Texastide said "First of all, there are no laws denying marriage for homosexuals either, as many others have posted. They just can't marry the same sex. I'm straight as I could possibly be, but I still could not marry another man. The laws are against same sex marriages, not homsexuality."
T-Tide, you make a very significant point; and one that is not as clearly unconstitutional as denying rights to a certain class of citizens. I agree that the constitutionality issue will hinge on the definition of marriage, rather than upon denial of equal protection under the law. Very good point.
You go on to say:
"Second, the post you reference mentions nothing about criminals or convictions, just as in my post, it refers to marrying multiple partners, famliy members, and animals. No one has addreesed this topic yet, at least not that I have found in this thread. You CANNOT permit same sex marriages and prohibit polygamy, incest, and besitality. If a man loves 3 men who are you, Bobstod, to tell him he can't marry them? If a man loves his goat, who are you Bobstod, to tell him he can't marry his goat? Where do you draw the line? If you say it's arbitrary, or we as a society determine where to draw the line, then we can choose to draw it at opposite sex marriages only."
Considering the validity of your first point, I'm not so sure who is confused here. Here is the quote from the other poster:
"To say that we should expand our marraige laws to accomodate one's sexual preference would be ludicrous. We would open doors to rapist, child molesters, biggamist and eventually even those practicing beastiality..."
I'll try to break that down a little more clearly, as I see it. First off, the poster puts words in my mouth by saying: To say that we should expand our marraige laws to accomodate one's sexual preference would be ludicrous. What I said was that we cannot deny rights to one class of individuals while granting them to another class. You point argues well against my argument; his statement of my argument was invalid. Score one for you.
However, your statement: Second, the post you reference mentions nothing about criminals or convictions, just as in my post, it refers to marrying multiple partners, famliy members, and animals. is a mystery. His post mentions rapists, child molesters, and those convicted (I assume it means convicted rather than simply accused) of bestiality. None of those people are proscribed from marriage, as far as I know.
Of all the posters on this thread, T-Tide, you have made the most reasonable and convincing argument against same-sex marriages.
However, not even the most compelling and final argument against same-sex marriages would excuse people from heaping shame and degradation on other human beings who happen to be born different.
No arguments about choice, here, please, unless you are the parent of a gay child, as I am. Those arguments are total hogwash. You do not choose to be gay. You can choose to deny it. You can choose to live a lie, or choose to remain celibate, or or choose to marry the opposite gender and fight your nature. But you cannot choose to be gay, or to be NOT gay. That's hard-wired. If you can't take the word of a man who has lived it for a quarter of a century, then OK, have it your way. But don't try to convince me. I've been there.
