Should same sex marriages be legal?

[bgesley426]

Yes. I don't see anything wrong with widening freedom for american citizens.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I knew I should never have posted in this thread in the first place. People tend to get real serious and snappy when it comes to this. Especially Mechagodzilla. Chill out, man. It's my opinion. Everyone has one. Respect it.

Everyone has an opinion indeed. But your opinion is just racism without the race aspect. Maybe you don't understand my point. You can't just dump on someone just because you 'feel' they're unnatural.

Those unnatural people have families, friends, jobs and often even children. There is absolutely no difference between them and you, except that they have sex differently. And, yet, you decided that you deserve more than them.

I didn't just replace the word 'gay' with 'jew' just to call you a nazi and hurt your feelings. I really believe that that you need to re-evaluate your opinion. You would never say these sorts of things about a another race or religion (I hope). And, yet, you are saying them about that horrible gay minority that has hurt you so much.

You might think that people are being too serious, but, at the same time, you just decide to hand other people's rights away for reasons that are frivolous at best. You feel like it, because gays are just not the same? Compelling argument.

Bush says that America needs more discrimination, and you just say "Okay, I guess discrimination is good?" This is serious shit that will determine the course of western culture, but you're treating it as the decision between Coke and the new carb-free Coke.


You believe in keeping equal rights unequal for the sole purpose of making yourself feel better. I will never respect that.

 

[Phisionary]

This isn't really a rebuttal to the previous post (Edit: well, shit, it's not even close to being the previous post enymore ), but it is worth considering that there is an issue over the use of the word 'marriage' for a reason... for many, the word marriage does have religeous -- or some other personal -- meaning, and it is therefore important to them to be identified with the same term for just those reasons. I don't know the particulars but I am sure that some religions recognize same-sex marriages and support the use of the word to describe them. Just becuase many of the "major ones" don't isn't a reason at all.

Just saying, there isn't a desire to make marriage a legal definition for everyone just to spite religious opposition (mostly).\, but becuase gays want to be married not "civilly unified" or whatever. You may not want marriage to be applied to same-sex unions for religious reaons; gays may want marriage applied to same-sex unions for the same reason.

 

[Wraith]

in the end, its none of your damned business. if 2 people want to be married FINE, LET THEM. if they want to adopt kids, as long as they arent bad people, they should be allowed to. the whole thing about other kids making fun of them, who cares? eventually itll stop. no one says to a half-white half-black kid"oh my god your mom is black!" but it probably happened a hundred years ago. nothing will ever change if no one has the balls to go first. and i think that gay people are generally more open-minded than others (being that gayness is pretty out of the ordinary right-wing conservative view) so i doubt they will discriminate against their straight kid, or try to raise the kid to be gay.

 

[merc]

HELL NO! People were not put on this earth to be gay and lesbians! That is not how we are made, and there is plenty of proof that shows that men go with women not men with men or women and women...

-merc

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This isn't really a rebuttal to the previous post (Edit: well, shit, it's not even close to being the previous post enymore ), but it is worth considering that there is an issue over the use of the word 'marriage' for a reason... for many, the word marriage does have religeous -- or some other personal -- meaning, and it is therefore important to them to be identified with the same term for just those reasons. I don't know the particulars but I am sure that some religions recognize same-sex marriages and support the use of the word to describe them. Just becuase many of the "major ones" don't isn't a reason at all.

Exactly, and an excellent point. There are tons of different christian sects, many of which support gays. And there are plenty of christians who are gay, and interpret the bible to support that way of life. Not to mention every other religion, sects within those religions, and personal interpretations of those beliefs.

Banning gay marriage is equivalent to saying "my religion is better than yours, so I will punish you for being different."

Just saying, there isn't a desire to make marriage a legal definition for everyone just to spite religious opposition (mostly).\, but becuase gays want to be married not "civilly unified" or whatever. You may not want marriage to be applied to same-sex unions for religious reaons; gays may want marriage applied to same-sex unions for the same reason.

Speaking of legal definition, the gay couples who have already gotten married in Canada and the US are, by definition, married. None of that "civil union" bullshit.

Calling it a "civil union" breaks with the only current word for gay marriage: "marriage". And, as the country with the first gay marriage, we called dibs.

So, "civil unions" don't exist, except as synonyms to the one true word.

