NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?


because a large group of people are having thier rights stripped from because of some BS prejudice conservatives have against gay people.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

They start flame wars, or reignite them like you just did.

They start flame wars, or reignite them like you just did.

don't get it please explain

Gay marriage is important to me because equality of all people is important to me, and when i say equality, i don't mean that everyone is the same, i mean that all law-abiding citizens deserve the same rights. If interracial marriages were still illegal i would be protesting just as hard to get them legalized. It's also because i believe strongly in personal choice, as long as those choices don't hurt anyone else. It's why i think euthanasia should be legalized, why i am pro-choice, why i think drugs should be legalized, why i don't believe in government censorship (except when it comes to child pornography), etc.

Gay marriage is important to me because equality of all people is important to me, and when i say equality, i don't mean that everyone is the same, i mean that all law-abiding citizens deserve the same rights. If interracial marriages were still illegal i would be protesting just as hard to get them legalized. It's also because i believe strongly in personal choice, as long as those choices don't hurt anyone else. It's why i think euthanasia should be legalized, why i am pro-choice, why i think drugs should be legalized, why i don't believe in government censorship (except when it comes to child pornography), etc.
thankyou this is the kind of things that i want on this thread

Same idea as Rangerville.

In most parts of the world its not, elsewhere in the West everyone says, 'meh, it's not like they're forcing me to marry a man - why should I care?'

Whereas outside the West in the developing world, the majority of gays are too busy trying to gain the right to live to demand the right to marry.

I think it all boils down to the silliness of America in general.

In most parts of the world its not, elsewhere in the West everyone says, 'meh, it's not like they're forcing me to marry a man - why should I care?'

Whereas outside the West in the developing world, the majority of gays are too busy trying to gain the right to live to demand the right to marry.

I think it all boils down to the silliness of America in general.

thanks for using this opportunity to insult my nation, i appreciate your insight

don't get it please explain

You want an explanation that doesn't involve people taking sides, but if I were a betting man I'd say that your thread is about to be overrun with YET ANOTHER argument on why it should or should not be allowed.

You want an explanation that doesn't involve people taking sides, but if I were a betting man I'd say that your thread is about to be overrun with YET ANOTHER argument on why it should or should not be allowed.

no i dont want an argument i want an explantation of why the issue is important to anyone, i mean i dont care one way or the other, why does anyone care at all?

Well, lots of things about America are silly, on many levels. Same in lots of other countries. Over here in Ireland, people are getting all worked up that a human rights law organisation (Amnesty International) might be accepting that human rights law allows for abortion, but ignore corruption, murder, rape etc. Our Green Party leader proved himself to be no better than the rest when he claimed he was kept of a talk show by a conspiracy. The talk show is hosted by a pair of foul-mouthed peverse puppets... Sorry, tangent.

And people all over the West are opposed to gay marriage. Its not just America. Its just heard more loudly. Here's a nice suggestion I'd support

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=104

It's only really such a big thing in the US. In the Uk we don't have the same issues.

Because denying a proportion of the population the same rights that the majority enjoy died about 50 years ago.

no i dont want an argument i want an explantation of why the issue is important to anyone, i mean i dont care one way or the other, why does anyone care at all?

Because they're human F****ing beings! Because PEOPLE are being denied their right to perform one of the most universal expressions of one person's love for another because of lawmakers' personal opinion of their morality. Because people who stand idly by and watch as PEOPLE are degraded and demoralized are just as guilty, if not more so, than the perpetrators. Because of the hypocrisy of lawmakers who use the law to uphold one side of a religious moral code after having sworn to uphold a document that protects people's right from ANY religious moral code. That explanation enough for you?

Now, that being said, It doesn't matter what you want in a thread. You'll get what you're given by the respondents. Trust me.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=104

interesting, i like the idea this puts forward

because people see marriage as the most ideal of human relationships and something that should be either a) open to all, no matter what or b) protected from corruption and debasement.

thanks for using this opportunity to insult my nation, i appreciate your insight

Oh, come on! 'Silly' is hardly an insult.

I use the word to state that there are certain peculiarities in American political culture that (unusual as they seem to outsiders) allow Gay Marriage to be seen as a real issue.

Because they're human F****ing beings! Because PEOPLE are being denied their right to perform one of the most universal expressions of one person's love for another because of lawmakers' personal opinion of their morality. Because people who stand idly by and watch as PEOPLE are degraded and demoralized are just as guilty, if not more so, than the perpetrators. Because of the hypocrisy of lawmakers who use the law to uphold one side of a religious moral code after having sworn to uphold a document that protects people's right from ANY religious moral code. That explanation enough for you?

Now, that being said, It doesn't matter what you want in a thread. You'll get what you're given by the respondents. Trust me.

a legal documentation is a universal expresion of love? i dont see how that works, if i were told i counldnt marry the woman i loved i would not care as long as i could spend my life with her, now if i was then forbidden from ever seeing her again i would consider that a violation of my rights

a legal documentation is a universal expresion of love? i dont see how that works, if i were told i counldnt marry the woman i loved i would not care as long as i could spend my life with her, now if i was then forbidden from ever seeing her again i would consider that a violation of my rights

Marriage is more than a document. It has many legal things to go with it that gay couples want. Such as, for example, if you work on a house together, and your partner dies, there's a good chance you'll lose the house. There are many more things that go along with it.
You say you wouldn't care about it, but were you actually put in the postion where you couldn't marry the woman you loved, you would throw a fit.

Oh, come on! 'Silly' is hardly an insult.

