I started a thread about this a while back and I'm now creating a poll about it to a clearer idea of what everyone thinks.
Men and women should be able to marry each other if they want.
People people, this is a arguement that has been going on for a very long time. Some people don't even believe for what they are fighting for. I feel that we are a new generation. I also feel that the biggest reason kids feel certain ways are becuase of their parents influence. I asked a bunch of kids at my school about politics. Would they rather have a republican or democrat win. Well almost all of them answered the same thing their parents answered. But when i asked the children why they feel this way, they simply answered cz my parents told me it was the good one. So I started to talk to my friends about politics, gay marriage, and other strong topics and soon, everybody was making there own decisions. 50 percent of kids and teens today don't really care about gay marriage because they don't have a religion and have no reason to hate it. Another percentage says that children don't like it because there parents have forced them into a religion which is strickly against everything our generation stands for. Love. I feel that everybody should start making their own decisions instead of letting their parents controlling every single step they take.
I'm not one to use ill words, but SHUT UP! Stop trying to make up things you have no idea about, children can think what they want, and the truth is that most children are rebellious to there parents and would rather think other wise. Take for example, there are gay children in our society today, and I can make a good guess that there parents views on that subject, had no infulence. Please stop your preaching, for you are no precher.
It's their choice but I'm still not for that kind of marriages. It's simply not natural - what about children?
You can't inject 'reasons' into this. My answer is NO, but it's NOT because of my 'religion', so I didn't vote.
About chidren... Although I see the concern here, you can also think of it the other way... Would the children rather grow up homophobes? I'm not saying there is no middle ground, but do consider both perspectives.
Children are the exact reason there should be no gay marriage. Marriage is for procreation.
Or marriage for love...
I guess that's the main argument here.
IMNSHO, there is no argument: Marriage is for progcreation.
I am sure that there are people willing to vigorously debate that with you, so you have validated the point I was trying to make.
But where do you stand on civil unions? Does this excude procreation?
They can debate all they want, I won't change my mind.
Civil Unions and procreation are not related and shouldn't be.
I have no problem with legal civil unions, with some benefits similar to those afforded married couples, but not the benefits for married parents. I know 2 gay couples that have children, and confess to only having them for the government benefits. It's sad that the child is not wanted, and that the child will be subjected to all kinds of problems early AND late in life because of it. (not that it's relevant in this context, but one couple had a sperm doner, the other adopted) (and for the record, I know sevearl gay couples, but only two have children (after getting together with their current 'mate'))
But i don't think this problem is related to gay couples only.
I may repeat myself but why are you against gay marriages it if it doesn't affect you at all? You may come with the children subject again, but as i said that depends on each particular couple gay or not.
It's not. I never implied it was.
You have no idea if or how it affects me, or anybody else (besides yourself, and that's questionable) for that matter. Something that affects all Americans, is the money they'd have to spend in taxes to supply these benefits to gay couples. Another reason is that it will be a stepping stone to other things. Like more tolerance for pedofiles etc. And who's to say that if we allow gay marriage, we shouldn't be allowed to marry ANYBODY, including sisters, sons, horses or even multiples of each.
So you say that the benefits are the main problem not the actual marriage? Yep and you are right i have no clue as how it would affect Americans, first of all i am not one and second of all i didn't look at it from this wider point of view thats true.
I do think things like family visits and other benefits for married couples should be extended for civil unions as well, but I think you may be correct about the children side of the debate. Children for benefits is not the intended purpose of a gay marriage, I would think. If I could peaceably think that a gay marriage would be used for raising kids, I would support those benefits, but if what you have provided is a true snapshot of what the marriages are used for, then no, these benefits should not be extended. However, this leaves a certain percentage without benefits for their children that are to be raised for the reasons any other couple would supply. What of them? I wonder if there is some resolution for this contrast.
i am from holland. untill the sixties holland was a very religious country, most calvinist or roman catholic. especially the calvinists believed in a very dogmatic way: every word in the bible was interpreted literally.
nowadays, after a long ongoing debate, gay marriages are legalized here.
i think that is a good thing. it is good for gay people to feel that they are accepted in society and also in church. with a marriage they are able to share their love in public like all other people.
this move in holland was possible because believing is seen in a broader light: it is about love, being loved and sharing any kind of feelings in a community. believing is sharing and searching, everyone in his own unique way, for hapiness. a gay marriage is a good move and let people come closer together, not fearing to expose their identity and how they are building their identity. gay people too should be able to build on their identity.
the UNITED states shoulds view themselves as a COMMUNITY rather then a country full of individuals. when you see individuals you stress differences, when you see one big community in which everyone is a worthy soul, you stress the things you've got in common. a marriage is something everyone should be able to have in common, because it expresses love in public. something this world desperately needs.
It should be perfectly legal for a same sex couple to get married legally in terms of a legal binding through a civil registry office. The argument against same sex marriage is that of the church and since state and church are supposed to be separate in America and Europe at least, in my opinion there is no argument why it shouldn't be legal.
To me, getting married in a church should be perfectly possible as well. No one, so far, has been able to show me where in the bible it says that two people of the same sex cannot get married.
"they were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them" is a part of the revelation discussing locusts the lord sent onto the earth. A book that represents this isn't really something I want dictating to me how to live. Also, the original language of the bible was not English. It's been translated and re-written so many times it's impossible to know what the original scripture actually said. So a hand-me-down copy is what's keeping people from the simplest form of happiness?
I'm not at all religious so I can't really comprehend why someone feels the need to be "accepted" by the church which, after all, is only a group of people holding on to one very specific way of thinking. It just happens to be a very large group so somehow it seems to think it can bully.
Alternative thinking... please...
I really dont care too much about this topic/issue. My opinion is simply this: are they human beings? Do they care about each other? Does their marriage physically interfere with other peoples lives?
Its quite simple if you ask me. Let them marry and have happiness. So the world should move on, and start worrying about real issues.
This is one of the main things residents of the United States like to think of themselves as: indivduals. In the US, capatalism and dog-eat-dog reign supreme. People consider it their right to do what they want to do. Individualism is also a trait that its citizens value.
The US has begun interpretting this as a right to have no concern for anybody else, which, frankly, it isn't. Compassion, in my opinion, is on the downwards trend.
I think this is just one of the differences between the US and Holland. The US feels it is a benefit to be a soceity of individuals, and would prefer to call it 'diversity,' but I don't think this is a reason not to be a community as well.
I have always felt homosexual relationships to be extremely awkward and unnerving. It simply never felt natural to me to view or think of actions involving such behavior. Belittling through jokes and rebuke are the most common medium that the majority of America is exposed to homosexuality, seemingly to me, today. I believe the point I am trying to bring forth is that the posts in this thread have prodded and poked at my mind, 'getting it going', and I have a lot more to learn before I can make a truly intelligent interjection on this matter. And, thank you all for expressing your minds and helping me( as well as others, I'm sure) open my own(a little bit more =) and reconstruct my own cognitive approach to such ambiguous issues; so that I shall interpret as many factors as possible before even coming near a conclusion, now. Thank you, again.