Boo-hoo. ;(

 

[Mechagodzilla]

HELL NO! People were not put on this earth to be gay and lesbians! That is not how we are made, and there is plenty of proof that shows that men go with women not men with men or women and women...

-merc

Well, now that I've used the maximum alloted smileys...

Yeah, plenty of proof. So much proof that you can't even site it. So much, in fact, that you might not even know of any, I'd warrant.

Here's a damning counterpoint: Gays and lesbians... EXIST!

Also, again, Infertile people have equal rights even though they can't procreate.

So, in conclusion, idiot pwned.

Come on, homophobes and religious folk. Give me one reason for why gays shouldn't marry that I can't show to be stupid and I'll personally give you five bucks.

And then think of this: If you can't stump some internet jackass like me, maybe your opinion isn't very well thought-out.

 

[Pogrom]

This is a great thread. There has been some extremely well thought out and persuasive responses. What more, they've been firmly based in reality, logic and tolerance.

Go mechagodzilla and Neutrino! :cheers:

One thing I would like to clear up: What exactly is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Are there different rights and privileges pertaining to them?

If not, why not just call it a gay marriage and get it over with?

 

[Viperidae]

I think the keyword here is homophobe. As in they're scared of them. And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering... Gay people are suffering because of this fear. Why are they afraid? I can tell you if you wish.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Go mechagodzilla and Neutrino! :cheers:

I can't vouch for Neutrino, but I will continue to "go" until I either get bored or have to pay someone five bucks. Guess which will happen first.

One thing I would like to clear up: What exactly is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Are there different rights and privileges pertaining to them?

If not, why not just call it a gay marriage and get it over with?

The answer is that there is no difference. The name change is just petty religious exclusionism. One christian doesn't like another, so he makes the other guy as different has he can. In this case, it's the name that keeps the homophobe christians feeling superior to the gay christians.

"They might be 'equal' now, but they didn't get the name they wanted! Hah! We're still marginally better!"

If gays could have marriages too, then there would be absolutely no difference between them and those who hate them. And the haters don't want that.

They want to be as different as possible, because they must realise on some level that they are just like what they fear. Caging gays off into the falsely seperate civil union makes them feel safe.


Come on people! Five bucks!

 

[f|uke]

Merc posts nothing but hostile, negative, crap. Every post I've read of his is flaming somebody for something.
What a jerk.
And yah, Mech done pwn'd 'im.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't know what is more frightening. That 27% of the poll wants the removal of other's freedoms, or that 26% doesn't care enough to stop them.

Well, I guess I do know which is more frightening. But 26% is still unreasonable.

 

[bgesley426]

Undecided voters are the most ignorant and lazy people on the face of the earth. Therefore making them unintelligent and uncaring. If you don't have an opinion don't be registered or at least don't vote.

 

[I Eat Babies]

I don't know what is more frightening. That 27% of the poll wants the removal of other's freedoms, or that 26% doesn't care enough to stop them.

Well, I guess I do know which is more frightening. But 26% is still unreasonable.

Who says that voting "Dont Care" mean you dont have the balls to stand up for other's human rights. Don't care simply means its their life and they can do what they want.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Who says that voting "Dont Care" mean you dont have the balls to stand up for other's human rights. Don't care simply means its their life and they can do what they want.

No, Don't care means you don't care. The question is "should same sex marriages be legal?" and if you say you don't care, that means you aren't taking a stance. You're not for the discrimination, but you're also certainly not against it.

It's like this:

Q: Should religious discrimination be made a law?

A: Meh.

People should care about this. The fact that they don't scares me. It's one of the biggest issues since black people's equality was debated but instead of Martin Luther King, we've got "I don't care."

"It's their life and they can do what they want." is what the "yes" option means.

Legalising gay marriage is what makes that option avaliable.

 

[I Eat Babies]

I personally beleive that gay people should be able to be married, but should not be able to adopt/artificially inseminate due to the social abuses the child would suffer. Kids have a hard enough time these days with a normal family, their life would be a living hell if they had 2 dads or 2 moms.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

So it's "No", and you're a instant homophobic, hated by mechgodzilla and the like, if you vote "Yes", you could be described and asked if you are gay/lesbian, and if you vote "Don't Care" you're a lazy slob .... Makes me REALLY want to vote !

 

[bgesley426]

I personally beleive that gay people should be able to be married, but should not be able to adopt/artificially inseminate due to the social abuses the child would suffer. Kids have a hard enough time these days with a normal family, their life would be a living hell if they had 2 dads or 2 moms.