I use the word to state that there are certain peculiarities in American political culture that (unusual as they seem to outsiders) allow Gay Marriage to be seen as a real issue.

point taken, im just tired of having my country insulted by everyone and everthing under ther sun

I don't know if i'll ever get married, i don't think you need it to prove you love someone, but if someone wants to and they are prevented from doing it by the law, that is infringing on their rights. Just because you wouldn't personally see it that way, it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. Again, it's down to choice. A segment of the population is being robbed of making their own personal choice when it comes to one aspect of their lives. Not wanting to get married is one thing, being told you can't is another. Sometimes even if you personally don't want to do something, you still don't like being told you can't, because you want the choice not to to be yours, not someone else's.

I don't know if i'll ever get married, i don't think you need it to prove you love someone, but if someone wants to and they are prevented from doing it by the law, that is infringing on their rights. Just because you wouldn't personally see it that way, it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. Again, it's down to choice. A segment of the population is being robbed of making their own personal choice when it comes to one aspect of their lives. Not wanting to get married is one thing, being told you can't is another. Sometimes even if you personally don't want to do something, you still don't like being told you can't, because you want the choice not to to be yours, not someone else's.

Exactly. Like I personally detest the institution of marriage in any form, but that doesn't mean everyone does, and they have a right to use it, regardless of how I feel about it.

Marriage is more than a document. It has many legal things to go with it that gay couples want. Such as, for example, if you work on a house together, and your partner dies, there's a good chance you'll lose the house. There are many more things that go along with it.
You say you wouldn't care about it, but were you actually put in the postion where you couldn't marry the woman you loved, you would throw a fit.

trust me im pretty laid back as long as i have the right to be with her i'd be fine

trust me im pretty laid back as long as i have the right to be with her i'd be fine

Well not everyone feels the same as you.

a legal documentation is a universal expresion of love? i dont see how that works, if i were told i counldnt marry the woman i loved i would not care as long as i could spend my life with her, now if i was then forbidden from ever seeing her again i would consider that a violation of my rights

In the United States, at least (because I can't speak for another country), marriage is both. But whether you recognize it as a violation of your rights or not, they are being taken from you.

Marriage is money (tax and inheritance). Thats it. Nothing else. Sorry guys, but all other features are available without marriage.

point taken, im just tired of having my country insulted by everyone and everthing under ther sun

Get over it. Half of Americans insult America.

What marriage is about frankly isn't important to this issue, at least not to me. I don't really care why two consenting adults want to get married, whether it's for money or something else, i simply think they should be allowed to.

it matters because unmarried couples have fewer rights than married couples. they cant recieve insurance if their partner dies, they dont have special rights to see thier loved one if they're dying in a hospital, rights that only a spouse has.

And of course they deserve to be recadnized as two people who love each other in a union, both in the eyes of the government and in religious terms. If a man and a woman have the right to be recadnized as a married couple, so should a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?
The same reason why it was important to fight the laws that said blacks must drink at separate fountains. Are drinking fountains really that big a deal? No. But it's a goddam big deal to decide that certain human beings are less human than others.

The same reason why it was important to fight the laws that said blacks must drink at separate fountains. Are drinking fountains really that big a deal? No. But it's a goddam big deal to decide that certain human beings are less human than others.

but that actually afected their rights, all the rights you gain as a married couple you could set up using other legal methods

but that actually afected their rights, all the rights you gain as a married couple you could set up using other legal methods

That's really hard, and I don't think that's true for the insurance and seeing-in-the-hospital bit. :/ In fact, I know it's not true for the insurance bit.

but that actually afected their rights, all the rights you gain as a married couple you could set up using other legal methods
First of all, no you cannot. Many of the rights of a married couple cannot be obtained through other means.

Second of all, to go through the legal process of obtaining all the various necessary documents to secure most of the rights of a married couple, you would need to spend hours with a lawyer, and at least several thousand dollars. Your documents could also be very easily challenged by biological family members, much more easily than marital rights could be.

Third of all, who fucking cares? Would it be OK of us to say that black people can't get married, but they can get "civil unions"? Would it be OK for us to tell Jews that they can't get a marriage license, but they could go get all those same rights through other means? If not, then why the hell should gay citizens be the one group that we feel entitled to shit on?

It's not about what you gain as a married couple, it's about the choice. Even if there were no legal benefits to getting married, even if there were no benefits at all, i still wouldn't want anyone telling someone they can't. It's about allowing people to control their own lives, that is where the rights being taken away comes in.

a legal documentation is a universal expresion of love? i dont see how that works, if i were told i counldnt marry the woman i loved i would not care as long as i could spend my life with her, now if i was then forbidden from ever seeing her again i would consider that a violation of my rights



you wouldnt mind becuase your orientation isnt being degraded and you're not being treated like so horrible person because you're homosexual and in some way immoral and un-goddly for being the way you are. Im not saying that you're wrong for not caring if you could marry someone or not as long as you could be with them, but lets say the fact that you, you're a man in guessing?, were told by society that the fact that you love a woman is sick and perverted and wrong and that they refuse the recadnize the legitmacy of you and the one you love. Personally, if they told me my being in love with the guy I do love was unacceptable, I'd be pretty pissed and seek social recadnition through getting my right to marry.

I acually dont know exactly how a gay/lesbian person feels because im not homosexual, but i can imagine that large masses of people hating you for loving the person you love isnt exactly much fun.

Of coruse this isnt to insult your point of view.
thanks.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

I'd like to know why there are so many gay threads.

It's not as much as not allowing gays to be in a civil union, which I support fully, but about gays getting married which is a religious term. You shouldn't force churches to let people they don't want to get married, get married.

Also, in as many countries claim to be democracies, what the majority says, goes. As long as a majority of people stand against gay "marriage" there won't be any.

Get over it. Half of Americans insult America.


Agreed. Its just so easy.

Marriage is more than a document. It has many legal things to go with it that gay couples want. Such as, for example, if you work on a house together, and your partner dies, there's a good chance you'll lose the house. There are many more things that go along with it.
You say you wouldn't care about it, but were you actually put in the postion where you couldn't marry the woman you loved, you would throw a fit.

