NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!

Or you could just stop whining and let gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I'm not homophobic, because i'm not scared of my house.

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!


Ummm. No. All that will do is piss both sides off, not gonna work out well.

Ummm. No. All that will do is piss both sides off, not gonna work out well.
No? I see...

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!

I think that somewhere along the line, a mayor or governor or someone was ordered to stop issuing gays marriage liscences, so he stopped issuing marriage liscences altogether.

Can you have your marriage liscence revoked for drunken matrimony?

Liasia']
I'm not homophobic, because i'm not scared of my house.

But I am!!! Especially suburban homes, they're soooo creepy!!!! :eek:

Ok, but seriously. I don't see a problem in letting homosexes and lesbianese get hitched. Let them profess their love, they'll prolly do a better job in commitment than most hetero couples. Just my opinion.

1) Are they adults?
2) Do both consent?

Yep? Let them marry civilly.

Let all the OMG GAYS CANNOT MARRY!!!! people all go live on the moon or something.

Nah. Right now, it seems that the private sector is taking the lead in this case by offering benefits for domestic partners. The government can just follow suit: allow people to declare each other as domestic partners for purposes of determining benefits and relegate marriage to its proper place as a religious artifact.

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. If two homosexuals want to torment each other and destroy each others lives for the next coupla years or decades, I'm fine with it. But I also don't see how this is a matter of "rights" or even a matter that is that important in the long run. There are more important things, like this billions-of-dollars-per-day war/occupation the nation is participating in.

There are more important things, like this billions-of-dollars-per-day war/occupation the nation is participating in.

It merely follows an observation made by C. Northcote Parkinson, something along the lines of "the amount of discussion time an agenda item gets is inversely proportional to the amount of money involved". Considering that you are talking billions of dollars, it's amazing that you could even form a thought to express concern. OTOH, the philosophical aspects of gay marriage cost nothing, so therefore everyone can discuss it at great lengths.

why should I have to give up my legal marriage rights so that homosexuals can marry?

I say go with what Kat said.....

1) Are they adults?
2) Do both consent?

Yep? Let them marry civilly.

Let all the OMG GAYS CANNOT MARRY!!!! people all go live on the moon or something.

Let them marry, it's not like it'll be the end of the world or anything...and then the endless arguments will stop.

That's not a solution at all - that's just a reinvention of the problem.

Seeing as marriage is not religious in any way in the government's eyes, there is no need for "civil unions" because marriages are already "civil." Those are the only marriages that exist as far as the law is concerned. Your church can faux "marry" you all it wants - until you sign that marriage licence, you're not married.

Let them marry, it's not like it'll be the end of the world or anything...and then the endless arguments will stop.

No they wouldn't. They're endless, by definition they will never stop.

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!

In other words, you're arguing for a name-change for the separate legal construct that already exists.

It makes about as much sense as saying, "Hey! The courtroom can't say that the supsect signed a confession! A confession is when you tell your sins to a priest and then he gives you penance and absolves yoU! Confession should be a word only used by the Church. How dare the government call something by the same name?!?!?!"

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status,

Actually, that is *exactly* what a legal marriage is.

it's also this whole religious ceremony thing.

Quite a few people in this world are married, without ever having a religious ceremony.

Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

No. Churches can decide that they will only perform marriages on people born on a Tuesday in a leap year, and the government could not force them to do otherwise.

That's not a solution at all - that's just a reinvention of the problem.

Seeing as marriage is not religious in any way in the government's eyes, there is no need for "civil unions" because marriages are already "civil." Those are the only marriages that exist as far as the law is concerned. Your church can faux "marry" you all it wants - until you sign that marriage licence, you're not married.
actually you can be (or you can in my state) as soon as you introduce or otherwise imply that you are married, you have entered a common law marriage and can then file taxes together, ect. and it takes a real life divorce to disolve, the only problem comes with property rights after one of you kicks the bucket....then you get a sticky situation.

I have married quite a few people in the legal sense of the word, without a license, and without being an ordained minister......they are for all intents and purposes legally married though. ;)

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

No government on Earth is compelling a Church to allow gays to marry if that contradicts that Church's position. What is being offered is the legal and contractual form of marriage, nothing more. How anyone can object to that is beyond me, it allows gays to name one another as their next of kin, to inherit property, to visit one another in hospital and so on and so forth - pretty fundamental rights.

The original poster is partly right; most governments (certainly the UK one) do not recognise any Church marriage unless accompanied by a legal marriage certificate. What could be done, would be to remove the right to issue such certificates from clergy and insist that anyone marrying in Church would have to also obtain a marriage certificate from the State. That leaves religious people free to have whatever marriage ceremony their faith subscribes too and everyone else in a position to get equal rights and protection under the law.

actually you can be (or you can in my state) as soon as you introduce or otherwise imply that you are married, you have entered a common law marriage and can then file taxes together, ect. and it takes a real life divorce to disolve, the only problem comes with property rights after one of you kicks the bucket....then you get a sticky situation.

I have married quite a few people in the legal sense of the word, without a license, and without being an ordained minister......they are for all intents and purposes legally married though. ;)

That's called "sambo" where I live, and, no, it's not marriage, despite the English term. It's just cohabitation with certain marriage-like attributes. As you say, "if one of you kicks the bucket..." you'll find out pretty quickly how it isn't marriage at all.

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. If two homosexuals want to torment each other and destroy each others lives for the next coupla years or decades, I'm fine with it. But I also don't see how this is a matter of "rights" or even a matter that is that important in the long run. There are more important things, like this billions-of-dollars-per-day war/occupation the nation is participating in.
I don't think anyone is arguing for a RELIGIOUS marriage ceremony. Simply a civil one.

It would be even better to get government out of marriage entirely, but unfortunately that isn't possible.

That's called "sambo" where I live, and, no, it's not marriage, despite the English term. It's just cohabitation with certain marriage-like attributes. As you say, "if one of you kicks the bucket..." you'll find out pretty quickly how it isn't marriage at all.
ah, but as soon as you try to "marry" someone else, you will find out pretty quickly that it is in fact a legally binding union. As soon as you file that first tax return as "married" you are, and if you present yourself as husband and wife and don't file "married" (either seperately or joint) it's possible for the government to indict you for tax fraud.

I don't think anyone is arguing for a RELIGIOUS marriage ceremony. Simply a civil one.

Not to mention that many, many churches/religious whatevers are willing to perform religious ceremonies for gay couples.

ah, but as soon as you try to "marry" someone else, you will find out pretty quickly that it is in fact a legally binding union. As soon as you file that first tax return as "married" you are, and if you present yourself as husband and wife and don't file "married" (either seperately or joint) it's possible for the government to indict you for tax fraud.

"Cohabitee," not married. You're being confused by the, as always, inadequate English.

I am all for the government not distinguishing between wed and unwed folk....gay, straight or martian. I think the govt needs to stay out of our bedrooms and affairs of the heart.

But I am!!! Especially suburban homes, they're soooo creepy!!!! :eek:

Ok, but seriously. I don't see a problem in letting homosexes and lesbianese get hitched. Let them profess their love, they'll prolly do a better job in commitment than most hetero couples. Just my opinion.

Nothing like a 3 bedroom slab ranch home to set my skin to crawlin....

It would be even better to get government out of marriage entirely, but unfortunately that isn't possible.
OR you could just adopt a law similar to what Canada has passed allowing civil marriage between homosexual couples, and the option for all Churches to determine themselves whether they want to perform a religious ceremony or not.

It's not like the Armegeddon, chaos, and mass hysteria we were promised should the law be voted in have come to pass. Face it, people, letting two gays or lesbian marry will not bring rains of fire nor hordes of teenagers suddenly banging their own gender because they're "confused" about gender roles. Gay marriage doesn't change anyone's life but those who actually get married. So pull your collective head out of your collective ass and stop being jerks to spite teh gays.

I am all for the government not distinguishing between wed and unwed folk....gay, straight or martian. I think the govt needs to stay out of our bedrooms and affairs of the heart.

Marriage is an affair, yes, but ultimately not of the heart. It's a very mundane contractual obligation, one might say. You want an "affair of the heart?" Have one. You want full legal rights and recognition? Get married.

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. If two homosexuals want to torment each other and destroy each others lives for the next coupla years or decades, I'm fine with it. But I also don't see how this is a matter of "rights" or even a matter that is that important in the long run. There are more important things, like this billions-of-dollars-per-day war/occupation the nation is participating in.

Yes, any church can refuse service to anyone for any reason. This has never been in question. What is being asked for is for those ceremonies conducted in willing churchs to be recognised as legal and binding.

OR you could just adopt a law similar to what Canada has passed allowing civil marriage between homosexual couples, and the option for all Churches to determine themselves whether they want to perform a religious ceremony or not.

It's not like the Armegeddon, chaos, and mass hysteria we were promised should the law be voted in have come to pass. Face it, people, letting two gays or lesbian marry will not bring rains of fire nor hordes of teenagers suddenly banging their own gender because they're "confused" about gender roles. Gay marriage doesn't change anyone's life but those who actually get married. So pull your collective head out of your collective ass and stop being jerks to spite teh gays.
Precisely. It's not as if allowing gay marriage is taking anyone "off the market," they would not have been interested in a heterosexual relationship anyway.

why should I have to give up my legal marriage rights so that homosexuals can marry?

I say go with what Kat said.....

So you wish preferential treatment. I see.

Precisely. It's not as if allowing gay marriage is taking anyone "off the market," they would not have been interested in a heterosexual relationship anyway.
Tell me about it. I keep having to shoo off girls who somehow think just because I haven't boinked a female I can't know I like guys better. In your dreams, ladies. Boobies don't do it for me.

There really is no valid reason to ban homosexual marriage: even the religious reasons are crap, because there ARE churches who either want to celebrate gay marriages or already do without them being legally recognized. Why is it that THOSE churche's freedom of religion doesn't get the same protection as the bigoted, homophobic churches?

Smells like doubles standards to me.

So you wish preferential treatment. I see.

How does allowing another group NOT currently enjoying the same rights as the group Smunkee is in to enjoy those same "preferential treatment"? If anything, it is "levelling the playing field".

Unless this is some kind of Bizarro-world definition of preferential?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/ActionComics785.jpg/200px-ActionComics785.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro

How do all these God fearing Christians feel when Buddhists marry?

That's called "sambo" where I live, and, no, it's not marriage, despite the English term. It's just cohabitation with certain marriage-like attributes. As you say, "if one of you kicks the bucket..." you'll find out pretty quickly how it isn't marriage at all.

Many states in the US have binding common law marraige statutes that carry both blessing of shared estate and the burden of shared legal woes.

My stupid brother and his stupider wife got a divorce years ago on a whim. They immediately reconciled, never seperated and found out 3 years later that according to Kansas Law they were legally married by common law and would have to pay for another divorce. Which they did. LOL.

Marriage is an affair, yes, but ultimately not of the heart. It's a very mundane contractual obligation, one might say. You want an "affair of the heart?" Have one. You want full legal rights and recognition? Get married.

I agree that marraige is a contract. By I also know that the heart is what craves the status of marraige, not so much the logical left side of the brain. It usually goes something like this...."we have been dating for 3 years. If you love me, you'll marry me!" LOL

Off-topic slightly, but I heard that in the UK at least one homosexual couple has already filed for divorce.
Well as far as I'm concerned, divorce is a sacred rite there to rend asunder Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

They're not divorced in my eyes, I can tell you.

It would be even better to get government out of marriage entirely, but unfortunately that isn't possible.

Why?

I agree that marraige is a contract. By I also know that the heart is what craves the status of marraige, not so much the logical left side of the brain. It usually goes something like this...."we have been dating for 3 years. If you love me, you'll marry me!" LOL
Indeed. Fundies sometimes try to make it look like marriage is about reproduction and having kids. Because we all know sterile people can't marry. And that all fertile heterosexual couples who marry want and have children.:rolleyes:

Marriage is about love. People have been marrying out of love for 40 years now. Try to get that through to them, though. You'd think some still live in the "good 'ol days" when marriage was all about taking possession of an object(the woman) from its current owner(her father).

Off-topic slightly, but I heard that in the UK at least one homosexual couple has already filed for divorce.
Well as far as I'm concerned, divorce is a sacred rite there to rend asunder Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

They're not divorced in my eyes, I can tell you.
Well, your point of view at least has the advantage of being consistent. :p

Why?

Because then it's entirely up to the people getting married and to those who provide marriage services. Without government, people could start their own church or marry themselves in a self-ordained ceremony and concepts like divorce would be entirely between the individuals and/or their religious institutions.

It would be total freedom, although the government might have to get involved in custody issues; that's the one problem with total freedom of marriage.

We have something called 'De Facto' where you get married just by the fact you have been living with your partner and a few other criteria, mainly money matters. What this does, is means the government can take more money off people.
They essentially force people into marriage in orded to get higher taxes etc.

It doesn't require the people to be of different genders, even though marriage does (we have civil union for homosexuals). Personally, I see marriage and civil union as the same thing, different name, with the term Civil Union placing judgement upon the participants. It simply doesn't sound as good as marriage to most, and it gets treated inferiorly.

