NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in the US so this is really only relevant if you live there.

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay, wouldn't the government have to let them marry? Is that at all possible or is harder to make a religion then I think?

Someone has probably said this before or something like it, but I haven't been here long so I wouldn't know.

Should they let them marry? Yes, they shouldn't have to form a relgion to get equal rights. Will they? No, becaue too many people think that a pile of old fables and myths are more important than human rights.

The government doesn't have to do shit. That's one thing I've learned in my many years on Earth.

That said, gays should not have the right to a government-sanctioned marriage. I say this because, well, neither should straights. The government has better thnigs to do than meddle in marriages, and all marriage-related issues should be handled like any other contract or agreement.

There already exist quite a few religions in which gay marriage is acceptable. Of course, that's not relevant in the least, as what religions do and do not allow should definitionally have nothing whatsoever to do with what the government does and does not allow. The 14th Amendment is the only argument that ought to be needed to render gay marriage a federally guaranteed right; sadly, because our country is full of a lot of people willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits their ends, we still aren't there yet.

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay

There already exist dozens. And I am very much against allowing religions to legally decide who to marry. Can you say childbrides ?

Leave marriage to the law. And the law has no reason to discriminate against gays that wish to marry.

There already exist dozens. And I am very much against allowing religions to legally decide who to marry. Can you say childbrides ?

Leave marriage to the law. And the law has no reason to discriminate against gays that wish to marry.

I wish that were true, really, but lawmakers seem to be able to find all sorts of reasons. Most of them reduce to "Gay marriage? Eeeewww!" but they still get enacted.

Yes, Gay marriage should be legal. There isn't any reasons not to, albeit some religious things which are ridiculous and the "immorality" of it, which sends me into gales of laughter.

Gay Marriage ok? Hell Yes.
By the way, I hate that term: do we have to specify "Straight Marriages"? No, why? because in current culture it's presumed that most marriages are straight.

Over here same-sex marriage also happens to be legal, as it was unconstitutional for it not to be seeing as our constitution states it illegal to discriminate on sexual orientation and gender. My point being: we should allow a consenting adult to marry whatever other consenting adult they like, and just call it plain old marriage.

For me it's also a personal issue as I'm bisexual, and even though I personally don't believe in marriage what-so-ever and don't wish to enter into one, it's important that I have the right to simply in the interest of equality.

And the law has no reason to discriminate against gays that wish to marry. Too bad the lawmakers do.

Gays should be allowed to marry and I think Gov. Co. should get out of the marriage business.

Gays have the same right to be as miserable as straight folk; why should we hog all the misery that is marriage? ;)

Why not?:D

I live in the US so this is really only relevant if you live there.

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay, wouldn't the government have to let them marry? Is that at all possible or is harder to make a religion then I think?

Someone has probably said this before or something like it, but I haven't been here long so I wouldn't know.

Oh well THAT is an interesting thought!

Religious freedom. Hmmm...going in through the 'backdoor' in a sense.

Well gay marriage is already fine and dandy here in Canada, but imagine it wasn't...and someone asserted their section 2 rights to marry under a 'gay' religion. It could probably still be defeated under section 1 if the prevailing political mood was firmly against gay marriage.

But it would be an interesting constitutional challenge. Luckily moot in the land of maple syrup and beavers.

And I'll remind you, religious freedom has done squat all for polygamy so...yeah.

gay marriage is OK in my book and no i dont think that gay people should have to change religions to get their legal rights.

The government doesn't have to do shit. That's one thing I've learned in my many years on Earth.

That said, gays should not have the right to a government-sanctioned marriage. I say this because, well, neither should straights. The government has better thnigs to do than meddle in marriages, and all marriage-related issues should be handled like any other contract or agreement.

Can't be better said. The government only should come in when there has been a broken contract (Husband splits, leaving the wife and kid) or a form of abuse.

Oh well THAT is an interesting thought!

Religious freedom. Hmmm...going in through the 'backdoor' in a sense.

Well gay marriage is already fine and dandy here in Canada, but imagine it wasn't...and someone asserted their section 2 rights to marry under a 'gay' religion. It could probably still be defeated under section 1 if the prevailing political mood was firmly against gay marriage.

But it would be an interesting constitutional challenge. Luckily moot in the land of maple syrup and beavers.

And I'll remind you, religious freedom has done squat all for polygamy so...yeah.


It's interesting, because during the debate in Canada, the media portrayed it as equality rights vs. freedom of religion. But given that a number of religious denominations were actually in favour o same-sex marriage, I think the freedom of religion argument actually favours same-sex marriage. The government shouldn't force any religious group to accept same-sex marriage, but neither should they force any religious group that is in favour of same-sex marriage to not marry same-sex couples. It is not their place to preference one interpretation of religious text above another, unless there is clear demonstration of harm.

The government doesn't have to do shit. That's one thing I've learned in my many years on Earth.

That said, gays should not have the right to a government-sanctioned marriage. I say this because, well, neither should straights. The government has better thnigs to do than meddle in marriages, and all marriage-related issues should be handled like any other contract or agreement.

You will find that the government does have a say in any form of contracts. There are laws regarding what kinds of contract there are, what contracts are legally binding, what contracts are not legally binding, and what contracts are simply straight-out illegal.

For example, you offer yourself for sale as a slave and someone accepts. You set up a normal purchasing contract, just like any other. With the small difference that the contract isn't legally binding.
Another example : a nice friendly businessman offers you a few grams of heroine. Buying it would make you a criminal, the purchasing contract would be illegal.
Or how about your a 10-year-old who just inherited a large sum of money. Can you sign a contract to buy a house?

Contracts always have social implications, and as such need to be regulated and monitored by governments. It's their job.

Oh, and I'm all for gay marriage. I don't see any legal ground to refuse it.

certainly its ok. it's more then ok.

what insanity assigns governments a right to define personal relationships?
even the making official of them?
insurance policy writers?
religeous fanatics?

now of course it's a matter of contexts.
and some contexts of belief claim or define themselves as excluding gays.
that if you're one you're not the other.
well the're welcome to do that,
precisely as long as the're not usurping the roll of government in doing so.
and government, which is not right ever to do so,
is not defining itself in their terms.

that may be.
it still gives no mandate to any government in any form,
to define the nature and structure of merrage.

=^^=
.../\...

You will find that the government does have a say in any form of contracts. There are laws regarding what kinds of contract there are, what contracts are legally binding, what contracts are not legally binding, and what contracts are simply straight-out illegal.


Certainly there needs to be a set of ground rules which establishes what types of contracts will be binding, and what contracts should be illegal for reasons of public policy or fairness (e.g. for illegal goods, contracts involving minors, etc.). And contracts that have negative social implications (contracts where parties agree to externalize the costs of their conduct onto others) should be avoided. A marketplace is not the absence of rules. HOwever, I am not sure if this justifies the statement that the government should control and regulate all contracts.

The risk is, as soon as you decide that the government can and should have a significant role in contractual relations, and in particular deciding what types of contracts should and shouldn't be allowed, then they make decisions that are based on the biases and prejudices of the electorate, and not because of reasonable perception of public harm. Such as the decision to make same-sex marriage illegal.

But I might be splititng hairs with ya.

I always cringe when I read the comments that the government should have no interest in the marriage business. The government is there to protect the rights of ALL citizens, thus - as long as there are social and legal issues surrounding the institution of marriage (access to spousal privileges in matter of benefits, survivor sights, property rights, etc.) then the government is required to be in the business of overseeing legislation as neccessary to ensure that constitutional rights are protected.

Saying that the government has no business in marriage in this matter is like saying that the government has no business in issues of any other minority rights, employment rights, etc.

It just seems that in the matter of gay marriage in the US the government feels that it has the societal backing to ensure that those rights when it comes to this one issue are to be trampled rather than upheld.


In other words, the peckerheads listen to their voters and are afraid of the consequences come their next turn at the ballot box.

You know those voters. They're the ones thinking "Oh no - the gay couple down the road will have a legal piece of paper instead of just cohabitating as they have for years!!!! Gosh, that will make everything sooooooooooooo different. Because as long as my kids know that gays are to be marginalized they won't act on any homosexual urges out of fear of retribution, wheras legalization of gay marriage might give them the idea that I would be willing to accept them if they came out! And, being a small-minded, bigotted, homophobic redneck - there just ain't no way that's ever gonna happen!!!!"

Certainly there needs to be a set of ground rules which establishes what types of contracts will be binding, and what contracts should be illegal for reasons of public policy or fairness (e.g. for illegal goods, contracts involving minors, etc.). And contracts that have negative social implications (contracts where parties agree to externalize the costs of their conduct onto others) should be avoided. A marketplace is not the absence of rules. HOwever, I am not sure if this justifies the statement that the government should control and regulate all contracts.

The risk is, as soon as you decide that the government can and should have a significant role in contractual relations, and in particular deciding what types of contracts should and shouldn't be allowed, then they make decisions that are based on the biases and prejudices of the electorate, and not because of reasonable perception of public harm. Such as the decision to make same-sex marriage illegal.

But I might be splititng hairs with ya.

Isn't this the reason why the legislative and judicative are split out from the executive in most modern democracies? So that the legislative process will not be directly influenced by the electorate?