I guess you're right, but then: a community that acknowledges diversity shouldn't have much trouble with a legalised gay marriage then, should it? Holland is also proud of diversity, but tries hard to make one big puzzle of all this diversity, with no pieces left.
then maybe it is because politicians still don't want to be associated with gay 'perversion' or any sexual issue that might influence their status as a decent politician. i guess the discussion in the US is mainly focussing on decency then? gay is still a taboo. and christianity is used as a soft excuse to not think about sexual and marital issues to hard.
i want to thank wobatrpgs for his very good contribution to this discussion. I now can understand why the US sees individuality as such an important 'right'. not that i completely agree with the ways in which this right is interpreted.
canada legalized it recently, and i see no problem with it. two people love each other, so they should be able to get married or civil union-ed . there's no difference between straight couples and gay couples other than their sexual orientation.
What's the big deal about it... If two folks (whether they are both of the same sex or not) love each other, then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
Because I don't want to pay for the benifits that should be going to couples that, you know... procreate.
I don't understand what people mean when they say "natural." As if most human endevours are natural? Hah! Humans seem to go out-of-thier-way to be unnatural. We drive around in SUVS, fly in planes, sink underwater in Submarines, answer ringing phones, dip into hot tubs and pools. What's natural about all those things? News Flash: humans are not natural.
That's why I don't understand what people mean when they say that being gay is not natural? Are you going to try to argue that YOU are natural? Hah! Good luck. We break the rules all the time. That's what we do. That's what makes us Human!
So let the gays get married, it's not going to ruin anything. In the US, where much more than half of marriages end in divorce the "sanctity" of marriage is LONG GONE, so we have nothing to lose.
Well naturally a gay couple can't procreate.
There you are, using that word, "natural" without defining it. If you think about, I think you'll find that defining that word is very, very difficult.
A sterile man and a women also cannot procreate, but they can be married.
Is the only point of marriage to have children?
Basically, yes. And just because they're sterile doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Aside from sterility, they're natural and have every right to marry because they are one man and one woman.
If you're going to allow it to go beyond that, then you must also allow polygimy, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest and every other freakish sexual deviant's wishes.
It's pretty simple, and natural, really.
It's a slippery slope.
Before you know it, dinasours will be roaming the earth!
They're going to start on Castro Street in San Francisco, then roam down to West Hollywood in LA, Boystown in Chicago, South Beach in Miami, and all over! Imagine! These gays are going to ruin everything.
The "slippery slope" argument is obviously ridiculous and fallicious. When they lowered the voting age to 18, they didn't also lower the drinking age to 18...things don't work that way.
Life is so short and sweet, and considering the huge amount of people that such a ban makes unhappy it really seems unfair. I don't care what you say there are not as many people interested in those things you mentioned as there are gay people.
Look, I live in San Francisco, I know my gays, and there are a hell of a lot of them. Why should such a huge group of people be ignored?
I think we can all agree that allowing gay marraige will not bring back the dinasours, or lead to the legalization of pedophilia....that arguement is simply ridiculous....so what exactly does it hurt?
I can also wink:
Are you sure? Have you seen what the ACLU has been up to lately? Defending child rapists, supporting NAMBLA etc.
Did you hear about the protest of the polygimist children? They're trying to 'normalize' polygimy. I saw it on a cable news talk show. Sorry no links.
They shouldn't. And they're not. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Apply the slippery slope analogy to gun control
No one is supporting child rapists. Now, if there was a 24 year-old man who slept with a 17 year-old girl, and wasn't aware of the fact, or something like that...then I can see why he would have some support, and this is probably the type of person you are calling a "child rapist," because obviously no one is actually going to defend child rapist. Come on.
I used the wrong word. THey are not ignored, but they are, in a way, treated as second-class-citizens by not having the right to marry.
Are you absolutely SURE about that?
I didnt' think so. Read on.
Those links aren't ALL about child abuses, some show the other arenas that the ACLU is into.
Aren't you getting a little bit off topic? What that has to do with gay marriage? I don't care what ACLU is doing, that doesn't change a thing about gay rights in the slightest.
It's because he wants us to believe that there is a slippery slope.
When we are considering whether to give certain people rights we must also consdier the consequences of those actions....
but I don't believe slippery slope applies here.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
What exactly do child-rapist have to do with gay people? Are we comparing gay people to child-rapists?
It's interesting to see how people seem to consider gay people as horrible people, comparable to child-rapists. I remember thinking that it was absurd that the actors in Brokeback Mountain would be considered the "bravest actors" just because they played gay people. What about people who play rapists and serial killers. Is being a rapist or a serial killer better than being gay?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
I certainly don't think so.
I'd much rather be gay than a serial killer.
Since you seemed to have missed it the first time..
Such as some of the lawsuits brought on by the ACLU, the 300 or so polygimists protesting in (i think) Utah trying to make it legal now, etc etc.
Yes, there is a slippery slope. In many areas including gay marriage, the first, second, fourth and tenth amendments, in eminent domain, in illegal immigration, etc etc etc.
But it's ok if you want to ignore it. Some day something YOU value will be taken away. Then you will start to understand.
It's not eminent!
One has nothing to do with the other.
It's like saying, "If I eat my sandwich, The Golden Gate bridge will collapse in an earthquake tommorow."
MY SANDWICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE! Even if the Golden Gate Bridge collapses tommorow, my sandwich had NOTHING to do with it. They are two seperate matters.
It's like saying that liberating african americans has led to the liberation of gays. Not at all. Had nothing to do with it.
[quote name="S3nd K3ys"]If you're going to allow it to go beyond that, then you must also allow polygimy, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest and every other freakish sexual deviant's wishes. [/quote]
I think the main difference that you are missing is that gay people feel no love for people of the opposite sex. A polygamist or necropphiliac can still have a spouse. A gay person cannot. We may deny the above mentioned's unusual behavior, but they have something to fall back on for love. A gay person has nothing if you deny gay marriage.
But you are of the belief that marriage is only for procreation? Do you really associate being gay with perversion? It is something that they are born with, not something corrupted.
And your argument is a good one, the slop argument DOES apply. You can't deny that.
No, it's NOT eminent. But it's likely. Highly likely. In fact, it's already starting to happen. In all the areas I've mentioned.
Are you denying that people are actually trying to get laws changed to not prosecute cases against polygimy, pedophilia, beastiality, necrophelia, incest etc? (Well, maybe not necrophelia)
Are you denying that people are actually trying to get (more) laws passed to strip me and you (if you're American) of your first, second, fourth and tenth amendment rights?
Are you denying that people are actually trying to pass (more) laws to allow more illegals to come here, and the ones here illegally to stay?
Are you denying that people are actually trying to pass laws to allow the local government to take my house for what ever reason and not pay me justifiable compensation?
Dude. Take your blinders off. The list goes on and on and on.
It's all about TOLERANCE.
IT does not apply.
It might prompt people to say, "well, if you let the gays get married...."
But that doesn't have to sway anyone.