"Cohabitee," not married. You're being confused by the, as always, inadequate English.
I think not, I think you are confused by the paradox of a common law marriage, you aren't legally married in the sense of property rights, but are in the sense that you can't re-marry or marry another with out a divorce, and you are legally liable for your "spouse's" tax woes. I don't think you understand the situation.

But I also don't see how this is a matter of "rights" or even a matter that is that important in the long run. There are more important things, like this billions-of-dollars-per-day war/occupation the nation is participating in.
In Loving v. Virginia the US Supreme Court said that marriage was (if i remember the wording correctly) a fundamental right, and the state could not deny it arbitrarily, because one would-be spouse was White and the other would-be spouse was Black. Race is something that generally cannot be changed. So if that's the case, why should it be denied to a would be spouse who is male and a second would be spouse who is male? Or two females? So if you believe the supreme court, it IS a matter of rights.

Yeah, the nation has more difficult problems to solve, though whether or not they are more important is debatable. But instead of focusing on solving our problems, such as the war, it's easier to focus on minority groups and deny/fight for their rights.

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!
Very libertarian of you … I agree

I think not, I think you are confused by the paradox of a common law marriage, you aren't legally married in the sense of property rights, but are in the sense that you can't re-marry or marry another with out a divorce, and you are legally liable for your "spouse's" tax woes. I don't think you understand the situation.

I just told you we have the have the exact same thing where I live, so how I could be "confused" by the notion remains elusive. You are letting yourself think it's marriage because English lacks a proper term for it - my native language has a very succinct term for it and it is "sammanboende" (lit. cohabitation) which is shortened to "sambo" - it's nothing but cohabitation with certain attributes. As you yourself conceded and then go on to miss the point of, it isn't marriage, and those who are in it aren't married.

I just told you we have the have the exact same thing where I live, so how I could be "confused" by the notion remains elusive. You are letting yourself think it's marriage because English lacks a proper term for it - my native language has a very succinct term for it and it is "sammanboende" (lit. cohabitation) which is shortened to "sambo" - it's nothing but cohabitation with certain attributes. As you yourself conceded and then go on to miss the point of, it isn't marriage, and those who are in it aren't married.
there is a thin line between cohabitation and common law marriage (http://www.unmarried.org/common.html), and once you cross it, you can no longer disolve the relationship with a "let's see other people, and here's your underwear back", you have to actually legally get a divorce, and all the while you are in a common law marriage you can be held responsible for your partners actions, just like you were married with a license, and then there is the fact (can't find the judgment now) that the local supreme court allowed a common law wife to get benefit of the "spousal privledge" statute, which is yet another thing that tells me that common law marriage is much more than "living together" and is actually a legally binding union.

Because then it's entirely up to the people getting married and to those who provide marriage services. Without government, people could start their own church or marry themselves in a self-ordained ceremony and concepts like divorce would be entirely between the individuals and/or their religious institutions.

It would be total freedom, although the government might have to get involved in custody issues; that's the one problem with total freedom of marriage.
the government would have to get involved in a lot more than just custody issues, there are a lot of issues in a divorce that need lawyers and judges, even in marriages without children.

I see nothing wrong with homosexuals getting married. I see nothing wrong with being gay either. Im am not religous person so many of western society's taboos and religous views I do not agree with. I believe it to be idotic to have to wait 72 hours beforehand to get a licences. Then after 72 hours you have to go to a religous authority or jp and then have the cermony. Why cant you just go to the courthouse and get married, if you want to do a religous cermony then that should be your choice not be force into it. I do not feel threathen by homosexuals having the same rights as me, there are gay and lesbian animals in the wild. Its natural behavior, when we were hanging off of trees Im sure there was ancestors of ours in loving homosexual relationships. But our society has gotten to the point that the fundamentalists have more say into our private lives.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marriage was a civil institution long before it was a religious one. How about instead of banning the state from marrying people, we ban the church from doing so.

I have another question in response to this. How do any of you feel towards polyamory where there are more than one person involved. If one person is involved in a homosexual but also heterosexual relationship and all parties agree and got along well, do any of you agree or disagree and why? And plese do not say becasue God says so or the bible says so. I want to here vaild reasons here. I personally believe its ok Ive seen people in these types of relationships and it works out.

I have another question in response to this. How do any of you feel towards polyamory where there are more than one person involved. If one person is involved in a homosexual but also heterosexual relationship and all parties agree and got along well, do any of you agree or disagree and why? And plese do not say becasue God says so or the bible says so. I want to here vaild reasons here. I personally believe its ok Ive seen people in these types of relationships and it works out.

this is a totally different debate - start a thread if you wish to pose a significantly different question

I go with the OP. That is the way i am used to and its fine by me. We here have a marriage by the government, which is a legal contract, and marriage by the church, which has more religious a/o symbolic meaning. If the minister gives you the blessings of the church of your choice its worth shit in a court. Some parishes do bless homosexual pairs, some dont. But what really counts, power of attorney, adoption rights, recognition of guardian status for the partner who did not father/mother the child brought in from another relationship, inheritance rights etc; all that comes with the paper the government issues to exactly two willing human partners who reached the age of consent, are of sound mind, not of immediate family and not yet married to another person.
As may be seen in the last part, i dont buy any slippery slope about people going to marry a litter of toaster/ferret hybrids who happen to be their underage sisters, gay marriage does work.

I have another question in response to this. How do any of you feel towards polyamory where there are more than one person involved.
I feel very bad about polyamorous relationships where only one or two persons are involved.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Marriage was a civil institution long before it was a religious one. How about instead of banning the state from marrying people, we ban the church from doing so.
It does seem a bit odd, in a way, that religion is viewed by so many as a requirement for marriage. I say this because, in my state, if somebody were professing a solid belief in magical pixies who live in their cupboards then they would probably be considered incapable of legally entering a marriage contract; the mentally ill, or persons in the midst of a mental break of some kind, are not considered competant to wed, and any union they enter into while in such a state will usually be ruled unbinding and void. Yet, at the same time, persons who profess belief in an all-powerful all-seeing all-good patriarch who lives in the sky...well, many those people presume to claim marriage as their sole property.

It is an interesting world we live in.

It does seem a bit odd, in a way, that religion is viewed by so many as a requirement for marriage. I say this because, in my state, if somebody were professing a solid belief in magical pixies who live in their cupboards then they would probably be considered incapable of legally entering a marriage contract; the mentally ill, or persons in the midst of a mental break of some kind, are not considered competant to wed, and any union they enter into while in such a state will usually be ruled unbinding and void. Yet, at the same time, persons who profess belief in an all-powerful all-seeing all-good patriarch who lives in the sky...well, many those people presume to claim marriage as their sole property.

It is an interesting world we live in.
that's why I keep saying to completely seperate the two, make everyone go to the courthouse to get married, no more clergy signing the license, if you want to have a religious ceremony fine, that's great, but it's going to have nothing to do with your legal marriage. ;)

that's why I keep saying to completely seperate the two, make everyone go to the courthouse to get married, no more clergy signing the license, if you want to have a religious ceremony fine, that's great, but it's going to have nothing to do with your legal marriage. ;)
I certainly have no objection to that, if we're going to have government involved in marriage.

I've never quite understood why particular superstitions are viewed (by some) as a qualification for marriage. There are people who seem to think that if you don't believe in God you shouldn't be allowed to marry, but to me that sounds like saying that the only people who should be allowed to marry are the people who think breaking a mirror gives you 7 years' bad luck. I don't think we should BAN people from getting married if they believe that breaking a mirror gives bad luck, but I also don't think holding such a belief will in any way increase an individual's ability to fulfill the responsibilities of marriage.

I certainly have no objection to that, if we're going to have government involved in marriage.

I've never quite understood why particular superstitions are viewed (by some) as a qualification for marriage. There are people who seem to think that if you don't believe in God you shouldn't be allowed to marry, but to me that sounds like saying that the only people who should be allowed to marry are the people who think breaking a mirror gives you 7 years' bad luck. I don't think we should BAN people from getting married if they believe that breaking a mirror gives bad luck, but I also don't think holding such a belief will in any way increase an individual's ability to fulfill the responsibilities of marriage.
I think you are right.

I attach religious sig. to my marriage, but actually it's not much more in reality than a legal contract and a commitment by me to adhere to the contract terms.

It would be even better to get government out of marriage entirely, but unfortunately that isn't possible.


Yep, because certain elements of the political world LOVE to have government legislating morals.

But I agree with the original poster. Get government out of something that should be the domain of the church. Let the government grant partnerships to whoever wants them, while leaving the religious organizations to chant and wave their voodoo sticks (or whatever they do) and perform the "ceremony".

It's a simple, clean solution that completely dodges any sort of unpleasant confrontation.

In short, it's a decision worthy of the current surpreme court. :D

Liasia']Or you could just stop whining and let gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I'm not homophobic, because i'm not scared of my house.


Among all of the reasons for not making it legal is that the overwhelming majority of this nations citizens are not in favor of it. Period.

The tiny minority is attempting to rule over the majority. Won't work unless the left gets in control, and then anything works as long as the left can have the power, which is the point and purpose of life for liberals.

1) Are they adults?
2) Do both consent?

Yep? Let them marry civilly.

Let all the OMG GAYS CANNOT MARRY!!!! people all go live on the moon or something.
yeah, but they're icky! Why doesnt anyone think of the children?!

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!

If you can convince all the people who are now married and would become unionized, I can accept this.
Provided you agree that a marriage by the church of gay flufbunnies has just as much value as one done by e.g. a catholic church.

Among all of the reasons for not making it legal is that the overwhelming majority of this nations citizens are not in favor of it. Period.

Which was precisely the same argument made by the people who wanted to keep women from voting. As well as the people who didn't want to let black people marry white people.

In America, it doesn't matter if the majority wants to spit on the civil rights of the minority...we've got this pesky little thing called "The Constitution."


The tiny minority is attempting to rule over the majority. Won't work unless the left gets in control, and then anything works as long as the left can have the power, which is the point and purpose of life for liberals.
First of all, the number of people who oppose gay marriage is barely a majority any more (I've seen surveys that put it as low as 55%). Second of all, the overwhelming majority of Americans age 16-25 believe that gay marriage should be legal, so this whole debate is going to evaporate as soon as the next generation of voters is in control.

But, of course, at that point the homophobes will start whining about how THEY are being oppressed by the evil liberal majority, and will start insisting that the majority shouldn't get to vote to overthrown their homophobia. :)

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!

So .... church only marriage? That gets rid of the idea of tax benefits (can't give tax benefits to a religious institution, you know).

Also, what about next-of-kin and medical issues? What if the person running the hospital is a "God-Fearing" person who doesn't recognize Gay marriage and, thus, won't let a man's husband visit him in ICU or sign any medical release forms?

I'm sorry you don't believe in, nor recognize, that love knows no gender and that your God is so narrow and shallow and bigotted that it must teach you to be as such, but keep your Jesus off my penis.

It does seem a bit odd, in a way, that religion is viewed by so many as a requirement for marriage. I say this because, in my state, if somebody were professing a solid belief in magical pixies who live in their cupboards then they would probably be considered incapable of legally entering a marriage contract; the mentally ill, or persons in the midst of a mental break of some kind, are not considered competant to wed, and any union they enter into while in such a state will usually be ruled unbinding and void. Yet, at the same time, persons who profess belief in an all-powerful all-seeing all-good patriarch who lives in the sky...well, many those people presume to claim marriage as their sole property.

It is an interesting world we live in.
Very intresting world indeed

that's why I keep saying to completely seperate the two, make everyone go to the courthouse to get married, no more clergy signing the license, if you want to have a religious ceremony fine, that's great, but it's going to have nothing to do with your legal marriage. ;)

I don't really have a problem with clergy signing off on the license - it is still only legally binding if all requirements are met. It just makes it more convenient for those who do choose to have a religious ceremony. Generally, as I understand it, they still have to go to the courthouse to get the license.

The tiny minority is attempting to rule over the majority.

And since the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, they have every right to do so.

So .... church only marriage? That gets rid of the idea of tax benefits (can't give tax benefits to a religious institution, you know).

Also, what about next-of-kin and medical issues? What if the person running the hospital is a "God-Fearing" person who doesn't recognize Gay marriage and, thus, won't let a man's husband visit him in ICU or sign any medical release forms?

I'm sorry you don't believe in, nor recognize, that love knows no gender and that your God is so narrow and shallow and bigotted that it must teach you to be as such, but keep your Jesus off my penis.
I think what he was avocating was that thoes benifits such as next of kin and tax and medical things be covered under "Civil unions" in ALL cases regardless of sexual orientation

The "Marrige title" is just an optional title

I don't really have a problem with clergy signing off on the license - it is still only legally binding if all requirements are met. It just makes it more convenient for those who do choose to have a religious ceremony. Generally, as I understand it, they still have to go to the courthouse to get the license.
sure, but if the clergy had no authority at all, then people couldn't run around saying "but it's a religious thing", I say everyone go to the courthouse (yes, you have to go there anyway for the license) and get it signed off by the courts, just like any other legal venture (adoption, divorce, bankruptcy ect.)

sure, but if the clergy had no authority at all, then people couldn't run around saying "but it's a religious thing", I say everyone go to the courthouse (yes, you have to go there anyway for the license) and get it signed off by the courts, just like any other legal venture (adoption, divorce, bankruptcy ect.)

