Should same sex marriages be legal?

[Mechagodzilla]

I like how he claims to have an understanding of prehistoric behaviour, and also completely ignores the fact that his opinion that gays shouldn't marry today all but proves that homosexuality is encouraged by natural selection.

It's been going on since before we were human (by his own admission), and still happens everywhere today (by his own admission).

He proves himself wrong very well.

 

[kiwii]

would you like gordon to marrie dr.kliener or barney?? or even G-man!? I THINK NOT! thats just wrong... gman and gordon gettin freaky in the bed and shit.. goddamit..

heh i voted dont know;D

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, at least it was an educated vote...

 

[PvtRyan]

This type of thread belongs to the list of threads where 'does God exist?', 'pro-abortion?', 'should guns be allowed?' and 'should drugs be legal' threads belong: threads that go bad really fast but keep coming back.

I'm all for gay marriage btw.

 

[falconwind]

would you like gordon to marrie dr.kliener or barney?? or even G-man!? I THINK NOT! thats just wrong... gman and gordon gettin freaky in the bed and shit.. goddamit..

heh i voted dont know;D

i don't know, Barney is kinda cute :naughty: muhuhahaha! :sniper:

 

[Brian Damage]

Yeah, I've got no problem with it.

 

[Fat Tony!]

Yes, but not in a church. (then again they now have gay bishops, people complain about this but sooner or later it will become the norm)

 

[oldagerocker]

meh fair enough, you all raise some good points. The law should be fairer, i suppose the marriage does bind the people together, rather than giving benefits that married couples get to cohabiting partners, them getting married and then recieving benefits would be better.

 

[Yakuza]

Yes, it should be legal. Banning gay marriage is a form of religious intolerance and a law that would do so goes against the first amendment and the concept of seperation of church and state.

I respect that some religions don't support gay marriage and that's fine by me. No religious organization should be forced to accept it. However, other religions do support gay marriage so by banning it you are interferring with that religion. Thus it is religious interference and intolerance.

Another way to look at it is that the only way to justify such a ban is through religous reasons. The government cannot use the beliefs and practices of one religion to suppress the beliefs and practices of another. That is wrong.

Furthermore, it does not affect or harm anyone else and therefore should be no one's concern. People don't question and examine the sex lives of hetrosexuals and they have no reason to do the same for homosexuals. It's there business and thier business alone.

Well from a scientific point there is no beneift for two people of the same sex being together. they can not reproduce. Further more same sex couples are more likely to have extra marital relationships, taking this from the the studies done on gay relationships. i forget what the exact % is but it was high.

Also i did a study on the raising of children in unstable homes. This wasn't homosexualy centered but the study showed that children who live with a two parent family, with one mom and one dad, do better in school, less likely to get in trouble( even crimnal activity), less prone to act of in a homosexualy lifestyle.

Children learn how to interact with people by whatching you and the other person you are with. How hard would it be for a male growing up with two dadies to interact with some one of the opposite sex.

 

[KagePrototype]

Also i did a study on the raising of children in unstable homes. This wasn't homosexualy centered but the study showed that children who live with a two parent family, with one mom and one dad, do better in school, less likely to get in trouble( even crimnal activity), less prone to act of in a homosexualy lifestyle.

Children learn how to interact with people by whatching you and the other person you are with. How hard would it be for a male growing up with two dadies to interact with some one of the opposite sex.

Gay couples already live together with adopted children, so banning gay marriage won't do anything in this respect. It will just give the couple legal maritial status.

 

[Kangy]

with one mom and one dad, do better in school, less likely to get in trouble( even crimnal activity), less prone to act of in a homosexualy lifestyle.

What.on.earth.

You're saying it's mostly homosexuals breakimg into cars and throwing stones at windows in their youth now?

I think you have a few things mixed up.

 

[Shadowlands5325]

I don't care because I am atheist.

But I believe its disrespectful to the people who marry because of religion purposes and saying that its a sin. So no Gays should marry. They could have unions and have the same rights but calling it a marriage is just trying to piss people of beliefs. Union yes marriage no.

 

[Someone]

Yes, it should be legal. Banning gay marriage is a form of religious intolerance and a law that would do so goes against the first amendment and the concept of seperation of church and state.

