Mental disease is a perfect definition of homosexuality.

@Nuitari & Rebel with a Cause....Homosexuality is not a mental disease or illness. If you don't believe me check out the DSM IV TM.

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Hating gays is.

Lyle, I am aware of the mental health community's stance on this, and I say, hogwash. If it's not mental, it has to be some genetic abnormality then. Common sense lies below the belt. Opposites attract, and likes repel, if you catch my meaning. If these people want civil unions, fine. Marriage is a religious institution that should not cater to them.

My marriage license is issued by the county, not some religious institution, and I was married by a judge. Unless we want to start referring to all such arrangements as "civil unions" because they're not affiliated with or officiated over by an organized religion, I don't see why we have to refer a marriage between two gay people as anything other than that.

@Schmitzy
Being gay IS a choice and a sick one at that!
Perhaps you are adjusting to homosexuality?

I don't hate gays, but I laugh and make fun of them.

Rebel without a Brain -- we laugh at you too.

Stop the presses! Here is another of the rare instances where Bob McBride and I are in complete agreement -- and for the same reason. I'm married to a person of the opposite sex, in a civil ceremony,, and when I see people arguing that if those dratted gays want to marry then we should do away with civil marriage altogether in favor of religious ones, it ticks me off.

I want the legal and social recognition of being husband and wife regardless of whether the priest who married us was authorized to do it by his church. (He actually got into trouble for doing it one too many times, poor guy.) I like assuming the mutual rights AND obligations with one license and ceremony. I have always taken that promise very seriously.

My gay brothers and sisters deserve the same rights as well.

I don't know if we're in complete agreement, Randy. I'd be wiling to have my marriage called something else if it would take the religious element out of the argument.

I'm not sure "civil union" is ideal, as then I'd feel I'd have been forced into a union against my will. However, I might be more amenable to the term if I was guaranteed certain benefits and protection against unreasonable workload requests.

I guess I don't see the term 'marriage' as a religious term. The county currently issues 'marriage licenses' rather than 'civil union licenses', so I think that the term 'marriage' can and should remain to describe the legal union between two people.

@Steve....Why wait? Just go join the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) and you can marry as many young women as you want. They're also at war with the federal and state governments. You'll fit right in.

Frankly, I'm not sure why this should be illegal either. If it's consenting adults, who really cares? It would be pretty easy to limit benefits to the one spouse and their associated offspring. Who gets hurt in this deal?

@Steve: LOL, are you nuckin futs?
Isn't one enough?

I wouldn't honestly know as I am unmarried. I am more bringing up the point that gay marriage is a luxury and as Obama ha put us in and extremely dire financial state we do not have time to talk about this luxury right now.

Plus, the women's work around my house doesn't seem to happen with enough efficiency. I figured 1-2 more employees focused in that area would yield better results.

@Steve: Marriage is expensive, hire a housekeeper! If she fails to do a satisfactory job, you can fire her!
;-P

I'm with you there. My GF works for a cleaning company. At first it was cool when she got the job a few months ago but at times it becomes the mechanics curse. Guess it comes down to sending her packing or hiring out the services.

@Richard Head...Yes, it is a civil contractual agreement; but, it is necessary to be recognized by the state due to the benefits that are allowed for registered agreements.

You're wrong about biblical marriages, they were agreements between families, not just the individuals. They involved costs and penalties. Even today a Jewish marriage is a contractual agreement that is signed between witnesses, including a pre-divorce agreement held by the wife called a 'Ghet'.

Any group that doesn't have the same rights and privileges as the majority group is made to feel inferior.

Yes, the worst thing you can do to a person is hurt their feelings and make them feel inferior.

Lyly - simple Biblical marriage without the State is found in Exodus. While Marriage can be an agreement between families, Exodus 22:15 states: "And if a man seduces a girl who has not been betrothed to him, and lies with her so that she conceives, she shall be his wife" - or simply - engaging in mutual sexual behavior = biblical marriage - one type. Please lose you heavy-handiness with the "wrong" stuff - it's irritating. You preach tolerance - then are the most intolerant of all.

The World is a large place - and while Judiasm - Christianity - and Islam dominate in the West - there are many other, larger religions in the World. I value their books as sources of information and look with interest - but am not a member of any of them. I've spent a bit of time with the Babylonian Talmud - the Milwaukee Library has a nice collection - but I'm not that interested except to take a cursory look.

I've re-read the opinion piece - although not too deeply. My opinion is that the author is a bit insecure and looking for validation - especially since he has dealt with religious christians who often have NO idea what is actually in their bible. If they want to quote the bible and cite it as their authority - my point is - be consistent. The text also has no toleration of homosexuality -

Continued....