Sounds extremely fair.
Next question: will this procedure be called "unioning" or "marrying" ? In the second case one could call the religious procedure "matrimonying" or something like that.

Among all of the reasons for not making it legal is that the overwhelming majority of this nations citizens are not in favor of it. Period.

First of all - untrue. At this point, it is hardly an "overwhelming majority", and the majority of the younger generation actually are in favor of it.

Second of all - irrelevant. The majority of citizens being in favor of treating a minority as second-class citizens is completely irrelevant. We have this thing called a Constitution. Much of it was specifically designed to keep the majority from trampling the minority.

The tiny minority is attempting to rule over the majority.

Hardly. The majority is trying to trample the minority. Luckily, all of us in the majority aren't homophobes. No one is trying to force you to enter into a homosexual marriage, are they? Then what rule is being hung over you?

And since the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, they have every right to do so.

Until the next election, when the majority gives the out of touch government the boot. That's the most important part.

I think what he was avocating was that thoes benifits such as next of kin and tax and medical things be covered under "Civil unions" in ALL cases regardless of sexual orientation

The "Marrige title" is just an optional title

In other words, he's arguing for an unnecessary name change. It makes about as much sense as saying that the courts can no longer use the word "confession" because that is the purview of the Church, and a confession is telling a priest your sins and having him absolve you.

Until the next election, when the majority gives the out of touch government the boot. That's the most important part.

Actually, no. That is the wonderful thing of having a constitution.
The majority simply cannot trample the minority if the constitution says the minority is right.

I personally just want marriage to be legal for homosexuals with the same name (rather than 'civil unions' which suggests it is worth less than marriage) and same rights. Whether each church allows marriages is up to it IMO. It is their jurisdiction IMO, but a marriage that holds no mention of God, why should that have to obey religious views? Many atheists get married, many people get married in conditions that are basically godless, personally I'm not getting married in a religious environment myself, unless I meet a girl who is religious (which is unlikely), in a non-religious ceremony why should religious views hold ANY value? Seeing as we live in a world where divorce is common and where people get married drunk in Vegas, it seems like the religion went out of marriage years ago anyway.

sure, but if the clergy had no authority at all, then people couldn't run around saying "but it's a religious thing", I say everyone go to the courthouse (yes, you have to go there anyway for the license) and get it signed off by the courts, just like any other legal venture (adoption, divorce, bankruptcy ect.)
See, that's the thing, it doesn't matter at all if the Church of Your Choice signs off on the marriage or not, in order to be legally married and entitled to the secular benefits (and drawbacks), you have to get a license from the state. So legal marriage in the US, at least, is not a religious matter at all. Oh, you can make it religious if you like and most people do because they want that blessing and sanction or because they feel the have to, but it really isn't necessary. So to my mind it comes down to this: the "full faith & credit" clause of the US Constitution says that the several states will give full faith and credit to the acts of other states, which is why I can get married in Hawaii, say, and go live in Maine without having to get married all over again in Maine. I would think, therefore, that state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, as would be a federal law doing the same thing. Amending the Constitution is the only way to go, and it's been tried, with no success, thankfully. It does get trotted out by conservatives every other year, though, because it makes such a nice rabble-rousing issue. "Vote for me or there will be gay Islamic terrorists getting married and then blowing themselves up righton the steps of our town hall!"

In other words, he's arguing for an unnecessary name change. It makes about as much sense as saying that the courts can no longer use the word "confession" because that is the purview of the Church, and a confession is telling a priest your sins and having him absolve you.
Don’t yell at me I agree with you lol

Just part of me is pragmatic and realize that we will have a church that will give us gays the title too and that will piss those stuck up bastards off even more.

I personally just want marriage to be legal for homosexuals with the same name (rather than 'civil unions' which suggests it is worth less than marriage) and same rights. Whether each church allows marriages is up to it IMO. It is their jurisdiction IMO, but a marriage that holds no mention of God, why should that have to obey religious views? Many atheists get married, many people get married in conditions that are basically godless, personally I'm not getting married in a religious environment myself, unless I meet a girl who is religious (which is unlikely), in a non-religious ceremony why should religious views hold ANY value? Seeing as we live in a world where divorce is common and where people get married drunk in Vegas, it seems like the religion went out of marriage years ago anyway.
Absolutely.

Whether each church allows marriages is up to it IMO. It is their jurisdiction IMO, but a marriage that holds no mention of God, why should that have to obey religious views?

So the church has jurisdiction over God?

So the church has jurisdiction over God?

In practice ? Yes.

So the church has jurisdiction over God?
What, you hadn't noticed?

In practice ? Yes.

So nobody can mention God without express written consent of a church?

So the church has jurisdiction over God?
I don't see where he said that. I think it's more that a given church has jurisdiction over what their particular religion has to say about marriage. If they say that they believe God hates fags, that's their business...government shouldn't worry about telling a bunch of Baptists that the Baptist God endorses gay marriage, because who the hell cares?

So nobody can mention God without express written consent of a church?

Depends on where you are. In some countries (which technically even includes countries like the Netherlands) saying bad things about God is indeed a crime. The Jews also dislike frivolous use of the word, hence their use of G-d.

In other countries saying what you believe that God says and thinks means you just started your own religion.

In both cases God himself has nothing to say about this.

I think it's more that a given church has jurisdiction over what their particular religion has to say about marriage. If they say that they believe God hates fags, that's their business...government shouldn't worry about telling a bunch of Baptists that the Baptist God endorses gay marriage, because who the hell cares?

Well, sure, I can certainly agree with that. It is the perrogative of any particular church to hold whatever nutty ideas it wants, which is why we cannot, and must not, allow them *sole* jurisdiction over something as fundamental as marriage.

With the secular nature of marriage, allowing any religious institution to take lock and key would make for a very pitiful state of affairs.

What would happen, say, if a married couple - married by a church - move to another State and a different church and the new church doesn't recognize the old church's marriage because, oh say, the man has been previously divorced? Well ... do we force that couple to remarry under the new church's definition, or are they just boned?

Either the State must maintain absolute control over marriage - as it is now - or the State must intervene in the affairs of churches and force them to recognize such marriages - which would violate the First Amendment.

I've posted this before (ages ago, and got three pages of replies telling me to kill myself before anyone actually read it, but hey):

Step 1: Find all homosexuals and bisexuals. Heck, everyone who isn't perfectly heterosexual. Horrible sinners that they are.
Step 2: Find all people who don't have problems with the above people. They're obviously commie traitors.
Step 3: Take everyone else, and give them a really nice island to live on, away from all the evil sinners.
Step 4: Give the island a perfectly non-gay name, say 'Perfectia'.
Step 5: Relax as all the good and sinless people live happily on Perfectia, while the sinners are out of view.

Now wouldn't that be great? ;)

(And this time, people, read and comprehend before telling me to kill myself over what you assume is just another homophobe's blabbering, please?)

I've posted this before (ages ago, and got three pages of replies telling me to kill myself before anyone actually read it, but hey):

Step 1: Find all homosexuals and bisexuals. Heck, everyone who isn't perfectly heterosexual. Horrible sinners that they are.
Step 2: Find all people who don't have problems with the above people. They're obviously commie traitors.
Step 3: Take everyone else, and give them a really nice island to live on, away from all the evil sinners.
Step 4: Give the island a perfectly non-gay name, say 'Perfectia'.
Step 5: Relax as all the good and sinless people live happily on Perfectia, while the sinners are out of view.

Now wouldn't that be great? ;)

(And this time, people, read and comprehend before telling me to kill myself over what you assume is just another homophobe's blabbering, please?)

ZOMG UR A HOMOPHOBIAC!!! YOU SHOULD SHUT UP YOUR STUPID FACE I H8T PPL LIKE U!! HOMOPHOBIA IS TEH SUXXORRZZZZZ11111!!

ZOMG UR A HOMOPHOBIAC!!! YOU SHOULD SHUT UP YOUR STUPID FACE I H8T PPL LIKE U!! HOMOPHOBIA IS TEH SUXXORRZZZZZ11111!!
5hu7up y0u n008 64y5 4r3 7h3 5ux0rzzzzzzz!!11!

5hu7up y0u n008 64y5 4r3 7h3 5ux0rzzzzzzz!!11!
Whoa. You totally win Teh N00B Warz...it took me like five tries to figure out what the hell that says.

:D

So the church has jurisdiction over God?
No, but different churches have their own sets of doctrine. The Catholics, for example, have a clearly set out set of beliefs. I believe, and hope, that eventually they will change their view on gay marriage, but until that day I don't believe you win the argument by forcing your beliefs onto the Catholic Church. Whether the Catholic Church's priests carry out gay marriages in their own churches should be their business, and equally what happens in 100% secularised marriage ceremonies should not be any business of the Catholic Church.

Whoa. You totally win Teh N00B Warz...it took me like five tries to figure out what the hell that says.

:D
Lol I found a FF extention that will convert what you type into leet

I dont know if that makes me more or less nerdish

ZOMG UR A HOMOPHOBIAC!!! YOU SHOULD SHUT UP YOUR STUPID FACE I H8T PPL LIKE U!! HOMOPHOBIA IS TEH SUXXORRZZZZZ11111!!

*cries*
*on the inside*

:(


:p

Liasia']Or you could just stop whining and let gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I'm not homophobic, because i'm not scared of my house.I believe the same here! I'm straight but I believe homosexual people should be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals such as being able to marry. I mean, what is the big deal anyway? Who is it going to hurt to let homosexual couples marry?!?!

*cries*
*on the inside*

:(


:p
Just trying to make you feel at home. I know that I start getting freaked out if I'm in a thread about gay marriage for more than five posts and haven't been flamed by some random git who spells "homosexual" with a 6.

I believe the same here! I'm straight but I believe homosexual people should be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals such as being able to marry. I mean, what is the big deal anyway? Who is it going to hurt to let homosexual couples marry?!?!
Quite right. Have you ever noticed that if ask someone who opposed same-sex marriage how it harms or diminishes his or her own marriage, there's never a good (I nearly said "straight") answer?

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

Marrige shouldn't have anything to do with religion unless the couple wants it to be.:rolleyes:

Whether the Catholic Church's priests carry out gay marriages in their own churches should be their business, and equally what happens in 100% secularised marriage ceremonies should not be any business of the Catholic Church.

What I'm referring to is the assertation that if a wedding ceremony mentions God, then it must fall under a church's jurisdiction. I call bullshit on that. God doesn't go to church. No church holds jurisdiction over God.

They can decide whether or not to perform wedding ceremonies as the STATE gives the power for religious leaders to sign marriage licenses, but they do not hold the only power to mention God in a wedding ceremony.

Quite right. Have you ever noticed that if ask someone who opposed same-sex marriage how it harms or diminishes his or her own marriage, there's never a good (I nearly said "straight") answer?Uhhhh huuuuhh!:rolleyes:

Quite right. Have you ever noticed that if ask someone who opposed same-sex marriage how it harms or diminishes his or her own marriage, there's never a good (I nearly said "straight") answer?
They always seem to veer off and start talking about how "the institution of marriage" is hurt when gay people wed, which is kind of like saying that "the institution of fashion" is hurt when people wear stripes and plaids at the same time.

What I'm referring to is the assertation that if a wedding ceremony mentions God, then it must fall under a church's jurisdiction. I call bullshit on that. God doesn't go to church. No church holds jurisdiction over God.

They can decide whether or not to perform wedding ceremonies as the STATE gives the power for religious leaders to sign marriage licenses, but they do not hold the only power to mention God in a wedding ceremony.If a ceremony mentions God, then I would say the vast majority of the time it is either taking place in a church, or a priest is carrying out the ceremony. In which case it does fall under church jurisdiction yes. There may well be weddings where that is not the case but I've never heard of one. If it is indeed taking place outside the jurisdiction of a church (and personally I fail to see why anyone wanting to get married would have a non-minister carry it out and then make God a part of the ceremony) then whatever...

They always seem to veer off and start talking about how "the institution of marriage" is hurt when gay people wed, which is kind of like saying that "the institution of fashion" is hurt when people wear stripes and plaids at the same time.
The "institution of fashion" died when the first article of clothing made from Spandex appeared in a store somewhere. And as some comics somewhere said, "Why shouldn't gay people suffer like the rest of us?"

If a ceremony mentions God, then I would say the vast majority of the time it is either taking place in a church, or a priest is carrying out the ceremony. In which case it does fall under church jurisdiction yes. There may well be weddings where that is not the case but I've never heard of one. If it is indeed taking place outside the jurisdiction of a church (and personally I fail to see why anyone wanting to get married would have a non-minister carry it out and then make God a part of the ceremony) then whatever...
I can see a deeply religious couple doing a non-church wedding with mention of God, no problem. In my state, Colorado, all you have to do is fill out the paperwork that the state requires and get it witnessed. You don't actually have to have anyone preside over a ceremony of any kind. My neighbors did that a few years ago, I admit I had no idea it was that simple.

