gay marriage

[Eg.]

bad, discuss

fesf

 

[Raziaar]

I don't approve of it, or like the thought of it. But hey, whatever floats their boat, or however the saying goes. At least they're not doing illegal drugs or killing people, except the potential babies that can't be conceived. Heh.

 

[gh0st]

civil union > marriage.

marriage is a religious term, applied by religious institutions, in a religious manner, for thousands of years. why change it because a bunch of gay people want to get married. evolution frowns upon this, why shouldent we.

 

[Raziaar]

civil union > marriage.

marriage is a religious term, applied by religious institutions, in a religious manner, for thousands of years. why change it because a bunch of gay people want to get married. evolution frowns upon this, why shouldent we.

That is quite true. Marriage is religious. Love isn't, but marriage is. All the major religions are against homosexuality I think. Heh, weird world. Stand united against gays, blow each other to pieces over far more trivial things.

 

[theotherguy]

I am absolutley sick of the american people making huge issues over completley NON-issues. I mean, seriously, in a time when the nation is at war, the economy has gone to the dogs, the world hates us, there is terrorism up the wazoo, and we are running out of oil, what do the american people care about? Abortion and gay marrige!

This entire election was run on...moral values? What the HELL is that? The american people need to get their head out of the sand and realize...you can do NOTHING about gay marrige and nothing will happen. Gay marrige should have been set aside for another time to deal with much more important matters. Does it truly affect the american people if gays can be married or not? What affects the american people is the economy, the war, natural resources, foreign policy! People here are just too stupid to realize that gay marrige and abortion will not affect their jobs, it will not affect their well-being in any way at all.

I was ashamed to realize that in all of the battleground states whom had conservative governors, they put gay marrige ON THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT! so, every religious conservative went out to vote for that, hell, even the AMISH who have NEVER come out for an election before came out and voted based on that issue alone. That, my freinds is exactley how the president got the popular vote this time. It is a shame how the media and the government can conjure up such wag-the-dog issues that completley divert the american people from what is important.

My personal opinion? I DO NOT CARE about gay marrige, but if I were to take a stand, it would be for it. A religious issue you say? Since when did YOUR religion become an issue of the GOVERNMENT as far as I am concerned, the government is not supposed to make laws based on any particualr religion and will not restrain the rights of any person according to any of their religions. It is not YOUR RELIGION's choice to tell people that they cannot have one of the fundamental rights that all human beings deserve. What if, for instance, one of these homosexuals who wanted to get married was atheist? According to their religion, there would be absolutley nothing wrong with it...however, according to the religion which was forced upon them by law, they would not be allowed to marry. Is that right?

The government does not see marrige as a religious issue whatsoever...or at least they are not supposed to. Marrige, by law, is nothing more than a civil agreement. Whether you call it a "civil union" or not makes it no difference, a marrige is nothing more than a contract binding two people together under law. However, civil unions will never be enough for homosexuals, it is not enough to be in civil union, and not recognized as an embodiment of love, as marrige is...

You see, one of the hugest compliants of conservatives about gays is their promiscuity. Well, to me, it is easy to see how they are promiscuous...They have NO true options to hold a steady boyfreind or girlfreind for the rest of their lives like heterosexuals do. If gays were allowed to marry, they would actually be legally bound to that person, in both name of marrige and the actual bond of love. Also, they would have consequences like everyone else if they divorced. Then, gays would feel obligated to stay together, and would not be promiscuous with many partners at once.

Sorry if this is sounding like an essay, or political speech, but I was happy that a politics forum could be added, so I could express my political views freely without fear of consequence, you see, it's kind of hard having my opinions in a place like texas

 

[CptStern]

I'm married ..not in a church, not in front of god but by your logic I'm not married, even though I have a certificate that says I am. My wife'll be thrilled when I tell her :upstare:

 

[Raziaar]

I'm married ..not in a church, not in front of god but by your logic I'm not married, even though I have a certificate that says I am. My wife'll be thrilled when I tell her :upstare:

Well, CptStern. I didn't say its upheld today as a religiously defined joining, but that's how it got its roots. People didn't just start off and say. Hey, lets elope! Or hey! lets get married! It came about from religion, and continued through religion. MANY religions, not christianity alone. Even the ancient greeks married for the love and support of their gods.

