"Warning" Gay Marriage Discussion

[amnkeefe]

I have had this debate many times with different types of people. However, I would like to know what you "meat heads" (just kidding don't hurt me) think of this issue.

Personally I am for it. If possible maybe would could have a gentleman's or gentlewoman's debate on the issue.

[Times Roman]

I see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

Some Bible thumpers will disagree, of course. But they are smarter and know better than the rest of us.

[amnkeefe]

I am sure. I have had some lively debates with religious folks. However, many of the arguments are irrelevant or are full of fallacies. I have heard a lot of them.
1. Marriage is a religious arrangement. -- Although heterosexual atheist can wed.
2. Procreation.-- Marriages don't require children.
Etc. etc.

[Times Roman]

^I'm getting too old for those crappy arguments. if two people want to hook up, who are we to stop them?

[Ernst]

If gays want to get married I could care less.

I'll stay out of your personal life, and you stay out of mine.

Plus, "marriage" as I see it is a church thing anyway, it has zero to do with the gov't. I'm offended someone would dare to try and legislate which other consenting adult(s) I could choose to marry.

[ramacher]

It sets the wrong example for future generations, I am all for for those to do whatever in the privacy of their own home. I do think homosexuality is a product of the environment they are in, which I am debating the notion that homosexuality is predetermined by a human gene (which I will argue that is false). If this debate was happening in earlier part of the century (1940-60s) there would be no debate at all, and you would penciled out by your community. In my opinion, gay marriage is only a small part of what this world is coming to, and how our society is falling apart.

[Sgt. Hartman]

Should gays be allowed to get married? Absolutely

Should we make an amendment to the Constitution allowing them to get married? No

The government has no right to put any kind of rules or regulations on who anyone can marry for any reason. There should be no laws against it, so why do we need an amendment providing a right that all US citizens already have? This is an issue that should have absolutely nothing to do with the federal government - period. Don't get me started on all the other social issues the government shouldn't have a role in......

[DSM4Life]

Makes me sick.

[gixxerboy1]

If gays want to get married I could care less.

I'll stay out of your personal life, and you stay out of mine.

Plus, "marriage" as I see it is a church thing anyway, it has zero to do with the gov't. I'm offended someone would dare to try and legislate which other consenting adult(s) I could choose to marry.

Marriage is more of a state thing then a religious thing. You need a license from the state. You can get married at by other people besides someone from the church. The state is required for marriage a church isnt. And there are many legal benefits to marriage. A church is just a ceremony some people choose.

Yes i think gay should be allowed to marry. If not its just pure discrimination

[Shol'va]

It sets the wrong example for future generations, I am all for for those to do whatever in the privacy of their own home. I do think homosexuality is a product of the environment they are in, which I am debating the notion that homosexuality is predetermined by a human gene (which I will argue that is false). If this debate was happening in earlier part of the century (1940-60s) there would be no debate at all, and you would penciled out by your community. In my opinion, gay marriage is only a small part of what this world is coming to, and how our society is falling apart.

I am sorry you feel this way. You see it wasn't all that long ago that black people had to ride in the back of the bus because they were second rate citizens and we all know what Hitler did to the Jews for being second rate citizens. Not to mention the countless wars started by religion. So why is it so far out of the realm to believe your brother not have the same rights and benefits as you just because he wants to marry a consenting adult of the same gender? Every discussion I have been in over this issue has always slipped back to religion as to the justification as to why it is all wrong and immoral. Religionists always use the bible to push their agenda come hell or high water. I pay my taxes and am a contributing member of society and if I want to marry another man I should be allowed that right with all the benefits as straight society. The constitution and bill of rights of this great nation allow freedom and justice for all not just the few and the narrow minded. Also my brother and sister are both straight and I grew up in a farm environment in southern missouri. It doesn't get much straighter than that, in the bible belt to boot, and I knew when I reached puberty that I was gay. Since you believe it is environment that causes it well it must have been all those alfalfa sprouts I was exposed to in the fields or maybe that fertiziler we used Treflan 2-4-5D.

[Times Roman]

So shovel... let me get this straight (pun intended).... you are FOR gay marriage? Really??