I can see a deeply religious couple doing a non-church wedding with mention of God, no problem. In my state, Colorado, all you have to do is fill out the paperwork that the state requires and get it witnessed. You don't actually have to have anyone preside over a ceremony of any kind. My neighbors did that a few years ago, I admit I had no idea it was that simple.
I live in Britain, and marrital law is a bit more complex here ;)

I live in Britain, and marrital law is a bit more complex here ;)
"Complex" ... yeah. :p

I live in Britain, and marrital law is a bit more complex here ;)

Ah, true ... bit different way of going about things there. It varies a little from State to State here, but the general idea is the same across the US.

seems to me it is hypocritical to say there should be no law forcing churches to allow marrige of gays, becuase churches have rights to their beiliefs and then in the same arguement say there should be a law against churches marring gays. I addition if there is a law against gay marrige whats the punishment, do you fine the couple or the preist 500$, throw them in jail, give them the death penalty. A law against it is just words on paper, people will marry anyway. guess you could set up police and survelence in every church, give everyone DNA test to confirm their gender, I mean you really need draconian enforcement to stop them and even then people will still manage to do it. Course the aguement you can't stop them from marring is about the same as you can't stop people from stealing. So there will be plenty of well televised police raid on churches, breaking up illegall marrige crime rings. It would definatly cut Gay marrige down. Your tax dollars at work, next on the agenda, stopping marrige of people with different skin color or religion we love having government telling us what our religous practises will be.

They always seem to veer off and start talking about how "the institution of marriage" is hurt when gay people wed, which is kind of like saying that "the institution of fashion" is hurt when people wear stripes and plaids at the same time.
Few will argue that gays have hurt the fashion industry.:rolleyes:
Some argue against gay marriage because of immorality of the relationship. Others point to Scandinavia where the concept of marriage has been 'diluted' and has resulted in less marriages and higher divorce rates. Interestingly, the same statistics are used to point to the benefits of gay marriage - statisticians lie... Anyhow, I'm personally fine with gays paying more taxes through the marriage penalty (soon to be done away with?) and being able to easily establish benefactors, etc. I don't want the relationship called marriage, however. Pick another name and stick with it: civil union is inocuous enough.

seems to me it is hypocritical to say there should be no law forcing churches to allow marrige of gays, becuase churches have rights to their beiliefs and then in the same arguement say there should be a law against churches marring gays.

I'm confused. Who made this argument?

Anyhow, I'm personally fine with gays paying more taxes through the marriage penalty (soon to be done away with?) and being able to easily establish benefactors, etc. I don't want the relationship called marriage, however. Pick another name and stick with it: civil union is inocuous enough.

Why not?

Should we issue homosexuals something other than a driver's license too? "Gay license", maybe? Should we refuse to grant a homosexual a passport and call it a "gayport" instead?

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive.”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on days with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Are you male ? In that case I just turned homosexual and fell in love.

Why not?

Should we issue homosexuals something other than a driver's license too? "Gay license", maybe? Should we refuse to grant a homosexual a passport and call it a "gayport" instead?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use. Homosexuality should not preclude people from forming lifelong unions. Calling those unions marriage is a falicy and not, by definition, correct. Gay couples are not traditional couples, and will probably never be viewed as such by much of the population. If people are simply trying to get the same partnership rights as heterosexual couples, then why choose the battle of 'marriage'? Trying to adopt the term 'marriage' only serves to shock and offend - is that the main goal?

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!
Sorry for not reading the thread, in case someone else made this point. Stop hiding behind a smoke screen of "conservative," "left," and "right." What you are is a bigot. Your political spectral position is irrelevant.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use.

But *WE* made up the definition! We did it. It means we can change it!

The definitions of words change all the time, you know. "Marriage" is an English word. Not everyone speaks English and it really hasn't been around all that long in the grand scheme of things.

It's just a word. It's not carved in stone.

As a matter of fact, even Biblically, the term used is "cleave to", not "marriage". So when the Bible talks about a male/female union, they mean a "cleaving to".

So I submit that we won't call gay marriages a man "cleaving to" another man, mmkay?

But *WE* made up the definition! We did it. It means we can change it!

The definitions of words change all the time, you know. "Marriage" is an English word.
The word for marriage is quite universal. The Chinese have defined it as between a man and a woman for 4000 years (or so it appears from my limited research). The Chinese even had quite a bit of art and literature devoted to homosexual male relationships, but never permitted marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman has been universal, until recently. Again, what is the goal - recognized, legal relationships or redefining a word and offending even more people? The goal is, after all, the goal - pick your battles.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Since when, the 1950s or 60s in america?
Before then, it was between a man and a woman of the same race.
Before then, it was between a white man and a white woman.
Before then, it was an agreement between a man and the father of a woman (who had little or no say in the matter) giving him ownership of the woman.

Of course, if you go back, it was more egalitarian and allowed for same sex relationships, but you don't want to hear inconvenient things like that when you can stick to your prejudice, do you? Before patriachial religions got a hold of marriage, it was a fine institution.

Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use.
How about since religions stole the term in the first place, they find a new term.

Calling those unions marriage is a falicy and not, by definition, correct.
You haven't looked in a dictionary for a long time, have you?

Gay couples are not traditional couples,
Nor are mixed race couples, nor are couples where the man stays at home to rear the children and the woman works, hell, nor are dual income couples, nor are couples who cohabitated before getting married, yet you're not banning any of these people from getting married.

and will probably never be viewed as such by much of the population.
Mixed racial couples aren't viewed as traditional by much of the population. Does this mean that the bigotry of one group means they should be denied the right to marry as well?

If people are simply trying to get the same partnership rights as heterosexual couples, then why choose the battle of 'marriage'? Trying to adopt the term 'marriage' only serves to shock and offend - is that the main goal?
No, the main issue is that separate, but equal may be the former but certainly not the latter.

So seriously, stop pretending this is about something other than your distaste for the vile, sinful lifestyle of the people you wish to persecute and admit to your bigotry.

The word for marriage is quite universal. The Chinese have defined it as between a man and a woman for 4000 years (or so it appears from my limited research). The Chinese even had quite a bit of art and literature devoted to homosexual male relationships, but never permitted marriage.
Actually, as long as a man produced at least one male offspring, he was free to do whatever he wanted from there on out.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been universal, until recently.
Not true. Look to native american tribes, same sex marriages were allowed there.

Again, what is the goal - recognized, legal relationships or redefining a word and offending even more people? The goal is, after all, the goal - pick your battles.
Well, if the word isn't important, why don't you let the same sex couples share yours? It's not as though marriage has ever had a fixed definition. If that were the case, then I wouldn't have any part of it... I really don't think I'm property.

So seriously, stop pretending this is about something other than your distaste for the vile, sinful lifestyle of the people you wish to persecute and admit to your bigotry.

I love you.

I love you.
*blushes*

You're not so bad yourself.

*blushes*

You're not so bad yourself.

Hooray! :D

Are you male ? In that case I just turned homosexual and fell in love.

Nope, not male. And happily engaged anyways. =)


Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Says who?

Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use.

How is this any more of a definition change than the one that allowed blacks and whites to marry? Or the one that allowed men and women to be equal partners in the relationship? The definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the years - and has been different in different cultures. In some cultures, marriage included homosexual couples - go figure.

Calling those unions marriage is a falicy and not, by definition, correct.

Actually, if you look up the definition in just about any dictionary, same sex marriage is included.

Gay couples are not traditional couples, and will probably never be viewed as such by much of the population.

You mean like interracial couples?

If people are simply trying to get the same partnership rights as heterosexual couples, then why choose the battle of 'marriage'? Trying to adopt the term 'marriage' only serves to shock and offend - is that the main goal?

No, the main goal is to get the same rights. And, as demonstrated in Brown v. Board, one cannot truly have the same rights in a separate construct.

Marriage between a man and a woman has been universal, until recently.

Incorrect. Druidic traditions recognized homosexual marriage, as did many Native American traditions. Even the early Christian church seems to have recognized some homosexual marriage.

This issue is so dead.
Well at least in Canada it is.

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive.”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on days with odd numbers and only in the right lane.

Okay... I'm straight... I'm personally against gay marriage [a religious institution]... this has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read... gays can't drive because they don't have kids to drive around, because Henry Ford was against gays, because it's the "American" thing to do...

Of course, this stupidity does have a certain NS-type speech problem...

Okay... I'm straight... I'm personally against gay marriage [a religious institution]...

Civil marriage is not a religious institution, my dear.

this has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read... gays can't drive because they don't have kids to drive around, because Henry Ford was against gays, because it's the "American" thing to do...

Of course, this stupidity does have a certain NS-type speech problem...

You think these arguments are stupid? They are the EXACT same stupid arguments people like you use to try and deny homosexuals another type of license - a marriage license.
They say homosexuals cannot marry because they cannot have children together - never mind that most of the protections afforded to marriage have nothing to do with children. They say homosexuals cannot marry because they claim God invented marriage and God hates teh gays - never mind that (a) any claims we make about what God wants are personal beliefs, nothing more and (b) God doesn't run our government. They say that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation (while simultaneously arguing that they did not choose their own) and therefore shouldn't marry. And so on...

If we cannot deny homosexuals driver's licenses on the basis of these arguments, why should we be able to deny them marriage licenses? Because you have a hardon about the fact that marriage can also refer to a religious construct and your personal religion doesn't recognize homosexual unions?

That entire thing is a direct transfer of anti-gay marriage arguments. If you think they're stupid, maybe you should look at your own opposition to equal treament under the law for homosexuals.

Okay... I'm straight... I'm personally against gay marriage [a religious institution]... this has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read... gays can't drive because they don't have kids to drive around, because Henry Ford was against gays, because it's the "American" thing to do...

Of course, this stupidity does have a certain NS-type speech problem...
:rolleyes:

Now, try reading that in again, this time pretend that you can detect satire.

And as has been mentioned many times in this and many other threads, marriage did not start as a religious institution, it was a civil one to begin with.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Or a man and multiple women. Or a woman and multiple men. Or even a blending of both sexes. Please stop pretending a significant part of the world does not exist or that a lot of history never happened.

Just let them get married like the rest of us. This whole thing is retarded. What kind of idiot dreamed up the idea that only straight people should be able to get married. Please.

I belive everyone should have the same rights, no matter what it is you do or belive in. We gave women rights, we gave blacks rights, we gave animals rights, we give people in prison rights, why not let some homosexuals have some rights, The KKK has more rights then homosexuals, is that right??? So what if the guy likes to put something in some other dudes butt. Or if a girl wants to lick some other girls area, all guys like to watch to girls go at it anyways, so i say give them the rights, not like its going to take anything away from us that we havent already lost. Plus there are more important things in the world to worry about then my gay neighbors being married, as long as they pay taxes they should get the same rights.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use.Ahh because if something has always been that way that makes it right? So black people should have been looked upon as inferior because it has always been that way. Damn that Martin Luther King Jr. and his attempts to effect change! Homosexuality should not preclude people from forming lifelong unions. Calling those unions marriage is a falicy and not, by definition, correct. Gay couples are not traditional couples, and will probably never be viewed as such by much of the population.People accept divorce these days, that's not traditional. I fail to see why gay couples are any different. Indeed speaking as a young Brit I'd say gay couples are almost universally accepted as being just as 'normal' (whatever the hell 'normal' means) as straight couples among our rather secular youth.If people are simply trying to get the same partnership rights as heterosexual couples, then why choose the battle of 'marriage'? Trying to adopt the term 'marriage' only serves to shock and offend - is that the main goal?But by using a different term like 'civil union' what you are saying is that the relationship is inferior to a traditional one and therefore not worthy of the title of marriage. That sir is discrimination. No two ways about it. That is why I fight for gay marriage, not civil unions, not some moronic need to offend people. I couldn't give a toss whether you are shocked and offended, I want equality for homosexuals, not just in terms of legal rights which is what you are calling for, but in terms of real life.

You assume that because something has always been one way that makes it right. That is fundamentally wrong. If everyone took that view you would not have the US constitution, it was a radical change in the way politics was done. You would not have equality for black people, you would still have European States virtually at each other's throats. Just because something is 'traditional' does not make it right. We must analyse our traditions, and ask ourselves whether they are right, just because traditional wisdom says it is so, does not make it so.

Ahh because if something has always been that way that makes it right? So black people should have been looked upon as inferior because it has always been that way.
I leave that to all those who believe wholy in Darwinism. I personally don't really care about the color of skin.

But by using a different term like 'civil union' what you are saying is that the relationship is inferior to a traditional one and therefore not worthy of the title of marriage. That sir is discrimination.

It is pretty easy to discriminate (discern the difference between) a gay couple versus a heterosexual couple. I don't care what you call it.

You would not have equality for black people

You associate homosexuality and the people's treatment of homosexuals with blacks in the United States and Africa during slavery? Shame on you.

You don't care what I think, but you want equality for gay couples, in terms of real life? That is a contradiction. Again, I don't have a problem with the legal unions of gays. I do have a problem calling it a marriage. I don't care if you are gay, but please don't equate feelings/desires with people's ethnicity or gender. Gays are legally protected from violence. Gays are not apparently gay (as opposed to black) in a job interview. Your attitude - that of forcing acceptance on others - is offensive to me. How about setting a positive, persuasive argument and helping me understand? Or how about listening so you could understand. Perhaps that would build equality in real life. Keep ranting and you will get other gays rallying behind you (but not all), and you will get no converts.

I am all for the government not distinguishing between wed and unwed folk....gay, straight or martian. I think the govt needs to stay out of our bedrooms and affairs of the heart.

Hear hear.