Isn't this the reason why the legislative and judicative are split out from the executive in most modern democracies? So that the legislative process will not be directly influenced by the electorate?

That is one of those nice theories that doesn't quite work out in practice. The legislative and executive answer directly to the voters, and are - in those cases where the judicial branch is not elected - also responsible for judicial appointments. As such, there is always electoral influence in play.

I think gays should have all the rights straight people have. They should also stop being stereotyped and bashed.

You will find that the government does have a say in any form of contracts. There are laws regarding what kinds of contract there are, what contracts are legally binding, what contracts are not legally binding, and what contracts are simply straight-out illegal.

For example, you offer yourself for sale as a slave and someone accepts. You set up a normal purchasing contract, just like any other. With the small difference that the contract isn't legally binding.
Another example : a nice friendly businessman offers you a few grams of heroine. Buying it would make you a criminal, the purchasing contract would be illegal.
Or how about your a 10-year-old who just inherited a large sum of money. Can you sign a contract to buy a house?

Contracts always have social implications, and as such need to be regulated and monitored by governments. It's their job.

Oh, and I'm all for gay marriage. I don't see any legal ground to refuse it.

Well, of course it does. My point is this: In cases where two people are married, presently, the law splits their property 50/50 in a divorce and allows some rights for them as a couple automatically (power of attorney and the right to give consent for medical care.) If marriage were not recognized, these rights would have to be granted individually to people, or more likely, in bundles, and they would be able to be given to anyone, including multiple people.

Also, people who simply cohabitate would probably be able to get on each other's health insurance policies rather than having to wait to be married. The market would demand it.

This way, there's no discrimination. The same shit goes to everyone.

I'll state my bottom line first:

The Government shouldn't be involved one way or the other. It should neither encourage nor hinder. If a par of gay people want to make a lifetime commitment then it's inapropriate for the Government to interfere.

Having said that, since the OP asked for our take I'll say that personally, I don't support the idea of gay marriage because to me, it makes little sense. Now, maybe it's just because I'm not gay and can't relate well. Maybe it's just that marriage, to me, is a concept that is heavily religious in its nature.

That said, I do think that if a gay couple wants to have the same benefits as a married couple, in terms of division of property, inheritance, etc. then they ought to. Again, the fact that they don't is an example of Government interference which I am against. After all, when I die, I don't want the Government deciding whether or not the people close to me in my life get to keep what I leave them, and I see no reason for anyone else to be interfered with.

Having said that, since the OP asked for our take I'll say that personally, I don't support the idea of gay marriage because to me, it makes little sense. Now, maybe it's just because I'm not gay and can't relate well. Maybe it's just that marriage, to me, is a concept that is heavily religious in its nature.



You know, that's always been something that puzzled me. I understand that a religious wedding ceremony would be naturally religious in its nature, and (one would assume) would continue to have a religious impact on the marriage later on.
However, many people I know of never had a religious marriage to begin with. And if they did, it might not necessarily have been a Christian marriage, nor have the same meaning in the religious context. Would these marriages make no sense to you either?

Please note, I did read the rest of what you posted, and I very much appreciate your tolerance on the subject. I'm just curious what you think of secular marriages on the whole, really.

Having said that, since the OP asked for our take I'll say that personally, I don't support the idea of gay marriage because to me, it makes little sense. Now, maybe it's just because I'm not gay and can't relate well. Maybe it's just that marriage, to me, is a concept that is heavily religious in its nature.

My (straight) parents are atheists who had a 100% secular wedding.

My (gay) godmother is devoutly religious and had a religious wedding ceremony with her partner (even though it wasn't a legally-binding marriage at the time).

One thing that's always gotten me about gay marriage:

One of the biggest complaints I've heard from the anti side about homosexuality is their (supposed) promiscuity. In order to fight that, these people ardently fight against giving homosexuals the right to legally enter into what is commonly accepted as a monogamous relationship.

But then we know that logic isn't exactly the strong suit of these folks.

Shit, shit, shit!!!
The only poll with the last option ideally suited to my name and I had to click the first one!
So for the record: Yes, We are the knights who say Ni!

You know, that's always been something that puzzled me. I understand that a religious wedding ceremony would be naturally religious in its nature, and (one would assume) would continue to have a religious impact on the marriage later on.
However, many people I know of never had a religious marriage to begin with. And if they did, it might not necessarily have been a Christian marriage, nor have the same meaning in the religious context. Would these marriages make no sense to you either?

Well yes and no... (And this is mostly opinon-driven I admit.) IMHO Marriage is inherently something religious because if its origin, if not in practice. For example, my wife and I got married in a little secular ceremony in a lawyer's office. My Church considers that a perfectly valid and binding marriage because it's us making that commitment to each other formally, and that's all that's required in the eyes of the Mormon Church. It's not the ceremony, but the act itself that's important.

Now, I used to be Catholic and in that church, a marriage is only considered valid religiously if it's performed in a church. (IIRC, they've relaxed it a bit to include any Christian Church, not just Catholic.)

So anyway, my religious convictions lead me to view marriage as ain institution originated by God for the purpose of creating stable families in which to raise children, as well as to provide companionship for the couple. That makes it, im my view, inherently religious that has become a secular tradition as well.

So, to apply it to the topic at hand... Everybody knows that many Christian Churches (mine included) believe homosexual behavior to be a sinful practice. Thus, gay marriage, as such, is an anathema to the idea of marriage being a religious concept for those churches.

That's why religious people are uncomfortable with calling it marriage as such. To us, it's really not the same thing in spirit, even if it's identical in practice. That's why I do not support Government interference, but at the same time I'd hope for a compromise of sorts where if it is to be done, calling it by a name like 'civil union' or whetever isn't too unreasonable.


Please note, I did read the rest of what you posted, and I very much appreciate your tolerance on the subject. I'm just curious what you think of secular marriages on the whole, really.

No problem at all. I appreciate the question! :)

My (straight) parents are atheists who had a 100% secular wedding.

My (gay) godmother is devoutly religious and had a religious wedding ceremony with her partner (even though it wasn't a legally-binding marriage at the time).

See my reply to Cabra West :)

So anyway, my religious convictions lead me to view marriage as ain institution originated by God for the purpose of creating stable families in which to raise children, as well as to provide companionship for the couple. That makes it, im my view, inherently religious that has become a secular tradition as well.

None of that requires that the couple be a male and a female, so I'm still not seeing how "religious" marriage is innately hetero marriage.


So, to apply it to the topic at hand... Everybody knows that many Christian Churches (mine included) believe homosexual behavior to be a sinful practice. Thus, gay marriage, as such, is an anathema to the idea of marriage being a religious concept for those churches.

And many Christian Churches believe homosexual marriages are just fine.


That's why religious people are uncomfortable with calling it marriage as such. To us, it's really not the same thing in spirit, even if it's identical in practice. That's why I do not support Government interference, but at the same time I'd hope for a compromise of sorts where if it is to be done, calling it by a name like 'civil union' or whetever isn't too unreasonable.

It's incorrect to say that "religious people" object to gay marriage. As I said before, my (religious) godmother is a lesbian, and got married. Her church has no problem with gay marriage. It's kind of insulting to claim that religious marriage must be straight marriage, because that disregards all the faiths that view gay marriage as equal to straight marriage.

If your particular faith is homophobic or opposed to gay marriage, that's up to you. But I think it's dishonest to attribute these beliefs to religion or to faith, since plenty of religions and faiths don't share such beliefs.

None of that requires that the couple be a male and a female, so I'm still not seeing how "religious" marriage is innately hetero marriage.


And many Christian Churches believe homosexual marriages are just fine.


It's incorrect to say that "religious people" object to gay marriage. As I said before, my (religious) godmother is a lesbian, and got married. Her church has no problem with gay marriage. It's kind of insulting to claim that religious marriage must be straight marriage, because that disregards all the faiths that view gay marriage as equal to straight marriage.

If your particular faith is homophobic or opposed to gay marriage, that's up to you. But I think it's dishonest to attribute these beliefs to religion or to faith, since plenty of religions and faiths don't share such beliefs.


I made it very clear that my post was largely based on my own opinions. I also made it clear that when I refered to religions being uncomfortable with gay marriage it was only some. I felt that was enough to establish context so that I wouldn't have to be explicit every single time.

I live in the US so this is really only relevant if you live there.

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay, wouldn't the government have to let them marry? Is that at all possible or is harder to make a religion then I think?

Someone has probably said this before or something like it, but I haven't been here long so I wouldn't know.

The Mormons practiced polygamy in the beginning. The government refused to allow the practice so the Mormons left the country (Utah was not part of the U.S. at the time); ultimately, the Mormons quit the practice so that Utah could become a state. In addition, Muslims, who are allowed 4 wives in Islamic countries, are only permitted one wife if they live in the U.S. So, no, according to established precedent, the government does not have to let gays marry, even if they practice a religion that supports it.

Personally, I don't think the government should have any say in anyone's personal life unless there is actual harm being done.

