NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you don't even read this post, thinking it's just another ordinary same sex debate, just try reading this.

There seems to be lots of debate with same sex marriages, (duh) and I've been thinking. The people who support gay marriages say that it's their right, if they want to do it, then they should be able to. Those who are against it say that marriage has been a sacred institution for more than a thousand years, or the Bible says it's wrong. But the thing is, none of the above proofs or evidence doesn't support each other's views well enough. In other words, there is no right or wrong. The only time it even comes close to being right or wrong is if the government says it's OK (like up here in Canada) or that it's wrong. But even if the government says it's OK, it still doesn't mean that same sex marriages is right. For as long as humans live, there will always be that same debate.

Just a few thoughts on it. What do you think?

I disagree. I think that in 50 years we will look back on this debate the way we look back on the interracial marriage debate of the past.

Why should gays be forced to live in sin? Let them get married.

Maybe. But I think this deabte will go on longer than that one

Gay marriage will be legal in all developed contries at some point. Time has shown that no matter how much religous fanatics, conservatives, and the prejudiced people rant, whine, and protest, civil rights win out in the end.

Why should gays be forced to live in sin? Let them get married.

I didn't say they should be forced to live in sin

Gay marriage will be legal in all developed contries at some point. Time has shown that no matter how much religous fanatics, conservatives, and the prejudiced people rant, whine, and protest, civil rights win out in the end.

It can be legalised but it doesn't mean its right

I didn't say they should be forced to live in sin
If they live together and don't marry it's living in sin. That's how christians describe co-habitating heterosexual unmarried couples.

It can be legalised but it doesn't mean its right
Doesn't mean it's wrong either. It would however be fair.

Governmental or Legislative decisions never end debate ... after all, look at Roe v. Wade ... didn't exactly end all the fighting.

If gay marriage is made legal, great! I can assure you, however, that there will be plenty of fundie churches putting full page ads in newspapers about how they do not recognize the validity of said marriages and then run home cryin' to mama because nobody gives a shit what they think.

That said, a Governmental or Legislative decision isn't always right. Sometimes we do legislate the wrong things. Justice and morality are often mutually exclusive as are "fair" and "right".

None of that matters, though, because, in the end, we're all worm food. Sure, our souls may be off galavanting elsewhere, but last I checked, souls can't vote.

It can be legalised but it doesn't mean its right
As a general rule, the law reflects what the people *think* is right, whether what the people think is truely right or wrong. Sure, there may be people that disagree with the law, but those people are usually either: A)Ignored, or B)Part of the group of people that will advance the right(as in correct, not as in right-wing) while denoucing the wrong, and convincing others to do the same.

Well, I have absolutely no problem with legalizing gay marriage. Personally, I don't think anyone should have ever claimed that it was illegal in the first place. I mean, if Christians are against it because it is "against [their] religion", then maybe Atheists/non-Christians shouldn't get married either.

Make it ok under the law, but allow priets or other religious officials to refuse to do it, so a gay couple can have a civil marriage but not a religious, if religions refuse to accept gay marriage.

Haha. And the "sacredness of marriage" is falling apart anyway, now that women have their rights and men can't push them around anymore. The religious right is just griping for control.
...Sorry.
Anyway, I think there is a right, because a group of people are suffering and are being oppressed. It's the government's responsibility to reach out and help them.

Before you don't even read this post, thinking it's just another ordinary same sex debate, just try reading this.

There seems to be lots of debate with same sex marriages, (duh) and I've been thinking. The people who support gay marriages say that it's their right, if they want to do it, then they should be able to. Those who are against it say that marriage has been a sacred institution for more than a thousand years, or the Bible says it's wrong. But the thing is, none of the above proofs or evidence doesn't support each other's views well enough. In other words, there is no right or wrong. The only time it even comes close to being right or wrong is if the government says it's OK (like up here in Canada) or that it's wrong. But even if the government says it's OK, it still doesn't mean that same sex marriages is right. For as long as humans live, there will always be that same debate.