I leave that to all those who believe wholy in Darwinism. I personally don't really care about the color of skin.
Yes, because the theory of evolution promotes racism. :rolleyes:

It is pretty easy to discriminate (discern the difference between) a gay couple versus a heterosexual couple. I don't care what you call it.
Yeah, and it's pretty easy to discriminate (discern the difference between) a multiracial couple versus a same race couple.

You associate homosexuality and the people's treatment of homosexuals with blacks in the United States and Africa during slavery? Shame on you.
Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the target is.

You don't care what I think, but you want equality for gay couples, in terms of real life? That is a contradiction. Again, I don't have a problem with the legal unions of gays. I do have a problem calling it a marriage. I don't care if you are gay, but please don't equate feelings/desires with people's ethnicity or gender. Gays are legally protected from violence. Gays are not apparently gay (as opposed to black) in a job interview. Your attitude - that of forcing acceptance on others - is offensive to me. How about setting a positive, persuasive argument and helping me understand? Or how about listening so you could understand. Perhaps that would build equality in real life. Keep ranting and you will get other gays rallying behind you (but not all), and you will get no converts.
You don't care what I think, but you want equality for black people, in terms of real life? That is a contradiction. Again, I don't have a problem with black people working. I do have a problem with them getting paid the same as white folk. I don't care if you're black, but please dont' equate feelings/desires with people's ethnicity or gender. Black people are legally protected from violence. Black people are not apparantly black on a job application (as opposed to women). Your attitude - that it's alright to discriminate on the basis of something that one can't change about oneself - is offensive to me. How about you stop building flimsy arguments and just accept the fact that you're a bigot who enjoys wallowing on their own ignorance. Perhaps then you could realize that equality for minority groups benefits society as a whole. Keep ranting and you'll get people pointing and laughing about your antiquated point of view, but you won't convince anyone.

Hear hear.
Perhaps you missed the fact that marriage was a civil institution long before it was a religious one. Perhaps religious groups should stay out of marriage altogehter.

I don't really get this whole issue...

Marriage is civil and it is religious. If a government wants to grant legal marital rights to same-sex couples, then it has the right to do so, regardless of the attitude of churches. If a church wants to recognize same-sex couples, then it's going to do it regardless of whether or not their union is legally recognized. Civil marriage and religious marriage operate entirely independent of one another. If two gay people want to raise children, one partner will adopt/they'll use artifical insemination and they'll have a family. Marriage would make it easier and more protected for them to do so, but they still won't be stopped, so protecting children is a ridiculous argument.

The way I see it, everything and everyone operates independent of one another. So what the hell is the issue? Give gays marital rights. Religious institutions will be intact as will governmental institutions, and heterosexual unions will be unharmed. Just because gay couples will receive the benefits of marriage doesn't mean that being gay will somehow be promoted, nor condoned by society. Nothing would change from the perspective of a God-fearing, anti-gay marriage heterosexual. The only change that would occur is that those two lesbians you always see together would then be together legally. That's it.

You don't care what I think, but you want equality for black people, in terms of real life? That is a contradiction. Again, I don't have a problem with black people working. I do have a problem with them getting paid the same as white folk. I don't care if you're black, but please dont' equate feelings/desires with people's ethnicity or gender. Black people are legally protected from violence. Black people are not apparantly black on a job application (as opposed to women).


This thread is proving my point. Keep acting like those who don't hold your opinion are unintelligent and bigotted, and you will just continue to meet resistance. Rally together and cheer! Great. It seems your cause could use some more support from the outside. Someone mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King. He's a powerful example of how to do that. And think - its unlikely that anyone from your corner would get shot over it.


Just because gay couples will receive the benefits of marriage doesn't mean that being gay will somehow be promoted, nor condoned by society. - clip -The only change that would occur is that those two lesbians you always see together would then be together legally. That's it.

That's nothing to get all worked up about. I starting to think, based on these other posts, that getting worked up about the topic is half the fun. From what the news shows of the Gay Pride gathering in Atl. it seems that the point isn't so much about being accepted by society as a general contempt for society. Oh well. I am certain that like all people, all gays aren't as unabashedly hateful and distasteful.

Yes, because the theory of evolution promotes racism. :rolleyes:


I said Darwinism:
"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes. "
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of the Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Chapter 7

Dak - Its OK to be wrong, just don't stick facts out there that people can verify if you don't want anyone to know it.

This thread is proving my point. Keep acting like those who don't hold your opinion are unintelligent and bigotted, and you will just continue to meet resistance.
You are bigotted. I wouldn't necessarily say unintelligent, just ignorant.

It seems your cause could use some more support from the outside.
My cause? I'm not gay, I'm just not a bigot.

Someone mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King. He's a powerful example of how to do that. And think - its unlikely that anyone from your corner would get shot over it.
Oh please, don't act like gay men and women haven't suffered horrible deaths at the hands of homophobes.

I said Darwinism:
"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes. "
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of the Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Chapter 7

Dak - Its OK to be wrong, just don't stick facts out there that people can verify if you don't want anyone to know it.
Oh please, don't act like there aren't people who use Darwinism interchangably with evolution. How on earth am I to know that you aren't actually incorrectly referring to evolution?

Oh please, don't act like gay men and women haven't suffered horrible deaths at the hands of homophobes.

Very true. :(

I like the OP idea - I generally share it. However, I'd rather just let marriage be marriage - that is to say, two people getting married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Genders involved becomes irrelevant (and resistance against gay marriage futile... :D)

This thread is proving my point. Keep acting like those who don't hold your opinion are unintelligent and bigotted, and you will just continue to meet resistance. Rally together and cheer! Great. It seems your cause could use some more support from the outside. Someone mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King. He's a powerful example of how to do that. And think - its unlikely that anyone from your corner would get shot over it.

Homosexuals have been beaten to death over their sexuality. Those who rally for gay rights have been harrassed and attacked.

Meanwhile, it isn't about not holding a given opinion - it is about holding a clearly bigotted one. You aren't a bigot because you don't agree with someone. You are a bigot because you hold bigotted views.

From what the news shows of the Gay Pride gathering in Atl. it seems that the point isn't so much about being accepted by society as a general contempt for society.

I don't know what the news shows were showing, but there was hardly a contempt for society there. The only people showing such contempt were the protestors who decided to show up in midtown yelling "God hates fags!" and other such things.

I don't know what the news shows were showing, but there was hardly a contempt for society there. The only people showing such contempt were the protestors who decided to show up in midtown yelling "God hates fags!" and other such things.
What the news was describing was pretty much open sex and groping. The manner in which it was being done was more like a well lubricated spring break than an adult march. Before someone hops off on the gay thing, this behaviour should not be tolerated from anyone. Oh, and by the way God loves fags.

Oh please, don't act like there aren't people who use Darwinism interchangably with evolution. How on earth am I to know that you aren't actually incorrectly referring to evolution?
Its your assumptions that are causing my general disregard for your posts.

I'm confused. Who made this argument?
right wing nuts, with their signs, you know the signs that say ban gay marrige. Those same people go marching out with signs when a court makes a decision that a church must allow gay marrige in wich case they hold up signs saying seperation of church and state.

Makes perfect sense to me. What business does the government have sanctioning or not sanctioning a socioreligious institution anyway? Marriage is, or should be, just a legal and financial contract between individuals with the government as the mediator. The religious and social aspects can be left up to communities, churches, families, etc.

Why else would they try to pass a law saying marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, this would assume that it can mean something else, haha caught you.

remind me again why the word marriage is so magical, and powerful. after all didn't "marriage" exist before the word did. And is it not also true the different religions have different definitions of it and indeed different words for it, I am no word sholar but I am willing to bet that foreign words that are loosly defined to mean the same as marriage actually mean something slightly different. Its odd to say that gays can't marry. The current meaning of the word gay is even newer then the one for marriage, what about marriages of "gays" before the word gay meant anything other then happy. Why is everyone complaining about the meaning or what they think it means, or something more silly like saying the word civil union should be used. After all isnt a rose by anyother name just as sweet? definitions of words, changes and new words appear all the time. Cool and hot refering to things other then the temperature. In other words, the word marriage in itself is nothing. It is simply a referece to a binding agreement, one made in the heart. So for those of you who have never had an official cerimony or even legal recognition, you are married where it really counts. regardless of what anyone else believes. The idea of marriage is more powerful then any spoken word.

Oh please, don't act like gay men and women haven't suffered horrible deaths at the hands of homophobes.
Young Mr. Sheppard comes to mind.

Oh, and by the way God loves fags.
Somehow, reading this makes me feel creepy. O.o

Oh please, don't act like gay men and women haven't suffered horrible deaths at the hands of homophobes.

I believe in Texas someone was literally dragged to death behind a pickup for being gay.

Well, let me just say that this is the only forum I have ever seen that debates this civilly...no pun intended. It's refreshing. And I personally believe that you have the right to marry whomever you want to, but don't expect others to agree or sanctify it. I feel bad for all the gays and lezzies and bis that can't marry their lovers, but I see no solution in sight unless certain religious conservatives relax.

~Mia

Look, the First Ammendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That, essentially, declares government secular, and while you cna be religious to enter public service, decisions are to be made from a personal and analytic perspective, rather than a spiritual and directive position (fear that the pope would rule America through JFK, but he used the First Amendment to counter this successively.) What does this have to do with Gay Marriage? Everything. Marriage in general, even.

The first instances of Marraige as the binding of spouses was religious in origin, as a moral code handed down by the Divine. When America divested itself from any type of Church, making it a neutral ground for any religion, it should have divested itself of religious bonds, such as marriage, which it did to a small part. It used marriage only as a legal process, to define the status of husband and wife. Things are going dandy. Enter the Homosexual Rights movement, and now the dirt goes flying. State governments have allowed homosexuals to declare partners as beneficiaries and even dependants, much for making their status the same, under legal definitions, as heterosexual marriages. Now we can re-enter the First Amendment. Technically speaking, the word "marriage" is religious, a religious instiution, with a general, but on average cross-culturally parallel, structure. Therefore, since Congress can't enforce any type of religion, it can not force people to use religious institutions for legal status changes.

The only thing that the laws should reference are Legal Unions. Marriage, long a religious process, should only be a religious process. If, then, somebody has a problem with one religion allowing gay marriage and another not, well, tough beans, but some religions allow divorce, and some do not. Welcome to America, the land of (in theory, never in practice) Toleration and Freedom. this is coming from a Moderate, one that feels the religious institution of marriage is wrong, but needed for legal status. Hence, Legal Union (or Civil Union, if you prefer) should be the only thing in the books, and marriage should be reserved for the priests, the ministers, the rabbis, the clerics, and other religious servants to perform.

If it makes me a bigot or homophobic to believe that being gay is wrong, then so be it. I do not think that that I am ignorant either. To know what the bible and God teaches means that if you are gay then you do not believe in God or his teaching of the bible. I could throw scripture into the mix, but I will leave it for another day. As for the government getting their two cents worth, thank goodness someone is trying to watch out for morals, which seems to me that the world is lacking.

The first instances of Marraige as the binding of spouses was religious in origin, as a moral code handed down by the Divine.
No, it wasn't. Marriage was civil long before it was religious.

Thus the rest of your argument fails since it's based on this false premise.

I'm a Conservative and i don't know what the HELL you just said.

However, i will lay my opinions and public view on the line by saying-

if the Republican party doesn't shape up and see this nonsense- that we have to make lets, and that some traditions can't be kept, then there is no way we're going to keep the Senate, House, or Presidency.

And also our Washington "delegates" need to stop overspending like drunken sailors.

I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, nor do i have any quarrel with gay men. But of course i am a logical thinker. Logically then, i see that being gay is not a normality (2 genders are here for a reason), and that pushing it as being a completely normal thing is pure nonsense. I have no problem with it. However i do have a problem with two people so far having come up to me and try to impose upon me that i "MIGHT be gay". It's pointless that they try to. I mean, if i'm straight, i'm straight, right? The one lesbian i spoke to sounded like she WANTED me to be gay. Not in what she said, of course, but in her tone.

And why on earth does one of my friends just come out and say it like he expects i'm going to care and start something? I would really like it if sex could just be kept to peoples' selves. I'm straight but i don't walk up to a gay person and say, "I know this isn't easy for me to say, so i'll come right out and say it...i'm straight. I don't have normal tang for breakfast, if you know what i mean." Sex is so tawdry and annoying. I say lock it in a vault, build thick, high concrete walls around it. Then place machine gun nests and watch towers to guard it. Then ONLY bring it out with your spouse. I mean, Christ, it pisses me off that people seem to want to make what they fuck well known. Well, with pedophilia and bestiality that's different. Those are so over the line they need to be monitored.

No, it wasn't. Marriage was civil long before it was religious.

Thus the rest of your argument fails since it's based on this false premise.

Reallyyyyy? So the fact that humans had thoughts about the dead and the afterlife and spirits before they instituted governments means that marriage is civil? When it was first performed as a religious ceremony? Check your facts buddy. I stand by five different AP World History textbooks that trace the development of religion back further than the development of civilizations.

The one lesbian i spoke to sounded like she WANTED me to be gay. Not in what she said, of course, but in her tone.
Maybe she wants more people to be like her so that they know how it feels and stop looking down on her sexuality so much?