I find it funny when people point the finger at gays and say it is unnatural, wrong, sinful, whatever. Most of the time they have an unnerving hillbilly accent and a Bible the size of their ego raised high. The Government sure has made exceptions for certain "sins" -cough- George Bush. What is the message our government is sending out? It is not illegal to cheat on your spouse, have intense racism, or send thousands of troops to their death; to share love with someone, God forbid that. What would their religion be called? "The Only People Who See Without Boundaries", no that's too long. I do know I would probably attend their service over someone shoving the Bible up my ass, no pun intended.

One thing that's always gotten me about gay marriage:

One of the biggest complaints I've heard from the anti side about homosexuality is their (supposed) promiscuity. In order to fight that, these people ardently fight against giving homosexuals the right to legally enter into what is commonly accepted as a monogamous relationship.

But then we know that logic isn't exactly the strong suit of these folks.

Yeah, sure. Here's to bad stereotypes.

There already are religions that recognize same-sex marriage. However, church recognition need not equate to government recognition, just as government recognition need not equate to religious recognition.

It's about time it is legalized.

If two people love each other who gives a fuck if they are not the same sex...this is just another example of the church strangling the thought process of decent human beings by telling the masses its wrong to be gay...DONT LISTEN TO THEM! You can be whatever you want to be so long as you are a decent human being...dont worry...you're not going to hell because ill tell you a secret...hell doesnt exist so smoke your drugs play loud music and have sex with whomever you desire...live your life...and dont worry about what happens next ;-)

As that guy in Texas said: "I believe gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." Yes, I support gay marriage.:cool:

Support of course. It's silly not to.

The Mormons practiced polygamy in the beginning. The government refused to allow the practice so the Mormons left the country (Utah was not part of the U.S. at the time); ultimately, the Mormons quit the practice so that Utah could become a state. In addition, Muslims, who are allowed 4 wives in Islamic countries, are only permitted one wife if they live in the U.S. So, no, according to established precedent, the government does not have to let gays marry, even if they practice a religion that supports it.

Personally, I don't think the government should have any say in anyone's personal life unless there is actual harm being done.

I'll take it a step further. Not only was it done to enable Utah to become a state, the US Government was threatening to seize all Temples belonging to the church as punishment if it wasn't done.

Yep, that's the U.S. Government.

If two people love each other who gives a fuck if they are not the same sex...this is just another example of the church strangling the thought process of decent human beings by telling the masses its wrong to be gay...DONT LISTEN TO THEM! You can be whatever you want to be so long as you are a decent human being...dont worry...you're not going to hell because ill tell you a secret...hell doesnt exist so smoke your drugs play loud music and have sex with whomever you desire...live your life...and dont worry about what happens next ;-)

Interesting... How do YOU define "decent human being?" What makes your definition better than someone else's? And how is that, in concept, different from anything said by a person who goes to church?

Why do people not? People who love each other should be able to love each other leagaly, even if they happen to love the same gender. Homosexuals are the same as a minister, except they prefer to spend their life with one of the same sex. A homosexual could even be a minister if the church let him/her but they are snobby fools who can't see past the end their noses!:mad:

The government doesn't have to do shit. That's one thing I've learned in my many years on Earth.

That said, gays should not have the right to a government-sanctioned marriage. I say this because, well, neither should straights. The government has better thnigs to do than meddle in marriages, and all marriage-related issues should be handled like any other contract or agreement.
Yeah, the church and state should be separate so the state should not have anything to do with religious ceremonies like marriage.

Even if the government would back off from marriage there should and would still be many laws that regulate the internal business of families such as child support, property, age of consent, physical abuse, legal contracts and so on.

I have a hard time imagining any kind of non-traditional combinations getting married in my church but if other churches or other religions have different beliefs then that is none of my business. I am not wise enough to know God's will for sure and not worthy to judge fellow sinners. If they break the law they will answer to the government and if they sin they will answer to God.

Rolling squid;13308864']Should they let them marry? Yes, they shouldn't have to form a relgion to get equal rights. Will they? No, becaue too many people think that a pile of old fables and myths are more important than human rights.

to be fair though, marriage isn't a right, its a privlege

to be fair though, marriage isn't a right, its a privlege

Wrong. Marriage is a right.

I can't recall the court case off-hand that decided it for the U.S., but I do know that marriage is mentioned as a right by Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

to be fair though, marriage isn't a right, its a privlegeOK... no. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Marriage is a right.

I can't recall the court case off-hand that decided it for the U.S., but I do know that marriage is mentioned as a right by Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

"international" doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there have been international decrees saying capital punishment is wrong, that doesn't mean it is.

"international" doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there have been international decrees saying capital punishment is wrong, that doesn't mean it is.

It sure as hell means something when the U.S. is part of said Covenant.

Oh, and I got the case.

Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
See?

It sure as hell means something when the U.S. is part of said Covenant.

Oh, and I got the case.

Loving v. Virginia.


See?

Even if it is a right, its a right between a man and a woman or a man and women, which is the way marraiage has been for many, many years.

Even if it is a right, its a right between a man and a woman or a man and women, which is the way marraiage has been for many, many years.

There is no such thing as a right just for certain people. It is either a right or it is not. If it is, it is a right even for homosexuals. Nothing entitles a heterosexual couple to greater legal protection than a homosexual one.

Interesting... How do YOU define "decent human being?" What makes your definition better than someone else's? And how is that, in concept, different from anything said by a person who goes to church?

you know exactly what I mean Neo...so long as doing what you want doesnt hurt others then what you do as a consenting adult is nobody elses business

Even if it is a right, its a right between a man and a woman or a man and women, which is the way marraiage has been for many, many years.

One, it doesn't say anything in either of those about it being between a man and a woman. Two, marriage hasn't been that way until extremely recently.

There is no such thing as a right just for certain people. It is either a right or it is not. If it is, it is a right even for homosexuals. Nothing entitles a heterosexual couple to greater legal protection than a homosexual one.

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

One, it doesn't say anything in either of those about it being between a man and a woman. Two, marriage hasn't been that way until extremely recently.

you're right if you consider "extremely recently" to be thousands of years :rolleyes:

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

And now we go down the line of the absolutely ridiculous.

Of course you can't marry a pineapple or a kid. Neither can consent.

Should you be able to marry more than one person? Yes, if all are consenting adults and agree to the arrangement. It would take a different body of law, since current marriage law is geared specifically towards the protections a two-person couple needs, but it could be done. It would likely be based off of incorporation and work from there.

But that is neither here nor there. The discussion at hand is whether homosexuals should be discriminated against by marriage law. A homosexual couple who choose to live as a single legal entity need the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple who makes that choice, and people in this country are guaranteed equal treatment under the law. As such, unless the government can bring forth a compelling interest in denying equal protection to homosexuals, homosexuals are guaranteed the same protections as heterosexuals. They are, thus, guaranteed marriage.

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

Of course not. Because the pineapple, and the kid aren't consenting adults. I have nothing against polygamy in general, but don't see how that's relevant here.

Could you honestly get any more inane?

Considering that same-sex marriages were routinely performed in Europe in the Middle Ages, and in the Americas at least up until the subjugation, I think you need to look up the definition of "thousands".

Not to mention that polygamy was quite common throughout a large portion of history - and is still common in some places.

you're right if you consider "extremely recently" to be thousands of years :rolleyes:

Considering that same-sex marriages were routinely performed in Europe in the Middle Ages, and in the Americas at least up until the subjugation, I think you need to look up the definition of "thousands".

Not to mention that polygamy was quite common throughout a large portion of history - and is still common in some places.

Which includes polyandry, and not just polygyny.

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

Pineapples and kids cannot consent. Is it really that difficult of an idea for you to wrap your head around?

oh come on, you know thats not true. do you really want EVERYONE TO marry? does that mean we should let someone marry a pineapple, or their kid, or more than one person? I got lets let 5 women marry two guys and an apple :rolleyes: not much of a marriage

Well, since everyone here is advocating for rights between consenting individuals.... and neither pineapples, animals nor children are capable of providing legal consent... Your argument is pointless... Why does everyone automatically assume that because we want men to be able to marry men, and women to marry women; that we advocate for pineapples and donkies to be able to be hitched as well... We're not... The fact that you think that, automatically nullifies your argument, since it is by its very definition a straw-man.

Two things:

Number one, marriage was NEVER an original part of religion, at least in regards to Christianity. It only became part of it in the 15th century in order to combat so-called 'Fleet Marriages' as well as to establish it as a legal framework. Before then, there were no real minimal standards, meaning two people could simply decide to be married and they were, no witnesses or anything was required. So anything about it being part of religion is bunk, pure bunk.

Secondly, there is a rite within Catholicism called Adelphopoiesis (a Greek word), which is the 'making of brothers', which allowed for a union between two men to be forged. There are a number of ways to interpret this, but it can be a way of permitting homosexual marriage (or same-sex union) even if the religious folks don't like it. A historical example of this comes from the 4th century in which the Christians martyrs, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united like this.

EDIT: And yes, why not let fruit get married, after all, you can't have fruitcakes unless fruit and cakes can get married right? ;)

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who say that we could keep doing something one way for no other reason than "that's how we've always done it".