 

[gh0st]

My personal opinion? I DO NOT CARE about gay marrige, but if I were to take a stand, it would be for it. A religious issue you say? Since when did YOUR religion become an issue of the GOVERNMENT as far as I am concerned, the government is not supposed to make laws based on any particualr religion and will not restrain the rights of any person according to any of their religions. It is not YOUR RELIGION's choice to tell people that they cannot have one of the fundamental rights that all human beings deserve. What if, for instance, one of these homosexuals who wanted to get married was atheist? According to their religion, there would be absolutley nothing wrong with it...however, according to the religion which was forced upon them by law, they would not be allowed to marry. Is that right?

sometimes it doesnt matter what you care about, because there will always be some (and in this case, a couple hundred million) that wont care what YOU say. simply because there are more important issues doesnt mean you can ignore one. america is capable of handling more than 3 big issues at once. MY religion is irrelevant. yes, you can become married without going to a church. however, marriage (the term itself, nothing more) constitutes a religious bind between 2 people, legalized by the state. marriage is a fundamental right? interesting, why arent or havent they been able to marry? white men have had fundamental rights for ages now. that homosexual who wanted to get married probably WOULD be athiest. which is exaclty why the religious term marriage would not apply. marriage between a man and a woman meets state credentials (Established most likely during a time when religion was placed much higher than it is currently). however, civil union lacks the sanctity that marriage does, so i have no problem with that

btw stern you pagan canadians dont count. just razzing you.

 

[qckbeam]

Marriage is not a religious institution anymore. It has a totally secular meaning. We don't stop atheists from getting married. They get married, they call it marriage, and everyone refers to it as marriage.

Withholding the word "marriage" is just petty homophobia in action. Really, there just isn't any other ****ing reason.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I got nothing against homosexuality. Nothing against gay marriage. They have the same rights every other heterosexual has. America should be stop being so homophobic and just learn to accept people of all walks of life.

 

[gh0st]

Marriage is not a religious institution anymore. It has a totally secular meaning. We don't stop atheists from getting married. They get married, they call it marriage, and everyone refers to it as marriage.

Withholding the word "marriage" is just petty homophobia in action. Really, there just isn't any other ****ing reason.

theres a difference between a rational restriction and illegal discrimination. we restrict polygamists, theres no reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for.. well, ever. that is, man + woman. it doesnt deny anybody equal protection of the laws, since this restriction applies equally to everybody.

 

[Raziaar]

theres a difference between a rational restriction and illegal discrimination. we restrict polygamists, theres no reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for.. well, ever. that is, man + woman. it doesnt deny anybody equal protection of the laws, since this restriction applies equally to everybody.

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Many civilizations practiced widely Homosexuality, but marriage... marriage has always remained between a man and a woman I believe. A man would be married to a woman, and have a male sexual lover. Greeks did it, macedonians did it, romans did it.

 

[gh0st]

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that. Many civilizations practiced widely Homosexuality, but marriage... marriage has always remained between a man and a woman I believe. A man would be married to a woman, and have a male sexual lover. Greeks did it, macedonians did it, romans did it.

whatever. point is they didnt marry all the little boys they raped.

 

[Raziaar]

whatever. point is they didnt marry all the little boys they raped.

Oh, aye. I know. What I was saying was, the homosexuals didn't marry each other. They practiced it on the side, with marriage being reserved for the bond between a man and a woman.

 

[gh0st]

Oh, aye. I know. What I was saying was, the homosexuals didn't marry each other. They practiced it on the side, with marriage being reserved for the bond between a man and a woman.

right.

 

[qckbeam]

theres a difference between a rational restriction and illegal discrimination. we restrict polygamists, theres no reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for.. well, ever. that is, man + woman. it doesnt deny anybody equal protection of the laws, since this restriction applies equally to everybody.

So you're telling me that not allowing two grown adult men or women to marry one another is a rational restriction? Tell me, where is the logical or rationality in this conclusion?

It isn't rational in the least. There is not a logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to participate in marriage and call it what it is. Homosexuals deserve every right heterosexuals deserve.

I'm so fed up with this bullshit.

 

[Ennui]

I believe that gays should be allowed to marry, but since so many people are against that, saying that marriage is religious and sacred and whatnot (to which I say, Britney Spears, hem hem), I know that they will never be allowed to.

Therefore I support civil unions but only if they have the EXACT same rights and benefits as if they were married.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Homosexuals should be allowed to me legally joined and recognized by the state, with the ability to receive all benefits of a man and a woman who are married(civil union) but the term marriage has always been religious and should remain between a man and a woman.

 

[bliink]

Withholding the word "marriage" is just petty homophobia in action. Really, there just isn't any other ****ing reason.

I agree, its just gotten stupid the way people are scared of it... what? do you think because a few people are gay we're gonna be extinct?? lol

 

[Ennui]

They Spred Aids And Satanism!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

 

[Raziaar]

Be gay all you want. I'm not going to stop it. Let it be legalized by marriage, fine. No need to give them more attention than they deserve, we could use our efforts on more important issues. Gay marriage isn't very important in the sceme of things, and neither is marriage. So please, let us get it overwith so i'll stop hearing about it everywhere.

While you're at it, please... let people marry as many spouses as they desire, so i'll stop hearing about polygamy too.

By the way. I'm just curious. What are all of your views on polygamy? Maybe i'll start a thread about it.