Sex is so tawdry and annoying. I say lock it in a vault, build thick, high concrete walls around it. Then place machine gun nests and watch towers to guard it. Then ONLY bring it out with your spouse. I mean, Christ, it pisses me off that people seem to want to make what they fuck well known. Well, with pedophilia and bestiality that's different. Those are so over the line they need to be monitored.
What a conservative/christian/most religions (I guess) point of view. Maybe they tell people which way the swing because a) they don't want people of the opposite sex hitting on them. b)they want people of the same sex to know which was they swing so they can get a freakin' date. Sex isn't something "scary" and "evil". Grow up.

perhapes we should re think the very defition of marrige.

in stead of being about a man and a women, or two people.

lets make it about the childern. if you don't have a kid nor is the lady pregnant, no marrige. if you have a kid or your pregnant, you can marry, preferibly the bioloical father.

if one or both of the couple is not the biological parent; the couple must be common law AND have had the child for atleast two years before marrige. The purpose of the two years is to prevent couple from gaining a child just for marrage, like adoption or something.

and if your think that kids raised by the gay couples will turn out gay, keep in mind that most gays we raised in straigh families.



my overall view of homosexuality is: it is not a good thing, nor is it a bad thing. but it is something we would probly be better off with out.

Maybe she wants more people to be like her so that they know how it feels and stop looking down on her sexuality so much?


What a conservative/christian/most religions (I guess) point of view. Maybe they tell people which way the swing because a) they don't want people of the opposite sex hitting on them. b)they want people of the same sex to know which was they swing so they can get a freakin' date. Sex isn't something "scary" and "evil". Grow up.

Did i say it was "scary" or "evil"? No i did not. What i simply mean is sex should generally not be such a big publicized thing. I'm not being childish, nor am i afraid of it. It's something called, "decency".

And if decency is another description of a bigot then so be it.

To give values example let us say I am Roman Catholic and since the dogma of the Church disapproves of homosexual relationships then guess what it our right to do so. AS well, if a Catholic priest performs a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple then he is subject to losing his position as priest due to him breaking Church rules.

Or a Church refuses to give Holy Communion to a person due to them being gay then the Church has the right to and should not to worry about a major scene being made by anyone and not have to worry about it being covered in the news everywhere because of them practicing their own more strict beliefs.

I'm a Conservative and i don't know what the HELL you just said.

However, i will lay my opinions and public view on the line by saying-

if the Republican party doesn't shape up and see this nonsense- that we have to make lets, and that some traditions can't be kept, then there is no way we're going to keep the Senate, House, or Presidency.

And also our Washington "delegates" need to stop overspending like drunken sailors.

I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, nor do i have any quarrel with gay men. But of course i am a logical thinker. Logically then, i see that being gay is not a normality (2 genders are here for a reason), and that pushing it as being a completely normal thing is pure nonsense. I have no problem with it. However i do have a problem with two people so far having come up to me and try to impose upon me that i "MIGHT be gay". It's pointless that they try to. I mean, if i'm straight, i'm straight, right? The one lesbian i spoke to sounded like she WANTED me to be gay. Not in what she said, of course, but in her tone.

And why on earth does one of my friends just come out and say it like he expects i'm going to care and start something? I would really like it if sex could just be kept to peoples' selves. I'm straight but i don't walk up to a gay person and say, "I know this isn't easy for me to say, so i'll come right out and say it...i'm straight. I don't have normal tang for breakfast, if you know what i mean." Sex is so tawdry and annoying. I say lock it in a vault, build thick, high concrete walls around it. Then place machine gun nests and watch towers to guard it. Then ONLY bring it out with your spouse. I mean, Christ, it pisses me off that people seem to want to make what they fuck well known. Well, with pedophilia and bestiality that's different. Those are so over the line they need to be monitored.
step out side of your fucking bubble and smell the roses
sex is apart of life
it is better that it is an open subject
and as for the gays
i say let them be
so long as they dont try to force there beleves apaun others
then they should be shot
so grow up
open your mind
and dont worrie about what others are doing around you
but what you are doing with others

and one other thing i dont know if it was said
the government should but out of the churchs choices to refuse gays
(i beleve this is only a canadian issue but i aint sure)

step out side of your fucking bubble and smell the roses
sex is apart of life
it is better that it is an open subject
and as for the gays
i say let them be
so long as they dont try to force there beleves apaun others
then they should be shot
so grow up
open your mind
and dont worrie about what others are doing around you
but what you are doing with others


Well I was really saying what i was doing. I guess i enjoy being a clam.

The thing is, marriage is not just legal changes in status, it's also this whole religious ceremony thing. Can the government legally enforce churches to perform gay marriages if the latter don't want to?

Umm.... maybe you don't live in the USA (which seems to be the hotbed of the gay marriage debate, so I assume that that is the country this thread is talking about), but the First Amendment says something like: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I think that a law which requires a church (read: establishment of religion) to do something like perform a ceremony goes against that clause.

That said, I think that any consenting adult couple should be able to get married.

Ah to hell with it. I knock away the proverbial pillars of my Old Order Opinion. I do some of this hypothetically

Gays have no real affect on my life, so okay. Gay marriage is okay. Why is it such a big deal to some?


I do have one question though. Isn't it up to the church to decide whether they wish to have a service? The government deals with marriage liscenses, yes.

Reallyyyyy? So the fact that humans had thoughts about the dead and the afterlife and spirits before they instituted governments means that marriage is civil? When it was first performed as a religious ceremony? Check your facts buddy. I stand by five different AP World History textbooks that trace the development of religion back further than the development of civilizations.

Considering those original religions are not around any more, I assume you would not object to the idea that *any* religion should be allowed to perform marriage ceremonies ? Not just for instance the catholics, but also the protestants, calvinists, hindus, moslims and so on ?

And that they are allowed to base this ceremony on their own religious prescripts ?

So that if one religion decides that gay marriage is acceptable, gay marriages can be performed and have the same status as al the others ? Even if that religion was just started 5 minutes ago with the explicit goal to make it so ?

What about a religion that allows a polygamous marriage ? Harems ? Unions between 9 year old girls and 50 year old men ? Between brother and sister ? Unions between men and dog ? Between men and rocks ? Should they all deserve the same amount of recognition ?

Or would the concept of marriage have more meaning if the criteria and definition are defined through reasoning instead of religion ?

is it to late for a troll because I don't believe in gay marriage

and no this isn't my first post just my fourth account

If it makes me a bigot or homophobic to believe that being gay is wrong, then so be it. I do not think that that I am ignorant either. To know what the bible and God teaches means that if you are gay then you do not believe in God or his teaching of the bible. I could throw scripture into the mix, but I will leave it for another day. As for the government getting their two cents worth, thank goodness someone is trying to watch out for morals, which seems to me that the world is lacking.

Unless you believe that the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is wrong, or you don't believe in the bible at all.

But I agree with you on the lack of morals. In fact, some people lack morals so much they even prevent two persons who love each other to get marries. I mean, talk about a lack of morals!

No seriously, 'morals' is just a code-word for 'the way I want things to be'.

The top five reasons why conservatives should be for gay marriage.

#5: The Economy.
It's a known fact if gays can get married, it will only increase our economy. Gays will have to hire wedding planners and everything just like everybody else. And we ARE a consumerist state..

#4: Religious values.
God is love, so if we can allow gays to express thier love, we're showing God conquers all.

#3: Family values.
Gays can't have kids, so they'll have to adopt, this helps find homes for children, and helps promote agenda number two.

#2: Abortion.
Obviously gays can't have abortions, but more then that, gays can promote adoption because when the centers recongnize gays as a suitable family (they tend to give kids out to married couples first..) then this will help promote that abortion is unesscarey.

And #1: More conservative votes.
Most homosexuals know democrats are not looking out for them, but they vote them anyway because they like to be humored. So if we actually took action, (as what republicans are renown for..) then we'd have the homosexual vote. As well as probably wakeup a few fence sitting democrats. We're supposed to be the party with balls and princaples. It's about time we started acting like it.

Reallyyyyy? So the fact that humans had thoughts about the dead and the afterlife and spirits before they instituted governments means that marriage is civil? When it was first performed as a religious ceremony? Check your facts buddy. I stand by five different AP World History textbooks that trace the development of religion back further than the development of civilizations.
Just because religions were around before doesn't mean that marriage was a religious ceremony. That happened much later. Hell, in Europe it wasn't even until the 16th century that it became a matter for the church. Many religions don't have anything to do with marriage ceremonies at all in the present day.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Depends on where you are. But I'll assume that you are arguing from the USA's point of view. You really should make yourself aware of the rest of the world.

Rather than changing the definition, give consenting adults another term to use.
All consenting adults? Getting rid of marriage intierly? You really hate gays that much? But none of your arguements provide a good enough reason for this.

Homosexuality should not preclude people from forming lifelong unions. Calling those unions marriage is a falicy and not, by definition, correct.
Again this may or may not be true depending on where you are. But we are not arguing wheter or not it is a marriage we are arguing on wheter or not it should be one.

Gay couples are not traditional couples, and will probably never be viewed as such by much of the population.
Why not? We have accepted inter-racial marriages? I guess we can only hope that the rest of the population isn't as bigoted and ignorant as you are.

If people are simply trying to get the same partnership rights as heterosexual couples, then why choose the battle of 'marriage'? Trying to adopt the term 'marriage' only serves to shock and offend - is that the main goal?
No the main goal is to achieve equality. Marriage (and gay adoption) are the places where their sexualities hurt them the most. Trying to adopt the word marriage shows that they are human beings and can have the same rights as other human beings. Althugh I gotta' say: I find it assuming the whole religious "We must save marriage" when you view marriage as "shocking and offensive". A little ironic really.

You don't care what I think, but you want equality for gay couples, in terms of real life? That is a contradiction.
No it's not. (S)he isn't trying to stop you from having the freedom to express your views they're just excercising their freedom by calling you on how much of an idiot you are. You want to withhold rights from another group. It's completely different.

I don't care if you are gay, but please don't equate feelings/desires with people's ethnicity or gender. Gays are legally protected from violence.
From violence but they are discriminated against (sometimes by the law) and occasionally violence is still inflicted upon them.

Why not? We have accepted inter-racial marriages? I guess we can only hope that the rest of the population isn't as bigoted and ignorant as you are.

In addition, the traditional form of marriage is one man with multiple wives. All those people wishing to preserve traditional values are therefor arguing for polygamy.

In addition, the traditional form of marriage is one man with multiple wives. All those people wishing to preserve traditional values are therefor arguing for polygamy.
Depends on where you live, and which "tradition" you are invoking.

For white settlers in America, "traditional" marriage is a situation in which a female human is sold to a male human by her father. She is then, effectively, an indentured servant for her owner. The male owner is not to have other wives, but he is allowed to have affairs with as many women as he wishes.

For black Americans, the "tradition" of marriage was originally a non-legal union that could be broken at any time, because slave owners were not obligated to recognize marriages between slaves.

For Native Americans, there are a whole range of marital customs, some of which include multiple wives and some of which do not.

If you want to move outside America, you get an even broader picture. In many places, men are viewed as entitled to own multiple women. In other places, a man is only supposed to own one woman. However, one of the greatest constants throughout history has been that marriage is most often about male human beings owning female human beings.

Is that really a tradition we should waste time defending?

I'm not for gay or any other marriage besides normal

No, it wasn't. Marriage was civil long before it was religious.

And even if it wasn't...so what?! It wouldn't matter even if marriage did used to be a religious institution. The FACT is that America has a secular government. PERIOD. If our government is going to be in the business of issuing marriage contracts, then those contracts are CIVIL IN NATURE. It doesn't matter whether or not marriage was ever religious, or who invented it, or how many religious people cry when faggots or blacks or feminists get to marry. It's called the rule of law, people, and it applies to religious assholes as much as to anybody else.

/rant.

I'm not for gay or any other marriage besides normal
Please define "normal" marriage for us unenlightened folks.

And even if it wasn't...so what?! It wouldn't matter even if marriage did used to be a religious institution. The FACT is that America has a secular government. PERIOD. If our government is going to be in the business of issuing marriage contracts, then those contracts are CIVIL IN NATURE. It doesn't matter whether or not marriage was ever religious, or who invented it, or how many religious people cry when faggots or blacks or feminists get to marry. It's called the rule of law, people, and it applies to religious assholes as much as to anybody else.

/rant.
Hear, hear, Bottle. I think somewhere way back in this I posted a similar rant. If Jack Holier-Than-Thou and Jill What-A-Friend-We-Have-In-Jesus can get married - a civil contract - why can't I and my lady? We don't want to force anyone's church to marry us, we just want our rights as citizens of the United States. Either pass a law saying gay people are not citizens or shut up.

*snip*or how many religious people cry when faggots or blacks or feminists get to marry.
Hey, we prefer to use the term sodomic-american! ;)

Please define "normal" marriage for us unenlightened folks.
marriage between a man and a woman

Hey, we prefer to use the term sodomic-american! ;)
Sorry about that. I let myself get a bit hot under the collar for a moment. I myself am harlot-American, so I should be more sensitive about these things.

do we have to get in an agrueement about this stuff i've been banned twice from these kinda forums

Either pass a law saying gay people are not citizens or shut up.
I think that might be what has me really annoyed. It's not that there are a bunch of pompous assholes trying to make marriage into a Christians-only club. It's not that there are so many snotty busy-bodies shoving their noses under my sheets. It's not even the nake hypocricy found in the oh-so-moral Bible Belt Christians, who have the highest divorce rates in the nation.