Just a few thoughts on it. What do you think?

I think we already have an excess of threads on this subject. That no one really cares what anyone else thinks about it. That most who have something to say on it, just want to convince everyone else that their way of thinking is "right" and that there is little point in discussing it further. And, yes, I read your post...

Make it ok under the law, but allow priets or other religious officials to refuse to do it, so a gay couple can have a civil marriage but not a religious, if religions refuse to accept gay marriage.

I think I said this in another thread, but I'll repeat it.

I have a suggestion for those who have religious qualms with gay marriage, but have no actual qualms with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriage should be redefined as the religious recognition of the wedding ceremony. The legal aspects of the union should be classified as a "civil union" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That way, the religious people can say that gay marriage isn't legal or recognized in the church, but homosexual couples (and their children, etc) will have the legal benefits that they need.

Why should gays be forced to live in sin? Let them get married.


Some would say being gay is a sin in its self.

Some would say being gay is a sin in its self.
Well, then they're commiting two sins by being unmarried and gay. Let's at least eliminate one of the sins.

Some would say being gay is a sin in its self.

Of course, those people are just as irrational as I would be if I said menstruating or liking the taste of chocolate were a sin.

Gays still have the right to get married, as long as it to someone of the opposite sex.

Gays still have the right to get married, as long as it to someone of the opposite sex.

Assuming that's a smartass remark, good shot.

However, if it's not a smartass remark, WTF.

It's neither right nor wrong. It's simply an expression of love between two consenting adults.

Gays still have the right to get married, as long as it to someone of the opposite sex.

Non sequitur. Couples (aka - pairs of individuals) are granted the privileges/protections of marriage, individuals are not.

Well, I have absolutely no problem with legalizing gay marriage. Personally, I don't think anyone should have ever claimed that it was illegal in the first place. I mean, if Christians are against it because it is "against [their] religion", then maybe Atheists/non-Christians shouldn't get married either.

ALthough, no ONE group has a monopoly on what marriage IS.

The nearest we get to that, is that ALL modern 'official' marriages require a legal element.

Which, pretty much makes Marriage a civil affair, and, therefore, an affair that should be immune to religious view.

ALthough, no ONE group has a monopoly on what marriage IS.

The nearest we get to that, is that ALL modern 'official' marriages require a legal element.

Which, pretty much makes Marriage a civil affair, and, therefore, an affair that should be immune to religious view.


That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. :)

I think I said this in another thread, but I'll repeat it.

I have a suggestion for those who have religious qualms with gay marriage, but have no actual qualms with homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriage should be redefined as the religious recognition of the wedding ceremony. The legal aspects of the union should be classified as a "civil union" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. That way, the religious people can say that gay marriage isn't legal or recognized in the church, but homosexual couples (and their children, etc) will have the legal benefits that they need.

Yep I can just agree with you. And I think we will have it in Sweden and right know we have marriage for hetrosexual and partnershipunions for homosexual and unofficial weddings (including in some churches). And I think USA and all other modern western country could atleast have parnershiplaw that protect the rights of a homosexual couple.

I frankly don't care about it.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. :)

Just trying to help clear it up, before someone jumped in and said "hey, good idea, man... let's ban ALL non-christian weddings... yeah".

Just trying to help clear it up, before someone jumped in and said "hey, good idea, man... let's ban ALL non-christian weddings... yeah".


thanks,dude.

Yep I can just agree with you. And I think we will have it in Sweden and right know we have marriage for hetrosexual and partnershipunions for homosexual and unofficial weddings (including in some churches). And I think USA and all other modern western country could atleast have parnershiplaw that protect the rights of a homosexual couple.

And yet, for all it's claims to social, moral etc. superiority, it seems the US is progressively losing ground, to an increasing number of it's perceived 'lessers'.

Hopefully, before too long, Law will actually come to represent popular opinion in the US.