....never would have guessed! =)

[Times Roman]

I am sorry you feel this way. You see it wasn't all that long ago that black people had to ride in the back of the bus because they were second rate citizens and we all know what Hitler did to the Jews for being second rate citizens. Not to mention the countless wars started by religion. So why is it so far out of the realm to believe your brother not have the same rights and benefits as you just because he wants to marry a consenting adult of the same gender? Every discussion I have been in over this issue has always slipped back to religion as to the justification as to why it is all wrong and immoral. Religionists always use the bible to push their agenda come hell or high water. I pay my taxes and am a contributing member of society and if I want to marry another man I should be allowed that right with all the benefits as straight society. The constitution and bill of rights of this great nation allow freedom and justice for all not just the few and the narrow minded. Also my brother and sister are both straight and I grew up in a farm environment in southern missouri. It doesn't get much straighter than that, in the bible belt to boot, and I knew when I reached puberty that I was gay. Since you believe it is environment that causes it well it must have been all those alfalfa sprouts I was exposed to in the fields or maybe that fertiziler we used Treflan 2-4-5D.

and btw... I believe being gay is probably a little of both, part inherited (the way you were made), and part learned.

The "part learned" thing seems to make sense from my perspective over here. I read somewhere that young males, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50+% have homosexual relationships. And by definition, that makes you either gay, or bi.

anyways, thought I'd throw that into the mix before this thing goes nuclear....

[Shol'va]

No TR I will not encourage it to go that way and am going to restrain myself...

[Times Roman]

fair enough! =)

[crazy_rocks]

this is a hot issue. great points can be brought up from both sides. some dont want to change the definition of marriage that it is something that happens between a man and a women that goes far before govt got involved but at the same time who is the govt to interfere in your personal life and say you cant get married?

[gixxerboy1]

this is a hot issue. great points can be brought up from both sides. some dont want to change the definition of marriage that it is something that happens between a man and a women that goes far before govt got involved but at the same time who is the govt to interfere in your personal life and say you cant get married?

Why arent all the people who are claiming to be protecting the institute of marriage and all it meanings complaining about the marriage game shows and ect. I can goto a place on the LV strip and get married by an Elvis impersonator to some girl i meet 10 mins earlier drunk out of my mind. Or the game shows the bachelor , i want to marry a millionaire and ect. Yet no protest about them yet we need to protect the institution of marriage.

[spywizard]

Where are our muslim brothers at???

If you don't stand for something, you'll laydown for anything...

Calling people "Bible Thumpers" is the same as calling homosexuals

"queer, faggots"

same as using the words like "Nazi, communist, rednecks, trailer trash etc"

Attempting to label someone with a distasteful or emotional word is simply trying to demean and or lessen them if they do not adhere or have the same values as you..

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

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

So, if we are going to have a discussion/debate about this, lets talk about the benefits and or advantages to the process..

[D7M]

^Best post so far.

[Hoggage_54]

[crazy_rocks]

Why arent all the people who are claiming to be protecting the institute of marriage and all it meanings complaining about the marriage game shows and ect. I can goto a place on the LV strip and get married by an Elvis impersonator to some girl i meet 10 mins earlier drunk out of my mind. Or the game shows the bachelor , i want to marry a millionaire and ect. Yet no protest about them yet we need to protect the institution of marriage.

hell i dont know. its a wacky world. theres nothing they can really can do about those corny tv shows with the argument of protecting the institute. it wouldnt work, however they could use their arguments to protect from what is yet to be imposed. thats the best way i can answer that. and you may not like the idea of those tacky vegas type things where you can marry someone off the bat but look at the other option. do you want laws saying you cant marry someone unless you have been together for 2 years? id rather keep the tackiness.

as far as gay marriage goes im not gonna state my opinion on the topic because its so hard for me to be sure. there really are good points on both sides. my answer is allow the states to govern themselves on such topics that way its not imposed on large populations that have decided against it. that is the truly fair way to handle it. the states right to govern itself is the beauty of this country that many people are forgetting about and unfortunately seems to be eroding.