No, I think what really gets to me is that these buggers are such bloody COWARDS. They clearly don't think gays should be regarded as actual human beings, but they won't go for the honest throw-down. They won't just out and say it. It's like how they won't come right out and say that women are inferior creatures who should be owned like livestock. They'll just whimper about "tradition" and "values" and "faith," using their "beliefs" as a feeble doily to cover the pile of stinking hatred they are trying to drop in our laps.

If somebody thinks I don't deserve to be regarded as a full and autonimous human being, let's hear it up front. If somebody thinks I don't deserve to exercise the same rights as every other citizen of my country, then let's have it out, clean and square. Don't slink around, don't dodge around with stupid bullshit about your religion, just say it like a grown up: you think that your group deserves rights that other groups shouldn't get to have. Just say it. And let's have it out.

... If somebody thinks I don't deserve to be regarded as a full and autonimous human being, let's hear it up front. If somebody thinks I don't deserve to exercise the same rights as every other citizen of my country, then let's have it out, clean and square. Don't slink around, don't dodge around with stupid bullshit about your religion, just say it like a grown up: you think that your group deserves rights that other groups shouldn't get to have. Just say it. And let's have it out.
*stands next to Bottle* To quote the Loathsome Shrub, "Bring it on."

*stands next to Bottle* To quote the Loathsome Shrub, "Bring it on."
I think it really says something about the character of such people, that they are willing to ramble endlessly about "the sanctity of marriage," yet they can't seem to just look you in the eye and state their own beliefs.

*stands next to Bottle* To quote the Loathsome Shrub, "Bring it on."

Seriously. At least by saying "I hate fags" you arent spewing some bullshit about family values or morals or religion or traditional marriage, as if EVERYONE ON THE FUCKING EARTH practices all these things.

If somebody thinks I don't deserve to exercise the same rights as every other citizen of my country, then let's have it out, clean and square. Don't slink around, don't dodge around with stupid bullshit about your religion, just say it like a grown up: you think that your group deserves rights that other groups shouldn't get to have. Just say it. And let's have it out.if your gay than yes i think that way about you

if your gay than yes i think that way about you

Too bad.

Too bad.i was talking to him

if your gay than yes i think that way about you
Super! At least you're an honest bigot.

The next step is for you to explain to me why I, or anybody, should care what you think.

i was talking to him

And I am telling you too bad. He exists, and deserves the same rights as everyone else. You better find a good way of dealing with it.

Super! At least you're an honest bigot.

The next step is for you to explain to me why I, or anybody, should care what you think.
I don't care what you say about me thats my opinion you fucking faggot

And I am telling you too bad. He exists, and deserves the same rights as everyone else. You better find a good way of dealing with it.
are you gay

I'm not insulting you I'm just asking

I don't care what you say about me thats my opinion you fucking faggot

Man, suck a dick already. You would probably enjoy it. (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm) But thats okay, some of us dont care what you do in your bedroom.

are you gay

I'm not insulting you I'm just asking

Lets just say I am willing to take part in pleasurable activities with anyone who is willing.

Man, suck a dick already. You would probably enjoy it. (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm) But thats okay, some of us dont care what you do in your bedroom.hahahaha that's funny the faggot gots jokes

hahahaha that's funny the faggot gots jokes

Hahahaha thats funny the idiot is still an idiot.

Lets just say I am willing to take part in pleasurable activities with anyone who is willing.lets just leave it at that

Hahahaha thats funny the idiot is still an idiot.damn right

lets just leave it at that

If you are implying what I say has no meaning because of it, you are gravely mistaken about a great many things.

If you are implying what I say has no meaning because of it, you are gravely mistaken about a great many things.I don't care if you're bi gay or straight just don't tell me

I don't care if you're bi gay or straight just don't tell me
Dude, just a few posts ago you asked Kazus,

"are you gay

I'm not insulting you I'm just asking"

Clearly, you do care, and you want to know. I could play armchair shrink and hypothesize about why you might be so interesting in talking about gay men, but I think most people can put two and two together on their own. :)

I don't care if you're bi gay or straight just don't tell me


Huh man let me rub my eyes and go back bit through that htread to see if I really did spot some denseness.

So he said...., then he said,..., to which he replied....., and then you said 'I don't mean to insult you but are you gay?' then he said,..... and then you said 'I don't care if you're gay or bi, just don't tell me',


Damn I was right, I did see some densness!

Dude, just a few posts ago you asked Kazus,

"are you gay

I'm not insulting you I'm just asking"

Clearly, you do care, and you want to know. I could play armchair shrink and hypothesize about why you might be so interesting in talking about gay men, but I think most people can put two and two together on their own. :)
I don't want to know cause if i he gay i will start an arguement and im tired

I don't want to know cause if i he gay i will start an arguement and im tired
*Sigh*

Could somebody run to the store and fetch me a new troll? This one is broken.

*Sigh*

Could somebody run to the store and fetch me a new troll? This one is broken.
I've been banned twice for my opinion on gay marriage and i dont wanna make another account

*Sigh*

Could somebody run to the store and fetch me a new troll? This one is broken.
And this is what happens if you make the same argument in public about marriage being a civil right. The people who were so eloquent about the sanctity of marriage and tradition and all that suddenly find they have an appointment, and you're left with the trolls ("fucking faggot" indeed).

Among all of the reasons for not making it legal is that the overwhelming majority of this nations citizens are not in favor of it. Period.

Nor were the overwhelming majority in favor of freeing the slaves. Ever heard the phrase "the tyrony of the majority"?

If you can convince all the people who are now married and would become unionized, I can accept this.
Provided you agree that a marriage by the church of gay flufbunnies has just as much value as one done by e.g. a catholic church.

That's easy, a marriage preformed by any church, mosque, temple, high preistess, circus clown, Elvis, man in a bunny suit, etc. HAS NO INTRINSIC VALUE.

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.<snip>

Damn, you should write for the Onion!

I've been banned twice for my opinion on gay marriage and i dont wanna make another account
Perhaps it woudl be wise to avoid posting on the subject since it keeps getting you banned?

Perhaps it woudl be wise to avoid posting on the subject since it keeps getting you banned?

Or he could stop being a retard about it. Either way.

This thread is proving my point. Keep acting like those who don't hold your opinion are unintelligent and bigotted, and you will just continue to meet resistance.

Find me someone who has an intelligent, non-bigotted argument against gay marriage and I won't treat them as an unintelligent bigot.

If it makes me a bigot or homophobic to believe that being gay is wrong, then so be it.

Realising you have the disease is the first step, congrats.

To give values example let us say I am Roman Catholic and since the dogma of the Church disapproves of homosexual relationships then guess what it our right to do so. AS well, if a Catholic priest performs a wedding ceremony for a homosexual couple then he is subject to losing his position as priest due to him breaking Church rules.


No one here is arguing that a Roman Catholic priest should be required to preform a gay mariage. We're arguing that I as a pope of Eris (or fill in any other group who is not prohibited from doing so) should be alowed to do so if I wish.

Super! At least you're an honest bigot.

The next step is for you to explain to me why I, or anybody, should care what you think.

Lets not forget that the FIRST THING this person posted in this thread was "Is it too late for a troll" . . .

Liasia']Or you could just stop whining and let gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I'm not homophobic, because i'm not scared of my house.

Liasia is exactly right. Gays have every rights to marry. IT IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVELEGE, and they deserve all the priveleges of marriage. :mad:

I hate all the racism in our culture that oppressed gays for so long. It makes me sad at times. :( I hate that my ancestors helped do all this oppression. :(

If you want gays to be accepted by society and to be promoted in public schools to children so that they grow up to treat gays equally, then I hope you will vote for Jon Tester in Montana, Bernie Sanders in Vermont, and Jim Webb in Virginia. If you are from a different state, I can give you my advice if you need it. :confused:

The truth is that according to the latest poll, most Americans want marriage equality, so the debate is over. Based on the latest data and studies, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has already spoken, and the fundamental right of homosexuality can no longer be infringed. :fluffle:

The problem is that fundamental Christians cannot favor anything that would favor sinful behavior in their eyes. Their religion commands that they disregard any notion of the separation of church and state and personal libery in favor of the tenants of their religion. By favoring even strictly secular, legal gay marriage, they would still be allowing society to condone homosexual behavior and relationships, something that they cannot and will not do. That's just part of being a fundamental Christian. It's a futile thing to try and argue about liberty and the separation of church and state to such a person.

The problem is that fundamental Christians cannot favor anything that would favor sinful behavior in their eyes. Their religion commands that they disregard any notion of the separation of church and state and personal libery in favor of the tenants of their religion. By favoring even strictly secular, legal gay marriage, they would still be allowing society to condone homosexual behavior and relationships, something that they cannot and will not do. That's just part of being a fundamental Christian. It's a futile thing to try and argue about liberty and the separation of church and state to such a person.

Verve, what can we do about fundies? The Founders were progressives for their day and wanted no part of religion, and many openly despised it. But now, we are in the grip of a fundamentialist president on a crusade in the Middle East.

I'm nervous that Christians are trying to repeat Nazi Germany. Is this irrational on my part? :( :( :(

Verve, what can we do about fundies? The Founders were progressives for their day and wanted no part of religion, and many openly despised it. But now, we are in the grip of a fundamentialist president on a crusade in the Middle East.

I'm nervous that Christians are trying to repeat Nazi Germany. Is this irrational on my part? :( :( :(
Of course they're not trying to repeat Nazi Germany. They just have a set of beliefs that cannot co-exist with the philosophy of modern secular democracies. Thankfully, they only make up a small percentage of the American population, and outside of playing on people's common aversions (homosexuality, for one), they can't really do much in the long or short run. Europe, from what I hear, doesn't really have much of a fundamentalist population, nor do many other places, so their situation seems to be different from ours; in the end, however, secular democracy will prevail in preventing the mandating of one set of religious beliefs over all others as well as perserving the right to religious freedom for these types of people and others.

Of course they're not trying to repeat Nazi Germany. They just have a set of beliefs that cannot co-exist with the philosophy of modern secular democracies. Thankfully, they only make up a small percentage of the American population, and outside of playing on people's common aversions (homosexuality, for one), they can't really do much in the long or short run. Europe, from what I hear, doesn't really have much of a fundamentalist population, nor do many other places, so their situation seems to be different from ours; in the end, however, secular democracy will prevail in preventing the mandating of one set of religious beliefs over all others as well as perserving the right to religious freedom for these types of people and others.

The funny part is that the fundies of the olden times came to America to practice their sick religion, and it prevailed until the 1960's. In a sense, I fel bad for the fundies, because they wanted to live free.

Nowadays, they have to realize the post-modern truths that rely on true science to dictate truth. And they can't leave the country because they must provide their fair share to their fellow citizens of the world. If they try to leave a form their own country, I hope the UN does something about it.

The problem is that fundamental Christians cannot favor anything that would favor sinful behavior in their eyes. Their religion commands that they disregard any notion of the separation of church and state and personal libery in favor of the tenants of their religion. By favoring even strictly secular, legal gay marriage, they would still be allowing society to condone homosexual behavior and relationships, something that they cannot and will not do. That's just part of being a fundamental Christian. It's a futile thing to try and argue about liberty and the separation of church and state to such a person.
Nobody's asking them to "favor" it. Nobody's asking them to sign gay marriage licenses or be in the wedding party. Nobody's even asking them to "favor" the existence of marriage licenses for ANY non-Christians.

All we're asking is that they get the fuck over themselves. We expect them to act like bloody grown ups, and realize that the laws of the United States apply to EVERYBODY. We expect them to go sulk in their little Christians Only Clubs and get the fuck out of the way so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

They can go pout about how awful it is that human beings are treated with respect, and people like me will fight tooth and nail to defend their right to do so. They can put out hate-filled broadcasts, books about how people who are different will burn in Hell, and any of the other delightful pasttimes they enjoy, and once again I will be there defending their right to do it.

But what they cannot do is expect me to put up with their spoilt little baby routine. No, you selfish little twerps, you cannot wrap your grubby little fists around marriage and refuse to share. It doesn't belong to you. When you claim that marriage is Christian, you are sinning against your own God by being a liar and a thief. Grow up.

Nobody's asking them to "favor" it. Nobody's asking them to sign gay marriage licenses or be in the wedding party. Nobody's even asking them to "favor" the existence of marriage licenses for ANY non-Christians.

All we're asking is that they get the fuck over themselves. We expect them to act like bloody grown ups, and realize that the laws of the United States apply to EVERYBODY. We expect them to go sulk in their little Christians Only Clubs and get the fuck out of the way so the rest of us can get on with our lives.

They can go pout about how awful it is that human beings are treated with respect, and people like me will fight tooth and nail to defend their right to do so. They can put out hate-filled broadcasts, books about how people who are different will burn in Hell, and any of the other delightful pasttimes they enjoy, and once again I will be there defending their right to do it.

But what they cannot do is expect me to put up with their spoilt little baby routine. No, you selfish little twerps, you cannot wrap your grubby little fists around marriage and refuse to share. It doesn't belong to you. When you claim that marriage is Christian, you are sinning against your own God by being a liar and a thief. Grow up.