I support gay marriage because I support giving gay couples the same rights and standing as straight couples regarding property, inheritence, hospital visitation, and so forth. It doesn't help that a lot of the people who I've heard oppose gay marriage have tended to be religious fanatics who see The Handmaid's Tale or 1984 as utopian fiction.

The pro gay marriage side has always seemed more reasonable to me. In my view, they say, "We support gay marriage. If you want one, you can get one and have the same rights as any other married couple. If you don't want one, you don't have to get one, but you still have the right to get one if you ever change your mind." On the other hand, the anti side tends to sound like, "We oppose gay marriage. If you agree with us, you are a moral human being. If you don't agree with us, our all-loving god will damn you to eternity in fire and brimstone."

Two things:

Number one, marriage was NEVER an original part of religion, at least in regards to Christianity. It only became part of it in the 15th century in order to combat so-called 'Fleet Marriages' as well as to establish it as a legal framework. Before then, there were no real minimal standards, meaning two people could simply decide to be married and they were, no witnesses or anything was required. So anything about it being part of religion is bunk, pure bunk.

Secondly, there is a rite within Catholicism called Adelphopoiesis (a Greek word), which is the 'making of brothers', which allowed for a union between two men to be forged. There are a number of ways to interpret this, but it can be a way of permitting homosexual marriage (or same-sex union) even if the religious folks don't like it. A historical example of this comes from the 4th century in which the Christians martyrs, Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united like this.

EDIT: And yes, why not let fruit get married, after all, you can't have fruitcakes unless fruit and cakes can get married right? ;)

Yeah but when they get into arguments the fruit ends up putting graffiti up all over the place. And it's a horrible speller, too. "The Cake is a Lie!" instead of "The Cake is a Liar!"

Of course not. Because the pineapple, and the kid aren't consenting adults. I have nothing against polygamy in general, but don't see how that's relevant here.

Could you honestly get any more inane?

Unless you and others on here are going to fight and grumble for the "right" of 5 women and two men to get married, you should also put this idea of gay marriage to rest, because both are equally silly. What do expect parents tp have to tell their kids if people continue down this path? better yet, what do you think kids think when they hear about this stuff?

Unless you and others on here are going to fight and grumble for the "right" of 5 women and two men to get married, you should also put this idea of gay marriage to rest, because both are equally silly. What do expect parents tp have to tell their kids if people continue down this path? better yet, what do you think kids think when they hear about this stuff?

First of all, I see no reason that 5 women and two men cannot enter into a marriage-like contract if they so choose. As I said before, the exact legal protections afforded to marriage wouldn't work with such a situation, as they are specifically written for two people, but an arrangement somewhat based in incorporation could work just fine.

Second of all, it really doesn't make sense to jump from providing equal protection to homosexual couples - who need the exact same legal protections as heterosexual couples - to talking about a different legal construct as if one must necessarily lead directly to the other.

And what do parents tell their kids? That everyone in this country is treated equally under the law, even if they happen to be [insert group you don't like here].

Unless you and others on here are going to fight and grumble for the "right" of 5 women and two men to get married, you should also put this idea of gay marriage to rest, because both are equally silly. What do expect parents tp have to tell their kids if people continue down this path? better yet, what do you think kids think when they hear about this stuff?

What the hell are you even talking about?

Unless you and others on here are going to fight and grumble for the "right" of 5 women and two men to get married, you should also put this idea of gay marriage to rest, because both are equally silly. What do expect parents tp have to tell their kids if people continue down this path? better yet, what do you think kids think when they hear about this stuff?

Hardly. Same-sex marriage is on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage? Why? Simple. Numbers. 2 people involved in a marriage contract. Now, if people want to get into a 7 way marriage, I see nothing wrong with allowing them to, as long as all of them are consenting adults to the marriage contract.

As for this little "think of the children!!1one" sidetrack, we should tell them what we need to tell them: that it's a loving union of two people (or in the case of a polygamous marriage, multiple people). Nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of how draconian you wish to be.

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who say that we could keep doing something one way for no other reason than "that's how we've always done it".

I support gay marriage because I support giving gay couples the same rights and standing as straight couples regarding property, inheritence, hospital visitation, and so forth. It doesn't help that a lot of the people who I've heard oppose gay marriage have tended to be religious fanatics who see The Handmaid's Tale or 1984 as utopian fiction.

The pro gay marriage side has always seemed more reasonable to me. In my view, they say, "We support gay marriage. If you want one, you can get one and have the same rights as any other married couple. If you don't want one, you don't have to get one, but you still have the right to get one if you ever change your mind." On the other hand, the anti side tends to sound like, "We oppose gay marriage. If you agree with us, you are a moral human being. If you don't agree with us, our all-loving god will damn you to eternity in fire and brimstone."

There is a quote I read once, can't remember who it was by, which said something to the effect: The world is now divided between progressives and conservatives; it's the goal of the progressives to make new mistakes, and the goal of the conservatives to make sure the mistakes never get corrected....

I would take it a step further....Polygamy FTW!!

Hardly. Same-sex marriage is on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage? Why? Simple. Numbers. 2 people involved in a marriage contract.

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

First of all, snip

I've heard you speak of consent often. Who is to say animals, children, or even food can not consent? For example some place beastiality is legal, others it is not and considered animal abuse. Who's right? same with children. The age of consent for secx and marriage varies greatly. If I want to say a nine year old can consent, is that right? who would be right? If I wanted to drill a hole in a watermelom, heat it in the mircowave and go to town, is that right? So you see when you don't have set definitions like we have for traditional marriage, everything becomes a grey area. Its dangerous

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

So.. the purpose of marriage is to have heterosexual sex ?
Any sexless marriage is therefor by definition wrong ?

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

Looks like you've never heard of tribadism.

And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

I think you may have missed my point.

Rolling squid;13308864']Should they let them marry? Yes, they shouldn't have to form a relgion to get equal rights. Will they? No, becaue too many people think that a pile of old fables and myths are more important than human rights.

My church routinely performs marriages for same-sex couples, and that's something I'm proud of.

Gays should have the right to marry if they want.Because this is the way I see it,if 2 people love eachother then it should be legal for them to marry.Exept for incestors because that's bad for gene pools!:D

I've heard you speak of consent often. Who is to say animals, children, or even food can not consent?
Animals and food cannot communicate. Children do not have a brain even remotely close to that necessary to make informed decisions.

I think you may have missed my point.

You had a point?

Well, I guess I am torn on this issue, maybe because I am probably a lot older than most people her and married for 25 years. So, I am somewhat of a traditionalist. The government has no place in the bedroom. From my religious beliefs I would be opposed, but from a legal standpoint I would be in favor. In fact, then gay people would be subject to the disadvantages as well, such as divorce. Lets take it even further and stop all discrimination such as in the military. I was in for 20 years defending somebody's right to be gay and getting injured twice, it is about time a gay person risks their life for me ( and I am not implying that gay people havn't served honorably in the military...they have). But ones sexual preference should not play a role. Would I prefer that my son or daughter be gay, I have to be honest and say no. If they were, would I still love and support them, of course.

Unless you and others on here are going to fight and grumble for the "right" of 5 women and two men to get married, you should also put this idea of gay marriage to rest, because both are equally silly. What do expect parents tp have to tell their kids if people continue down this path? better yet, what do you think kids think when they hear about this stuff?

Blah blah blah, argument that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, blah blah blah, think of the children! blah blah.

I'm sorry but that's basically what this post comes down to.

You had a point?

Did he ever have a point? ;) If he did, the hot air balloon would've popped ages ago.

Seriously, 'think of the children' is the lamest argument I've ever heard. It used to be applied to interracial marriages. There was a time when the idea of interracial marriages, according to some people would bring civilization to its knees. It hasn't. The sky hasn't fallen has it. Nor has it fallen in Canada since we let gays experience the misery that is marriage.

its not just the numbers why traditional marriage makes more sense. two rods cant fit into each other, nor can two rings

This post is just silly. You can't possibly be unaware of the fact that there are more ways of having a sexual experience than "penis into vagina."

This post is just silly. You can't possibly be unaware of the fact that there are more ways of having a sexual experience than "penis into vagina."

Scissorin'!

I've heard you speak of consent often. Who is to say animals, children, or even food can not consent?

Reality.

*snip*

The rest of this has two problems. First of all, it focuses completely on sex - not on the legal ability to consent and sign a contract. There is no argument at all over whether or not a homosexual adult can do so.

Second of all, it still ignores the fact that the definition of marriage is not expanded in the least by recognizing same-sex marriage. It is simply applied equally to all human beings.

This post is just silly. You can't possibly be unaware of the fact that there are more ways of having a sexual experience than "penis into vagina."

You go dude,awesome post!But come on people relationships aren't always sexual!They could just like eachother's personality!Isn't that enough?!

I've heard you speak of consent often. Who is to say animals, children, or even food can not consent? For example some place beastiality is legal, others it is not and considered animal abuse. Who's right? same with children. The age of consent for secx and marriage varies greatly. If I want to say a nine year old can consent, is that right? who would be right? If I wanted to drill a hole in a watermelom, heat it in the mircowave and go to town, is that right? So you see when you don't have set definitions like we have for traditional marriage, everything becomes a grey area. Its dangerous

Children and animals cannot legally consent. Period. You can make the argument that they can, but it wouldn't hold up in a court of law and I doubt saying that a 9 year old can consent to sex and marriage is going to score any points here, either.

