Gay Marriage

Remove all ads!

What are your veiws on gay marriage?

Personally, I think gay marriage should be allowed in all states, and should not be discriminated against or looked down upon. One has the right to be "legally bound" to another, am I correct? The difference of sex in this case, be it same or opposite from your own, should not matter. A man should be able to marry another man, and a woman should be able to marry another woman.

I'm from the south-eastern United States, Georgia specifically, and I think that the main reason for homosexual union being banned is because it was banned in the Bible, which plays a huge role in most Southern states, as well as a role in many people's decision across this nation. What that reveals to me, is that gay marriage is banned in most states because the Christian Bible says it is wrong. (Can you see where im going?) So that boils down to church ruling state, which is banned in the constitution. So if America wants to maintain an image of being a country that accepts all religions and no religions as its own, then they need to come up with a damn good reason of why they ban gay marriage.

I also don't see why people nowadays think homosexuality is so bad apart from the Christian Bible. I mean, half the greeks were gay, Socrates was, Aristotle was. There was nothing wrong in those days for a man to love another man, and the same with women.

O yea, I would really appreciate it if posters would be considerate and mature enough to leave all slandering of homosexuality out of ANY AND ALL your posts. And any threatening PMs can be sent to donteventhinkaboutit@bellsouth.net

 

I agree with you 100%.

*fastens devil's advocate hat, which is not to suggest that the opposite side of this arguement is, in fact, the devil*

Because homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible, it is concluded that it is wrong and immoral. Because it is forbidden in the bible, it is akin to child molestation, rape, murder, and all sorts of sinful activity that degrade us as human beings and are an affront to all that God wants for his children. On that side of the arguement, governments should not recognize anything as being legal that would be recognized by the bible as morally corrupt.

That pretty well covers my impression of the other side's arguement. To accept this arguement however, you have to consider the bible to be an unwavering beacon of truth that should be taken at face value and considered a manual for modern life. And those who do not, according to holders of this belief, are misguided, morally displaced, and above all...wrong.

I think part of the problem in our country with this is that people are confusing gay marriage with civil unions, and there is a difference. If your particular church does not perform or permit gay marriage, and I can't think of one that does, you can still commit yourself to the lifelong love and devotion of another person. For this reason, I think it is perfectly acceptable for same-sex couples in this situation to be recognised and allowed benefits that a man-woman couple would receive.

It begs the question, what about kids? If they aren't raising a family, why do they need governmental benefits? By taking this position, you're effectively saying that all couples with no kids aren't really married, according to the law, and thus deserve no benefits. I disagree, and most childless couples would as well.

 

I'm tired of people trying to make others live according to the tenets of a religion that they don't hold to.


LEGALLY, I think the same sex union deserves to be recognized. What I believe in above all else is love, and love transcends the bonds of gender stereotypes. If two people love each other and are committed to each other, why should the triviality that they're of the same gender stop one from making medical or legal decisions for the other, or deny them tax breaks? Call it a legal union if you must to quench the flames of the religious right that wants to reserve the word "marriage" for a sacrament, but give them the status they deserve.

 

Against. Just as concubinate is not marriage, gay relationship is not marriage.

Marriage relies upon man and woman complementing each other. Only together are they complete. After all, males and females we are, aren't we?

Marriage, also, is aimed at having family and raising children. Bull****, some people will say, but let's think: just how old is modern contraception, reducing conception probability to about 1%? A few decades, a century, depending how you look at it. And marriage has been... always.

Only man and woman are able to breed offspring. Only such unions, therefore should raise children. One dies? One leaves? Life is tough. But a second mummy or a second daddy is not the same. It's not a valid counterpart of the missing parent. Nor a valid replacement.

In addition to that, states promote family and the growth of the nation through the special status of marriage under law. Including tax breaks and making important decisions. If you want someone else to make decisions for you, it's no big deal. You just sign a paper letting him to. Don't need marriage for that. Tax breaks? Heterosexuals have children and they have to pay for them, you know. Homosexuals can "have" children too? Well, no. Arguments against that come in this post too.

What's more, in homosexual carnal intercourse between two males, only one man performs the insertion and the other submits to it. In a fashion taken after heterosexual intercourse but incomplete because of natural conditions. Between two females there is in fact no intercourse at all.

I go even further. I don't want my future children to be taught in schools that gay sex is perfectly all right or that gay marriage is so.

At some point a border must be set. They are already legal to have sex their way. What else do they want? It's not about rights. And human or civil rights least of that. It's about promoting a view, a way of life and an aggressive minority group. Minorities as a rule tend to be aggressive and never satiated, always wanting depenalisation first, recognition second, some rights fird, then equal rights, special protective rights etc until they would virtually rule over the majority. That's the point of minorities and that's basically how the gay lobby works. No matter what rights they are given, they will always want more.

 

Wow, what a conspiracy theory.

I say let them do whatever suits them best, this is the 21st century, we don't burn witches anymore. If they wanna get married, that's fine with me.