Thank you for getting to the real issue. Another example is being able to make decisions for or see your significant other in the hospital. You can't unless you have that document, as there is no proof of relationship.

I don't think churches or other religious institutions should have to marry gay people either, separation of church and state should work both ways. I simply think that legally they should be able to form a union.

you dont need to go to a church to get married. it's not strictly religious. you can be married by a judge too. Many people have non-denominational weddings, in which case there is not religion involved at all. It's mainly governmental, not religious. Also, many priests are willing to marry gays, its not like the Caothlic Church is being forced to marry homosexual people.

It's not as much as not allowing gays to be in a civil union, which I support fully, but about gays getting married which is a religious term. You shouldn't force churches to let people they don't want to get married, get married.

Also, in as many countries claim to be democracies, what the majority says, goes. As long as a majority of people stand against gay "marriage" there won't be any.

BUT there are churches that allow it. So why should those churches be suppressed?

It's not as much as not allowing gays to be in a civil union, which I support fully, but about gays getting married which is a religious term. You shouldn't force churches to let people they don't want to get married, get married.

Also, in as many countries claim to be democracies, what the majority says, goes. As long as a majority of people stand against gay "marriage" there won't be any.


What democracy are you living in that you think has the right to pass laws diescriminating against people living the way they choose and loving the people they want if they are hurting no one?

And of course they deserve to be recadnized as two people who love each other in a union, both in the eyes of the government and in religious terms. If a man and a woman have the right to be recadnized as a married couple, so should a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Wrong. You can't 'force' any religion to do anything. That, my friend, is a violation of human rights.

Wrong. You can't 'force' any religion to do anything. That, my friend, is a violation of human rights.
No, it's not a violation of human rights, it's violation of religious freedom. Which still means it is a bad idea. :)

What democracy are you living in that you think has the right to pass laws diescriminating against people living the way they choose and loving the people they want if they are hurting no one?
A true democracy. Will of the people. Majority rules. Learn grade school politics.

No, it's not a violation of human rights, it's violation of religious freedom. Which still means it is a bad idea.

You got me there.

Wrong. You can't 'force' any religion to do anything. That, my friend, is a violation of human rights.


If a priest is willing to marry a couple they should be allowed to marry and be recadnized in the eyes of the god or gods they believe in.

It's not as much as not allowing gays to be in a civil union, which I support fully, but about gays getting married which is a religious term.
The hell it is. Marriage pre-dates every known religion, and predate the modern religions by thousands of years. Not to mention the fact that marriage is a CIVIL institution, and one which millions of non-religious citizens participate in. My own (atheist) parents will celebrate 30 years of (non-religious) marriage this July.

A true democracy. Will of the people. Majority rules. Learn grade school politics.
Good thing that the USA is not, and never has been, a true democracy. Good thing the Founders specifically and deliberately designed our government to prevent pure democracy from ever taking hold. :)

A true democracy. Will of the people. Majority rules. Learn grade school politics.


So you're saying that a country should condone terrorism if the majority of the people in the country agree with it?

Here in Canada we legalized same sex marriages because we changed the legal definition of marriage but that hasn't changed anything with regard to churches. They still don't have to marry anyone they don't want to.

A true democracy. Will of the people. Majority rules. Learn grade school politics.

No, "majority rules" is not democracy.

If the majority of US citizens think Japan should implement a certain policy, is it "democratic" to force such a policy on Japan?

They dont have to marry anyone, just like a pharmacist doesnt have to sell someone 'the morning after' pill, but if a priest/religious leader is willing, the government should not stop a couple from recadnition in the eyes of their religion and god.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

Why is Gay Marrige so important?

Becuase some people find it "Icky" to get "Poo-Poo" on your "Wee-Wee."

No, "majority rules" is not democracy.

Technically speaking, yes it is. At least, that is one of the accepted definitions of the word "democracy."


If the majority of US citizens think Japan should implement a certain policy, is it "democratic" to force such a policy on Japan?
From the standpoint of the US, it would indeed be a democratic decision. That's one of the many reasons why the Founders deliberately designed the US to NOT be a democracy.

You're right, which is exactly why i said separation of church and state works both ways. Churches don't have the right to tell the government how to run things, the government doesn't have the right to tell the churches how to run things, unless crimes are being committed. If a priest or minister wants to marry a gay couple, they are perfectly within their rights to do that in nations where same sex marriages or civil unions are legal.

My comment was regarding the comment that marriage is a religious term. Obviously my government disagreed.

You're right, which is exactly why i said separation of church and state works both ways. Churches don't have the right to tell the government how to run things, the government doesn't have the right to tell the churches how to run things, unless crimes are being committed. If a priest or minister wants to marry a gay couple, they are perfectly within their rights to do that in nations where same sex marriages or civil unions are legal.

It is my understanding that religious authorities are allowed to marry gay couples no matter what the legal civil standing of gay marriage is (at least in the US). It's just that these unions will not carry any LEGAL weight.


My comment was regarding the comment that marriage is a religious term. Obviously my government disagreed.
Indeed. For many people, marriage includes a religious component as well as the civil component, but the religious element is not required in the eyes of American law.

If a priest is willing to marry a couple they should be allowed to marry and be recadnized in the eyes of the god or gods they believe in.

Exactly. If a priest is willing, though he may be excommunicated depending on the church, he can. Go ahead, I don't care.

The hell it is. Marriage pre-dates every known religion, and predate the modern religions by thousands of years. Not to mention the fact that marriage is a CIVIL institution, and one which millions of non-religious citizens participate in. My own (atheist) parents will celebrate 30 years of (non-religious) marriage this July.

Oh, you mean the caveman, 'hit the woman on the head drag her by her hair to cave' marriage? No, marriage, by itself, is religious. Again, if a priest is willing to marry any two people, or more, I don't care, then it becomes religious. However, if a judge 'marries' two people, than, while it still may be an expression of their love, it is not true marriage. Also, tell your parents I say congrats, 30 years is a long time!