 

[CptStern]

I vote we ban religion

 

[Raziaar]

I vote we ban religion

Religion(not organized, but worship of this or that) has a far longer history than agnosticism or atheism. Also it has been the most powerful driving force in history. Don't think its possible to 'ban' it and be done with it. lol

 

[gh0st]

So you're telling me that not allowing two grown adult men or women to marry one another is a rational restriction? Tell me, where is the logical or rationality in this conclusion?

It isn't rational in the least. There is not a logical reason to deny homosexuals the right to participate in marriage and call it what it is. Homosexuals deserve every right heterosexuals deserve.

I'm so fed up with this bullshit.

here are my rational reasons for you. gay marriage is not a civil right, it is not a fundamental right. hell al sharpton said it wasent a civil right. there are no reasons for it to be so. research indicates that homosexual couples (http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Resources/OrganizingResources/counseling.html)children suffer gender disastisfaction, unsurprisingly, and a greater rate of molestation in the family. this leads to higher rates of suicide, depression, and drug abuse, and so on and so forth.

Subjects were 137 gay and bisexual males, 14 through 21 years of age, from the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. Forty-one subjects (41/137) reported a suicide attempt; and almost half of them described multiple

http://pediatrics.aappublications.o...ec=relevance&volume=87&journalcode=pediatrics

its so easy for you to say "oh it would be fine, yada yada civil rights" but its not as simple as that. certain people arent allowed to join the military. there are height, weight, age, requirements. why should gay people be allowed to marry? they dont meet the requirements society has set down for them.

 

[gh0st]

in case anyone was wondering, i meant JESSE JACKSON, not al sharpton. heh i wonder why i confused the 2.

 

[CptStern]

who said society says only a man and a woman should be married? Most provinces in Canada allow same sex marriage ..so there goes that logic out the door

btw 137 test subjects DOES NOT make a point conclusive. Maybe if there were less intolerant people in the world there wouldnt be so many stigmas associated with homosexuality

 

[CptStern]

Religion(not organized, but worship of this or that) has a far longer history than agnosticism or atheism. Also it has been the most powerful driving force in history. Don't think its possible to 'ban' it and be done with it. lol

we're better off without it

 

[Gray Fox]

we're better off without it

We would certainly be now, but you must rememeber that religion did help us for centuries, and did its part in creating culture and furthering science, it just a shame that it is now the thing that is exactly working against everything it has nurterd for thousends of years, ignorant people are using it to reverse our evolutio.

(edit: but then again gyou allready know this, you were just beeing sarcasic or what ever weren't you :upstare: :upstare: :rolling: :farmer: )

 

[Gunner]

The way things are going now, in thirty or forty years the debate will be around transexuals/transvestites and their marriage/adoption rights.

 

[Death.Trap]

The way things are going now, in thirty or forty years the debate will be around transexuals/transvestites and their marriage/adoption rights.

If we're here in thirty or fourty years.

 

[CptStern]

We would certainly be now, but you must rememeber that religion did help us for centuries, and did its part in creating culture and furthering science, it just a shame that it is now the thing that is exactly working against everything it has nurterd for thousends of years, ignorant people are using it to reverse our evolutio.

Ya I agree, religion had it's place around 1000 years ago as we were steeped in ignorance and we needed some guidance ..unfortunately it was self-serving and was meant to control mankind not guide. Heh I can probably dig up a number of instances of religion hindering scientific progress

(edit: but then again gyou allready know this, you were just beeing sarcasic or what ever weren't you :upstare: :upstare: :rolling: :farmer: )

yes :E


To all those that disagree with gay marriage ...why do you care what someone else does? how would same sex marriage affect you in any way? or is it just intolerance?

 

[el Chi]

evolution frowns upon this, why shouldent we.

Actually, homosexuality can serve an evolutionary purpose. Say you have a population of animals that becomes over crowded. Homosexual members of this community don't contribute to the overpopulation, but they are healthy members of society who can look after other members, get food etc.
Besides, evolution also frowns on heart transplants, leg casts and dentists. If we still leved according to that, most people wouldn't live much past 30-odd.

Anyway, I don't see why it should prove to be such a huge problem - these two people love each other and are happy together, getting married will make them happy. No, I don't see any negative feelings in there - nothing wrong...

The way things are going now, in thirty or forty years the debate will be around transexuals/transvestites and their marriage/adoption rights.

What we really ought to do is cure these transgressions of humanity. I'm sure they're not comfortable as they are anyway.

And just for your information, transsexuals can get married and adopt as far as I'm aware. After all, once they've had their operation they are for all intents and purposes, the opposite gender.
And transvestites definitely can get married but probably not adopt - they might give the orphans the gay.
Worth pointing out that many, if not, most transvestites aren't gay.