As for drilling a hole in a watermelon and heating it up before fucking it, well, that's perfectly legal as a watermelon's status in law is that of an inanimate object. You can't marry it though, for reasons I should think would be obvious.

Scissorin'!

Oh yeah! Scissor me timbers! Ughh!

I think you may have missed my point.

What point ? That we should teach children to discriminate ?

I don't care that much. It is a non-issue of no importance.

I don't think the watermelon's seeds would be very comfy!Fucking food and animals is really gross guys.

The government doesn't have to do shit. That's one thing I've learned in my many years on Earth.

Exactly right! Unfortunately.

I for one am against gay marriages simply because I find the idea ackward and disgusting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Scissorin'!

That'd be tribadism, wouldn't it?

Ultimately the child will choose its orientation for itself. Sure being raised by a same sex couple might make it more likely the kid will be gay.

I don't think the watermelon's seeds would be very comfy!Fucking food and animals is really gross guys.

*shrug* I doubt the food minds.
An animal might, and I do believe it deserves protection against that - but we in general do not care about their wellbeing that much either. Letting a machine suck bullsperm out or certain ways of farming really are more cruel than fucking - and only scorned animal activists care about that.

Scissorin'!

thats not real sex

Ultimately the child will choose its orientation for itself. Sure being raised by a same sex couple might make it more likely the kid will be gay.

Just like being raised by tall people will make it tall ;) ?

Ultimately the child will choose its orientation for itself. Sure being raised by a same sex couple might make it more likely the kid will be gay.

No, it won't. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Morally, I'm fine with Gay marriage.
Legally, I don't think the government should be in marriage.

What point ? That we should teach children to discriminate ?

I think his point was:

"The only important thing in marriage is making sure you stick a penis in a vagina. There is nothing else to it, so that is all that matters. The end."

I don't care that much. It is a non-issue of no importance.

Equal protection under the law is a "non-issue of no importance"?


Exactly right! Unfortunately.

I for one am against gay marriages simply because I find the idea ackward and disgusting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, shall we give you a rattle and put you to bed, then?

Adults realize that discriminating against people because they might do something you find icky isn't an appropriate response. You find it icky? Don't do it! It shouldn't matter to you in the least whether or not someone else does.

Ultimately the child will choose its orientation for itself. Sure being raised by a same sex couple might make it more likely the kid will be gay.

Actually, it doesn't seem to do any such thing.

Ultimately the child will choose its orientation for itself. Sure being raised by a same sex couple might make it more likely the kid will be gay.Well it's not a choice, so that's a moot point.

*shrug* I doubt the food minds.
An animal might, and I do believe it deserves protection against that - but we in general do not care about their wellbeing that much either. Letting a machine suck bullsperm out or certain ways of farming really are more cruel than fucking - and only scorned animal activists care about that.

Right,I know I certainly don't care about bulls having their sperm sucked out by machines,but they should be protected from horny toads that are so desperate they would fuck the 1st living thing in sight.

thats not real sex

How not?

Unless your going to argue that only "penis entering vagina" is real sex, an argument that won't hold much water, it's sex. Are you seriously going to argue that two men or two women can't physically have sex?

I think his point was:

"The only important thing in marriage is making sure you stick a penis in a vagina. There is nothing else to it, so that is all that matters. The end."

Well.. the earlier point was "what must we tell the children if we allow this !"
Apparantly we must teach them to discriminate.

thats not real sex

It involves genital stimulation between multiple people. That's the definition of sex.

No, it won't. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

Reality.



The rest of this has two problems. First of all, it focuses completely on sex - not on the legal ability to consent and sign a contract. There is no argument at all over whether or not a homosexual adult can do so.

Second of all, it still ignores the fact that the definition of marriage is not expanded in the least by recognizing same-sex marriage. It is simply applied equally to all human beings.

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous. Think of it as restraining a serial killer. Today its "well lets just expand marriage to cover gays", in other words lets remove the handcuffs, at least we restrain him by the feet. Before long people will be making excuses to the let the serial killer, and they do. And then he kills everyone. Think about it. Where does it stop? someone answer me that.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

I didn't...
Would have liked to be able to choose who I am attracted to though. Would have saved me some broken hearts.

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous. Think of it as restraining a serial killer. Today its "well lets just expand marriage to cover gays", in other words lets remove the handcuffs, at least we restrain him by the feet. Before long people will be making excuses to the let the serial killer, and they do. And then he kills everyone. Think about it. Where does it stop? someone answer me that.

...
What exactly is the negative part of allowing gays or indeed multiple adults to marry ?

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

I didn't. I just kinda ended up as heterosexual. Wasn't really any decision involved in the process. When I started going to puberty, looking at pretty females made me get hard and feel desire. Looking at other males never has. Where's the choice in that?

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous.

I disagree, but, once again, it doesn't matter.

Same-sex marriage isn't expanding the definition of marriage any more than abolishing anti-miscegenation laws did. All it is doing is extending equal protection under the law to all citizens - something that is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, you do realize that the argument you are making was made a couple of decades ago, in response to abolishing anti-miscegenation laws, right? You are using the exact same argument the racists used.

How not?

Unless your going to argue that only "penis entering vagina" is real sex, an argument that won't hold much water, it's sex. Are you seriously going to argue that two men or two women can't physically have sex?

well women have nothing to stick into anything, and thus is not intercourse and thus is not sex

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

Not according to every single study ever.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

Really? When did the sexuality fairy visit you and ask who you wanted to be attracted to?

I disagree, but, once again, it doesn't matter.

Same-sex marriage isn't expanding the definition of marriage any more than abolishing anti-miscegenation laws did. All it is doing is extending equal protection under the law to all citizens - something that is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, you do realize that the argument you are making was made a couple of decades ago, in response to abolishing anti-miscegenation laws, right? You are using the exact same argument the racists used.

but where does it stop?

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous. Think of it as restraining a serial killer. Today its "well lets just expand marriage to cover gays", in other words lets remove the handcuffs, at least we restrain him by the feet. Before long people will be making excuses to the let the serial killer, and they do. And then he kills everyone. Think about it. Where does it stop? someone answer me that.

That's just incredibly disturbed and depraved on every possible level.

I didn't...
Would have liked to be able to choose who I am attracted to though. Would have saved me some broken hearts.

Point taken.I've been arrested by crushes too.For some reason my relationships never last long.

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous. Think of it as restraining a serial killer. Today its "well lets just expand marriage to cover gays", in other words lets remove the handcuffs, at least we restrain him by the feet. Before long people will be making excuses to the let the serial killer, and they do. And then he kills everyone. Think about it. Where does it stop? someone answer me that.

Besides the fact that this was the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, he just said we're not expanding marriage. We just want equal rights for all. Same as recognizing the right of interracial couples to marry wasn't an "expansion" or marriage, simply a matter of giving two adults the right to marry each other despite having different skin colors.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

so you chose to be straight? Does that mean you could have just as easily gone gay?

well women have nothing to stick into anything, and thus is not intercourse and thus is not sex

Oh, you deprived man.


but where does it stop?

The fight for equal protection under the law ends when said equal protection is achieved.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

All points are taken on this post,OK. I get it!Shish!

Besides the fact that this was the dumbest analogy I've ever seen, he just said we're not expanding marriage. We just want equal rights for all. Same as recognizing the right of interracial couples to marry wasn't an "expansion" or marriage, simply a matter of giving two adults the right to marry each other despite having different skin colors.

I reject this notion the two situations have anything to do with each other. The race card shouldn't be used. Further my analogy is quite apt

Oh, you deprived man.

That actually depends on whether or not he's into pegging, doesn't it? ;)

well women have nothing to stick into anything, and thus is not intercourse and thus is not sex

Merriam Webster disagrees (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sex)

"3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior"

Webster again (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexual+intercourse)

" 2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis "

Seems like it is intercourse and is sex.

That actually depends on whether or not he's into pegging, doesn't it? ;)

Ok there's a good chance i'll regret asking but what exactly is pegging?

well women have nothing to stick into anything, and thus is not intercourse and thus is not sex

One, that's not the definition of sex. Two, there's this thing called a "tongue". And these things called "fingers". And this neat item called a "strap-on".

I reject this notion the two situations have anything to do with each other. The race card shouldn't be used. Further my analogy is quite apt

Then explain why they have nothing to do with each other and why your analogy is apt.

This notion of "expanding" marriage is dangerous. Think of it as restraining a serial killer. Today its "well lets just expand marriage to cover gays", in other words lets remove the handcuffs, at least we restrain him by the feet. Before long people will be making excuses to the let the serial killer, and they do. And then he kills everyone. Think about it. Where does it stop? someone answer me that.

Hmmm, you've changed one of my political stances... I used to be against laws regulating recreational drug use... You've made me change that position....

I reject this notion the two situations have anything to do with each other. The race card shouldn't be used. Further my analogy is quite apt

Why ? Can you properly explain why having the ability to have straight sex should be the determining factor for allowing marriage - instead of e.g. love ?
Can you explain why you wish to teach children that love between adults is wrong?