Ditto.....

I'm in favor of all people getting fair and equal treatment under the law.

If there is a God...He/She/It will deal with us when we die and we shouldn't be forced into a specific view, or opinion, here on earth.

 

[Warbie]

What's a civil union?

 

[Shadowlands5325]

What's a civil union?

Not marriage but a union between 2 people and could have the same benefits as married couple. Usually design for athiest I believe but I think gays should use that too. I think its completely disrespectful doing that GAYS GETTING Married.

 

[DigitalAssassin]

What.on.earth.

You're saying it's mostly homosexuals breakimg into cars and throwing stones at windows in their youth now?

I think you have a few things mixed up.

Read his post again, that's not at all what he said. He was talking about unstable homes. Gay marriages have a history of being unstable. Is it a stereotype? Perhaps, but it is backed up with statistics.

'Hetero' marriages have much the same reputation now it seems, 52% divorce? It's disgusting. But at least the kid doesn't grow up confused while he still has a father and mother.

I think gay marriage is a bad idea. I'm a Christian, so you can go ahead and call it 'religious intolorance', but there are other reasons for me to believe the same thing. Their children is at the top of my list.

'Civil Union' without the right to raise children is as far as I go.

 

[Hapless]

Have you ever heard the saying that history is written by the victors.

Whoa, was there some war between gays and heteros that I wasn't aware of?

 

[Neutrino]

I know mecha already answered this, but I had a couple things to add. Again I don't mean to pick on you specifically oldagerocker, it's just that responding to your posts usually lets me make my points better.

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.

Technically no, from an objective viewpoint one is not superior than the other. However, it is different, and that's where the problem lies. Forcing two groups to use different names for the same thing is still one form of discrimination.

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.

Here I agree fully. No person or religious group should be forced to accept it and no church should be forced to have gay marriages if they don't want to.

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.

Well first, marriage doesn't have to have a religious meaning. It's only a religious ceremony for those that want it to be. If two atheists get married it's not a religious ceremony.

The part I highlighted above is where I see a problem with this argument. Like you say, a civil union shows "civil acceptance" but does not have a religious meaning. Then you ask who cares? Well what about a gay couple that are religious? To deny them the ability to call their marriage a marriage would be to interfere with their religion.

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.

If a religious gay couple go to a church which supports gay marriage and join in a union together in a religious ceremony, it is not marriage? What right does anyone have to tell them that their ceremony is not "true" marriage and that it was only a civil union? I don't see that anyone has that right.

To expand on my earlier point about the two terms being different I'd like to make a correlation between the argument that there should be a different word for gay and straight marriages and something which happened in the past.

Not all that long ago there was black segregation in schools. This was justified by the argument that both the black students and white students received the same treatment and the same education so there was no discrimination. After all, if you have two identical schools with identical curriculums and you fill one with white students and one with black students where's the problem?

Niether school is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to an education so what's the problem? But of course there was a problem. This is because they were forced to attend different schools. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing is illegal now.

Now let's take that above statement and change a few words shall we?

Niether union is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to a union so what's the problem? But of course there is a problem. This is because they are forced to use different names for their unions. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing should be illegal now.


I hope that maybe puts a different light on the "different but same" argument concerning marriage vs. civil union.

 

[bgesley426]

Read his post again, that's not at all what he said. He was talking about unstable homes. Gay marriages have a history of being unstable. Is it a stereotype? Perhaps, but it is backed up with statistics.

'Hetero' marriages have much the same reputation now it seems, 52% divorce? It's disgusting. But at least the kid doesn't grow up confused while he still has a father and mother.

I think gay marriage is a bad idea. I'm a Christian, so you can go ahead and call it 'religious intolorance', but there are other reasons for me to believe the same thing. Their children is at the top of my list.

'Civil Union' without the right to raise children is as far as I go.