The fact is, one has nothing to do with the other.
That is NOT a fact. That is your opinion.
And no, it doesn't HAVE to sway anyone, but that's not the case. It DOES sway people. It DOES give people incentive to try to be more bold with their actions and to try to defend them.
I'm from San Francisco, dude, all that stuff sound fine to me.
Sorry, I was updating faster than I thought you could read. I didn't know you'd be glued to this topic.
Say no more. I understand now.
With this kind of logic slavery would still be legal in US. Being bold in defending our actions isnt a bad thing, of course it depends on an action. But as davidav87 and i pointed out more than once, defending gay marriage has nothing to do with defending child rapists.
Not yet anyway.
Tolerance is a stepping stone.
homosexuality is not at all degrading for both the persons doing it. there is an equal balance in this relationship.
the other 'freakish deviants' you mention are degrading life and are therefore called abuse. a marriage will not stand. at least one person will not marrie the other, because of age, lifeform or so. that is what you may cal freakish. but it doesn't apply for gay-beings.
I think it is inappropriate to say homosexuality can be compared to them.
Ever seen a gay pride parade?
Go have a look at what (many) of these people feel is perfectly OK to do publically.
S3nd K3ys, i feel prompted to say that seeing you defending the denial of gay marriage makes me think you want slavery back.
Your lack of tolerance shows me that you (a democratic person as you claim to be) are in fact partially a dictator.
[EDIT]P.S. - You wouldn't by any chance be called Matt Bush would you?[/EDIT]
Have YOU ever been to a Gay Pride Parade?
I have. Just earlier this year.
I also attended the party the night before called "Pink Saturday" on Castro Street. Lots of fun.
....I'm not sure what you think "those people" are doing that they shouldn't be doing....it's mostly just people walking up and down with signs.
Also, don't generalize. Just because one gay person does something obscene doesn't mean all gay people are that way. Just like I don't think ALL white people are as retarded as George Bush. You see, I don't generalize that way.
Yes. Why on Earth would I ask you a stupid question like that otherwise? Seriously, I could care less if you were in one. That's not the point. The point is, and my gay friends will gladly tell you they understand why I feel the way I feel, that too many gays are going way beyond what is considered acceptable by society, especially in these public dislpays which are meant to try to make them more popular and acceptable.
You could compare it to the image that the majority of American people feel towards Islamists. It's not fair to judge them all by the actions of a few, but the few with the ****ed up actions are making it harder for the rest to be accepted by society. And the same applies in that niether of the larger, more civil groups, are speaking out against the actions of the few idiots spoiling it for everyone, so that premise is allowed to fester and grow.
Oh, sorry. I guess they parades you partake in don't have a bunch of deviants dressed and acting for the bedroom in public? If straight couples did some of the crap I've seen at the gay parade they'd be arrested.
Bockman, got anything interesting or relevant to say? Or are you just here to bash one of the greatest Presidents of all time?
You can't compare what is acceptable and reasonable for straight people to what is reasonable and acceptable to gay people.
This seems to be something straight people have a hard time understanding: they say, "I don't go around saying, "I'm Straight!!" so why do the gay people have to rub it in our faces!"
The fact is, people don't beat you for being straight, and its not illegal in other several countries to be straight. Gay people have a reason to be loud and provocative. Simply sitting around all and acting "normal" isn't going to change a damn thing.
Of course, some people take it overboard, but most, MOST, do not.
I'll have to disagree on that one. I honestly think that IF gay people would act normaly (i don't understand why they have to force it on other people, honestly) they would have a lot more acceptance. What gays want (and i agree they have the right to it) is to be considered normal and accepted by society. That will only be possible when they act normal. Note that by "acting normaly" i do NOT mean that you should change yourself to something you are not.
Let me give you an example. Tatooed men were (and by some people, still are) considered outlaws that beat old ladies and rob whatever they can (too much movies, yes). But the fact that people started using tatoos and ignoring most comments, going on with their lives as if nothing was different (and there wasn't), led people to start accepting tatoos as a normal thing.
Nowadays you see guys with earrings and you don't even take notice of it, a few years ago you'd have a mob after you because you were "weird".
Now picture this:
Imagine your a republican and 95% of the population hates them Bush'es. They take you for a "Bush Lover" and start ridicularizing you and (this part would be unlikely, but) may even beat you up just because you like Bush. What are you to do?
A. Start a Bush Parade and have members do (shocking) things they normaly wouldn't do just to make people notice you and start accepting you?
B. Continue living your life normaly and take every chance you have to debate the political issues you believe on (being a Democrat) where it counts (Parliament, campaigns, public meetings, etc)
Moving away from this (Before K3ys buys a ticket plane to Portugal ), I think gay people should start leading their lives as they would do IF there was no discrimination. Eventually, society will have to accept this as normal, but until then, you guys need to fight for your rights where it counts.
I'm not suggesting the formation of a gay party (seeing the political agenda would be diminute), but start thinking of ways (suggest some laws for example) to get this uneven situation balanced.
As for gay marriage (and i had not yet plainly written my oppinion about it), I believe gays are entitled to exacly the same rights as straight men are, except when it comes to adoption.
If two men or women, of adult age, are willing to share their lives toghether, why on earth should we not allow them to live their lives (or, correctly putting it, let them live their lives "illegaly" as a couple). And if they live their lives as a couple, why shouldn't they be accepted as one and enjoy the same benefits you and others do while living with someone of the oposite sex?
Don't we accept other religions as legal? Don't we allow them to be married? don't we accept people without religion (and don't we allow them to get married?). Marriage (according to the Church) can only happen between people of opposite gender. The laws we (most countries) have are based uppon those scriptures. BUT not everyone believes in religion and (here i'm taking Portugal as an example, because i don't know how it goes for other countries) marriage outside the church is already allowed (wasn't like that 30 years ago.. you could only be married by the church).
I don't want to impose on the church to allow gay marriages, but the government cannot live by the churches laws. the marriage outside church should allow gay marriages.
As for adopting kids, i am not sure this is a step that can be taken without further studies as to what criteria should be used. Since we're talking about a baby/kid that is not yet aware of things and cannot decide by himself to be adopted (or by whom), I take it as a more complicated issue. But this would take us to a whole different debate and I believe (hope) this is being studied/prepared by someone who actually knows what can and should be done.
@S3nd K3ys: I wasn't bashing Bush, I was joking because whenever there is a Bush related thread you pop up defending him. I have nothing against him, although i would not have voted for him, were I an american. (honestly speaking, didn't see any candidate that would get my vote on your last elections). I disagree with the actions (or should I say the "real" reasons behind them) that were taken on the mid-east when he became president, but seing as I don't believe that Bush is "running the show", I don't personaly blame him. After the acceptance that the series "Commander in Chief" has had, maybe one day she'll run up to assume the official position of rulling the contry (maybe even against Mrs. Clinton). If you believe he's one of the greatest Presidents ever, that'll be your oppinion and you are entitled to it. I don't agree and i have my reasons (beliefs) for it. That doesn't mean I don't think some of the things he(?) made were good.