Ok there's a good chance i'll regret asking but what exactly is pegging?

The description would be a step above PG-13. I'd recommend wikipediaing it.

Intercourse and Sex are not the same thing. Intercourse's goal is specifically to produce offspring.Sex is just for pleasure thus gays can have sex.Sex can turn into Intercourse though.

That actually depends on whether or not he's into pegging, doesn't it? ;)

I just think he's deprived because he has such a narrow view of sex. There are all sorts of things one can do, even without toys, other than penis-in-vagina.


I reject this notion the two situations have anything to do with each other.

Then you aren't thinking. Both cases involve the government choosing not to recognize marriage based on arbitrary characteristics of the two adults seeking said recognition. Both are violations of equal protection. Both are perpetuated by bigots.

In the end, the only difference is that one dealt with race and the other deals with sexuality.

The race card shouldn't be used.

I don't think you quite understand what that phrase means.

Further my analogy is quite apt

Yes, living up to the Constitution = freeing a serial killer. :rolleyes:

The description would be a step above PG-13. I'd recommend wikipediaing it.

Groovy :)

Merriam Webster disagrees (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sex)

"3 a: sexually motivated phenomena or behavior"

Webster again (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexual+intercourse)

" 2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis "

Seems like it is intercourse and is sex.

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

Why say 'something' when you seem to mean precisely 'dick'

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

*stares at her fingers*

*looks in the mirror and sticks out her tongue*

*checks out all the fun toys she can buy online*

Ok, if you say so...

Why say 'something' when you seem to mean precisely 'dick'?

Obviously, the penis is the important part. After all, only men have them. Therefore, it is to be seen as sacred.

Groovy :)

I, personally, do not enjoy it. I know some people who do.

As always to each their own.

Hmmm, you've changed one of my political stances... I used to be against laws regulating recreational drug use... You've made me change that position....

really? are you ok? we are debating gay marriage here, not drug use. :confused:

Intercourse and Sex are not the same thing. Intercourse's goal is specifically to produce offspring.Sex is just for pleasure thus gays can have sex.Sex can turn into Intercourse though.

Nope. Incorrect. Read my post above.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13311497&postcount=126

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

Women have no hands and tongues :o ?

Why say 'something' when you seem to mean precisely 'dick'

I would like to keep this clean please, there are kids who read this forum you know.

Women have no hands and tongues :o ?No, they don't. Didn't you pay attention in sex ed?

I, personally, do not enjoy it. I know some people who do.

As always to each their own.

I can definitely see the appeal.....although not completely sold yet

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

Um... they have tongues and fingers, and those are the appendages generally used in oral sex.

Besides which, sticking something into something isn't necessarily the best way to go about cunnilingus, as the clitoris is outside the vagina.

I would like to keep this clean please, there are kids who read this forum you know.

Penis isn't a dirty word last I checked

'Something', as has been pointed out, encompasses so much more than just that

*stares at her fingers*

*looks in the mirror and sticks out her tongue*

*checks out all the fun toys she can buy online*

Ok, if you say so...

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

I can definitely see the appeal.....although not completely sold yet

As always, it's the sort of thing you never know if you'll enjoy or not until you've tried it.

thats not real sex

Whoosh! That's the sound of you missing a joke.

...
What exactly is the negative part of allowing gays or indeed multiple adults to marry ?

Uh... something about something regarding the something... uh... you know what? I can't view life through that narrow view.

well women have nothing to stick into anything, and thus is not intercourse and thus is not sex

granted anal or oral sex can be deemed intercourse but thats because to be frank, you're sticking something in something. Women have nothing to stick in anything.

Translation: There's no penis.

I guess you've forgotten about the fingers, tongue, toes... dildo.

My husband some time just uses his fingers to play with my sensitive lady parts. :)

The hands are a remarkable tool. They can be used for sexual gratification, overcoming the barrier of lacking something to stick into the vagina as it were. Hell, guys have at least one opening for such purposes... ;)

It's sad that you hold such a narrow view of the world.

This should be a non-issue. I can't believe how many countries still don't allow it. Even in Britain there is still the charade of 'equal (but only if the name is different)', which is nonsense. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the word 'marriage', it is practised as a secular institution in 'civil marriages'. There is no difference between civil marriage and partnership other than the genders of the two couples.

The bottom line is, as far as I'm concerned, whatever floats your boat - as long as no one is harmed, people unable to consent aren't involved and you don't scare the horses.

Equal protection under the law is a "non-issue of no importance"?


Oh don't pull that BS. It has nothing to do with 'protection'. They aren't being attacked because they can't marry. And yes, it is an issue which is not important. There are much more important issues that need to be worked on, such as the the War on Terror (and how to end it), environmental issues, repairing infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), trade, the massive debt, immigration, etc. All these are more important than the emo-whining of a few gays.

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

No, it's really not. If a person has good hygiene (and why would you be dating someone who didn't?), then the vulva is arguably cleaner than the human mouth. And besides, it's delicious. What, did you think we meant fellatio when we said "oral sex"?

Also, you've said why toys "don't count," but not fingers. Why don't fingers count? They're natural, clean if you wash your hands, and more maneuverable than the penis.

And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

Fingers don't count because toys are artificial?

Shouldn't there be a seperate argument against fingers?

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic.
Cleaner than most of the rest of the body. I suppose you're opposed to blowjobs as well, so as not to be an utter hypocrite.

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

Who says toys should not be there ? Who writes those rules ?

you know exactly what I mean Neo...so long as doing what you want doesnt hurt others then what you do as a consenting adult is nobody elses business

I agree but there's a point to be made here. You used the phrase "decent people." Pretty much everybody has some idea of what they consider a decent person to be. For some people, that comes from a religion. For others, it comes from parents, etc.

In any case, you said that decent people should be able to do whatever they want. So I ask you again, what's a decent person like, in your mind? WHo meets the standard?

Who says toys should not be there ? Who writes those rules ?

People who can't get laid.

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

If it's that unhygenic, why would you want to put any part of your body there?

Oh, wait, I get it - the mouth is the dirtiest part of the body, you're afraid of contaminating her poor unsuspecting vagina with your dirty mouth.

People who can't get laid.

Doubtful. Their ideas would die out within a generation.
So... who writes those rules we should obey ?

Cleaner than most of the rest of the body. I suppose you're opposed to blowjobs as well, so as not to be an utter hypocrite.

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

I beg to differ a person chooses what it wants to be straight,Bi, gay, or tri.

WTF is tri...?

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.

I want it noted for the record that even the conservative Mormon disagrees with this one. :D

(Seriously. I once asked my Bishop if there were any church related no-nos here. His reply was that what a husband and wife do in their bedroom isn't the business of the church, so long as nothing is being coerced.)

No, it's really not. If a person has good hygiene (and why would you be dating someone who didn't?), then the vulva is arguably cleaner than the human mouth. And besides, it's delicious. What, did you think we meant fellatio when we said "oral sex"?

Also, you've said why toys "don't count," but not fingers. Why don't fingers count? They're natural, clean if you wash your hands, and more maneuverable than the penis.

"delicious"? I think we have a different idea of what tastes good. As for fingers, it just seems they don't fit imo

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

Well that is true of my ex...


whoops, did I say that out loud?

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

Um... not really. It's just as sweaty and such, and isn't naturally self cleaning (the vagina is extremely prone to infection, which is why there is a constant flow down and out of it, and it's why the fluids are slightly acidic... to kill off bacteria). If a woman showers, washes, etc. regularly, than her genitals are probably just as clean, if not more, than the rest of her body.

You are a hypocrite. There is nothing inherently less hygenic about female genitals than there is about male genitals.

Well that is true of my ex...


whoops, did I say that out loud?

Doesn't your wife periodically read NSG? Quoted for posterity/blackmail :D

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

I don't think that is scientifically supported. The vagina of a normally healthy woman is pretty much self-cleaning and if she supports this by using ordinary, acceptable hygene, it is cleaner than a penis. Men can get pretty cheesy - literally.

If your fingers don't fit, then you should see a doctor.

If fingers don't fit but penis does then i'd be embarrassed about seeing a doctor

If your fingers don't fit, then you should see a doctor.

Or he's doing it wrong.

"delicious"? I think we have a different idea of what tastes good. As for fingers, it just seems they don't fit imo

If your fingers don't fit, then you should see a doctor.

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

Actually, no. It's probably less clean.

"delicious"? I think we have a different idea of what tastes good. As for fingers, it just seems they don't fit imo

If you don't think it tastes good, you're probably a closeted homosexual. Jk, lolrus.

Um... fingers are smaller than most adult penises. If your finger doesn't fit, there's no way your penis will.

I have decently large hands and a very petite girlfriend. Fingers fitting has not been a problem.

Why not?:D

Honest, right to the point, and an added smiley for emphasis. I wish more people were like this guy (or gal). ;)

Or he's doing it wrong.

Considering his general lack of knowledge on the subject, that is a distinct possibility.

Soviestan, when we say "fingers," we don't necessarily mean "all the fingers at once."

Doesn't your wife periodically read NSG? Quoted for posterity/blackmail :D

HAH I said my "ex" not my wife!