From the standpoint of the US, it would indeed be a democratic decision. That's one of the many reasons why the Founders deliberately designed the US to NOT be a democracy.

We have vastly different conceptions of democracy, then.

For the United States Government, even with majority support, to impose such a decision on Japan would be fundamentally undemocratic, because the people of Japan have the right to democracy as well - they have the right to have the policies that affect them be under popular control.

The US population has no right to make such a decision for the Japanese people, because it is not their place; it is a decision that affects the Japanese, and thus should be under their control.

In parallel fashion, the US population has no right to make a decision for gay couples as to whether or not they should marry, since it does not affect those who are not gay couples. It would not be democratic to put it up to a vote of US citizens; it would be tyrannical, an usurpation of power from those to whom it properly belongs.

Yes, you're right, gay people can have marriage ceremonies performed in the United States, they just won't be legally recognized. I got caught up in the whole legality of it so i didn't think about that.

Oh, you mean the caveman, 'hit the woman on the head drag her by her hair to cave' marriage? No, marriage, by itself, is religious.

Actually, I was refering to the anthropological evidence indicating that marriage has existed as a non-religious institution throughout all of human history, including during our modern day. Religions have often incorporated marriage and included marital rituals, but the practice of pair-bonding between mates is one that exists quite independently of religion.


Again, if a priest is willing to marry any two people, or more, I don't care, then it becomes religious. However, if a judge 'marries' two people, than, while it still may be an expression of their love, it is not true marriage.

You can stamp your little foot all you like, but it won't change reality. A secular marriage is as much a marriage as a religious one, both in the eyes of the participants and in the eyes of the law.


Also, tell your parents I say congrats, 30 years is a long time!
According to you, they aren't "really" married, so I doubt they would appreciate congratulations from somebody who is quick to spit on their union.

I'm a Canadian, and here in Canada we've legalized same sex marriage.

That being said, I personally am very much opposed to same sex marriage.

That's my personal opinion, I'm not saying that it should be everyone's opinion. On such a touchy moral issue, I would be willing to accept the will of the people, but not the will of Parliament.

Our politicians played politics with one of the most sacred institutions on the face of the Earth. Parliament should not be allowed to decide, it should be the people, through direct democracy.

My personal reason for being opposed to same sex marriage is not religious, I don't really consider myself a religious person at all. I believe that it has been traditional for marriage to be a union of a man and a woman, not of "two persons" as it is now defined by our Parliament.

Marriage has been sacred for thousands of years, and our politicians ruthlessly tried to change through a political ploy. That is why I am not willing to accept it. If it had been through referendum, I would have no problem.

My parents were married under the definition of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, not TWO PERSONS, I can only hope that someday I will be married in this great nation of Canada, under the same definition as my ancestors before me.

I'll just watch and wait a little while....

Exactly. If a priest is willing, though he may be excommunicated depending on the church, he can. Go ahead, I don't care.



Oh, you mean the caveman, 'hit the woman on the head drag her by her hair to cave' marriage? No, marriage, by itself, is religious. Again, if a priest is willing to marry any two people, or more, I don't care, then it becomes religious. However, if a judge 'marries' two people, than, while it still may be an expression of their love, it is not true marriage. Also, tell your parents I say congrats, 30 years is a long time!


first, yes, congrats on the 30 years.

It is true marriage. Just because people choose not the follow a religion does not mean they are not truely married. Does that mean that atheists are really married? Just because their marriage isnt along the same lines as your faith deosnt mean they're not really married.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

Gay marriage is important for all the same reasons that straight marriage is important.

If what you are really asking is "Why is there such a fuss about it?" the answer is that one portion of the population wants to deny the rights of another portion. At long last, the denied portion is standing up and saying "Stop that now. We want our rights, just like yours."

It is true marriage. Just because people choose not the follow a religion does not mean they are not truely married. Does that mean that atheists are really married? Just because their marriage isnt along the same lines as your faith deosnt mean they're not really married.
I honestly find it kind of cute when people claim that marriage is religious, and that non-religious marriage aren't "real" marriages. By their logic, Brittany Spears' 45 minute Vegas marriage was a "real marriage," while my parents' 30 year marriage isn't "real."

And they say GAYS are the ones who are devaluing the institution of marriage.

It's important to me because I want to be able to decide for myself whether to marry or not. Not have the option denied to me because some people are prejudiced and/or hiding behind their religion to justify treating me as a second-class citizen.

I don't see why gay marriage is such a huge deal in politics right now. It's sort of ridiculous to be calling gay marriage a threat while we cause bloodshed in Iraq, while gas prices are absurdly high, and while our economy slips and slips. I live in Massachusetts, and the legalization of gay marriage has hardly affected my life. I know two couples who have married, and honestly, it makes no difference in my life, while it makes them very happy. So if you're not planning on marrying someone of the same gender, I don't think legalized gay marriage will affect your life very much.

The gay marriage issue is important to me because I see no reason to have it banned or to have marriages unrecognized in certain states. I care because I don't want fellow Americans to be denied something so basic and reasonable. But why is it such a big deal in the first place? You've got me.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?:sniper:


ya i dont no y da government maxes such a big deal bout it just say YES or NO

Yes, you're right, gay people can have marriage ceremonies performed in the United States, they just won't be legally recognized. I got caught up in the whole legality of it so i didn't think about that.

And the worldwide fight is not over the religious aspects of marriage, I know of no homosexuals demanding that the Catholic Church (for example) must recognize their marriage. What is being fought for is all of the legal rights that go with a civil marriage license.

No one is saying that a church of any sort must recognize homosexual marriage. But a church marriage carries no particular benefits that cannot be achieved by a non-church marriage anyway. A legal civil marriage carries hundreds of benefits, many of which can only be acquired with a marriage license.

