ive argued about this a lot, here is the skinny(by the way, i believe in civil unions. i think “gay marriage” is an oxymoron, and i will explain why):

a lot of people argue against this because they think that it “degrades” our moral requirements as a society. basically, people think that our tolerance level for what we should allow is getting higher and higher, and gay unions will lead to human-monkey sex and orgies involving heroin, satan, and beavers.

i see this point. but homosexuality doesnt hurt anyone. but it does go against nature, in that it is natural for male and female to breed. but i think tofu is against nature, and people eat that shit. so a main argument against this is that allowing civil unions to gay people is just degrading our moral standards. kind of a “whats next?” thing.

homosexuals fight a little unfair sometimes too, and it really degrades their purpose. homosexuals want to preach the tolerance of “gay marriage” in schools, but yet they dont want to allow the teachings of theology. the problem here is that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and wanting it to be out in the open really leaves the homosexual agenda open to attack, saying that they should allow the teaching of theology and all sorts of stuff.

the main religious problem isnt that religious people hate gay people or whatever. it is only that by not standing up against the idea, they would be condoning it, and their religion doesnt allow it. now why they havent proposed laws to stop premarital and extramarital sex, saying g*d D*mn, and all that other stuff is only because they are hypocritical and it doesnt go against our current cultural norm.

so theres your nonreligious argument. basically, people are bigoted and dont want people to do what they want behind closed doors, but they feel that if homosexuals can really push their agenda into the public arena, so can anyone else, and where do you draw the line? i can see this argument, but then again, i dont really agree with it.

now the reason that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron is because marriage (at least in the true, 2000 year old definition in most theologies) is a union between man and woman and between them and God. but if God doesnt like homosexuality, then you cant have two people of the same sex unionizing, because it breaks the rule of what a marriage is: man and woman. so there is no such thing as “gay marriage”, because marriage is a religious institution, and therefore being gay would directly go against one of the requirements of marriage (we are talking about the widely adopted judeo-christian version): man and woman.

so really, the fact that government recognizes marriage is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. the government is promoting and recognizing a religious ceremony. also, two athiest people can not really be married, because this union is a vow to God.

so that leaves civil unions. marriages are religious, and therefore should take place in a church. civil unions are what the government should recognize. therefore, everyone who has a marriage would have a civil union, but not everyone who has a civil union will be married. that way the government wouldnt even have to worry about man/woman/monkey…. it would be purposely ambiguous. let churchs be the one to recognize marriage. a church could have all of the power in the world to recognize a marriage or not. that is their right. that way, they still get to recognize people who are rightfully married, but the law doesnt keep people from having the rights that they should, like to insurance and children and stuff like that.

lemme know what you think.

I think many people are getting tired of all the correct speech, and making every crime, short coming and bad behavior some new disease .This is to many a place to take a stand and say enough is enough, its not that they hate gays or that that don’t think they should have the rights IE tax, death will ect its that they don’t want all unions lump in under the same name after all they are called gay and lesbian why not have there own name for there Union.

Marriage is between man and a woman it always has been, so after thousands of years why change the definition.
I have talked to many people about this both gay and reproductive
And all have agreed why not just make a new word or just use the term civil union.
I think most conservatives would back off , If they were just trying to get civil unions legal and have the same rights, you get in to trouble when you try to change the definition of the instuition and mess with traditions

I don’t usually comment on small grammatical points, but your argument would be more professional if you used “affect” correctly in the first paragraph.

I think it’s important to talk to to people in ways that are meaningful for them. The sociological and psychological arguments that you outline aren’t even on the radar for the large group of Americans who are religious. They understand the world through their religious tradition, and so you must find a way to reinterpret their religious tradition.

All influential religious leaders — Jesus, Paul, Luther — work this way; they don’t make up a new set of symbols or introduce new texts, but instead show their audiences how to read and understand the symbols and texts in a new light.

I think that the energy directed towards this amendment comes from several motives. The motive to ensure that society remains focused on families and not individuals is a big one, and you did not address this issue in your argument. I have met a tremendous number of modern people who are lonely, and I sometimes wonder if our generation has a much tougher time forming close relationships than previous ones. I say this taking into account my experience in rural Mexico, where life is much more focused on faith and family.

At the same time, having talked to a number of gay and lesbian religious people, I think that it’s possible to create a Christian theology that incorporates them. Christianity still very credibly tells people that there is more to life than good sex and that they will only be truly happy as part of families and communities.

So please don’t throw around the term “religious bigot” too loosely.