So is it a morality issue or a civil rights issue for you? Or as Abe Simpson most excellently put it "A little from Column A, a little from Column B."


from an article "The Pope says so"

Gay unions provide more stability and security to adopted or medically-enhanced children than broken homes and struggling single mothers. Homosexuals account for roughly 6% of the population regardless of environmental influences. Despite prevailing misconceptions, biological factors account for the lion’s share of homosexuality, not faulty modeling or dysfunctional family relationships. Biological factors—not personal or moral depravity—also account for around 5% of the population afflicted with alcoholism. There’s no evidence—scientific or otherwise--indicating that children raised in gay unions have any more chance of homosexuality than children raised in traditional families. “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children . . .” said the document, perpetuating pernicious propaganda about homosexual relationships.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Here is my thought on the subject. I had a chance to ponder it this morning. Currently, there is no real form of gay 'marriage', but there needs to be one. The majority of people in this country are against it. What is so wrong about finding a middle ground in civil unions, which provide equal rights under law. In politics you cannot get every single one of your demands met, but you people seem to think so. Nothing will ever get accomplished if conservatives keep calling for an Amendment and liberals keep calling for gay 'marriage'.

 

[oldagerocker]

Niether union is superior to the other, both groups get the same rights and the same access to a union so what's the problem? But of course there is a problem. This is because they are forced to use different names for their unions. This kind of segregation has been shown to be discriminating and is of course why this sort of thing should be illegal now.


I hope that maybe puts a different light on the "different but same" argument concerning marriage vs. civil union.

Good stuff, im glad you explained that, i get it now.
Now stop picking on me lol ! :bounce: :thumbs:

i was listening to the news earlier and they happened to be talking about gay marraige, i was like... "wtf... i was chatting about this on a forum last night!". i didnt realise it was such a huge debate over there, i hope Kerry gets voted in and it becomes legal. They interviewed some guy who said something like,

"to gay couples marraige means exactly the same to them emotionally as straight couples, both can adopt kids etc so they should get the same rights as the straight couples"

and i realised this was what you lot were trying to explain to me and it makes sense.

 

[Phisionary]

If calling it a 'civil union' is what it needs to be recognized nationally by all states (as regular marriage is), then I could accept that. It's a pointless hedge, and Mecha's arguments are true, but it would work I suppose. I think it would change given time.

Although... it's certainly possible that, having been established as law, it would be much harder to change the definition (i.e. get rid of the 'civil union' garbage) after the fact...

 

[Yakuza]

What.on.earth.

You're saying it's mostly homosexuals breakimg into cars and throwing stones at windows in their youth now?

I think you have a few things mixed up.

I said two parents on mom and one dad. Children with one parent are several times more likely to be criminals.

what are you talkking about?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Electing Kerry will not get it passed into law btw.

 

[ShadowFox]

Whoa, was there some war between gays and heteros that I wasn't aware of?

That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Obviously, I was talking about the fact that Christianity is the biggest religion in the world today.

 

[Yakuza]

I believe gay marriage is wrong. I dont believe that God intended for two peole of the same sex to unite like this. Yet as an american I have to look at what this country says about something like this. My country says that all people are given by their creator certain unaliable rights, life, lyberty, and the pursiute of happiness. I do not think human beings should be discriminated for whatever beliefs they uphold and all people should be given the same chance to a happy life as the rest of us. Yet I do not agree with it and I will stand firm in what I believe. and in the same country that gives them a chance to fight with what the believe I have the freedom to oppose it.

I dont think that two people of the same sex should be together, but I dont not think that people should not be able to acquire certain benifits because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Neutrino]

Electing Kerry will not get it passed into law btw.

True. Kerry is against gay marriage, but is for civil unions. I'm in disagreement with him on this, obviously, as I am for gay marriage.

However, Kerry opposes the federal consitutional ban on gay marriage while Bush supports it. That's a very important point for me.

 

[switch]

I say yes because it has no effect to me. All it means is that those who want to get better legal protections from separation or death which can only be a good thing, cant it?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I'd like to see you respond to this Neutrino. I'm interested in how you would respond.

Here is my thought on the subject. I had a chance to ponder it this morning. Currently, there is no real form of gay 'marriage', but there needs to be one. The majority of people in this country are against it. What is so wrong about finding a middle ground in civil unions, which provide equal rights under law. In politics you cannot get every single one of your demands met, but people seem to think so. Nothing will ever get accomplished if conservatives keep calling for an Amendment and liberals keep calling for gay 'marriage'.