I got a lot of things to say about this theme, but unfortunately, i have to take care of a lot of other issues here and I cannot afford to spend the time i did on this post, writing on every topic that i find interesting.
Do YOU have anything interesting or relevant to say about this theme besides making absurd comparisons? Your comparisons are extremely obnoxious and with them you are trying to diminuish a part of our comunity. You are "bending" our rules a bit too much, and believe me, some of us believe you've bent them one pixel too far already.
P.S. - There may be some grammar wrong and some typos, but I cannot re-read this atm. work calls.
There is a difference between marriage and sex(uality). Marriage is legal union between 2 people and doesn't necessarily need any sex(uality) at all.
The problem is that in a lot of countries there is still discrimination of gender in marriage.
However, there is no discrimination of sexuality, at least in most of those countries. Gay people or people practicing bestiality or necrophelia are allowed to marry, although it has to be with someone of the opposite gender (which once again is a discrimination of gender, not sexuality).
The discrimination of gender in marriage is of course caused by a discrimination of sexuality, but definately remains a different issue, not related to marriage.
About your freakish sexual wishes, there is nothing morally wrong with incest if it doesn't involve pedophilia nor procreation(medical issues). Bestiality and necrophelia are maybe pretty freakish to most people but that shouldn't make them a criminal fact as long as it doesn't harm other (living) people. Not allowing this (due to "freakish") is indeed a discrimination of sexuality. But this has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
It seems that whatever we think of the topic, gays will be able to marry normally - it's part of world evolution I think..
BUT in my opinion they should NEVER be able to adopt kids. Such adoption means harm to a young human and should never take place.
I wonder how the world has changed...
69% vote for gay marriage ... huh?!
Ohh God Save this world... Hope you are not one...
Marriage is, in fact, a religious contract between a man and a woman promising to love and be true to one another for always. It quickly became more and more integrated with society, especially in the god-fearing days of the medievals. Nowadays, society has made it possible to get married outside of religion, so a non-religious marriage is actually not really a marriage at all.
Putting this into context, "gay marriage" can never be true marriage, since it lacks the main quality needed in a marriage: a man and a woman. Society calls it a marriage to make gays feel better about it, but it is not truly a marriage.
I always thought that love is the main quality needed in marriage.
Bockman, thanks for really taking care of this thread. I was truly annoid bij S3end K3ys, he was indeed a pixel too far. Even if I didn't react already, it was annoying to read what he was trying to do.
As for gay people getting married: Perfectly fine with it (YES I'm from The Netherlands! )
I had to vote "No strong feelings" because I'm a bit confused about the subject.
Now, to continue with a response to Bluedragon. (I was in the middle of posting when the other topic was locked). The other topic to which I am referring is this:
You're correct about Sodom. It was just that the people were living in so much sin in general, not necessarily or exclusively homosexuality (although that was a contributing factor to the destruction of the city).
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
What are your thoughts on Leviticus 18:22?
And also, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
And your thoughts about that as well?
At this point I am too confused to offer up my thoughts about those verses, but I am just putting them out there.
I don't think that God hates fags (just to be sure everyone knows), and I've read the verse(s) about shellfish (albeit it was awhile ago). Here is another problem, which presents new questions for me.
How closely should we follow the Old Testament?
Jesus' birth, life, and death was the New Covenant with God, and the majority of homosexuality is condemned within the Old Testament, or before this new agreement with God. In this New Testament, or New Covenant, Jesus says whosoever believeth in me. It is my opinion that "whosoever" includes homosexuals.
Now, clearly I can't just say "Well we won't follow the Old Testament" because the 10 commandments were given in the Old Testament (and we follow them today).
Why doesn't the Church make a big deal about eating shellfish?
If God so clearly condemns it, why aren't we elevating the digestion of shellfish as much as we are homosexuality?
There's probably more I'd come up with if I pondered on the subject for awhile, but my head is already full.
Amen to that - one thing that cannot be misinterpreted is Jesus' second coming.
I think that gay people should have the right to be married. Straight people arent that different. If they love theyr own sex, let them be with it. Why must people control them?
I'm not sure those verses refer to only being homosexual, or they are referring to being heterosexual, but doing these things anyway. Especially the second seems to consider this as something that is a willing choice. Maybe just gay sex is forbidden?
And what would happen to a gay person who was an ideal christian, and a martyr? Would he be sent to hell?
Interesting. I've heard about the different bible versions, but I don't remember seeign that.
It's pretty we documented if you look around. Here is a brief quote from wiki on the verses about Lot, the angels and Sodom.
Look HERE for the full article.
This is just one example of simple translation errors that give a completely different meaning to Bible passages. This is why I always recommend that people read the Bible side by side with a good reference book.
[Smiley removed by Bockman]
You might want to disable smilies. It kind of stands out. But thatnks for the link, that was really informative.
[Smiley removed by Bockman. thks for the heads up]
I'm not here to judge anyone because it not my place, but does anybody remember the story about Sodom and Gomora?
Yes, if you bothered to read the post right behind yours...
Umm... my opinion of gay marrage... I don't like the idea of it at all. I do understand that everybody can do whatever they want to do, but I am simply against gay marrage simply because I think it's disgusting. However, I am okay with most lesbians due to the fact that I am a guy, and yeah, you know how that goes.
Gay marrage to me is utterly disgusting because to me, it's just wrong. Guy on guy? Ahh!! I can't handle that. I'm sorry to all you pro-gay marrage people out there, but this is just my opinion. Also, sorry for spelling marrage wrong, whatever.
I also work with a gay guy. I talk to him like a normal person, but wow, he's pretty weird. Always singing to country songs and just doing gay stuff.. Well, I suppose he is gay after all.
Whatever. All of you, can do whatever you want, whatever your heart desires, I don't care. I just have my own opinions about things, and that's just the way it is.
Then you're against gay sex. Equal rights for gay couples, I'd think, is something different.
Well, opinions are cool, we all have them. But I guess the fact that I find something disgusting doesn't enter into my beliefs about right or wrong. I find surgery disgusting and don't want to see it, but I'd never say it was wrong. I would find most hetrosexual couples having sex disgusting, also.
I just dont understand why we have this need to want to change things that really have no bearing on our own life.
To all - If my use of smilies offended anyone, I do appologize. I just have always found it interesting how people will choose to live by book and not
spend a little time learning about it's history and meaning. Again, no offense was meant.
<newlife~t>I believe that a union between 2 (or more, even) consenting adults should be legally recognized. If the religious institutions want to reserve the term "marriage" to only apply to their members, then so be it--but they should then get no special treatments under the law, for it.
What about this idea ... if consenting adults want legal recognition and benefits, then they must have civil unions. Then those that want the religous recognition and benefits of marriage can go and get married, if they want to.
The great thing about being human, is that we have an infinite capacity to be creative and to be loving. When adults treat each other with hate and discrimination, when we work towards putting each other down--we aren't being the best we can be.
Is that what God really wants for us? To not be the best that we can be?
