neighbors! Kay-Rist!

your stupidity is astounding.

PPS-God is an Ideal.

I don't think he's equating the two cases...yet (I know, I know...you didn't ask me, you asked Rich). Still, with the current trends in society, it seems interesting that we are apparently creating a designated "whipping boy" to suit the moral themes which are being more and more propagated in our social structures these days.

Why can't we make murderers, thieves and child molesters the objects of our scorn and constant moral outrage, and leave people who just want to do each other in mutual peace and harmony alone?

:right:

i am so there.

dude: I so didn't mean YOU. i was being orgasmic. Or, something..