 

[oldagerocker]

I said two parents on mom and one dad. Children with one parent are several times more likely to be criminals.

Very true, young boys need father figures and discipline (sp) . :dork:

 

[ATI4EVER!]

OK umm...before i say what i think, in this book called "yes your parents are crazy! A teenagers survival guide" it says that homosexuals do not choose to be it, they are born that way and whatever. Same thing with the other ppl that like want to be the other sex or whatever. So i think that saying that they can't mary is pretty lame. It isn't their fault, and i think that they should be allowed to do what they want.

Kerry opposes same-sex-marriges, but Bush wants to go one ste further by putting it in the constitution that it is not allowed.

Pretend you are gay, how would u feel if you were not allowed to?

Oh, and just fo funzies a survey shows that 1 in 11 people is "gay" in a way. by "gay" i don't mean just homosexual, but hetrosexual and whatever else there is (wait, is hetrosexual the "normal" one?) ANyways, i think i know that you know what i mean.

 

[Apos]

Well from a scientific point there is no beneift for two people of the same sex being together. they can not reproduce.

Same for a sterile couple. So? They can, and DO, have kids.
Also, it is illegitimate to speak of "benefit" in terms of science. Science is not normative.

Further more same sex couples are more likely to have extra marital relationships, taking this from the the studies done on gay relationships. i forget what the exact % is but it was high.

Let's see: gay people can't be allowed to make lifelong socially recognized commitments to each other, but then they also get blamed for... not being as committed in their partnerships. Seems like a pretty unfair deal.

Also i did a study on the raising of children in unstable homes.

No, you never did any meaningful study. People that actually conduct real studies don't refer to "scientific point."

Children learn how to interact with people by whatching you and the other person you are with.

Ah, so you were invited into your parent's relationship and lovemaking sessions were you?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ah, so you were invited into your parent's relationship and lovemaking sessions were you?

How did you find out about that! DAMMIT!

 

[Apos]

Kerry opposes same-sex-marriges, but Bush wants to go one ste further by putting it in the constitution that it is not allowed.

Kerry has only said he'd be willing to oppose same-sex marriage IF gay couples were granted the same sorts of legal protections and benefits that straight couples get. He has fought for the rights of gay families no matter which way the political wind blows. And in the end, that's far better for society than leaving gay families legally and socially isolated. They are going to exist no matter what: so why not make them a functional part of society rather than making it hard on them?

 

[ShadowFox]

http://kevxml2adsl.verizon.net/_1_2...0&qcat=usnews&ran=17434&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1

 

[falconwind]

I should send Bush this quote on a postcard.

"As President, I have no eyes but constitutional eyes." - Abraham Lincoln.

I fear for the United States should Bush's constitutional ban succeed. The president should uphold the constitution, not change it to suit him. This is a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. Secular government is at risk in the US of A.

 

[Phraxtion]

I dont understand how marriage between a man and woman and a man and man can be called the same thing.. its not. Im a straight male but you dont hear me complaing that I want to be called a gay male, why.. cause its not the same thing. Even though it would be a union between two people its not the same, you have same/oppisite sexes. Why is this so difficult?

 

[Foxtrot]

I should send Bush this quote on a postcard.

"As President, I have no eyes but constitutional eyes." - Abraham Lincoln.

I fear for the United States should Bush's constitutional ban succeed. The president should uphold the constitution, not change it to suit him. This is a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. Secular government is at risk in the US of A.

Crapily quoting someone else, the consitution is a living evolving object.

 

[f|uke]

Crapily quoting someone else, the consitution is a living evolving object.

Never has it been altered to restrict rights. This would indeed be a dangerous precident. Its a good thing the House has more sense then the President.

I dont understand how marriage between a man and woman and a man and man can be called the same thing.. its not.

As Nutrino pointed out earlier, Marriam Webster dissagrees with you:

Main Entry: mar·riage
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Of course you dont want to be called gay. You're not. Thats a black/white issue. The definition of marriage, however, is clearly not.

 

[Phraxtion]

Ah... that must be the new "tolerant" version.. scary.