[gixxerboy1]

hell i dont know. its a wacky world. theres nothing they can really can do about those corny tv shows with the argument of protecting the institute. it wouldnt work, however they could use their arguments to protect from what is yet to be imposed. thats the best way i can answer that. and you may not like the idea of those tacky vegas type things where you can marry someone off the bat but look at the other option. do you want laws saying you cant marry someone unless you have been together for 2 years? id rather keep the tackiness.

as far as gay marriage goes im not gonna state my opinion on the topic because its so hard for me to be sure. there really are good points on both sides. my answer is allow the states to govern themselves on such topics that way its not imposed on large populations that have decided against it. that is the truly fair way to handle it. the states right to govern itself is the beauty of this country that many people are forgetting about and unfortunately seems to be eroding.

Oh i have no problem with the shows or vegas type weddings. Just using that as an argument about the so called institute of marriage thats so important to protect. Yes there is probably nothing they can do about them legally, but you dont hear the big up roar or any comments or boycott the shows because they diminish the sanctity of marriage.

i dont understand how gay marriage being legal effects any other marriage. Is some happy couple going to get divorced because a gay couple next door gets married?

[jasc]

I'm all for it... If Two males or females want to get married who are we to judge? It's their choice and none of our business, why should we get in the way of their happiness? Not gonna lie, seeing 2 guys touching/kissing in front of me does make me a little uncomfortable, but I don't care to see hetero couples making out either...

put simply...
"My choice is what I choose to do
If I'm causin no harm it shouldn't bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And If your causin no harm then you're alright with me"

[spywizard]

I'm all for it... If Two males or females want to get married who are we to judge? It's their choice and none of our business, why should we get in the way of their happiness? Not gonna lie, seeing 2 guys touching/kissing in front of me does make me a little uncomfortable, but I don't care to see hetero couples making out either...

put simply...
"My choice is what I choose to do
If I'm causin no harm it shouldn't bother you
Your choice is who you choose to be
And If your causin no harm then you're alright with me"

Back in... So who's moral, or legal, or religious standard do we use in determining harm??

[spywizard]

i'll give a quote from my life long gay brother on this subject long before the 1st state ever created a process where the state will recognize the union..

"Why the hell do i want to enter into a contract where some guy will get 1/2 my stuff"

[gixxerboy1]

i'll give a quote from my life long gay brother on this subject long before the 1st state ever created a process where the state will recognize the union..

"Why the hell do i want to enter into a contract where some guy will get 1/2 my stuff"

Cause maybe he will get half of the other guys stuff. just make sure you marry someone with better stuff

[spywizard]

Cause maybe he will get half of the other guys stuff. just make sure you marry someone with better stuff

I should have said that one to him..

another he says

"If you date a guy about your same size you double your wardrobe"

"Superbowl 1/2 times are always over way too quick"

and

"The playground doesn't shut down for 3-9 days every month. "

[jasc]

^^^ lol
Legalize it and once they realize how miserable most married couples are they'll reconsider..

[spywizard]

actually if you think about it.. check out my bro's life

owns his own business
the wife has a good paying job
travels alot = what happens on the road stays on the road, no questions asked
no child support payments
he and the wife are both good cooks
and if he had married, this would have been his 5th wife/marriage

wtf..

[Shol'va]

Some of you guys do have a valid point. why should I as a gay man want to get married when over 55% of marriages end in divorce. Every time I see Jerry Springer or Maury Povich on TV I think wow do I really want to get married. And then I tune in to hear the likes of tv preachers like John Haggae sayng that to allow gays to marry would destroy the "Sanctity Of Marriage" itself. And I'm thinking hum has he seen these reports? And he thinks that gays getting married would damage the institution. I'm not even married yet and the institution of marriage is already crumbling. I would like those marriage benefits though. Bottom line for me personally is that when it comes down to it, I don't care all that much whether I can marry or not as long as I have a savvy attorney on retainer to protect my interests.

