The compromise is easy. Most anti-gay people are against gay marriage because it goes against what they see as family values and the word of God. But so does sex outside of marriage. So to reduce the sinfulness of gay sex we could allow gay people to get married but in exchange gay people are only legally allowed to have sex if they are married.
Of course we should compromise. If one party wins, that leaves the other angry. And while most of the time it shouldn't matter, with such a sensitive subject such as this a compromise should be best. If we don't, it would definitely lead to even more conflict within the country.
Most Americans problem with same-sex marriage derives from their religious beliefs or their beliefs on what a family should be. I think a valid compromise would be to simply define a same-sex marriage in another way. Use a different word rather than marriage. Possibly adapt Civil Unions to have the same benefits as a marriage only having another name. It's crucial that any church isn't forced to validate a same-sex marriage, but it is also crucial that the gay community gets the same benefits.
I find it ridiculous that I have to expand this thought to a 50 word count, it is pretty simple logic. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. If you don't agree with it, don't have it. It's not fair to make people live by your religious beliefs when they simply don't affiliate themselves with the same religion at all. In a few decades, this "controversial" topic is going to look as idiotic as the arguments against interracial marriage.
Gay people are humans as well. Why should they not have rights to create a family? Unlike in female and male relationships gay couples ALWAYS think before getting (adopting) a child, in regular relationships mostly not even planned and the child will end up being mistreated. Sure, lovers of the same sex are a bit different but it does not make them evil. What if there's actually a good reason for them loving a person of the same sex as them and most anti-gay people are not willing to listen? We should open our ears and our minds to other worlds. Yes I do find some aspects of the gay relationship a bit maybe disturbing but I do not resent them for it. If I'd have a kid and they would come out to me about being gay I would simply say "I'm glad your happy kid, knock yourself out, just watch out for perverts." Let us for ONCE in this god forsaken planet trust each other, and learn to live as one.
Gay marriage is more than a political issue it is life. If two people of the same gender are married, it affects nobody but them. It seriously does not matter how many people are anti gay, because the rest of the world knows how ridiculous they are. My life has nothing to do with your political party, so I shouldn't have to compromise with you.
Pro Homosexuality is a very liberal movement (whether you like it or not) I have not seen one conservative that is Pro gay. Not only do you have these massive political gulfs, but also religion. Many religions deny the prospect of gay marriage making it even harder to compromise. I see no agreement on this topic except "agree to disagree."
There is no ambiguity in this argument. You either want gays to get married, or you don't. Calling it a "union" or something of the like is not the same thing; it tells people that you're not quite as good as those who are straight, so you have to have your own class of marriage. Same thing for barring them from having sex outside of marriage. One of my country's better politicians, Pierre Trudeau, once said that "Government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation". And he was right; what people do in their own homes with consent from one another is a danger to nobody. It's condescending and demeaning to tell gay people that they can't get married or have sex before marriage, but that they can engage in this "special" ceremony. It's like putting the slow kids in a corner of the room where all the other kids get to play normally.
There's no compromise here. Either you support gay marriage or you don't.
Why would you ever want to limit a persons right to express themselves/their sexuality & live their life as they want to, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else? By all means, sit around and think that god curses them for being gay, but why do you feel the need to go beyond that? Their sexuality is none of your concern.
The bottom line is that people who identify themselves as anti-gay will never accept gay a marriage.They believe sexual orientation is a choice or that the current environment of gay acceptance is causing more kids to become gay. Some one who is anti-gay is just that. Against gay people and any rights they claim to have (which of course they view as a privilege and not a right). What could we compromise on? Should we give gays the same rights as married people but call it a civil union? No because many anti-gay people do not want to validate there claims to this right at all. Even if they are willing to allow gays unions to be viewed as equal as hetero marriage under the state pro-gay rights people will not accept this (or shouldn't). Separate but equal necessarily creates inequality. I don't want my children growing up in a society that psychologically accepts gays as the "others". If they should have the same rights why give it a different name? It would allow people who don't accept gay rights to treat them as others which I believe is harmful to the idea of freedom of opportunity.I don't want to compromise because I think their position is immoral and destructive to my ideas of a free,fair and just society.
Never compromise with people who wish to demean you. If someone is anti-gay and has a problem with gay people then they can be as irrational, hateful, and downright petty as they want, but it has to be done on their own time and it has to be done without harming other parties. There are so many issues that demand far more attention than gay rights, and we waste time when these people fight over such petty issues. Someone is doing something you don't like? Well, does it hurt anyone? No? Well, either drop dead and die, or stop wasting everyone's time and start focusing on issues that actually matter. Because we're all here for such a limited time, and it shouldn't be squandered with this unimportant trash. So an ancient book that said slavery was A-OKAY disapproved of gay people. Is this seriously the standard on what we're basing on how we treat other people, because an ancient book said so? Because last time I checked this book also seemed quite fond of slavery and treating women like dirt. You know, two things that have absolutely no relevance to how we run society in today's world? You think it's a sin? Whatever, obviously nothing I say is going to change your mind. Believe whatever childish gibberish you want, but don't start enacting laws over it and wasting everyone's time because it said somewhere that 'lying with man is a sin'.
Honestly, I bet the only reason the guy wrote that in the book to begin with was because he didn't give anyone a good time and he got all pissy over it.