I loved the article! I think you’re right…even if I don’t think the people who are worried about ruining the sanctity of marriage are the same people watching these shows, you still can’t argue to keep something that we as a country have thrown out long ago…but try telling THEM that, haha…

Alex, I defend your right to speak your mind. I myself am a huge advocate of gay marriage. In the state. I believe churches and other religious groups must come to their own decisions on whether or not that is right of wrong. Those beliefs should affect those people of those religions, and not anyone else. Seperation of church and state is important in America.

Casey, though I do not agree with all of you opinions, you also deserve a chance to speak and give valid points on your side of the argument. You simply have been raised with different views and opinions then Alex. You both equally deserve a right to free speach.

So the argument is important. Even if we cannot change someone else’s beleifs, it is good to try and make them understand OUR veiw and reasonging. Even if none of us like it. This argument should be talked about, online, in person, in politics. But it should never lead to personal attacks, word twisting in any manner, and nonsense. If we’re going to have a rousing debate about such a hot topic, let’s do it right. Okay?

In this country, it has changed. Originally, blacks couldn’t get married, and the people of that time cited the Curse of Ham as reasons for why our favorite imaginary friend would hate a marriage between them. Then, it was illegal to marry between races, again, using the Bible as an excuse (God created the separate races, let them remain such).

And PLEASE, do not use language as a front for your prejudice. Any linguist will tell you that languages aren’t set in stone. If they were, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Romanians would still be speaking Italian. We would still be speaking Old English, and Arabic and Hebrew would be the same. Languages are in a constant state of change, ESPECIALLY in regard to semantics (meanings and connotations). That is actually one of the FIRST things that usually changes. Don’t you dare use language as a front, it makes no sense at all.

Having said that, I would not stop those people from being legally bound in the same manner married people are, I simply object to them referring to it by an incorrect term. They are free to do what they want, that is their right, but its insane to bend the mechanics of the English language to encompass their behavior.

1. People have different bases for their beliefs. To argue about whose belief is right is pointless if their core beliefs and morals differ. For example: Let’s say Bill likes cake, while Joe likes french fries. It would be pointless for them to argue whether icing or ketchup were better, since they are putting it in different contexts. No better are your attempts to reconcile (if that’s what you’re really trying to do) your beliefs on a specific issue, while you can barely agree on much broader topics.

2. You’re not going to agree. This is why we take a majority vote, and not a unanimous one. If everyone were required to agree, no governmental system could function. So we’re going to have our differences. We can deal with it peacefully and maturely, or we can yell at each other over the internet.

3. Politics is not the greatest achievement of man’s thought and reason. It’s not perfect, and don’t try to act like it could be. As a race, man is fallible, to the end. Laws will always be a means to get a fellow man to conform to one’s own standards.

I don’t believe this, but if I said that I really believed that the founders of our country were wrong when they built into the Bill of Rights things like free speech, voting, pursuit of happiness, etc., how would you argue? You say man is advancing, but what if I think freedom is evil? I do not subscribe to these claims, but how would you deal with a group who did? Can you justify forcing your beliefs on them?

My problem with these arguments is that absolute truth (and I do believe there are absolute, universal truths) is slippery. We always see things through our own experiential lenses, distorting our perception of truth. We may approach it, but rarely is it ever found. Therefore, we must be convicted of our beliefs, stand for them, and advocate them, but bickering about it is no way to improve anyone’s well-being. So if you have an opinion, you may state it, but this quibbling and endless debating is tasteless, and shows a lack of maturity.

Also, to clarify, that’s the First Amendment that contains the establishment clause.

Alex, you’ve made extremely good points but the bashing Casey extensively is sad. The problem is not with Casey and you should understand that (since beliefs are implanted). The bashing from both sides is ridiculous because both of you guys will never obtain what you want from each other.

And right now, the law is that homosexuals cannot be married (it hopefully will change soon though, because the fact of the matter is that the only reason why its restricted now is because of fear. Fear of what may happen as the after-math of granting this right. Though once the fear is cleared up, people will begin to realize that allowing gays to marry will only allow them to show how much the couple loves one another. Then the air will clear up but until then, everyone just needs to look beyond their own beliefs and see what the actual facts of granting gay marriage will have. As well as think about those who are actually****(homosexuals and loved ones) directly affected by this law.).

And, the article was good just maybe should have been thought out more ~ haha