For the record: I strongly oppose "gay marriage"

[TechBear_Seattle]

The question has never been "Should gay couples be allowed to marry." Rather, the question is, "Should marriage remain a special right for straight couples only." How the matter is framed is vitally important.

And for the record, I strongly support equal marriage for all. :toast:

[complain jane]

1. K/R

[Midlodemocrat]

2. 'Civil Unions' don't cut it. Marriage needs to be a right for everyone.

:hug:

[Warpy]

7. Funny, straight couples have opted for civil unions

where they have been offered, hoping to duck all the sexist and religious baggage associated with the word "marriage."

It doesn't work, of course, since family and the larger world will always take over but the attempt is there and so should the option be.

[tavalon]

9. Yeah, I find marriage a blatant mixing of church and state,

something I and even a few of the founding fathers, greatly oppose.

[Loge23]

3. It's a human thing

Isn't this similar to equal rights for all races?
People are people. If people want to marry, then they should marry.
Among so many other problems that shouldn't be problems, why can't we let people be people?

[mikelgb]

4. My prefered frame: Gender Equality

Men have the right to marry women.
Women DON'T have the right to marry women.

and vice-versa

[Stevenmarc]

5. Personally I rather hear the term marriage equality

"gay marriage" is a term invented by our opposition, it separates us into a special class and quite frankly you can't win when you allow your opposition to define you.

[salinen]

6. But this always digs up

Rick Santorum. And "that one" gives me the shits.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Indeed

See the Wikipedia entry on Santorum (sexual neologism)

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. I detest gay marriage.

Two consenting adults are either married or they are not. I don't think of my relationship with my husband as "heterosexual marriage" so I don't see a compelling reason to add a modifier if the spouses are of the same gender.

Equal Marriage Rights!

[nichomachus]

11. Actually, "gay marriage" is an inaccurate term

It's "same-sex marriage." There is no requirement that the people actually be gay or lesbian. Just as in "opposite sex marriage," there is no requirement that the people be heterosexual.

In fact, many gays and lesbians are in opposite-sex marriages. Some do it because they don't know at the time that they're gay -- and many may stay together after they realize it. Others marry for convenience or to provide cover. Some do it -- or have done it in the past -- because not being married created a barrier to advancement in their career.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Have you ever heard the media speak of "opposite-sex marriage"?

Neither have I, which is my point in its entirety. :hi:

[nichomachus]

13. No -- and I was a little ticked during the court hearing yesterday

that the judges kept using the term gay marriage.

Of course, there was a lot that ticked me off about the hearing.

The justices are fucking incompetent when discussing rights. And, they let that slimeball Ken Starr lead them down the garden path, while they fawned over him.

[bluedawg12]

15. I use "different sex", because it points

to how silly it is to even break relationships into "same sex" and "different sex" categories.

In fact, using "opposite sex" as a way to describe relationships gives a subliminal message of approval, because after all " we all know opposites attract." :eyes: So, I tend to use "different sex relationships" when I am not talking about Teh Gay.

I agree totally, how we frame it is important. It is not about enjoying any special rights, it is about human rights, civil rights and legal rights.

[eridani]

14. I've been doing my best to always say "marriage equality" n/t

[DarkTirade]

16. Against gay marriage... for equal marriage.

:)

[uppityperson]

17. Me too. Well put.

[Deep13]

18. Should the law recognize the de facto reality of gay marriage.

Committed gay couple pretty much are married in point of fact. The law ought to reflect that reality.