Modern science has shown that their are many factors that influence sexuality and that many are beyond our control. Homosexuality can also be a choice. What people do in private, with mutual consent, shouldn't be of concern to others.

Since Domestic Partners is available in Wisconsin - which offers the same Benefits as Contractual State Ordained marriage - it would appear that the Author perhaps wants to somehow use Marriage as an issue to change the Bible, or join Christianity as a married homosexual. WHY? Leave the deluded christians alone - and stop listening to them. Any day now - Jesus is going to rapture them away - right?

Look - most christians - if measured against the words of the book they profess - aren't. SO take their barbs with a grain of salt - find better friends, and move on. Use Domestic Partnerships if you want the benefits. And Please god - save us from the christians.

Lyle: Any union of two humans in the church is a contractual agreement between the two being joined and God. It never was between the families, at least in any of the theology classes I took. The witnesses were to witness before God, and the ritual itself was created by man, not God.

@Brian Dey....I reference you to the agreement between Jacob and Laban over the bride price, 7 years of labor in exchange for Rachael. When he was deceived into marriage with Leah he agreed to another 7 year bride price for Rachael. I also direct you to the rape of Dina. When the Prince of Shechem raped her and then decided to marry her, Jacob set the terms for the marriage. Also, When Abraham sent his servant Eliezer to find a bride for Issac he carried a bride price for Rebecka. I suggest that you take some Jewish study classes at UW-M and get unbiased information.

@Richard Head...A Talmudic scholar you are not. The incident that you state is a special condition for when a Jew seduces a maiden who conceives and allows them to have a recognizable union. If there wasn't this exception, then the woman would be shamed and the offspring would be a bastard outside of the covenant. However, if a gentile seduces a maiden and she conceives, then there can be no marriage without him converting. Reference the Rape of Dina. Also, the rules of marriage also included a succession of husbands and family duty. Reference Judah and his daughter in-law Tamar.

Unbiased religious classes at UWM? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Lyle - While the stories you refer to in Bible may have been Jewish practice, I hardly believe they were condoned by God. I refer you to Leviticus 18:22, or Genesis 2: 18-24, or Leviticus 20:13, widely accepted as the Word of God transmitted to the people of Israel by Moses. Or in the New Testament, In Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Romans. These were direct responses to man's "unnatural" acts of sexuality. Big difference.

@Brian Dey...You reference Genesis, Leviticus and Paul's letters as sources for your support of marriage between woman and man only. Jewish thought has changed by the more liberal movement with the acknowledgement that gender preference is not a choice. Although Reform Judaism doesn't sanctify such marriages, they do support civil marriages between same sex couples.

There is some indication that Leviticus was based also on factors dealing with such subjects as prostitution.

Lyle - Peace be with you during the celebration of Hanakkuh. There is no doubt that this topic is of some controversy even amongst the various denominations of Christianity. In the Episcopal Church, homosexuality has caused a great divide between the the Church of England (traditional) and the American Episcopal Church.

The Church of England still condemns homosexuallity, while in the American Church, the practice of gay marriage is generally accepted, provided the laws of the state coincide. There is even a divide in the American Church over the elevation of gays to the rank of Bishop.

The controversy seems to stem from whether homosexuality is a life choice, or preordained from birth. The Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholics and Lutherans, lean heavily towards life choice. As you know, for a time I was was a Youth Minister. Several times, I had been faced with questions from our teens regarding this topic. As instructed by my Bishop at the time, the stance of our Dioceses was that "homosexuality was an "unnatural act" considered a sin by God. Man is tempted in many ways in the realm of sexual behavior, but acting on such temptations violates God's law."

While there may be evidence in nature that may support those who believe homosexuality is preordained, I have several examples in my aquaintances that show that it was a lefestyle choice.

@Brian Dey...Thank you for the blessing.

Sadly, Siri is incapable of consent.

Why is marriage reserved for only a man and woman?
And what makes Civil unions ok?

Well said Mr. Dey.

People are people no matter who they are attracted to. To say blindly that gay marriage would bump up marriage retention rates is to ignore all other factors of society that make people who they are and society what it is.

Here we go again - with Bren.

How abut Ellen? As soon as homosexuals marry - they too grow unhappy and divorce. From Anne Heche to Alexandera Hedison to Portia De Rossi - Ellen is a just practicing serial polygamy - just like most heterosexual couples who divorce.

IF anything, gay homosexuals are even worse! Why they want the contractual obligations of marriage with the attendant burden of divorce is beyond me.

Calling it the "sacred institution of marriage" only makes it so if you live it. Why liberals would even want to concern themselves with such matters is beyond me. State sponsored marriage is a very bad deal for men - and I would NEVER consider it. Love doesn't need the State as an interested third party in the affairs of a committed couple.