What if those two dads were super buff weighlifting construction workers?

Givem hell dads!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So it's "No", and you're a instant homophobic, hated by mechgodzilla and the like, if you vote "Yes", you could be described and asked if you are gay/lesbian, and if you vote "Don't Care" you're a lazy slob .... Makes me REALLY want to vote !

You're not a homophobe if you can give a single explanation as to why "outlawing gay marriage is good" that isn't stupid.
So far though, I am absolutely certain that no such argument exists, hence the five buck thing.

I repeat: Any person who can put up a good argument for outlawing gay marriage will get five bucks and as much respect as I could ever give them.

And, so far, no one has accused any yes-voter of homosexuality. I hope we're mature enough here that that won't happen.

Also, "don't care" voters might not be lazy, but they definitely are trivializing the whole issue by not giving a damn.

So, vote whatever you want. If you can find an actual good reason to vote 'no', I'll give you five bucks.
If you vote 'yes', then you're proven smart.
Sounds like incentive to me.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

And, so far, no one has accused any yes-voter of homosexuality. I hope we're mature enough here that that won't happen.

Really ? - It must be noted that this was a real question, not a insult.

Or you gay? Just wondering.

Uh. No.

Second Evidence :

Also, "don't care" voters might not be lazy, but they definitely are trivializing the whole issue by not giving a damn.

The question is "should same sex marriages be legal?" and if you say you don't care, that means you aren't taking a stance. You're not for the discrimination, but you're also certainly not against it.

It's like this:
Q: Should religious discrimination be made a law?
A: Meh.

Third Evidence :

If you vote 'yes', then you're proven smart.

How are they proven smart exactly ?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I personally beleive that gay people should be able to be married, but should not be able to adopt/artificially inseminate due to the social abuses the child would suffer. Kids have a hard enough time these days with a normal family, their life would be a living hell if they had 2 dads or 2 moms.

I'm sorry, but preventing a crime (and bullying is actually a crime) by preventing the victims from ever existing is a tad extreme, no?

That's like moving all the black people out of America just because someone might yell an epiphet at them.

How will any civil rights be gained if everyone just up and leaves? What if, in the face of extreme intolerance in the 1960's, all the black people had just retreated back to Africa? It would just give the bigots exactly what they want.

Children with gay parents are not the problem. Those millions of dumbass gradeschoolers are, along with all the moves to ban books like "my two mommies" or whatever it's called. Kids are seeing that gays are hated, and are treating them accordingly. If we keep treating "gay" as an insult, then it will always be one.

And if we run and hide by "protecting" these kids by preventing them from being born to willing parents, it only gives more power to the ignorant who think that "******" is a devastating pile of wit.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Really ? - It must be noted that this was a real question, not a insult.

Spoiler

Well, not many people take tredo too seriously.

It was, however, a mostly innocent question. Being gay isn't a bad thing, and the answer was a swift "no". End of story. No mockery or accusation.

Second Evidence :

So, I said that people who say that they don't care aren't making a stance.
That's what "not caring" means!

Third Evidence : [...] How are they proven smart exactly ?

That was my personal opinion. Since I already stated how I think the other two options are stupid, that means the last is (at least) 'smart' by default.

I don't see why you are so defensive towards the prospect that others might not agree with you. Just vote for whoever you want. The poll is anonymous.

 

[moppe]

I checked through the thread quickly, and I'll have to say that it's legal in Sweden.

Or so it was last time I checked?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I checked through the thread quickly, and I'll have to say that it's legal in Sweden.

Or so it was last time I checked?

I'm pretty sure Canada was the first to legalise gay marriage, but I dunno what other countries have done so since.

It'd give me a whole new respect for the swedes if that's the case though.

 

[Shakermaker]

I'm pretty sure Canada was the first to legalise gay marriage, but I dunno what other countries have done so since.
It'd give me a whole new respect for the swedes if that's the case though.

I don't want to turn this thread into a pissing contest about countries that legalise gay marriage but the Netherlands was first. Mayor Job Cohen of Amsterdam tied the first 4 knots on april 1st 2001. Read more about it here. I am all for gay marriage. We're alle equal, whether we like the other sex or our own.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't want to turn this thread into a pissing contest about countries that legalise gay marriage but the Netherlands was first. Mayor Job Cohen of Amsterdam tied the first 4 knots on april 1st 2001. Read more about it here. I am all for gay marriage. We're alle equal, whether we like the other sex or our own.