I'm a Canadian, and here in Canada we've legalized same sex marriage.

That being said, I personally am very much opposed to same sex marriage.

That's my personal opinion, I'm not saying that it should be everyone's opinion. On such a touchy moral issue, I would be willing to accept the will of the people, but not the will of Parliament.

The will of the people is meaningless and should come into no consideration when debating the instatement the rights a minority should have anyway.

Actually, I was refering to the anthropological evidence indicating that marriage has existed as a non-religious institution throughout all of human history, including during our modern day. Religions have often incorporated marriage and included marital rituals, but the practice of pair-bonding between mates is one that exists quite independently of religion.
"Pair-bonding" and "marriage" are two totally diffrent concepts. You bond with your partner when you have sex, or go to have a picnic, but that's not marriage. And when you say mates, and pair-bonding, I think of animals, so I will consider you an animal.

You can stamp your little foot all you like, but it won't change reality. A secular marriage is as much a marriage as a religious one, both in the eyes of the participants and in the eyes of the law.
Actually, my feet are pretty big, for a 12 year old at least, so that almost makes this whole paragraph void, but I'll pick it apart anyway. No it isn't. Again, I say, true marriage has to be ordained by a church, any church, it could be the 2nd National Church of the Volcano God for all I care, but when when it is secular it is still marriage, but it is not true marriage, which is religious.

According to you, they aren't "really" married, so I doubt they would appreciate congratulations from somebody who is quick to spit on their union.
Take the damn compliment, asshole! I only got picky with marriage when I go to Nationstates, and it still is marriage, just not true marriage.

I don't see why gay marriage is such a huge deal in politics right now. It's sort of ridiculous to be calling gay marriage a threat while we cause bloodshed in Iraq, while gas prices are absurdly high, and while our economy slips and slips. I live in Massachusetts, and the legalization of gay marriage has hardly affected my life. I know two couples who have married, and honestly, it makes no difference in my life, while it makes them very happy. So if you're not planning on marrying someone of the same gender, I don't think legalized gay marriage will affect your life very much.

The gay marriage issue is important to me because I see no reason to have it banned or to have marriages unrecognized in certain states. I care because I don't want fellow Americans to be denied something so basic and reasonable. But why is it such a big deal in the first place? You've got me.



im canadian and we no killin innocent iraQ people but dats mi opinionAmericans: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

I honestly find it kind of cute when people claim that marriage is religious, and that non-religious marriage aren't "real" marriages. By their logic, Brittany Spears' 45 minute Vegas marriage was a "real marriage," while my parents' 30 year marriage isn't "real."

And they say GAYS are the ones who are devaluing the institution of marriage.


Sorry, I made a typo. I mean to say 'does than mean athiests arent really married?', being rhetorical. my brother and father are athiest, and i dont believe in organized religion, so i definatly agree with you.

I don't see why gay marriage is such a huge deal in politics right now. It's sort of ridiculous to be calling gay marriage a threat while we cause bloodshed in Iraq, while gas prices are absurdly high, and while our economy slips and slips. I live in Massachusetts, and the legalization of gay marriage has hardly affected my life. I know two couples who have married, and honestly, it makes no difference in my life, while it makes them very happy. So if you're not planning on marrying someone of the same gender, I don't think legalized gay marriage will affect your life very much.

The gay marriage issue is important to me because I see no reason to have it banned or to have marriages unrecognized in certain states. I care because I don't want fellow Americans to be denied something so basic and reasonable. But why is it such a big deal in the first place? You've got me.



im canadian and we no killin innocent iraQ people but dats mi opinionAmericans: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

while gas prices are absurdly high

High?

High is when they're the equivalent of $1.80 for 1/4 of a (US) gallon.

Its something to someone.

"Pair-bonding" and "marriage" are two totally diffrent concepts. You bond with your partner when you have sex, or go to have a picnic, but that's not marriage. And when you say mates, and pair-bonding, I think of animals, so I will consider you an animal.

The word "marriage" refers to a particular form of mate-bonding, and how that mate-bonding is incorporated into the society as a whole. The word "marriage" obviously hasn't been around for very long (since the English language hasn't been around very long) but the concept that it stands for has been around for thousands of years. And this concept has existed independent of religion for all that time.


Actually, my feet are pretty big, for a 12 year old at least, so that almost makes this whole paragraph void, but I'll pick it apart anyway. No it isn't. Again, I say, true marriage has to be ordained by a church, any church, it could be the 2nd National Church of the Volcano God for all I care, but when when it is secular it is still marriage, but it is not true marriage, which is religious.

You keep saying the same thing, as though it matters.

mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

Not one single definition of the word "marriage" includes religion. Not one. You seem to be under the misconception that you get to redefine words whenever you please.


Take the damn compliment, asshole! I only got picky with marriage when I go to Nationstates, and it still is marriage, just not true marriage.
It's not a compliment for you to say, "Hey congrats on your 'marriage,' which isn't a real marriage because you aren't religious!" You can't slap somebody in the face and expect them to thank you for the kindness.

Like it's said before: because it's just plain unfair how it is in most of the world. I've recently been to a gay marriage, and it's just the same as with a man and a woman.

It's important because a certain group of people are denied one of the greatest expressions of their love, just because they love someone of the same sex as they are. It's important because they're being discrimintated, even though most countries have it in their constitutial law that discrimination isn't allowed. talkinga bout being hypocrite...

You're preaching to the choir Upper Botswavia, i have said that in various posts in this thread, that particular comment you quoted was in response to something Bottle had said when responding to another one of my posts.

Sorry, I made a typo. I mean to say 'does than mean athiests arent really married?', being rhetorical. my brother and father are athiest, and i dont believe in organized religion, so i definatly agree with you.
Oh, yah, I was agreeing with you.