 

I think it is fairly obvious that two men living together or two women living together should be able to enjoy the same legal boons as a male and a woman living together does. Marriage transcends religion, there shouldnt be anything that stops particular churches or temples from doing the ceremony for gay couples but then again I cant understand why any gay person would ever want to have anything to do with any religioun which states that they should be stoned to death.

Frankly put the bible or the koran and their respective churches and any other religion should have no say whatsoever over persons who havent voluntarily subscribed to their tenets.

I wont even bother to adress Chev's "post", he should however watchout so the immense gay conspiracy dont find out about his views and forces him to group sodomi.

 

@ Chev

Your interpretation. Mine is two people who love one another, devoting themselves to a life spent together.

If this is true, do you think straight couples who choose not to have children should be punished somehow? Like they forfeit their wedding vows if they don't squeeze out a puppy? What about the union of an impotent man and an infertile woman? Can they be married?

And marriage has not been...always. Not every culture subscribes to this ideal.

I don't know what kind of scary ass elementary school you went to, but formal marriage wasn't even discussed in my school, in an extremely conservative, religious state. Separation of church and state protects children from being taught morality and religion in school, so this is a non issue.

That borders on flat out bigotry. Don't give minorities an inch, they'll take the place over? Thank you, Dr. Martin Luther Chev. You're open mindedness is inspiring.

You've shown me the future: Barbara Streisand is president, "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor is the national anthem, every police officer performs body cavity searches for EVERY crime, and you get arrested if you wear brown shoes with a blue blazer, all in a sweeping reform with the introduction of the world's first "Fashion Laws."

All because we let Burt and Ernie get married.

Come on. You know I like you, but that's a stretch, even for you.

[ January 13, 2004, 22:43: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Chevy wrote:

I agree with Chevy here. That is so, children are necessary for a marriage to be valid. And if there are no children, the marriage is void. But, then came the great shism and as shiite, I just do not care.

 

Thank you, but I stay with Rome

I'm doing my best.

Name one.

Marriage is not only a religious thing but also a social one. Social things tend to be included in schools' curriculum. Biology includes the subject of sexual activity. At least in this country there's also Civic Education. And there's always literature, a choice of compulsory read following.

No, they should not. It's enough tragedy for them if they can't have children. Trust me, there's more than safe sex to infertile couples. Those who choose not to have children are still able to. With one another.

Well, gay people are still free to marry. With a person of opposite gender. Mind you, gender is not a stereotype. Gender is quite a tangible difference, as I sufficiently described above, going so far as intercourse technicals even.

You're missing the point. I was speaking about axiological foundations of marriage as an institution. There's no question of validity. Even gay marriages if they were ruled legal, they would still be valid under law.

 

I am in complete and total agreement with you, DR. Sorry, Chev - we agree on a lot of things, but this is not one of them.

From a purely legal and social standpoint, there is absolutely nothing wrong with same-sex marriages. The Church(es) may have something completely different to say about this, but here, where the church is separate from the government, the uber-moralists of the Religious Right can make no realistic argument against same-sex marriage that does not include some form of spiritual/religious doctrine against homosexuality. In other words, the government (ideally) shouldn't even bother with such problems, and just let these people bind themselves together in a legal fashion. The same may not apply to nations that DO have a church affiliated government, but it should here.

Besides, Christianity didn't invent marriage (or the concept of a family, for that matter), and really shouldn't try to dictate just what it is that can/cannot be considered a legal union of two people.

[Edit: A few people posted while I was composing - The Roman Catholic Church doesn't rule the world, Chev, and can't dictate its dogma out as law to non-RCers.

 

There are two forms of marriages (probably more) but I'm splitting them into the ones that I know.

Marriage by Religion (Christ, church etc) and then become married by law.

Homosexuals for all I care, should be able to be married by law. As for a wedding in Church following christian religion, I say not.

What kinda screwed up religion is it that is not allowed to follow it's own principles? I find it absolutely disgusting that a non-religious could alter the religious peoples religion. (sorry about getting a bit off topic, but there's a debate in Denmark right now whether homosexuals should have the right to be married in church or not).

As for banning legal marriages (non-religious), I find that disgusting. Has the stench of racism on it imo.

 

Ah - now letting homosexuals get married in a church - that's a WHOLE other issue.

 

I misspoke. What I meant to say is that religion didn't invent marriage, hence marriage shouldn't be bound to any religion. And I meant not everyone in every culture believes what you believe. Your vision of the ideal marriage isn't everyone elses. Many share your view, but - and I know this is damn near impossible for you to accept - your view isn't right for everyone. You, and those who share your beliefs, don't have the right to prevent others from following their own and living their lives in a civil, peaceful manner.

A more important point: tolerance and celebration aren't the same thing. You can allow something to happen without supporting it. Part of being a member of modern society is accepting the choices of those who are different from you, especially when those choices aren't hurting anyone. I'm not a big fan of forcing religion on kids, for example. In fact, I find it morally corrupt on several levels, but I understand and recognise people's right to do it.