Heh I wouldn't worry about it too much as Verve pipe says they really have no chance. History teaches us that it is the majority that are catered for not the minority, so as long as the majority is fine on the Gay issue, or the Racisim issue, then no fundey has a chance.

And from where I stand there are more people around that are likely to say 'Gay, so what it's their lives' than 'Gay ughhh it's aborant to the Lord'

Heh I wouldn't worry about it too much as Verve pipe says they really have no chance. History teaches us that it is the majority that are catered for not the minority, so as long as the majority is fine on the Gay issue, or the Racisim issue, then no fundey has a chance.

Why do you think they're pushing for Amendments so hard right now? They know the tides have turned, and they're hoping they can get their bigotry enshrined in law before they're wiped out of the mainstream altogether.

It's a lot like how they're trying to take away contraception and the right to choose, because they know that the vast majority support reproductive choice...they want to get a stranglehold on the laws while they've still got enough rich white males in power, because they can smell the change on the winds.

And from where I stand there are more people around that are likely to say 'Gay, so what it's their lives' than 'Gay ughhh it's aborant to the Lord'
Pretty much, yeah.

Find me someone who has an intelligent, non-bigotted argument against gay marriage and I won't treat them as an unintelligent bigot.
Yeah, I'm still waiting on this. They all seem to recycle the same rambles that have been debunked a million times already.

Give us some new material, homophobes!

Yeah, I'm still waiting on this. They all seem to recycle the same rambles that have been debunked a million times already.

Give us some new material, homophobes!
I think homosexuality is wrong, and is against nature and simply not physically, emotionally, or psychologically balanced.
I think I will start all discussions with "I am a homophobic biggot" because disagreeing with you on this simply results in your ranting. It would be nice to get some new material from you, too.

Find me someone who has an intelligent, non-bigotted argument against gay marriage and I won't treat them as an unintelligent bigot.
I am 98% confident that I am more intelligent than you.

Here's my idea: The Goverment doesn't allow legal marrige for anyone! Civil Unions are the closest thing to it legally. Now, I'm a God-Fearing person, and I belleive in marrige, so leave THAT up to the church.
I don't beleive in Gay-Marrige, but hey, I don't have to acknowlage it right? So, they form a church, and by THAT church, they can be married. And the same goes for us straight folk. How about it? Let me hear opinions from the right, and left!
I brought this up a while back and the basic conclusion I came to is that both sides would hate it because nowadays people see compromise as a loss. It doesn't matter that both sides are making concessions to reach an amicable conclusion, people have the ingrained theory of "my way or the highway," so both sides will always butt heads because there will be no solution acceptable to both sides of the debate.

I think homosexuality is wrong, and is against nature and simply not physically, emotionally, or psychologically balanced.
So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You think homosexuality is wrong, then don't get gay married. But if someone is in love with another person of the same sex, then it is their RIGHT to consecrate it in the same (secular) manner as you might with someone of the opposite sex. It's their life, their love, their choice. Not yours.

I think I will start all discussions with "I am a homophobic biggot" because disagreeing with you on this simply results in your ranting. (snip)
That would most likely be because you are a self-admitted homophobic biggot.

I brought this up a while back and the basic conclusion I came to is that both sides would hate it because nowadays people see compromise as a loss. It doesn't matter that both sides are making concessions to reach an amicable conclusion, people have the ingrained theory of "my way or the highway," so both sides will always butt heads because there will be no solution acceptable to both sides of the debate.
Should we settle for less then equality? I for one am not willing to be treated as a second class citizen because someone is all uppity about what their particular beliefs tell them

Should we settle for less then equality? I for one am not willing to be treated as a second class citizen because someone is all uppity about what their particular beliefs tell them
I don't think you should. I think it ought to be legal. It's one person's fundamental right to express his or love to whomever they please. But I also recognize that it's not going to happen with a Christian fundy preseident and majority Christian fundy Congress and SCOTUS.

It's just not going to happen until we liberalize the government. Until that happens, though...

I don't think you should. I think it ought to be legal. It's one person's fundamental right to express his or love to whomever they please. But I also recognize that it's not going to happen with a Christian fundy preseident and majority Christian fundy Congress and SCOTUS.

It's just not going to happen until we liberalize the government. Until that happens, though...
Yup not geting pissed over it but I will continue my fight

I brought this up a while back and the basic conclusion I came to is that both sides would hate it because nowadays people see compromise as a loss. It doesn't matter that both sides are making concessions to reach an amicable conclusion, people have the ingrained theory of "my way or the highway," so both sides will always butt heads because there will be no solution acceptable to both sides of the debate.
There are some subjects on which there should be no compromise.

The slaves really wanted to be free. The slave owners really really wanted them to not be free. Should the slaves have offered to "compromise"? Should the slaves have said, "Ok, we'll sort of remain your property, but we'll partly get to be recognized as actual human beings"?

Fuck no. And gay people should not compromise on the subject of equality. Gay citizens deserve the same rights as all other citizens. Period. There is no acceptable compromise on this subject.

I think homosexuality is wrong, and is against nature and simply not physically, emotionally, or psychologically balanced.

Ok, I posted, "Give us some new material, homophobes!"

And THIS is your reply?

Look, you're free to post your beliefs on this thread. Please do. But why did you bother to quote my post? You could have just posted your beliefs and gone on your merry way. But, instead, you responded to my request with the most boring, over-used, unimaginative answer you could come up with.

That's just rude.


I think I will start all discussions with "I am a homophobic biggot" because disagreeing with you on this simply results in your ranting. It would be nice to get some new material from you, too.
Starting your rants with "I am a homophobic bigot" is nothing new.

Believe me, I want to be able to use some new material!!!
I'm bored with having to debunk the same stupid stuff time and time again! That's exactly why I asked for homophobes to start posing some new arguments...because then I can bust out some new material!

So help a Bottle out, won't you? Give me some new arguments for why homosexuals should not be entitled to the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

This means the following arguments CANNOT be used (since they're boring and have been done to death):

1) Homosexuals can't make babies
2) Homosexuals are bad because the Bible says so
3) Anal sex is icky, therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
4) Marriage has always been restricted to heterosexuals, and we can't change it now
5) Think of the children
6) Homosexuality is unnatural
7) Homosexuality is abnormal
8) I h8 fagz

There are some subjects on which there should be no compromise.

The slaves really wanted to be free. The slave owners really really wanted them to not be free. Should the slaves have offered to "compromise"? Should the slaves have said, "Ok, we'll sort of remain your property, but we'll partly get to be recognized as actual human beings"?

I thought there was a compromise? Walmart anybody?

I thought there was a compromise? Walmart anybody?
*rimshot*

:P

They just have a set of beliefs that cannot co-exist with the philosophy of modern secular democracies.
That's the same complaint I hear from fundamentalist Muslims. Our secular, liberal societies are diametrically opposed to their set of beliefs. Maybe the Christian fundies should live in the Middle East.

This means the following arguments CANNOT be used (since they're boring and have been done to death):

1) Homosexuals can't make babies
2) Homosexuals are bad because the Bible says so
3) Anal sex is icky, therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
4) Marriage has always been restricted to heterosexuals, and we can't change it now
5) Think of the children
6) Homosexuality is unnatural
7) Homosexuality is abnormal
8) I h8 fagz

how about..
the majority can dictate what is and what not allowed even if it in no way affects their own lives.
Or
a vocal, well funded minority can dicate what is and what's not allowed even if it in no way affect their own lives.

how about..
the majority can dictate what is and what not allowed even if it in no way affects their own lives.
Or
a vocal, well funded minority can dicate what is and what's not allowed even if it in no way affect their own lives.
Ooooh, yeah, add:

9) A whole lot of people don't like fags, therefore gay marriage should be prohibited
OR
9b) A few really loud and annoying people don't like fags, therefore gay marriage should be prohibited

These could both fit under the super-heading of:

10) The existence of gay people is offensive to some people, therefore gay citizens should not be allowed to exercise the same rights as everybody else

Ooooh, yeah, add:

9) A whole lot of people don't like fags, therefore gay marriage should be prohibited
OR
9b) A few really loud and annoying people don't like fags, therefore gay marriage should be prohibited

These could both fit under the super-heading of:

10) The existence of gay people is offensive to some people, therefore gay citizens should not be allowed to exercise the same rights as everybody else

now you get it!
So why keep on asking silly questions when you already know the logical, well thought out, reasonable answers!

(like my sig?)

now you get it!
So why keep on asking silly questions when you already know the logical, well thought out, reasonable answers!
To be honest? I think it's that I am offended by people who go out of their way to be boring and uninventive.

Homophobes could just be quietly bigotted. They could just hate fags on their own time, and keep their stupid reasons to themselves. But no, some of them feel the need to BLAST THEIR STUPIDITY at maximum volume. They feel the need to shove their sloppy, boring, easily-debunked nonsense into the face of everybody who suggests that maybe gay people are people too.

That bugs the living crap out of me. If you are actually going to have the nerve to try to take away the freedoms of your fellow citizens, then you had better at least be willing to put some bloody effort into it. If gay marriage is so goddamned important to you that you want to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO BLOCK IT, then why the hell are you posting arguments that can be torn apart in 2 seconds by random yahoos in an internet forum?! And why, for the love of all that is good and true, are you posting the exact same stupid arguments that were debunked two posts above yours?!

(like my sig?)
I'm famous! Hooray!!!

why should I have to give up my legal marriage rights so that homosexuals can marry?

I say go with what Kat said.....

Why on earth do people insist that allowing gay people to marry would mean giving anything whatsoever up?

Getting the church the hell out of the legal side of things would not affect you one iota, except maybe having to deal with someone who has a lifestyle you don't approve of, enjoying it!

snip!

honestly? Several things.
First: Most people are unwilling to admit they are wrong. So no matter how valid the argument is they will not be willing to change, "because that's why I think!¡!¡".
Second: fear of change. Anything that changes perceptions generally receives alot of resistance.
third: freedom of speech. For alot of people this means "I can say/think whatever i want & i don't have to change one bit!".

honestly? Several things.
First: Most people are unwilling to admit they are wrong. So no matter how valid the argument is they will not be willing to change, "because that's why I think!¡!¡".
Second: fear of change. Anything that changes perceptions generally receives alot of resistance.
third: freedom of speech. For alot of people this means "I can say/think whatever i want & i don't have to change one bit!".
I understand that a lot of people don't want to admit they're wrong, and I can also understand why a lot of people would fear change.

SO WHY ARE THEY GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ENCOUNTER THOSE THINGS?

If they don't want to have to confront the possibility that they are wrong, why are they entering threads that debate topics like gay marriage?

If they want to think what they think, unchallenged and unquestioned, then why are they specifically seeking out forums where they will be challenged and questioned about their beliefs?

I understand that a lot of people don't want to admit they're wrong, and I can also understand why a lot of people would fear change.

SO WHY ARE THEY GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ENCOUNTER THOSE THINGS?

If they don't want to have to confront the possibility that they are wrong, why are they entering threads that debate topics like gay marriage?

If they want to think what they think, unchallenged and unquestioned, then why are they specifically seeking out forums where they will be challenged and questioned about their beliefs?

no no. they don't want to admit they're wrong, so they beleive they must be right! Ergo we must be wrong. So they tell us and try to convince us.

Among all of the reasons for not making it legal is that the overwhelming majority of this nations citizens are not in favor of it. Period.

The tiny minority is attempting to rule over the majority. Won't work unless the left gets in control, and then anything works as long as the left can have the power, which is the point and purpose of life for liberals.

I thought that was the point and purpose of life for politicians in general?

Also, and to go all clichéd here, black people are in a minority in most western countries. I guess the equal rights movement shouldn't have happened according to you, then?

Why won't this thread die?

Yes, I am aware of the irony in posting in it to wish it dead, so you don't need to point it out.

Why won't this thread die?

Yes, I am aware of the irony in posting in it to wish it dead, so you don't need to point it out.

FINE! ruin my fun :mad:

I thought that was the point and purpose of life for politicians in general?

Also, and to go all clichéd here, black people are in a minority in most western countries. I guess the equal rights movement shouldn't have happened according to you, then?
That's another thing that bugs me:

If homosexuality is this really really evil thing, and if preventing gays from marrying is really really important...then WHY, oh WHY, are the homophobes arguing that gay marriage should be prohibited on the basis of "majority rules"?

The reason I ask is, the majority of young people don't give a shit about gay marriage. The next generation of voters have grown up with classmates who had two Mommies. They've gone to camp with kids who were picked up by Daddy and Papa at the end of the summer. They just don't see the big deal.

Right now, already, the majority of Americans support civil unions for gay citizens. Within the next generation, the majority of Americans will be supporting gay marriage. If you really really believe that gay marriage is awful and evil and icky, why on Earth would you argue that the majority rules? You'll be condemning your children and grandchildren to live in a world where gay marriage is recognized and respected!

FINE! ruin my fun :mad:

Hello, my name is Baguetten, and that's sort of what I do.

Hello, my name is Baguetten, and that's sort of what I do.

please to meet you

NOW STOP POSTING HERE YOU KEEPING THIS THREAD ALIVE!!!!!:)