 

[seinfeldrules]

To all those that disagree with gay marriage ...why do you care what someone else does? how would same sex marriage affect you in any way? or is it just intolerance?

The same way that Bush's foreign policy affects you.

In other words, it doesnt, but it is something that many feel strongly about.

 

[CptStern]

The same way that Bush's foreign policy affects you.

no, bush's policies do affect me. the world is a lot less safe since he took office

In other words, it doesnt, but it is something that many feel strongly about

many people felt strongly about this ...still doesnt make it right

 

[Raziaar]

no, bush's policies do affect me. the world is a lot less safe since he took office




many people felt strongly about this ...still doesnt make it right

Whoa dude. You BETTER not be making the accusation, even slightly masked that the same people who support bush are people who supported/would like to support segregation. I know its not the case, but if you were making that connection, that'd be very very bad.

 

[seinfeldrules]

no, bush's policies do affect me. the world is a lot less safe since he took office

I said you stern, not the world. It effects your opinions and such, but not you. Just as gay marriage doesnt effect me/them, but we still hold opinions on it.

 

[Dedalus]

the movement against gay marriage is generally championed by those religiously and/or conservatively minded. by nature, these sorts of people have been brought up in the 'tradional, good clean and wholesome' way, so it's only natural that they'll be a bit intolerant of things like homosexuality and marriage. these people are hardwired that way (much like homosexuals actually), so you can't really have any disdain for them or their opinions as it wasn't their choice, their parents and those that brought them up made the decision for them.

anyway, el Chi brings up a good point which reminds me of an article i read in my uni's science journal. basically, it explained how homosexuality was a natural occurence in nature, and extremely abundant in spieces with large or overpopulated numbers. that's right, humans aren't the only group of gods creations that practice homosexuality. chances are, those two rabbits you saw rutting in the corner of your mates bedroom when you were 12 were actually :O gay! well maybe they weren't, but it's not unreasonable to say that.

also, i'm at a miss as to where the link between religion and evolution was found. as far as i remember, religion is firmly against evolution, and that things simply 'were', and always have been like that since god created them.

another interesting point about evolution. it might be the fact that i go to a university, but pretty much all the gay people i've met (men and women) all seem to be of above average intelligence. they're a far cry from your average, caveman type hetrosexual bloke/girl who tart themselves up and have joyless carpark sex with people they've just met. the gay friends i have are the most civil and pleasant people to be around. why would you want to stop these people from following their feelings?! the mind boggles really.

anyway, approving gay marriage in the eyes of the law would be a good move in my opinion.

 

[Raziaar]

the movement against gay marriage is generally championed by those religiously and/or conservatively minded. by nature, these sorts of people have been brought up in the 'tradional, good clean and wholesome' way, so it's only natural that they'll be a bit intolerant of things like homosexuality and marriage. these people are hardwired that way (much like homosexuals actually), so you can't really have any disdain for them or their opinions as it wasn't their choice, their parents and those that brought them up made the decision for them.

anyway, el Chi brings up a good point which reminds me of an article i read in my uni's science journal. basically, it explained how homosexuality was a natural occurence in nature, and extremely abundant in spieces with large or overpopulated numbers. that's right, humans aren't the only group of gods creations that practice homosexuality. chances are, those two rabbits you saw rutting in the corner of your mates bedroom when you were 12 were actually :O gay! well maybe they weren't, but it's not unreasonable to say that.

also, i'm at a miss as to where the link between religion and evolution was found. as far as i remember, religion is firmly against evolution, and that things simply 'were', and always have been like that since god created them.

another interesting point about evolution. it might be the fact that i go to a university, but pretty much all the gay people i've met (men and women) all seem to be of above average intelligence. they're a far cry from your average, caveman type hetrosexual bloke/girl who tart themselves up and have joyless carpark sex with people they've just met. the gay friends i have are the most civil and pleasant people to be around. why would you want to stop these people from following their feelings?! the mind boggles really.

anyway, approving gay marriage in the eyes of the law would be a good move in my opinion.

Did you just stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous people who have all sorts of random, loveless sex? I think you did, since you called them the 'average'. That's so untrue its not funny. Yes, there are people like that, but they are no where near the average of heterosexuals.

 

[CptStern]

I said you stern, not the world. It effects your opinions and such, but not you. Just as gay marriage doesnt effect me/them, but we still hold opinions on it.

yes it does affect me, every time I go to fill up my car it affects me, everytime I see a picture of a dead iraqi baby it affects me, everytime I hear that 14,000 innocent people died as a result of bush's policies it affects me, everytime I hear bush open his mouth justifing the destruction of a nation it affects me

 

[CptStern]

Whoa dude. You BETTER not be making the accusation, even slightly masked that the same people who support bush are people who supported/would like to support segregation. I know its not the case, but if you were making that connection, that'd be very very bad.

who's at fault? the person who wrote it, or the person who mis-interpreted it?