Though I'm not schooled in the Bible, what little I do understand, I agree with as long as it supports us reaching our potential as human beings, as spiritual beings. Those things I don't agree with, I attribute it to be misinterpretations of "God's words."
I don't see how a person's own feelings and history can ever escape being on the written page, even though the words may be divine inspiration.
Neither are you. The previous poster was correct. Children are influenced by their parents. Even if they are rebellious, it's generally a stage. Children still hold strong to their parent's perspectives. Heck, even if they rebel and don't want to be like their parents, quite often they are. They are raised in a certain enviroment and they get used to it.
Now, there are some people that do not think like their parents. In fact, there are many. But the majority of people do keep some of their parents views - but not necessarily all of them. The only reason racism exists today is because children believe what their parents believe. Children are not born racist. They develope racism due to what they see - even the media creates racism.
As for gay marriage...
I understand both sides of this story.
It is a religious thing and in the bible it is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Many religions may not approve of homosexuality. Religion is a belif system and no one should be forced to change what they believe - even if it is discriminating against any race/religion/etc. I think everyone has the right to be close minded
I don't have to like it, but I won't try to force anyone to change their beliefs.
But there has to be a seperation of state and church. Marriage in the legal sense should be available to homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. There are benefits and such that they have the right to, like anyone else. While people should be free to be racist/homophobic/etc... The state cannot be. One of the main purposes of the government is to be free of such bias' and treat everyone equally.
So I believe gay marriage should be legal (as it is in my country). I don't think any religious figure or person should be forced to marry any couple - be it gay, black, opposing religions, etc. It should be their decision to be close minded. But I do believe that it should be legal. Else your government doesn't believe that gay people have rights.
I think what is needed is a seperation of marriage from its religous side and from its federral side. In a christian sense a gay marrage would be void, but a gocernment could still see as 'partners.'
whuaaa! *Goosebump Everywhere*
I think society would be better off without labelling people for their lifestyle. If 2 people care about each other, it is no one elses right to keep them apart. Damn I hate the activists that interfere with what doesn't even concern them and never will. Get a life is what I say to them. Unfortunately some people have nothing better to do than interfere with others in a greedy attempt for control, while having none themselves. It's pathetic that this isn't already globally accepted. WAKE UP YOU BRAINWASHED DRONES!!!
(1) I think it is possible to argue, philosophically, that homosexuality is a less positive choice than heterosexuality.
(2) In order for that to have significance, homosexuality would have to be a choice. Is homosexuality a choice?
(3) If the answer to #2 is no in at least some cases: Is pretending to be heterosexual and engaging in relationships in which you lie to your partner about your desire for them appropriate? Is pretending to be heterosexual and avoiding physical relationships entirely an appropriate life choice?
(4) If the answer to #2 is yes in all cases: Do you think you actively chose heterosexuality? Refer back to #3.
(5) If homosexuality is not chosen but rather is an innate feature in some individuals, is that homosexuality immoral? Can something be immoral without involving a realistic choice? (Refer to #3 for further questions.)
(6) Is sexuality the sole facet of one's life on which one should be judged?
(7) Is the ability to love and care for someone intimately more "good" than the hypothetical immorality of homosexuality?
( Should a government be able to establish laws based on religious tenets alone?
(9) If yes, does your religion permit your judgment of another human being based on your deity's laws?
(10) If no, you may continue to live in the USA.
(11) Does gay marriage threaten "traditional" marriage? If so, in what ways? Does it lead to its dissolution? Does it cause divorce? Does it cause one partner to stop loving the other partner?
(12) Does gay marriage destabilize society?: Does it increase homosexuality as a choice or does it decrease the number of people in relationships in which they were only pretending to be intimately attracted to the other person and were causing both parties deep emotional pain? Does partnership and investment in "commune" have a positive or negative impact on crime rate?
If you come through all this, you might think as I do, that:
Homosexuality as a choice is wrong, but it is not a choice for many homosexuals. Allowing them to engage in loving, committed relationships should be encouraged for their happiness and for the better stability of society. In the absence of clear proof above and beyond religious argument why homosexuality or homosexual relationships would threaten society, there is no governmental impetus to enact a law prohibiting it. The bond of "marriage," which extends BEYOND the Christian community alone, is a unique bond between two individuals and is truly affected only by the relation of those two individuals to each other and whatever third party under which they vow their connection. Marriage has long been extended to people who are not Christian and has been a fundamental practice in other religions. There is no reason to conceive that extending marriage to more relationships would necessarily mean that "Christian marriage" has been extended to those relationships. Ultimately the society has an interest in extending benefits to those personal associations which have a positive impact on society. Given that homosexuality, especially by those seeking homosexual marriages, is likely not a choice but rather a feature of those individuals and given that their bonding could have a stabilizing effect on our economies and crime rates, it is within society's interest to invest in such a contract. The terms "marriage" and "civil union" should both be considered applicable to such a party to extend society's investment to them in their partnership. "Christian marriage" should be reserved for those people bound together in marriage under the auspices of the God of the Bible.
Ofcourse they should everyone should beable to marry who whey wants
I really wish people would just get over and done with the whole gay marriage thing. Have they forgotten that women were not allowed to vote at one time and african-americans were slaves??? US has such a disgraceful history of discriminating against minority groups and the giving a pathetic apology for it years later. Too much time and money is going to this debate. It's not like hetero's are doing a great job of marriage!
Same sex attraction is a result of Psycological disorders and it must not be encouraged. Same sex couples cannot produce offsprings and cannot raise a normal family even if they adopt a child.
That's not the current medical diagnosis in the scientific world.
Sure they can, just not together. Infertile people cannot produce offsprings biologically.
Of course they can raise a normal family, there is no reason why they aren't able to do it (and doing it).
Are you kidding? There is no such thing as gay people. These people are just mentaly deranged. God did not make people gay. God made man to have sex with women so that they could reproduce to populate the earth. If the natural way of life was to be gay or bisexual or whatever you wanted, then people could make offspring with whoever they wanted, but this is not the case and therefore it is obvious this is an abnormality, a falsity, a hoax. These people are crazy, and thank goodness the military doesnt let people like them into the army. Since this country was built on christian principals I think we have to stand for something and have some kind of morals. What happened to "In God we trust" that is written on our own coins for goodness sake?? Of course we can't let gay people get married, they are a bunch of heathens. Sure some of them are nice people, but beliefe in gayness is blasphemy and should be punished in my opinion.
Can you provide any evidence that "there is no such thing as gay people." The gay people that I have known are all repulsed by the idea of being physically intimate with the opposite sex just as much as I am repulsed by the idea of being physical intimate with the same sex. It strikes me as odd that someone would have a "derangement" causing them to want same sex partners without any other psychological issues or impairments, but yet that is the case with many if not most homosexuals.
Your claim certainly makes your argument easy, but I have trouble thinking that your premise is correct. Lest we forget, God's intentions are for us to try to understand but we should never expect to know them perfectly. To lay claim to that would be blasphemy.
