i just dont understand...

It's against their religion and morals. It really doesn't affect them and I think they just need something to throw a fit about. How about bawling about the Iraq war for a change, Republicans/churchetc?

 

Generally it doesn't affect them. Some religions teach it's wrong, and their followers believe that and do their best to "carry out the teachings" of the religion. It's stupid. RATIONALLY, it is stupid. It does not, honestly, affect them at all.

Also I think you should probably distinguish between Republicans and conservatives, as there are some open minded Republicans (although I am not one, but for the sake of fairness).

 

They get all caught up in one little line of Leviticus and forget the rest of the teachings of the Bible. Religious fanatics read the lines of the Bible, chose which they will take literally and chose which they will take figuratively. One of my favorite episodes of "The West Wing" is "The Midterms" when President Bartlett confronts Dr. Jenna Jacobs about Leviticus 18:22.

There is a great documentary "Saving Marriage" that goes into why both sides of the political fight seem to think they are saving marriage. It has yet to be distributed, but it been seen at film festivals. If you have an opportunity to view the film, I strongly encourage you to watch it.

 

in the words of Magneto...or it might have been some other great world leader

"People are always afraid of what they do not understand"

 

There also semantics, marriage is a religious term and has connotations of blessings and sacrament attached to them. That the marriage performed by a church is recognized by the State is because it has such a long tradition. Civil Unions are recognized by the State as a contract (same with Marriage too) and has the same benefits of Marriage, not withstanding the religious overtones.

Change some of the semantics and some opposition will drop, not all but some. It may be silly to some, but semantics with religious overtones is not considered silly by religious groups.

 

Not all Republicans feel this way. My husband is a Republican and he wholeheartedly supports same sex marriage. I also have two female friends who are Republicans who support it. Most of the Republicans base their opinions thinking they are the party that is doing what they think God wants. Well God isn't a Republican!

 

Its only a power trip by straights that believe that gays/lesbians/Bi/trans etc. are somehow inferior to those that consider themselves normal? These people are the ones with a problem let them get stressed, life's to short.

 

It's something for them to throw a fit and make us feel inferior about.

 

Okay, so perhaps the term "marriage" should be dropped altogether. Then, Civil Union can be applied to same sex couples and non-same sex couples. I am not sure that this would fly, but if there is really no difference between "marriage" and "civil union", why not have one term for all?

 

I have to point out that Storm said, "People fear what they do not understand," in the very first episode of the X-Men animated series from the early 90s on Fox.

 

Thanks liszak...i knew it was one of them that said something like that...

I personally think that the term marriage should be dropped in the legal sense, because marriage implies a man and a woman (because of the years of religious connotations), whereas if we used civil union for all people as a legal term, it would be indiscriminate to gender

 

Hah - I hadn't seen this thread - but just posted this elsewhere:
http://www.emptyclosets.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46165&postcount=17
...it reads:

This probably won't go down well - but I actually think that it would be better to push for "Same Sex Unions" (with all the appropriate legal rights) rather than "Gay Marriage".

My reason? Because the use of the word "marriage" itself is such a large hurdle to overcome with so many straight people (particularly conservative religious ones).

I honestly feel it would be better to forget semantics and strive to get something which would achieve the same in terms of legal rights and protection - with a name that is far more likely to be "accepted" - than to keep battering our heads against the the brick wall of the "Marriage is for a man and a woman" sentiment.

It just seems a far more sensible proposition to me to work toward what does the job (and would be more achievable) first - and worry about the name/definition later.

...so it looks like I agree pretty much exactly with Jayhew (and one or two others who have posted since...)