Cool, that's good news. I guess it wasn't much publicised though, since I really do remember hearing about the "first gay marriage" on the CBC recently. In retrospect, it was probably the "first canadian gay marriage."

So, in my previous related posts, please pretend "Canada" is read as "The Netherlands".

 

[oldagerocker]

The answer is that there is no difference. The name change is just petty religious exclusionism. One christian doesn't like another, so he makes the other guy as different has he can. In this case, it's the name that keeps the homophobe christians feeling superior to the gay christians.

I think your talking complete crap. You've stated there is no difference between the meanings in the two terms and then you babble on about how different it is. The only person who thinks that one would be seen as more superior to the other is you.
There is no problem with religion not accepting gay marriage, sure they are behind with the times but thats the religions lookout, not the governments.
If the poeple want gay marraige legal, let them have it. But atleast let the word 'marriage' remain link to that man and woman connotation, be it religious or not in origin doesn't mean its worthless. The change in name makes no difference but to highlight the change in sex in partner, to show the union is of civil acceptance, okay not religious but who cares? it's just one word.

It's like me saying i feel oppressed by the world because poeple won't call me a girl, im not a girl, im a guy... the gay 'marriage' is not a marriage it is a civil union. Quit trying to make out the worlds full of homophobes as you keep calling everyone, it sounds quite paranoid to me.

 

[falconwind]

i say no... whats next? gay couples adopting kids and raising them as a gay person?

imagine the life of that kid...OHH theres the kid with 2 daddys!!!!

You might find it interesting to know that the VAST MAJORITY of gay people are raised by a straight couple.

:O

I know, it's surprising...

About half of Canada is gay-marriage friendly, with the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and the territory of the Yukon, having deemed it unconstitutional to not allow them. That accounts for the districts containing 75% of all people in the country.

I find it funny that in the US, the religious right wingers don't like the courts to allow same-sex unions, but they're perfectly willing for them to disallow them.

It's stupid that the real issue is obscured by arguments over semantics. However, both sides are guilty of causing this.

Bush doesn't help thing either, trying to get it banned. Obviously he's (and his religious lobbyyists fanclub) never heard of the seperation between church and state. If he bans gay marriage, the US will have become a religious government, and can no longer claim to be secular.

 

[Sprafa]

Although I was once agaisnt this, today I totally agree with it.

Unfortunately my country doesn't even allows abortion.

 

[Kangy]

Mrh.

I don't agree with forcing religious centres to perform a homosexual marriage, but I agree with homosexuals being allowed to have a civil union type joining 100%.

 

[falconwind]

Mrh.

I don't agree with forcing religious centres to perform a homosexual marriage, but I agree with homosexuals being allowed to have a civil union type joining 100%.

In Canada, the churches have the descretion of whether or not to perform the ceremony. Churches can no more be forced to marry two people than they can be forced not to marry two people.

The gay couple can always go to an authorized government official.

 

[Matthias]

No, what I proposed would be insane. Society would collapse without a solid grasp on wording and such.

'Gay' used to mean 'happy'. The meaning of words changes without society collapsing...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think your talking complete crap. You've stated there is no difference between the meanings in the two terms and then you babble on about how different it is.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that they are exactly identical in every possible way, except one arbitrary point: the name.

Now why, if the two marriages are exactly identical, would one need a new and unwieldly name? Especially when the people who invented the idea want to refer to it as marriage?

My theory is that it gives anti-gay marriage folks a reassuringly false sense that they are still different from those sinful freaks.

Have any of these people ever been so concerned about a matter of lexicography in their entire lives? I doubt it.

The only person who thinks that one would be seen as more superior to the other is you.

Okay, then please give me one good reason why gays can't be allowed to call thier marriage 'marriage.'

There is no problem with religion not accepting gay marriage, sure they are behind with the times but thats the religions lookout, not the governments.

Ah, but there's the problem. It's becoming the government's "lookout", and that lookout is based on - guess what? - the religious vote.

As i've repeated, there is absolutley no reason to ban gay marriages outside of religious and homophobic concerns.

Therefore, the only possible reasons why Bush would attempt this plan would be:

1: He wants to make his personal beliefs law, screwing over the rest.
-or-
2: He wants to make the beliefs of the majority vote into law, screwing over the rest.