By the way, there are gay people in the military.
You also say that our country was built on Christian principles. Are you aware of what the foundation of our country is? It is actually based on a combination of philosophies ranging from religious to secular with a predominant secular bias. The design of our government (3 branches, balance of power, rights inherent in the people) is based on societal contract theory most often represented by the works of Locke or Rousseau. It was a reaction to centuries of European rule that focused on religious law and monarchy in that the power was divided and ultimately held by the people (and their votes) and in that it was expressly stipulated that laws would not be made concerning religion or in such a manner as to de facto establish a state religion. This was brilliant thinking since religious law has several thousand years of human suffering and slaughter tied to it to make one question its value. In fact, if you read through the Constitution, one does not need to assume any role for Christianity in its design. Within that framework, we of course have laws against murder, stealing, etc. These are actions that a united people chose to surrender their right to in order to be protected against having them committed against themselves (very basic theory of societal contracts). Not being murdered or robbed are both desires that extend far beyond just the Christian community.
Yes our country is predominantly Christian, but even within Christianity there are stark divisions in beliefs. The beauty of our government is that it is designed to represent those beliefs and others fairly. Our law should be determined by rational argument rather than religious premise because that is the only justifiable way to enter into a contract with someone.
And yes, I *am* a Christian, but I believe that there are three realms of choice: (1) What you choose for yourself, (2) What you would have or encourage others to choose, (3) What you would force others to choose. Inherent in my understanding of my relationship to God and Jesus Christ is that I do not have the wisdom for #3 - that no one on this Earth does. When we make and enforce laws for which we cannot offer argument to a person of any creed, we claim a divine knowledge that is not our right and therefore is inherently unfair to them. So, to outlaw homosexuality because God forbids it (which not all Christians believe is so), in my understanding, would be an immoral act. It would be an act of hubris and an act of injustice against another. One is much better of, and as history has shown much more successful, to focus on #1 and #2.
I didn't realize that "In God we trust", refered exclusively to kc's god. And of course gays are all heathens because they, even the christian ones, don't believe in kc's god. And I suppose, by his logic, muslims, jews, hindus, sikhs, athiests, agnostics are all heathens and thus should not be allowed to be married.
As a christian and firm believer in the founding principals of the US, I recognize kcs right to hold and state these beliefs, but at the same time I feel saddened that there are still people who think like that.
Your main point, if true, would validate your argument. However, it is the weakest point. It has already been discussed that being gay is unlike beastiality, necrophilia, etc. etc. A gay person cannot choose to be gay. Even so, to what purpose? They seem to be discriminated against by people like yourself. Do you think you could voluntarily force yourself to like others of your gender?
If you think being homosexual is a form of mental retardation, why do you want this punished? We currently do not execute mentally impaired persons. Or do you support this as well?
it seems I am the only one you want to catch.
What would someone feel if he has two moms and no father or if he has two fathers and no mom and see them make
I wouldn't have a problem. A single person can raise a child without any major problems, so I don't see why 2 people wouldn't be able to do it. I don't think gender matters in education, rather time and love spend on your children.
This has been a very sensitive topic for quite a few years, and I am amazed at myself that I have never thought on a YES or a NO.
Actually the answers depend on some other questions. And
- What is the purpose of any marriage?
is one of these very important questions. A few more are listed below:
- How important is it to get married for gay people?
- Why is the consent of non-gays important?
- Why does it bother the non-gays if the gays marry?
Probably I am yet not able to comprehend the issue behind the topic and may be the answers to these questions will help me on that.
may be i wrong
gay want to live with each other for satisfying there sexual needs
but a marriage is not so
a marriage is a comitment which give us resposibility
it also give rise to new relations
a mother a father a son a brother all these relations are possible due to
marriage between a man and a woman
if marriage will be alowed for gays it reduces the dignity
also marriage have diffrents effects on diffrent peoples
in last i want to say that
live in is possible
but marriage is too far
A couple of those are very easy to answer.
How important? I'm sure it varies from not at all to very Important...just like straight folk.
Why is consent of non-gays important? I would assume the main reason is that, since non-gays are usually a majority, they set the laws. It is illegal for gays to get married in many areas.
Why does it bother non-gays? That is a tough one. I think those who use christian reasons to justify it are just rationalizing. As far as I know, the only mention of it is in the OT. Of course, when you point out any of the un-Christ-like things advocated in the OT (killings, offering daughters for sex, incest, etc), they will tell you that a new set of rules came into being with the death of Christ. They seem to be arbitrarily selective in what got changed.
If you are trying to make this a 'family problem,' there are much worse things affecting children in family life, such as divorce. Woudln't losing a parent be worse than having two, albeit with the same gender?
It depends if you are religious, apparently. Currently gay couples do not have the rights of heterosexual couples, so you could view this as a purpose of marriage. Or procreation could be brought up... I'm not really sure.
It depends where you live. Here in Belgium gay marriage (and adoption) is legalized since a while. And I haven't seen an increase in crime since then.
Are you gay?
I don't know where you live, but in Belgium asking such a question is deemed pretty inappropriate to insulting depending on the case. As you might already have noticed, I'm pretty keen on my privacy. This all meaning I definately won't answer such a question. If you carefully analyze the grammar of my sentences you might come to a conclusion anyway.
But maybe let me ask you a question, why do you think that someone standing up for the rights of gay people is gay her/himself?
If I think some rights are baffled, then I will indeed protest and stand up for them. No matter if I'm part of that group or not - that's just how I am and how (in my opinion) everyone should be.
Did only black people oppose black slavery?
Do only women stand up for emancipation?
Do only raped people oppose raping?
Do only children come up for children rights?
Do only murdered people oppose murder?
In my opinion it would be a pathetic world if that would be the case.
Sorry, speaking from the US. Some states have it, some don't, around me it is legal.
my thot is that
god created adam and eve...not steve.
thats my thot but no offfence to anyone
You got too far, what I said was intended as a joke.
So you are from Belgium, I thought u were Canadian.
and I also happen to agree with the point that one should stand up for others rights if one thinks they are right.
Oh well, my apologies then.
My feeling on the subject is that the title of "married" should only be bestowed upon a couple by the church (or other religious/spiritual group). The government should declare the title "civil union" between any two willing persons (of legal age, etc.).
So, what you are saying is that if a paricular religious group allowed gay marriage, Gay Marriage is ok? That's cool
However, your proposed definiton seems to go against the current definitions of marriage...
Maybe it would be better to define it as an "Religious Union", since the definition of "Marriage" seems to imply a union recognized by law.
Isn't marriage a type of civil union by definition? So why throw away the name marriage and use the way broader one?
@Bondings: Those who are already married by the government should remain under that title, but the title "civil union" should be applied to any new unions.
@HoboPelican: I see what your saying, but we all know there are varying definitions on the word "marriage", but whatever title the religous group bestows upon them in place of "religious union". I used "marriage", because it is the most common, and the church is the predominant religious group in our society.