[spywizard]

Some of you guys do have a valid point. why should I as a gay man want to get married when over 55% of marriages end in divorce. Every time I see Jerry Springer or Maury Povich on TV I think wow do I really want to get married. And then I tune in to hear the likes of tv preachers like John Haggae sayng that to allow gays to marry would destroy the "Sanctity Of Marriage" itself. And I'm thinking hum has he seen these reports? And he thinks that gays getting married would damage the institution. I'm not even married yet and the institution of marriage is already crumbling. I would like those marriage benefits though. Bottom line for me personally is that when it comes down to it, I don't care all that much whether I can marry or not as long as I have a savvy attorney on retainer to protect my interests.

yep, I'm with my brothers' partner (we just give him hell about being the wife, they are both more masculine than my son in law) if someone says i can't have it i say "Fcuk u, i'll fight for it", but with the whole life and health insurance being offered by employers to life partners, and living wills, and power of attorney's naming a person in life and death issues and health issues, what's the real point.??

[Shol'va]

yep, I'm with my brothers' partner (we just give him hell about being the wife, they are both more masculine than my son in law) if someone says i can't have it i say "Fcuk u, i'll fight for it", but with the whole life and health insurance being offered by employers to life partners, and living wills, and power of attorney's naming a person in life and death issues and health issues, what's the real point.??

It all boils down to a piece of paper which these days no one adheres to anyways. To love and support. forsaking all others till death do you part. Yeah right time for a reality check Marriage Scmarriage Phooey. I'm getting me a puppy

[ramacher]

It all boils down to what makes you happy. I am not saying you can't be with your spouse who is the same-sex as you, by all means go for it if that is what you want to do with your life. My problem is the legal benefits, recognition, and possible adoption should not be allowed. Civil unions are great as it isn't full marriage, but it is still recognized by the state.

[amnkeefe]

I don't think you can compare marriage to "life partners" etc. It looks like to me the separate but equal act that was slowly disintegrated to abolish white preference. Not too long ago, interracial marriage was illegal. As we look back, many of us couldn't fathom the thought of denying an interracial couple the right to wed. Hopefully we'll be able to look back on this and wonder what the big deal was all about. I totally agree with Gixxer about it being a state issue instead of a religious one. The word "marriage" wasn't created by Christians, therefore they shouldn't be able to define it. Marriage is derived from the latin word, maritus- which means lover or nuptual. Nothing about between who or how many.

[Shol'va]

If gays are allowed to marry and given full rights, then who would be left to be kicked around? And how would the preachers be able to drum up money when they are in yet another bind for building yet one more multimillion dollar mansion in the hills, without those fantom boogey men who are about to take over and molest and infect your tiny tots? I guess we could go after the illegal immigrants full time. Habla Espanol? Ok I'm done now, back to my restraints.

[amnkeefe]

I think the next/current scapegoat is Islam. Personally I am not for any religion but I don't care if any one else is.

[Bonaparte]

I get a real kick out of those who think that allowing gays to marry will somehow make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
This is because the bond of "holy matrimony" has been a joke for hundreds of years in Western culture.
If you want to blame someone for ruinning the instution of marriage, blame King Henry VIII and the Anglican Church.

One of my best friends got married 10 months ago. Both he and the bride had 4 parents on each side (on their 2nd and 3rd marriages) and 6 or 8 grandparents. I couldn't believe these people managed to keep a straight face during the "until death do you part" line. The bride's father was even a pastor.








Oh, and she already ran out on him after he caught her cheating.

So lets be real: marriage is an easily cancelled legal contract. If you want to make more of it, that's your decision and nobody is going to stop you.

[D7M]

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here.

It's actually in the best interest of the state/government to promote heterosexual marriage (with marriage *typically* comes children, ie propagation of the society, ie, more tax revenue, etc etc. You can see why this would be a good thing for the state).

Where is the benefit (for the state) in homosexual marriage?

So, in the final analysis, the onus of proof is really on homosexuals to prove WHY they should have the right to marry.

And before anyone drums up civil rights, please recall that there are many other groups that aren't allowed to marry (first cousins, and many states have prohibitions against marriage for couples with HIV/AIDS and even other STDs)

[GZA]

Even if God follows the Christian definition of Morality (hypothetically speaking), whether or not a Marriage is deemed valid by God or the state are two different things. The state (at least the united states) would have a hard time justifying a bias against any views that don't directly harm the rights of others since supposedly we all have the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and are "all created equal" etc.... So legally, I doubt there would be much baisis to reject gays ability to marry. But hypothetically speaking, if God truly claims that a marriage like this is invalid (like most christians would say) then the states declaration of any particular gay couple as being "married" would have no affect on Gods declaration that in actuality they are not.