Considering his general lack of knowledge on the subject, that is a distinct possibility.

Soviestan, when we say "fingers," we don't necessarily mean "all the fingers at once."

...not that fisting is necessarily a bad thing...

Who says toys should not be there ? Who writes those rules ?

Some old man who never had sex.

well no, but thats because what men have is much cleaner than what women have, generally speaking.

Ah yes...clinging to a myth. That's how you keep your beliefs blinded to reality.

Considering his general lack of knowledge on the subject, that is a distinct possibility.

Soviestan, when we say "fingers," we don't necessarily mean "all the fingers at once."

Proving he only knows missionary.

...not that fisting is necessarily a bad thing...

Of course not. But I was just pointing out that "using fingers," does not mean "using all the fingers at the same time," necessarily, and that attempts at fisting could result in his opinion that fingers (when used all at the same time) "don't fit." They certainly wouldn't with my ladyfriend, used in the fisting manner.

HAH I said my "ex" not my wife!

Darn. *Kicks sidewalk in dejection, walks away*

Actually, no. It's probably less clean.

I don't see how. to be honest though, if I had to put my mouth on one or the other, I'd pick what guys have. Though this of course doesn't mean I would or that I want to.

I don't see how. to be honest though, if I had to put my mouth on one or the other, I'd pick what guys have. Though this of course doesn't mean I would or that I want to.

What exactly are you basing that choice off though?

If you don't think it tastes good, you're probably a closeted homosexual. Jk, lolrus.

Um... fingers are smaller than most adult penises. If your finger doesn't fit, there's no way your penis will.

I have decently large hands and a very petite girlfriend. Fingers fitting has not been a problem.

I meant the fingers comment figuritivly. I just don't see how they belong there.

I meant the fingers comment figuritivly. I just don't see how they belong there.

AGAIN with the belong.
Please answer the earlier question - who makes those rules ?

I don't see how. to be honest though, if I had to put my mouth on one or the other, I'd pick what guys have. Though this of course doesn't mean I would or that I want to.

Ah, so you are a closeted homosexual. You should get more honest with yourself.

Anyway, because the vagina is so sensitive to bacterial infection, it is self cleaning. Its fluids flow in a way to bring everything down and out of the vagina, rather than letting any microbes in. It is much cleaner than the average person's mouth for instance. Unless of course you also find kissing disgusting, the fact that the vagina is so clean makes your argument a bit silly.

What exactly are you basing that choice off though?

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps

*snip*

This is like showing the elephant to the blind men. Except our blind man refuses to believe in the elephant.

Some day, you'll get laid. You'll be suprised what you might like.

I meant the fingers comment figuritivly. I just don't see how they belong there.

Why not? I'd say that in my experience, they absolutely do belong there.

why would you stick your tongue in those places, its very unhigenic. Actually, considering that female vaginal secretions are acidic and help prevent infections, cunnilingus is probably more hygienic than french kissing.
And fingers and "toys" don't count because in the instance of "toys" they are artifical and thus shouldn't be there in the 1st place.Source it or it's bullshit.

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps

My husband doesn't seem to care. In fact he likes it down there! Bwahahahaha!

I meant the fingers comment figuritivly. I just don't see how they belong there.

How do you think girls masturbate? I mean, the dildo is great and all, but the fingers are superior.

As for guys... a guy needs a little encouraging some times... ;) Gotta open the passage.

And you know, you ought ti try one of those little toys; vibes are teh win.

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps

OMG that's the funniest thing I've ever seen on NSG.

Luckily, all my co-workers have already gone home for the day. I'd hate to have to explain my burt of laughter to them.

Thanks, I needed that! :D

Of course not. But I was just pointing out that "using fingers," does not mean "using all the fingers at the same time," necessarily, and that attempts at fisting could result in his opinion that fingers (when used all at the same time) "don't fit." They certainly wouldn't with my ladyfriend, used in the fisting manner.

Yeah I know... I just couldn't resist...

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly trapsAs opposed to the mouth, which is probably the most bacterially infested part of your body.

For starters vaginas are basically hairy, mutant venus fly traps

Um... you might want to say things that are less... ridiculous...

For starters, venus flytraps are plants. Vaginas are not. Venus flytraps bite, they capture insects in them. Vaginas do not, though they have muscles that sometimes clench. There is also nothing mutant about the vagina. Some women have hairy vulvas, I happen to like that look, but others shave off their pubic hair.

To me, a vulva looks perfectly natural and right, and even aesthetically pleasing. Penises, however, just look funny (as in humorous) to me.

And if you're grossed out by female genitalia, why do you want to stick your penis in there anyway? In fact, why are you even dating women?

Yeah I know... I just couldn't resist...

That's what she said.

Well, it's been fun, but I have to go put up Christmas lights now, so I'm afraid I must exit this discussion... for now...

And if you're grossed out by female genitalia, why do you want to stick your penis in there anyway? In fact, why are you even dating women?

To make a sidestep; what do women (and gay men for that matter) see in men ?
As a pretty straight guy I just have serious problems understanding the attraction. Women are so much more delightful :)
Does mean I am grateful for all the men that remove themselves from competing by being gay :)

To make a sidestep; what do women (and gay men for that matter) see in men ?
As a pretty straight guy I just have serious problems understanding the attraction. Women are so much more delightful :)
Does mean I am grateful for all the men that remove themselves from competing by being gay :)

As a last comment, I never understand this either. What do teh ladyz see in us? Females are just so much more.... *drools*

Some day, you'll get laid. You'll be suprised what you might like.
are you trying to imply I'm gay because I'm not

And if you're grossed out by female genitalia, why do you want to stick your penis in there anyway? In fact, why are you even dating women?

I'm not grossed out by it, its just something I have no desire to my mouth on. And I don't date anyone, I'm Muslim

are you trying to imply I'm gay because I'm not

Oh, horrors! :eek:

No, I wasn't suggesting you were gay, but that you are inexperienced. Either you've never had sex at all or you have limited experience at not very good sex.

Oh, horrors! :eek:

No, I wasn't suggesting you were gay, but that you are inexperienced. Either you've never had sex at all or you have limited experience at not very good sex.

Sovie had sex with Melkor not more than ten minutes ago. He rode him all the way to Indochina. He is experienced.

And I don't date anyone, I'm MuslimMy flatmate is muslim and he dates.

My flatmate is muslim and he dates.

Then he's obviously not a Muslim.

My ex fiance is a Muslim. He dates, and is gay too! Woo! :cool:

Then he's obviously not a Muslim.Well, no. I'm pretty sure he's muslim.

I'm having doubts about Sovie, though. All we have is his word for it, and considering that he considers the US the center of the universe, DURING THE HAJJ, he probably isn't a muslim at all.

My flatmate is muslim and he dates.

My ex fiance is a Muslim. He dates, and is gay too! Woo! :cool:

most Muslims don't date though

I'm not grossed out by it, its just something I have no desire to my mouth on. And I don't date anyone, I'm Muslim

The prophet dated. Are you saying Mohammed was not a good muslim ?

Well, no. I'm pretty sure he's muslim.

I'm having doubts about Sovie, though. All we have is his word for it, and considering that he considers the US the center of the universe, DURING THE HAJJ, he probably isn't a muslim at all.

that was joike, I thought it was fairly obvious

most Muslims don't date thoughMost muslims live in very prude countries, though, so it's probably not because they're muslim.

Most muslims live in very prude countries, though, so it's probably not because they're muslim.

It could be because the Muslim vagina is sixty feet wide and lined with razor sharp teeth. Get the reference?

Sovie had sex with Melkor not more than ten minutes ago. He rode him all the way to Indochina. He is experienced.

I may regret this, but what gives you the impression I would be riding him and not vice versa? Of course it would never happen but I'm just curious with the asumption

It could be because the Muslim vagina is sixty feet wide and lined with razor sharp teeth. Get the reference?Nah, Arabs in partiucular engage in a lot of oral sex, from what I've heard. But again, that's more of a cultural than a religious thing.

The prophet dated. Are you saying Mohammed was not a good muslim ?

he did? is there proof of this?

I may regret this, but what gives you the impression I would be riding him and not vice versa? Of course it would never happen but I'm just curious with the asumption

Because Melkor is taller I assume.

Most muslims live in very prude countries, though, so it's probably not because they're muslim.

whats your definition of prude?

whats your definition of prude?Anything more uptight than what my German grandmother considers apropriate.

It could be because the Muslim vagina is sixty feet wide and lined with razor sharp teeth. Get the reference?

Yay south park references.

There already exist quite a few religions in which gay marriage is acceptable. Of course, that's not relevant in the least, as what religions do and do not allow should definitionally have nothing whatsoever to do with what the government does and does not allow. The 14th Amendment is the only argument that ought to be needed to render gay marriage a federally guaranteed right; sadly, because our country is full of a lot of people willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits their ends, we still aren't there yet.

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.

Your Constitutional argument fails. As do those by black-robed wanna-be social engineers and imperious pseudo-legislators like the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

Marriage = one man, one woman.

Plus five bananas. No such thing as "marriage" without the Banana Honor Guard.