My reasoning behind this is so that the religious groups cannot blame the government for calling the couples "married", when under their definition marriage is strictly between a man and woman. Also those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians get just that.
You could go the other way and use 'marriage' as a term strictly used by religious institutions, and all federal unions be known as civil unions. Seperation of church and state?
What about calling the federal unions marriage and the religious ones religious unions?
Seems to make sense to me. At least in the USA, a marriage is not a marriage until the proper papers are filed with the civil authorities, so "marriage" is a legal term and has nothing to do with any particular religion.
But this whole thing goes back to the original question. It is the state that is disallowing gay marriages in the first place, at least in the US. So even when a church allows gay marriages, the state will not recognize them.
My opinion is why I dont support gay marrages in anyway what so ever. Why do people from the same sex like each other. What do they get plaeasure from. It makes no sense it like they really have no true relationship.
This is not fully understood by science, but it is confirmed. It would be as illogical to a gay person as liking the opposite sex as the opposite is for you; I guess hard to understand if you're not gay... (I'm not, but still for it...)
Please, I really want to understand why you are against it. Ok, you dont understand and it makes no sense to you, but WHY should your not understanding it make you want to keep it illegal? Does it affect you in someway? Or is it just that the knowledge that gays are getting hitched would "creep you out"? I really would like to understand WHY people get so weird about stuff that doesn't really impact them.
Gay couples love eachother for the same reasons heterosexual couples love eachother, not just for "sexual needs". Gay couples can be together and happy while *GASP* not having the relationship revolve around sex!
(Speaking from experience.)
I disagree to the disturbing
act of marrying gay.
It's not a good idea.
God created man
and woman to reproduce
and replenish the earth.
How can you reproduce
if you are both men?
And How can you reproduce
if you are likewise both women?
It's an abnormal thing.
It can't be.
Those people who do it
want to marry their fellow men,
are out of their minds.
God did not create
gay in the first place,
GOD hates gay.
He even destroy the
whole city because their are
a lot of gay and t-birds living in that city.
If you don't know about it,
try to read your BIBLE.
In my own opinion their are
demons behind the minds
of those people who are gay,
and those that are promoting the
marriage of both men.
It's a sin before
Please don't be offend of what i'm posting here.
But if you're really honest to yourself, you know what is
right and what is wrong.
I'm So sorry if i hurt those people who are in favor of
gay marriage, But it's a sin before GOD.
GOD Bless Man + GOD = MAJORITY
Not natural? Nor is cooking meat, the internet, or building tall buildings.
In fact, didn't God once also smite people for talking in all languages and building high towers? And so are you against corporations working on translation software/devices? Some of them even name themselves - albeit indirectly in some cases - after the Tower of Babel that God supposedly destroyed in the first place.
I think it is natural, to an extent. I'll admit I think it's a biological accident with no direct survival function, but that doesn't mean I'm against it. I do a lot of things with no survival function.
And those who want that, do it. You don't need to be married to fulfil sexual needs and live together. For that matter, a lot of heterosexual couples live together and have sex without getting married. The commitment to getting married should be a higher thing - a spiritual thing. And to believe that gay people are not capable of that in the way that straight people are is a massive insult to the gay community.
Note that I said a spiritual thing, not a religious thing. Marriage is primarily a LEGAL affair. I'm sure some would dispute that, but consider this - atheists get married. There is not always a religious element to a marriage. But there IS always a legal one. Therefore, primarily legal, with religious as an optional extra.
And I am STRONGLY against religious viewpoints affecting laws that affect everyone. In my country, the largest religious group contains just over half the population, according to the most recent census. Yes, that makes them the majority, but does that mean everyone else in the country should live according to their (admittedly fairly liberal) religious doctrines, regardless of their beliefs, or lack thereof? Of course not.
I honestly do not think that the religious argument should even be CONSIDERED in this debate. If two people do not believe in a religion, the dictates of that religion should not affect them. Anything else is oppression. If the religion really is true, they'll get their punishment in hell, so don't you worry about it.
I love how the majority is for gay marriage. =]
I'm a firm believer that if you want to get married, you should be able to get married to whoever you want, regardless of their gender.
Not being natural is not an issue. The issue is morals, ethics, religion, health, procreation, and in most places, the law.
In fact the fact that how natural it is isn't an issue is more or less what I was trying to say. It was in response to another post arguing that it shouldn't be allowed because it was unnatural.
As for the other issues you bring up, the law can be changed. In someplaces law is not a factor, and suggestions that it should be changed have been tabled in quite a few places. It's not universal.
Procreation... Obviously there will be no progeny from a gay coupling, but what difference does that make to marriage? They won't produce children whether or not they're married.
Health, alright, anal sex carries a higher risk of disease transmission. But there are measures that can be taken to protect against that. And again, I don't think that's relevant to the marriage issue. Health will be a factor regardless of whether or not they're married.
Religion - as I have already said, I do not believe religion has a place in this debate. Religious doctrines are composed of SELF-IMPOSED rules, not laws. If one group of people chooses to follow these rules, more power to them. They should not force others to do the same. And as I said before, if you're right and they're wrong, they'll get their payback. God'll make them more miserable than you ever could.
Ethics and Morals - Indeed. But these are very much individual. I have no ethical or moral problem with the idea, and if we only did things that no-one had a problem with, we'd not get very much done. Ultimately, what business is it of yours?
Many people don't have a problem with it. That doesn't make it OK. Just like many people didn't/don't have a problem with slavery. Does that make it right?
As for where gay marriage could easily lead (and I've seen signs already), once the tradition is broken, how about Bestiality? Pedophilia? Bigomy? Necrophelia? Is that ok too? If I can marry my male friend, why not two? Why not my brother/sister? Why not my dog, or two girls or guys, or a girl a guy and a dog. Where does it stop?
The big question is... Why do gays feel the need to 'marry'??
Do they want the Money/Benifits? They can get that without marriage. Maybe not in their state, but if they want it that bad, move.
Do they wannt to be seen as 'normal'? Why? They must feel there's something 'wrong' that they feel the need to be seen as 'normal', when they clearly are not to the majority of those that are not gay. (Check the state's elections this week, several balots passed banning gay marriage by very wide margins, meaning the majority of people dont' thing it's right, normal, legal, etc etc..)
The difference with slavery is that the slaves were forced into it against their will. That is, in fact, the very definition of slavery. They were not consenting, and people were hurt. Killed, in fact. With gay relationships between consenting adults, they are hurting no-one, and not forcing anyone into anything. I can see what you're trying to say, but this is a totaly different scenario.
If the people INVOLVED have a problem with it, it's wrong. If the people involved DON'T have a problem with it, I don't see why it would be wrong.
Your next point, I can see what you mean. I think there is a line to be drawn - but I don't think this is the place to draw it. One could make the argument that once again, if no-one is harmed and everyone involved is legally consenting, there is no harm in it, but honestly I think I'll have to think on that a while before starting to state that case. As I'm not sure I believe it in some of those circumstances, but can't quite say why yet.
One exception though - paedophilia can never be between legally consenting people by its very definition, and I can see NO argument in favour of that.