Hooray for patting each other on the back. :)

You see now what I meant about threads that are destined to get hijacked?

Oh, yah, I was agreeing with you.

Hooray for patting each other on the back. :)


haha, ok just making sure.

first, yes, congrats on the 30 years.

It is true marriage. Just because people choose not the follow a religion does not mean they are not truely married. Does that mean that atheists are really married? Just because their marriage isnt along the same lines as your faith deosnt mean they're not really married.
I don't really have a 'faith' in the conventional sense. I am not secular, but I really don't worry about religion. I don't really think so, marriag is really a religious term, and I will consider it that way. The only reason I truely object to gay marriage is that it isn't ordained by any church, wether Christian, Islamic, or Hindu, as far as I know, but that seems to be changing with the election of that gay Bishop. But I don't think religion has any place in politics whatsoever. I don't know why we discuss religion on NationStates at all. This arguement has gotten kind of boring. Bye.

You're preaching to the choir Upper Botswavia, i have said that in various posts in this thread, that particular comment you quoted was in response to something Bottle had said when responding to another one of my posts.

Oh, I knew that... and I guess I wasn't so much aiming at you as riffing off you.

:)

lol...okay, i just wanted to be clear, i don't always know how far back people have read when they respond to the longer threads.

4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

As I see it, the one most importent to your arguements. Notice it says a "union". So, you just destroyed your own arguement with a definition. Well, bye everyone! I hope you all don't die a horrible, horrible death and burn in hell!

Well, bye everyone! I hope you all don't die a horrible, horrible death and burn in hell!

Oh, there'll be no burning involved. Me and Satan will kick back, have a few cold ones, and reminisce about the good old days.

What if I odnt believe in hell? Go play Halo and be a homophobe somewhere else. and you've said bye twice, are you going to leave or what?

Eh, Satan's cool, but I like to hang with the Volcano God. I can usually convince him to not secrifice the really hot virgins, instead I use them in my paradise at the bottom of the Volcano. Of course, Gabriel's cool, but my best friend among the gods is Dionisys, God of Partying! Yeah!

Ive heard that homophic/anti-homosexual people are really gay, they are just hiding thier insecurities by hating their own qualities in others. Hmm, isnt that interesting?

I think what the big deal is is this "house of cards" mentality that many Christians seem to embrace, the idea being "if we allow gay marriages, then everything that's in the Bible will come crashing down and be invalidated". It doesn't work that way. Christianity survived the Sun being put in the center of the solar system and it seems to work quite well with evolution. I doubt gay marriages being accepted is going to cause Christians to suddenly think that everything that they believe is wrong.

What if I odnt believe in hell? Go play Halo and be a homophobe somewhere else. and you've said bye twice, are you going to leave or what?

:eek: How did you know I play Halo? And no, I'm not. See, after I said bye, some retard quoted my stuff, and I have to respond to that.

BTW, I never said I was scared of gay people. Learn English.

Some people who oppose same sex marriages also think that society will crumble if its legalized. As if everyone will start having sex with members of the same gender, even those who aren't gay, that we will sleep with goats and children and there will be orgies in the streets. They think it will lead to moral decay and degeneracy of every sort. It's like they think every negative thing that could possibly happen will come out of gay people being allowed to get married.

:eek: How did you know I play Halo? And no, I'm not. See, after I said bye, some retard quoted my stuff, and I have to respond to that.

BTW, I never said I was scared of gay people. Learn English.


Im not retarded, I know what grunts and elites are.

And I said homophobic and anti-homosexual. Also Im pretty sure I know the english language as well if not better than you.

Homophobia means "fear of, or hatred of homosexuals." You don't have to be afraid of them to fit the definition.

Thank you.

And I also included Anti-homosexual.

You're welcome, and if we want to be exact, homophobia actually means fear of the same, but it's the word that is used to describe fear or hatred of gay people.

Ive heard that homophic/anti-homosexual people are really gay, they are just hiding thier insecurities by hating their own qualities in others. Hmm, isnt that interesting?
I'm not anti-gay or "homophic" whatever that is. Read my posts. I don't support the government forcing any religion to marry gay people. But, be fine in your delusions, young one. Really, stop flaming just becaus eyou lost the arguement.

I'm not retarded, I know what grunts and elites are.

And I said homophobic and anti-homosexual. Also I'm pretty sure I know the English language as well, if not better than you.

Everything in bold are spelling mistakes. Shall I go through every one of your posts to find them?

I'm not anti-gay or "homophic" whatever that is. Read my posts. I don't support the government forcing any religion to marry gay people. But, be fine in your delusions, young one. Really, stop flaming just becaus eyou lost the arguement.


"homophic" was my mistake, I was typing quickly and made a typo. I never said the government should force any religion or religious leader to marry someone, just like pharmacists dont ahve to sell certain products, but gay people have a right to marry just as straight people do.
Are you a republican? I find that they often assume that I am angry and they that often assume I've lost. Infact Im not angry, I just find you a little annoying.
Also, I have a name and it is not Young One.

Everything in bold are spelling mistakes. Shall I go through every one of your posts to find them?


And theres a grammar mistake. i should have said 'as well as.' I do know when Im wrong, but I didnt bother to go back and edit the comment becuase it would be irrelevent. Im guilty of being a fast typer, not of being illiterate.

But good try at being witty. Don't feel bad it's easier for some than others.

Also, none of those are spelling mistakes. I didnt acually spell any of the words incorrectly in that comment.

When a man and a woman are united by the government, is it called marriage or a civil union? When a couple is officially married does that mean a religion joined the couple?

No, it's marriage when in the eyes of the law, two people are wed. It doesnt have to be religious.

Ok, that's what I thought.

It's just that there was someone saying that he doesn't want to force religions to marry a couple, making me think that marriage was a religious term. Because then I'd be against gay marriages, because you can't force a private institution to do soemthing like that. However, a religion that is willing to wed should be allowed to legally marry any couple and the government should marry anyone as well. Thank you for clarifying that.