Random, I know gay couples who have been together longer than a number of heterosexual couples of my acquaintance.

Richard, Merriam-Webster's definition of Liberalism includes "A movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity." In the faith and the circles in which I was raised, service to those in need (where in comparison I had plenty) was a directive led by Christ Himself. He was the exemplar in selfless service, at the risk of His own life.

That is why "liberals would even want to concern themselves with such matters." (And commonsense moderates too, for that matter!)

So to Go Galt's point Patrick, where do we draw the line? Should incestuous couples be allowed to marry? Polygamists? It is a states issue now and only a few states have adopted it. That should tell you that it is still not widely accepted. But I really want to know if you believe that any two human beings, or more can legally marry.

Brian:

While there are supposedly health reasons for not allowing incestuous marriages, why should polygamy be disallowed? It seems to me, that if everyone involved is OK with the marriage and everyone involved is treated equally under the law, I don't see the harm in allowing it.

LIke all things, what we allow or don't allow is based on our culture.

Gay marriage is not comparable to polygamy. Being gay is not a choice. Taking multiple wives (or husbands) is.

What's wrong with polygamy, Keith?

@Brian Dey -- " Should incestuous couples be allowed to marry? Polygamists?"

Not to cloud the issue, but the state does not forbid two carriers of a recessive genetic disease to marry each other. It does not forbid a person with a dominant genetic condition to marry, period. And it shouldn't. So how is it the state's business to limit a couple's degree of consanguinity because of potential birth defects? Yes, the thought is 'icky', but we might want to look at things logically. 80 years ago the idea of white people marrying black people was 'icky' too.

Those who know me here on the Patch, know how I lean a little to the right. Yes, it is true the author of this article is a former teacher. I must point out that he was one of the finest according to my former student. I think he has done a fine job getting people to discuss the issues like respectful adults.
This is a topic many people are passionate about, eventually we will need a solution.
Civil Unions can do this.

Craig - I always find your posts very enlightening. Indeed, many of them have modified my opinions and made me see things in ways I didn't allow myself and we have (I being very liberal) come to concensus on many issues.

I do agree with 98% of your post, here. The 2% I would suggest updating is that if civil unions are the best solutions to address gay marriage, then I would eliminate marriage all together. If civil unions are the solution to gay couples, then civil unions should be the sole solutions to straight couples.

I think I'm in agreement with FTT on this one. Either everyone should be able to marry, or nobody should be allowed to marry. I see no reason to have 'civil unions' for some and 'marriage' for others.

Free Thought Troy and Craig: I agree. I think all unions between adults, hetero or homosexual, should be called civil unions that are done outside the church. The church can still call it marriage and deal with their own beliefs. Yet civil unions will satisfy the equal status of not being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

For those with religious beliefs, the government would recognize your relationship a civil union for legal purposes, and the church would consider your marriage as recognized by the sacraments.

Brian adds a new twist to the discussion. I do not like civil unions for labeling a couple who was married outside of the Church. Many religions are making changes to address same sex marriage. ELCA is one faith that has decided they will marry same sex couples when it is legal to do so. (there fore I can not use my faith as a basis of argument against same sex marriage)
Social Security survivor benefits require a marriage to last ten years before the surviving spouse can collect from an ex-husband or ex-wife. I would have to assume there would be little impact on SS if gay marriage is recognized. (therefore the cost to society is minimal at best)
I thought civil unions were the way to go for same sex couples until I read Brian's comment. If I were to remarry in the church, I would not want the label civil union attached to my marriage. If a person asks me if I am married, I answer yes. This tells them I am a heterosexual man, which is not what they asked.
In my mind this was appropriate, until I realized I was being a homophobe.
We allow interracial marriages, and distant cousins can marry- this can have serious consequences genetically. Same sex marriage can not affect the gene pool adversely. (therefore, from a Scientific standpoint there should be no objection either)
My opinion took some time to become changed, but I do think we should allow same sex marriage. I have just laid out the reasons why I feel that way.

cont.....
Religious reasons are no longer a reason because some faiths are prepared to accept it. Society already has rules for Social Security benefits for survivors. Science can not object, because same sex marriages can do no harm to the gene pool.

One other point I forgot to mention: A man and woman can marry. One of them can get a sex change, and they are allowed to remain married. They are now a legally married same sex couple! If that is legal and recognized as such, I feel it is only appropriate to allow others who do not have to go through hoops the same privilege.

WTH? Not one person is attacking me for my opinion? Something very weird is going on here. Usually I can expect at a minimum, "Stay the course."
Or have I convinced everyone?

I maintain that the problem isn't with the variant couplings ... it is with the resulting encumbrance because we no longer hold people accountable to their choices.