As for why they want to do it, I imagine its to end a sense of discrimination. To be treated with the same rights as a straight couple. And we're all brought up with the notion that marriage is the ultimate commitment in a relationship - I know there are other issues involved as well, but I know you're a married man - imagine for a second that for some reason, you were never allowed to marry, for reasons beyond your control.
I wonder, are you a religious man? It find it interesting that my automatic assumption is that you are, based purely on your stance on this issue.
I wasn't talking in the view of the slaves, I was talking in the view of the people that owned them. THEY had a choice. Does their choice make it moral? Ethical? Ok?
I absolutely am NOT religious. My stance has to do with common sense and an open mind more than anything.
I have several gay friends, so I have a fairly good idea of what they think, and we typically agree with each other on most issues, including how they understand my points about gay marriage, just as I 'understand' theirs.
They were not consenting, and they were hurt. Therefore it was wrong. In an adult homosexual relationship, all parties are consenting, and no-one is hurt. Where's the problem?
The fact that virtually every society in history has kept either literal or de facto slaves is an interesting point in itself, showing how morals can change over time. As a side note, I've used that one before to argue against absolute morals, mandated by god.
We might be sidetracking here a little, but my own personal moral code is quite simple. If it hurts no-one, it's not bad. For clarification on sexual issues it occasionally gets amended to 'between consenting adults, if it hurts no-one, it's not bad.', but that's really just clarifying.
Under that definition, I fail to see how gay marriage is wrong - and for that matter, I don't see it under any other moral code. Can you please elaborate on the ways that gay marriage is morally wrong?
And, while we're at it, how health, procreation and religion are arguments against gay marriage, as you suggested earlier? Morals and ethics are a debating minefield, and I'm sure we could hover over just that area for hours, but I'm intrigued to know just what you meant by these other points.
Edit - also, while I conceded health as a factor (albeit one not affecting marriage) on the grounds that anal sex carries higher risk of disease transmission, it should be noted that that's only for gay males. For lesbians, for whom there's no natural form of penetrative sex, health risks are actually much lower.
This is wrong. Children are some of the most innocent, honest people you can ever ask! This is because they rarely ever take into account the concequences of what they say. They have no one to please but themselves. As for teenagers, they are old enough to believe in the right to their own decision. Also, alot of the statisitics you used there is wrong. Alot of teenagers disagree with gay marriage because they are under pressure from their friends. Homophobic language is commonly used. So there a lot of factors here, and I think you're trying to talk about something you don't fully understand.
Marriage should be between, and only between, one man and one woman. I've recently voted against gay marriage in our recent local poll. Luckily, it's still illegal to marry the same sex in Virginia.
But what do you base this opinion on? If you're mindlessly accepting something, go be a drone, but most people use reason in making decisions. What influenced this choice?
Firstly, man was made to give, woman was made to receive. I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from on that one.
Man was created to be with a woman, as you'll notice man and man, nor woman and woman, can produce.
If you want to be gay, that's fine, as I'm not effected. However, over time, you'll have woman and woman, or men and men, getting married just for the fact they want a cut on taxes or something of that nature.
Like I've already mentioned, I'm glad it's still banned in Virginia.
I don't really care, because I am not gay and it wouldn't affect me. But if I have to choose, I would probably choose no.
You know there are alot of people out there that don't want a gay couple to be married. I for one i believe that if a men and men or a woman and a woman love each other then let them go let them get married because I believe that if love between 2 people is so strong then no one can brake their love apart. Me I am married to a wonderful man but for 3 year I used to work in an alternative night club and become friends with alot of them was great at one point I was asked to sing at one of the couple marriages. So what believer about gay people is just wrong.
You can chose to be gay dumby.
Check your spelling before you call some one dumb.
The fact that marriage was created for family. Procreation. Making babies.
If you wanna be gay, go for it, just don't expect to get the title of marriage to go with it.
This is where one could argue either way by opinion. You could say marriage was created for love, in which case this is no argument. Alternatively, marriage can be looked upon as a legal status. If marriage were defined in a legal context, would you say gays should be excluded?
Am I wrong in thinking that marriage really is a legal thing? In the US, I don't think a marriage is valid without a license by the state. On the other hand, you can be married by a Justice of the peace, who has no religious affiliations. Doesn't that imply it is a legal state? If so, doesn't that make any religious argument is totally irrelevant?
Am I wrong in thinking that marriage really is a legal thing? In the US, I don't think a marriage is valid without a license by the state. On the other hand, you can be married by a Justice of the peace, who has no religious affiliations. Doesn't that imply it is a legal state? If so, doesn't that make any religious argument is totally irrelevant?[/quote]
Acually, I'm not all too sure... I think this is about legal status, although not necasarily to the US... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_%28conflict%29
I basicaly feel that the word marrage was made to mean a union of one man and one woman. HOWEVER, the issue is not whether or not gay's are allowed to marry. The fundamental issue is "civil unions" not getting the same rights legaly as marrages. (shared income, property, tax breaks, etc.) Should homosexuals be alowed marrage? I do not believe we should CHANGE the meaning of the word, no. Do I think they deserve the same rights legaly if they are bound to another person? Yes. Perhaps some form of Civil Union can be named something else and their rights equalized to match those of marrage. This is a compramise I think most can live with.
It protects marrage as people feel it should be (people = the large group against gay marrage), and allows equal rights to those who are still natural born citizens.
(the other issue involves gay marrage certificates being invalid in some stats and valid in others. Violates the whole legal documents thing )
to me marrage means love bewteen man and woman ,not 2 men
I'm just speaking about the US here, but, again, in the US marriage IS a civil union. There is absolutely nothing inherent with religion that relates to getting married here. It CAN be solemnized by a priest, rabbi, holy man, or a plumber, but religion is not required.
If 2 people love each others why can't they get married... i dont see nothing wrong in it. No matter are lover both men or women... thats my opinion about that
Yes but the word's original use IS religious which is why so many people have a problem with changing its meaning. It realy is as simple as giving them the same rights without calling it marrage. The problem is will our government play their cards for the elections and sway their choices, or will they make the compramise that would work for both sides.
A plumber? Are you sure? We have gay marriage up here (and it's one, among many, of the reasons that I love my country). But I'm pretty sure, gay or straight, a plumber's not allowed to marry anyone. Unless they also happen to be a ship's captain.
Or send away to become a ordained minister for free. There are loads of sites out there that will legally ordain ANYONE for free. I wont post links here, but try searching for "free licensed minister" and take a look. When I said even a plumber, this is what I was refering to. No study, no committment, no duties. To me a plumber with this sort of license is still a plumber But it IS legal for someone with these credentials to perform a marriage.
We recently legalized Gay Marriage here in Canada and I think it's fine. I don't see anything wrong with 2 men or 2 women being married. I understand that some religions have a problem with it, and while I disagree with their opinion I do think they have the right not to do the weddings in their church if thats how they feel.
Of course everyone should be able to marry if they whant to. What's the problem? Is this still an issue? *sigh*