I know I wasn't exactly answering the original posters question, so basically what everyone else said. People's rights are being infringed on and we need to fight for everyone's rights, not jsut ours. Even if this right seems insignificant to you. Also, by not allowing gay marriages, or even calling it by a different name, the government is saying gay people are not normal, and are only encouraging the hatred and ignorance of many straight people towards homosexuals.

No, it's marriage when in the eyes of the law, two people are wed. It doesnt have to be religious.

The common definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman, thus ppl who like it the way it is believe it should stay the way it is. Also the majority of us believe it is only another step in the wrong direction toward a society that has no morals at all. As u can c we have already made great strides in this department since say around WW2. And it only gets worse, instead of generation by generation, it is almost every 2 years, the younger ones r that much worse. Such a step would also open the path for say beastality, satanist, polysomething or other(multiple wives-fancy word for it).

And there's a grammar mistake, I should have said 'as well as.' I do know when I'm wrong, but I didn't bother to go back and edit the comment becuase it would be irrelevent. I'm guilty of being a fast typer, not of being illiterate.
So what? I'm a fast typer, I rarely make mistakes, and such simple ones too I never make.
But good try at being witty. Don't feel bad it's easier for some than others

Wow. More insults. Couldn't have expected any better from you, could I have? Oh well, insulters don't bother me.

Also RRSHP, that would be me.

This thread isn't about talking sides, I just really want to know why the issue of gay marriage is so important to everyone, so if ya'll could simply tell me what the big deal is?

Meh... It's legal over here. Backwards cavemen can argue about it overseas forever for all I care.

The common definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman, thus ppl who like it the way it is believe it should stay the way it is.

The common definition of human is Caucasian, thus the KKK would like it to stay that way.

Also the majority of us believe it is only another step in the wrong direction toward a society that has no morals at all.

Funny, I'd rather think that allowing consenting, loving adults to marry is a step towards a more moral society.
Perhaps when you say 'no morals at all', you actually mean 'morals that are different from mine'?

The common definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman
No it's not.


thus ppl who like it the way it is believe it should stay the way it is.

What those people believe should not outweight the right to be treated fairly and equally by all citizens.


Also the majority of us believe it is only another step in the wrong direction toward a society that has no morals at all. As u can c we have already made great strides in this department since say around WW2.

I'm very much interested in hearing exactly how you know that what you think is what the majority believe.


Such a step would also open the path for say beastality, satanist, polysomething or other(multiple wives-fancy word for it).
This has been proven to be bullshit time and again.

In other words, there's really no reason why it's such a big deal to you and the likes of you. You come up with all kinds of fancy reasons why you should care, but the fact of the matter is: gay marriage doesn't concern you. At all.

That Jack and Joe marry, or Mary and Jane speak their vows, does not change anything in your life. It does, however, matter much to them, seeing as being married gives them out both legal benefits, and also recognition and officialises their love.

Yes, the question remains: why do you care that much? Why do you keep trying to belittle those human beings, who want nothing more than what the rest of society gets? Who do you oppose their well-being so adamantly? Especially when it changes absolutely fuck-all in your life?

I'd like to know why there are so many gay threads.

Why is there such a preoccupation with gay people and so much debate about us? Well, try imagining if the tables were turned and 90+% of the population was gay (use your imagination) and 10% or less of the population was straight. Imagine gay people had spent hundreds of years ignoring or denying the existence of straight people, then spent decades calling straight people 'perverts' and 'deviants,' passing laws that could put straight people in jail for having straight sex and making it legal to fire straight people or kick them out of their apartments for being straight. Imagine if groups of gay guys actually made plans to go out "breeder-bashing" to beat the hell out of heteros and leave them for dead, while gay politicians debated whether or not straight people deserved protection under hate-crimes legislation. Imagine if straight teenagers were 3 times more likely than gay ones to try and commit suicide because they were offered few if any positive role-models in the media and lived scared to death that their moms or their dads would find out they were straight and stop loving them, maybe kick them out of onto the street or send them to some quack psychiatrist to try and 'fix' their deviant hetero orientation.

If you were straight in that world, you would probably want to keep people talking and thinking too, because complacency would just promote the status quo. Why do we call attention to ourselves? Maybe because we're sick of being one of the only minorities left that even the most 'progressive' Western nations still see fit to discriminate against at the very highest levels of government. When politicians use you, a person, as an 'issue' in their campaign, winning votes by promising to limit your rights, turning your fellow citizens-- your neighbours-- against you so that they can win elections, then you get to understand why we aren't content to sit quietly and listen while we're talked about.

We'll stop being an issue and stop 'making a scene' when our value and our status as human beings stops being attacked-- that is, when oppression stops.

[. . .] Also, in as many countries claim to be democracies, what the majority says, goes. As long as a majority of people stand against gay "marriage" there won't be any.

That isn't good enough. "50% plus one says X-- therefore, because we're a democracy, it's right." Well no. Because at one time the majority of Americans supported slavery. At one time the majority of Germans were okay with Jewish concentration camps. At one time the majority of Romans thought it was cool to feed Christians to lions. That didn't make it right, and if a democratic country wants to call itself virtuous then it has a responsibility to uphold principles beyond just "majority rules." Mob lynchings are a form of majority rule, too. But to be good, a country must work to uphold things like fairness and equality, and those transcend simple, crass tyranny of numbers.