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.Please. Just because I don't want to marry another man is no reason to deny me the right to do so. It would be like banning using your left hand for writing or baseball. It won't affect me, but banning it is still wrong.

who cares, let them marry

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right, or that they are unhappy that there isn't a different right, or that the existing right doesn't sanction gratification of their aberrant desires, is completely unimportant.

Your Constitutional argument fails. As do those by black-robed wanna-be social engineers and imperious pseudo-legislators like the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.

Make that "the same right to marry one individual of the same race" and you have the argument that anit-miscegenation laws also denied no one's rights.

Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Nothing but your prejudices limit that right to couples of opposing genders.

Similarly, equal protection is guaranteed under the law. Denying same-sex marriage invidiously discriminates on the basis of gender. Denying same-sex marriage does not serve a compelling state interest, let alone be narrowly tailored to serve such an interest.

I suggest you actually read Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm), 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), as it is an excellent decision well-grounded in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.According to whom or what?
If any two people want their love formalized there is no reason whatsoever to deny that.

According to whom or what?
If any two people want their love formalized there is no reason whatsoever to deny that.Age.

That's what she said.

ROWR!

I'm not grossed out by it, its just something I have no desire to my mouth on. And I don't date anyone, I'm Muslim

I used to go out with an Iranian girl. She broke it off because she was afraid of how it would make her look to be seeing a white guy.

bleh. I'm a half-breed, thank you.

ROWR!



I used to go out with an Iranian girl. She broke it off because she was afraid of how it would make her look to be seeing a white guy.

bleh. I'm a half-breed, thank you.

What's the other half?

Actually its in the governments best interest to get involved in the marriage issue. Heterosexual unions provided children (i.e. human resources), for use in future development and conflict with other nation-states. However most people tend to look at it through the lens of morality.

Either way you call it (pro-gay marraige, or against), can be considered a moral judgement call.... especially if your for it.

Actually its in the governments best interest to get involved in the marriage issue. Heterosexual unions provided children (i.e. human resources), for use in future development and conflict with other nation-states. However most people tend to look at it through the lens of morality.

Children are indeed one aspect. But there are advantages to being able to treat groups of humans as fiscal units with the right to make legal decisions for one another.

Children are indeed one aspect. But there are advantages to being able to treat groups of humans as fiscal units with the right to make legal decisions for one another.

Such as.....? If humans aren't considered in fiscal groups the government inherits on the event of death, and if legal decisions can be made by non-other than the doctor or the lawyer, then these choices would be made by proffessionals with far more knowledge in a given area than your average person with power of attorney....

Such as.....? If humans aren't considered in fiscal groups the government inherits on the event of death, and if legal decisions can be made by non-other than the doctor or the lawyer, then these choices would be made by proffessionals with far more knowledge in a given area than your average person with power of attorney....

And that is not what the people want. So without marriage one needs to create a complex system of contracts, regulations and so on, costing everyone money.
Marriage de facto is an efficient and cheap standard contract.

And that is not what the people want. So without marriage one needs to create a complex system of contracts, regulations and so on, costing everyone money.
Marriage de facto is an efficient and cheap standard contract.


'What people want'.... ? So you are claiming a moral standpoint on the issue....?

'What people want'.... ? So you are claiming a moral standpoint on the issue....?

No, a practical one. I am not saying that the will of the people is correct.

Aside - would allowing gay couples to adopt from abroad not be a good thing for the state in your reasoning ? After all - you take kids away from the enemy and add them to your own pool.

No, a practical one. I am not saying that the will of the people is correct.

Aside - would allowing gay couples to adopt from abroad not be a good thing for the state in your reasoning ? After all - you take kids away from the enemy and add them to your own pool.


Ok then what the people want is irrelevant. And that depends on whether or not there are any mental or societal abnormalties which would arise, which has yet to be seen or tested, and current believed percentages of homosexuals in society (10-11%) are probably widely exagerated considering the gentleman that produced those numbers targeted strains of society which are known to produce sexual practices different from mainstream society (prisons for example) actual numbers are unknown but more realistic projections are closer to 3 or 4%. You would also have to test rebellion rates amongst adopted children and determine whether or not it is societal or racial traits which cause certain segments of the world to be unsuccesful. And at what age 'societal norms' (if there is such a thing) become prevalent. In short, no producing children and having them stay in mainstream familial units seems to be producing fairly fit children for work and warfare.

Age.
But definitely not gender.

No, a practical one. I am not saying that the will of the people is correct.

Aside - would allowing gay couples to adopt from abroad not be a good thing for the state in your reasoning ? After all - you take kids away from the enemy and add them to your own pool.enemy?

My point being largely that those who claim to be for homosexual unions and claim that others are merely basing their opinions on 'morality' are arrogant bastards that are basing their opinions on 'morality' just as much as the next person. That a coldly secular viewpoint would take us to a destination few of us probably want to reach.

enemy?

He says we need children "for use in future development and conflict with other nation-states".

Ok then what the people want is irrelevant.

Why ? The people will form such contracts anyway, unless you forbid it - costing society money. The standard marriage contract remedies that.
I genuinely do not see why you'd wish to promote inefficiency ?

My point being largely that those who claim to be for homosexual unions and claim that others are merely basing their opinions on 'morality' are arrogant bastards that are basing their opinions on 'morality' just as much as the next person. That a coldly secular viewpoint would take us to a destination few of us probably want to reach.

People's personal morality is irrelevant, it's about equal rights under the law for all people regardless of arbitrary characteristics.

I'm not grossed out by it, its just something I have no desire to my mouth on. And I don't date anyone, I'm Muslim

If you weren't grossed out by it, you'd have no trouble putting your mouth on it. If putting my mouth on my ladyfriend's elbow would cause her to shudder with pleasure, perhaps even result in an orgasm and her delightfully happy mood afterwards, I'd put my mouth on her elbow, since there's no real reason not to. But it doesn't, those qualities I mentioned are those of her vulva, which is no more gross or unclean than her elbow, knee, bellybutton or back is.

You have some sort of basal aversion to female genitalia, otherwise, you would have no qualms about going down on a lady, especially since it's an activity that many enjoy mightily. You're still a hypocrite for finding fellatio just fine and dandy and cunnilingus gross.

Nor, God willing, will we ever get "there".

Homosexuals already have "equal rights." They have the same right to marry one individual of the opposite sex as normal, heterosexual people do.

The argument you are making is precisely the same one made by individuals who opposed intermarriages between black Americans and white Americans.

The Supreme Court ruled it to be unConstitutional back before I was born.

You bigots really need to get new material.


Marriage = one man, one woman. End of issue.
Please, pretty please, keep on stamping your little foot and saying this. I loved seeing homophobes chanting about Adam and Steve as the Mass legislature announced the defeat of the pathetic proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.

I love listening to homophobes these days, because it's so blindingly obvious that you've already lost. The next generation of voters has grown up in a world with out homosexual couples, and they simply don't see what the big deal is. Even the current adult voters are thoroughly sick of the bullshit "family values" wedge issues, and everybody has pretty much realized that the "values" angle was just being used as a distraction and a dupe.

So please, pretty please, write to your homophobic representatives and encourage them to keep pushing their anti-gay marriage agenda! PLEASE! If you want, think of it as your holiday gift to me!

My point being largely that those who claim to be for homosexual unions and claim that others are merely basing their opinions on 'morality' are arrogant bastards that are basing their opinions on 'morality' just as much as the next person.

Wrong.

That a coldly secular viewpoint would take us to a destination few of us probably want to reach.
Also wrong. I find the secular viewpoint infinitely more humanitarian and "warm" than the cold logic which sacrifices the rights of minorities in order to pander to the insecurities of...well, at this point it's just another minority, because the majority doesn't fucking care.

According to whom or what?
If any two people want their love formalized there is no reason whatsoever to deny that.

I often disagree with you, UB, but you do ask exactly the pertinent question here.

Exactly where does New Mitianni's little "marriage = one man, one woman" equation come from besides his own rectum? I don't believe he can supply an answer besides the same stupid shit that everyone's heard over and over again.

"We've always done it that way" doesn't work as an argument, if a way we've been using is the best one, it is the best one for reasons other than age. If there is a better way, we should adopt the new one. Besides, in this case, we haven't "always done it that way." As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, marriage as we know it has only been around a few hundred years. In ancient times, as was posted on another thread, different societies had views on homosexuality much less prudish than our own.

As far as I'm concerned, marriage = formal union between people (consenting adults) who love each other, in a romantic sense. Well, ideally anyway.

If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't fucking get one. Equal rights for people who want nothing more than to marry someone they love doesn't harm your life in any way.

Wrong.

Really?

So what's a "non-moral" basis for a position on this question?

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay,

We would call that religion "Humanity".

We would call that religion "Humanity".Humanity would come from enlightenment, not religion. And why would such a concept have to be made by gay people?

I live in the US so this is really only relevant if you live there.

If gay people made a religion where gay marriage is okay, wouldn't the government have to let them marry? Is that at all possible or is harder to make a religion then I think?

Someone has probably said this before or something like it, but I haven't been here long so I wouldn't know.

There is nothing against gays in the bible. Religion is used as a bullshit reason to hate gays by homophobes.