Since we have devolved into a culture that exacts no measure of responsibility for a persons choices in life ... since we believe society must resolve issues they did not manifest ... this secular issue is pertinent ... if we are to start expecting individuals to suffer their life choices without societal umbrella's ... it is a non issue.

None here are accepting the cost to society for encouraging behavior without expecting people are held responsible for the result. It is exactly why we are in debt beyond our capacity.

Go ahead ... continue to have these meaningless conversations of religious and anti-religious nonsense about emotional and temporal conditions of man. Continue to argue the language and purpose of religions and whether one can cleverly enumerate a position ....

We have quickly devolved into a society that is distracted by nonsense while we evaporate the foundation provided us ... pity.

@Dave....When the government started to give special treatment to couples, then it was an acknowledgement of the civil contract between consenting parties. Within all civil contracts there are rights and responsibilities. Government assures that those rights and responsibilities are practiced and observed. It is, quite simply, the authority of law to support the party's compliance. Ultimately, sanctioned contracts (relationships) empowers the government (community) to support unions of individuals.

@Dave...We also have enough "short term" relationships between heterosexual couples. Most single parent households started from a traditional marriage between a woman and a man.

When one classification of society is granted special privilege over another, then there is societal oppression. It wasn't that long ago that LGBTQ individuals were forced to remain in the closet to gain employment and remain employed. The worth of a person should not be determined by sexual preference, but by their character and social functioning. As far as taking a position of not allowing adoption by members of the LGBTQ community, other research doesn't support your statement.

@Lyle Ruble...
Scandinavian countries approved same-sex marriage 10 years ago and the impact on marriage has been devastating.

Since legalization, the out-of-wedlock birthrates and the divorce rates have risen sharply. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50 percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher. The effect of these divorces is significant. These high rates of divorce lower cultural esteem for marriage. Worse, gay marriage separates marriage from parenting. It says that marriage is about adult desires, not the needs of children. Scandinavians are buying that message, and marriage is in a steep decline, as is child well-being.

@Dave...Your citing Scandinavian cultural practices is interesting, but doesn't really prove anything. The four nations making up this region have seen a decline in traditional marriage for decades. This parallels the same trends that are found in other first tier nations. In Scandinavia, children's welfare is guaranteed by the state minimizing the financial impact on children. Therefore, relationship stability doesn't have quite the devastating impact that we experience in this nation. My close friends living in the region are not bothered by the nature of the relationships, especially since it actually impacts so few individuals. Citizens have decided that the assault to individual human rights far outweigh any social costs incurred.

"Citizens have decided that the assault to individual human rights far outweigh any social costs incurred."

There are two problems with this. First, laws have already been established defining certain conditions under which people may marry. The would be spouse must be an adult, cannot already be married to another, cannot be closely related to the person he or she is marrying, and they must marry another human. In other words, restrictions have always existed. No one has ever been able to marry anyone simply because they loved them. Second, many civil rights leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, have rejected the comparison between the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for civil rights. As Jackson said, “Gays were never declared 3/5 human by the Constitution, and they never needed a Voting Rights Act.”

The "social costs" you're so quick to dismiss are important. Exparementing with the well-being of childeren is wrong on so many levels. Thousands of conclusive social science, medical, and psychological investigations published in hundreds of professional journals have shown that children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for others; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock.

All things being equal, children raised apart from their fathers—even if that father is replaced by another loving parent figure suffer serious declines in every important measure of well-being.
Let us be clear: A good, compassionate and just society always comes to the aid of fatherless or motherless children. But a good, compassionate, and just society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless children.

Fathers matter as male parents, not just as a second set of unisex hands to chip in with the housework and childrearing.
Child psychologists for 40 years have been telling us how mothers and fathers parent differently, and how healthy child development demands this difference.
Fathering scholar Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School says dads matter simply because “fathers do not mother.”
Psychology Today explains, “Fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
A scientific review of more than 100 published studies on the benefits of child-parent relationships found that “overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offspring’s psychological well-being and health.”
Very simply, the same-sex family is problematic because same-sex families intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or a father just because adults want it that way.

@Dave...If the marriages of those described biblically were to occur today, they would be found not to be legal. Abraham and Sarah's union wouldn't be allowed due to close kinship. He could have been her uncle, half brother or first cousin. Marriage has always been a social institution to guarantee property rights and responsibilities. Only until the emergence of Romanticism, marriage was between families and was primarily a business contract.

@Dave...Reading the constitution, I don't find anything that prohibits gay marriage. Marriage is covered under the 10th amendment, with the states determining such civil contracts. There is nothing to deter same sex unions except the desire of the will of the state's electorate. Such, it is a function of a state's will, then if the electorate so chooses, gay marriage can be permitted.