Gay marriage is important to me because equality of all people is important to me, and when i say equality, i don't mean that everyone is the same, i mean that all law-abiding citizens deserve the same rights. If interracial marriages were still illegal i would be protesting just as hard to get them legalized. It's also because i believe strongly in personal choice, as long as those choices don't hurt anyone else. It's why i think euthanasia should be legalized, why i am pro-choice, why i think drugs should be legalized, why i don't believe in government censorship (except when it comes to child pornography), etc.
Take this and add the fact that it could personaly effect my future and who and how I spend it with ... it is important to me

But I have never STARTED a gay marrige thread that I can ever remember

The common definition of marriage, is between a man and a woman, thus ppl who like it the way it is believe it should stay the way it is. Also the majority of us believe it is only another step in the wrong direction toward a society that has no morals at all. As u can c we have already made great strides in this department since say around WW2. And it only gets worse, instead of generation by generation, it is almost every 2 years, the younger ones r that much worse. Such a step would also open the path for say beastality, satanist, polysomething or other(multiple wives-fancy word for it).

Personally, I think there is a common comfusion between religion and morals... and that some people think that ANYTHING outside of their narrow religious view, is 'immoral'.

For me - morality is about how you treat other people... and as long as our society tries to set limits on who one can love... our society IS immoral.


As to the assertion that gay marriage leads to polygamy and sex with toasters or terrapins, the issue is being deliberately obfuscated.

If you change the definition of marriage to include any two persons that are legally able to consent, that doesn't IN ANY WAY open the door to polygamy... not that polygamy is necessarily bad, anyway.

As to the assertion that people will be marrying dogs if gay marriage 'is allowed'... it ignores the fundamental concept of consent. A dog cannot give consent. A child cannot give consent. A toaster cannot give consent.

So - lock up your wives and husbands, by all means... but your kitchen utensils and your livestock are just as 'safe' as they ever were.

Our politicians played politics with one of the most sacred institutions on the face of the Earth. Parliament should not be allowed to decide, it should be the people, through direct democracy.

Personally, I think freedom is much older-- and equality much more sacred-- than some artificial ceremony officiated by some guy who claims to know the will of the divine better than a person knows their own feelings.

Marriage has been sacred for thousands of years, and our politicians ruthlessly tried to change through a political ploy. That is why I am not willing to accept it. If it had been through referendum, I would have no problem.

My parents were married under the definition of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, not TWO PERSONS, I can only hope that someday I will be married in this great nation of Canada, under the same definition as my ancestors before me.

"Ruthless??" No, ruthless describes the efforts of those who would like to keep gay people second-class citizens. The approach that Parliament took was hardly ruthless. They dragged their feet for years, and when it did pass it was only because some people finally took a principled stand in favour of *justice.* What-- besides a principle-- could possibly motivate any opportunistic political party to 'ruthlessly' pursue the vote of such a small majority in the population?

And once upon a time people were married under a law that stipulated that marriage couldn't be between two people of different races, or different religions? Should we go back to those "good old days" too?

It's not as much as not allowing gays to be in a civil union, which I support fully, but about gays getting married which is a religious term. You shouldn't force churches to let people they don't want to get married, get married.

Also, in as many countries claim to be democracies, what the majority says, goes. As long as a majority of people stand against gay "marriage" there won't be any.

Hoo boy. Here's one person who didn't pay attention to civics in school.

The churches will be affected only one way if gay marriage is legal. They will have the option to marry same sex couples.They WON'T be forced to marry same sex couples, they don't force churches to marry same sex couples in Massachusetts and they won't force churches to marry same sex couples in other states, either.

This is not a TRUE democracy. The majority does not rule in this nation by direct representation. If the President were elected by the "majority rule" Al Gore would have been legally President. He won the majority of the popular vote in 2000.

Just because the majority thinks it does not make it right or proper. We are a Democratic Republic, look it up.

Yeah. It comes down to religous and/or bigoted people getting really scared that something new is happening. There's no reason at all for two consenting adults who love eachother to not be recognized as married by the government.

To me the concept of "gay marriage" is a redundancy. There is marriage and there not marriage. Unfortunately, the churches seem to have convinced the government that "marriage" is a word that's entirely in their own domain. OK, then, let them have the word, but don't accord any additional privileges to a "marriage" than you get with a "domestic partnership" or "civil union". I'm not a lesbian. I'm a bisexual woman who happens to be in a domestic partnership with not one, but a number of other people of both biological sexes (and several "genders"). Our relationship is legal, kludged together with a lot of red tape and signed/notorized agreements. It was a royal pain in the behind to insure that we all actually have the rights that married couples have, and even a bigger issue to insure that any children resulting from this relationship can be raised normally by the extended family we have. The kicker? We live a state (two states, actually), where gay marriage is still illegal. We still found a way around the conservative, religion-based laws that stipulate that "marriage" is something that can only happen between a single man and a single woman.

It shouldn't be this way. Legalizing gay marriage is but one step we need to take in this country (USA) to eliminate the inequalities that are part of the overall prejudice in our society regarding "alternative sexualities". For that reason, alone, gay marriage is important to me. It wouldn't have helped me in my present poly group, but it represents an important symbol -- a flag planted on foreign soil, almost -- declaring that there are some concepts which are simply no longer valid (if they ever were) and need to be eliminated.

People always like to idealize "love". I deserve the "right" to love who I want. Who actually has the power to prevent another from having any feeling of any kind? So, "loving" who one wants is a "right" by default.

Love is not enough.
In actual practice, marriage is a LEGAL contract between persons who pledge to be life partners and share domestic legal rights. Marriage, as a legal contract, insures protections for each party in the contract. In addition, it protects the legal and MORAL rights of all children that result from the union. This is one reason why cohabiting is NOT the same as marriage .

Two persons can enjoy all the rights and protections in a legal marriage and not feel any "love" for one another at all. Love is not a necessary component to the arrangement.

And as far as "Marriage" being something sacred. In actual practice people have not treated it as sacred for decades, even centuries--remember Henry Tudor VIII?

Life insurance. The beneficiary receives the insurance. A person can name anyone they like as beneficiary. Even a same sex partner/relative/associate/pet/foundation etc. So, marriage isn't needed in this instance.