If the poeple want gay marraige legal, let them have it. But atleast let the word 'marriage' remain link to that man and woman connotation, be it religious or not in origin doesn't mean its worthless. The change in name makes no difference but to highlight the change in sex in partner, to show the union is of civil acceptance, okay not religious but who cares? it's just one word.

Obviously you care, or else you wouldn't be arguing. Many people want to be allowed to have gay, christian marriages under their interpretations of the bible.

But now they have to have been assigned this de-religioned term to describe them. It's like if I said you couldn't call the holy cross "the holy cross," but a "prayer stick" instead.

It's like me saying i feel oppressed by the world because poeple won't call me a girl, im not a girl, im a guy... the gay 'marriage' is not a marriage it is a civil union. Quit trying to make out the worlds full of homophobes as you keep calling everyone, it sounds quite paranoid to me.

Maybe we won't call you a girl. But you are only one person.

But think of it like this: what if there are tens of thousands of girls out there who want to be called girls, but aren't allowed because they are not christian enough.

Instead, they're labeled "non-male counterparts". Even though they are women, and are only marginally different from the commonly accepted "girls".

Sounds just a tad demeaning to me, but that's what you are proposing for the gays.

I'm only calling people homophobes when they say that they support discriminating against gays for no good reason.

If I'm paranoid, I'd hate to know what the people who have no good points are called.

 

[moppe]

I'm pretty sure Canada was the first to legalise gay marriage, but I dunno what other countries have done so since.

It'd give me a whole new respect for the swedes if that's the case though.

It's legal, I've checked it up now.

 

[Dalamari]

If gay people wanna marry eachother, fine with me, marry a toaster if you want. This country is about freedom, they should be able to do whatever they want without some law smacking them in the face.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

If gay people wanna marry eachother, fine with me, marry a toaster if you want. This country is about freedom, they should be able to do whatever they want without some law smacking them in the face.

Add the "as long as they do not harm others" clause onto that, and you've summed it up perfectly.

 

[Matthias]

I repeat: Any person who can put up a good argument for outlawing gay marriage will get five bucks and as much respect as I could ever give them.

Gay marriage should be outlawed because a certain interpretation of a 2000 year old book says so. Right I'll just set up a paypal account...

Seriously though, being gay used to be illegal, black people had to use a seperate bathroom, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Things change, it's called progress...

 

[falconwind]

Sure homosexual parents can care for kids, they can adopt or have surragate babies but i dont think society should promote this, this is not the familly structure i dont believe is natural for a child to grow up in or to have to explain why all the other kids have moms or dads and he/she doesn't when they start school.

If this were the 1960's you'd be saying that interacial couples could care for kids and adopt, but it shouldn't be encouraged. Because this is an unnatural family structure. A child should not have to explain to other kids why his parents aren't of the same race when all their parents are.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Gay marriage should be outlawed because a certain interpretation of a 2000 year old book says so. Right I'll just set up a paypal account...

Dang, I hoped you were for real for a second there.

If anyone can give me one good reason, the offer still stands.

In fact, let's up the stakes. 40 canadian dollars for the person who can give one non-stupid reason why a gay marriage ban is not a horrible, horrible idea!

Also: Falconwind proves his point there quite nicely. :thumbs: It's only unnatural if you treat it as such.

And even then, it's the special treatment that's unnatural.

 

[falconwind]

MARRIGE in itself is a constitution between a MAN and a WOMAN... if gay couples want to unite, superglue them, i dont give a hoot, but DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE because it isnt.... Marriage was constituded to unite a man and a woman, and it was made around the ideology that gay or lesbian are unholy, which, in my opinion, they are not only unholy, but are naturally wrong. People who say they where born gay, have been brainwashed by their own feble spirituality....



Want to know why there wherent any cases of gay cavemen....... they where the first to be killed off by animals or other cavemen... natural selection does its job.

Holy crap... this has got to be the worst post i have ever read.

In all likelihood, there MUST have been LOTS of, at least, bisexual cavemen. It get's lonely out on long hunts, you know. I think homosexuality is a very innocent and natural thing. I mean, unknown millions of straight men have played "i'll show you mine, if you show me yours" as children. And innocent, unbiased children are the single most abundant source of natural truth in the world. The idea that homosexuality is unnatural is a misconception drilled into society by religious book-thumpers.