That's not for you to decide. Again, forcing your views on others. There are many couples that I know of who never want to have children. Getting a vasectomy or having your tubes tied does not invalidate your marriage. I know a woman who was born infirtile. She can't have her own kids, and has never wanted any. She considers it a blessing. She and her husband are very happy, because he shares her view.

Is there marriage invalid? Wait, don't answer that. I don't care. They're happy, it's all that matters.

[ January 13, 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

I have no problem with gay marriages, for the reasons everyone else has outlined. I do think, however, that they should not be allowed a church marriage if the church opposes it.

 

Totally siding with DR here. I have always been a little more conservative than liberal, but Chev man, you are just pushing this too far.

According to the dictionary

Now, (a) is quickly becoming out of date, slowly being replaced by (c). I tend to go with that.

Saying that just because they cannot have kids they should not be married is to invade peoples freedoms.

Everyone deserves the right to be happy and secure. Would you like someone to take that away from you Chev?

If it was discovered that the person (notice the word) you loved was unable to have children with you, and some politician decided that you shouldn't be married, think of how that would make you feel. Would really suck, eh?

 

Oh, c'mon, friends! You don't need to be a Bible-thumping zealot to recognize the ridiculousness of gay marriage. Like chevalier has already pointed out, marriage has had a pret' basic definition for millennia across all major cultures - men and women bonding sexually, socially, publicly, and exclusively, ostensibly for life. Numbers varied (monogamy or polygny), not the genders.

Definitionally: 1) A man and woman having an illicit affair are not married to each other no matter how much they love each other. 2) A married couple that never has sex is still married in spite of their abstinence. And 3) a homosexual couple, no matter their deep affection for each other, aren't married either - they're just in a homosexual relationship. No more, no less. You don't have to make a moral judgement on whether homosexuality is good or evil. But we should resist the urge to conflate a homosexual relationship with marriage.

Let me 'splain. America has a real problem with whites-vs.-blacks racism. Companies discriminate against black workers in favor of whites. So let's have the courts solve the problem instantly: From now on, everyone will be called white. Now that we're all "legally" white, there'll be no more corporate racism! We can deal with sexism the same way: just redefine all women as men, and poof!, no more anti-woman discrimination! Now that we're all legally white males, we all get the benefits of being white males!

This seems to be the argument for calling a committed homosexual relationship "marriage". Homosexuals are discriminated against, compared to treatment for married people. So we fix the problem by redefining marriage. Poof! Problem solved!

Not even the oh-so-enlightened Greeks were crazy enough to call their socially-acceptable homosexual (and, incidentally, frequently pedophilic) relationships "marriage". Love affairs, yes, but not marriage. Frankly, those who favor homosexuality should be embarrassed that they have to sneak it into society by hijacking a millennia-old institution; those who oppose it should be rightly concerned about what could come next; and everyone should be horrified by the Orwellian abuse of language.

[EDIT: Jaguar, you posted just a moment before me. My dictionary doesn't list the same-sex proviso, but then again, it was published in 1993, so it only covers six millennia of definitional history. A lot can change in ten years.]

 

Gay peeps should be given exactly the same rights that others have a claim on.

That law denies them anything at all is an indicator that homosexuality *might* be something strange, flawed, unnatural, something WRONG - a notion that we (the oh so progressive open-minded Western World ) should have given up by now.
This mark of wrongness will only reassure certain elements of society in their believe that it is okay to subject homosexuals to discriminiation, abuse or worse.

Ignorant, intolerant individuals will probably always reject that which is not a common trait, thinking it cant be part of human nature or nature at all, but in my opinion the law shouldn't add to this.
Laws should liberate and protect the weak. Minorities are weak.

 

Grey, your definition of marriage isn't so old and unversal as you want to make as believe (and I have somehow the feeling you very well know, as you know a whole lot). Indeed, it's absurd in German, as the German meaning of marriage is "Ehe", "the right one". And logically, if there is a right one, it indicates the existence of other ones, and I think until the high middle ages, polygamy was still quite the hype in many European regions. So, why not be true to the roots and re-institute polygamy ?

If you get married an additional religious marriage is something you can choose to have, for marriage itself, religion is completly irrelevant. Like it has to be for all state functions.

Edit: If I think about it, it's propably the result of a political correctness wave, "Ehe".

[ January 14, 2004, 01:20: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Did you know in most states first cousins are not able to be legally married (this will make sense in a moment, I promise). The legal reason for this is the increase in birth defects assossiated with inbreading. Yet the chances of birth defects from a couple that are first cousins is almost the same as two unrelated persons; there's only an increase of something like .02%.
Now homosexual relations between two males is widely known to transfer HIV (if you don't believe me just look on one of the forms they make you fill out before you donate blood). So we are not allowing one couple to get married due to possible health hazzards while we allow another couple to be married while there are still possible health hazards. Strange, don't ya think?

 

May I quote Laches, as he has made a brilliant summary ?

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000157#000013

And I may add, HIV is transferred through contact of body-liquids. HIV gives a dam if this has been a heterosexual or a homosexual contact.