Since I am Christian it doesn't really matter to me if the state allows this or not since I realize that in no way can the views of any particular country redefine morality as God defines it. It's really a "non issue" to me. Now if someone were to try to force all religions to accept gay marriage as valid, that would be a different story because then the state would be keeping me from following whatever religious views I choose to believe... but that is not what is being debated. The way I see it they can believe they are married and I can believe they aren't, if the state wants to give them a tax break or whatever in order to be equal then that sounds fair to me and really doesn't affect or harm my religious views. In the same way, the state also says it's legal to curse God all you want, which is fine for me, whoever wants to curse God can curse God... now whether or not cursing God is a sin or not is a different matter than whether or not it is legal to do it... The state's role is not necessarily to enforce the views of morality of any particular religion, it is simply to enforce whatever laws it deems suitable and prudent for the good of society as a whole.

Now in some cases what is good for the state also happens to be defined by God (for instance, stealing being both a sin and a crime) but in some instances there is no overlap and no clear and obvious benefit to society (for instance following the muslim fast of rammadan, not being able to masturbate etc.) in those cases those rules should be followed by whoever wants to believe those rules are beneficial to follow (like for example religious reasons) but to enforce any particular rule of any particular religion... that would be like forcing christians to follow rammadan or (as in the case of this topic) forcing non-christians to follow the christian declaration that gays should not marry.

However, if the state wishes to enforce a rule that gays should not marry based on grounds that it is good for society as a whole then that would make for a much more complicated debate because there is precident of the state enforcing laws on societal grounds that are also religiously believed to be sins (for example the laws against murder, rape, stealing, etc.). However it's a stretch to try to link gay marriage with being a threat to society. Possibly you could claim that on darwinian principles (for example gay marriage being defined as going against the law of natural selection and therefore being "unevolved" or being seen as a "defect" genetically speaking. But if you were to allow discrimination based on those grounds you would also have to allow discrimination among all humans based on genetic grounds. Then the less intelligent, less atheletic, less attractive, etc etc people on earth would therefore become legally allowed to discriminate against. Hitler used this concept as an excuse to kill others, and really, if you allow the government to lower peoples rights based on their genetic quality then it's really not to hard to come to hitlers conclusions. Maybe not about which particular races etc are to be killed off but you would then, by definition have to agree that the genetically inferior (based on whatever criteria you chose to define it) are to have less rights.... Something to think about, to me, in order to be philosophically consistent it's an all or nothing proposition either discrimination is wrong or it is something the state should be allowed to do.

For the record (in case this was confusing to some)

I am against discrimination unless of course I am magically judged as the one person on earth with the most superior genetics (just because I said so) (this is a joke of course .

I don't mind if the state allows gay marriage

But I do beleive that gay intercourse is a sin and likewize believe that anyone else is intitled to believe the opposite from a religious standpoint as well.

[Shol'va]

Even if God follows the Christian definition of Morality (hypothetically speaking), whether or not a Marriage is deemed valid by God or the state are two different things. The state (at least the united states) would have a hard time justifying a bias against any views that don't directly harm the rights of others since supposedly we all have the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and are "all created equal" etc.... So legally, I doubt there would be much baisis to reject gays ability to marry. But hypothetically speaking, if God truly claims that a marriage like this is invalid (like most christians would say) then the states declaration of any particular gay couple as being "married" would have no affect on Gods declaration that in actuality they are not.

Since I am Christian it doesn't really matter to me if the state allows this or not since I realize that in no way can the views of any particular country redefine morality as God defines it. It's really a "non issue" to me. Now if someone were to try to force all religions to accept gay marriage as valid, that would be a different story because then the state would be keeping me from following whatever religious views I choose to believe... but that is not what is being debated. The way I see it they can believe they are married and I can believe they aren't, if the state wants to give them a tax break or whatever in order to be equal then that sounds fair to me and really doesn't affect or harm my religious views. In the same way, the state also says it's legal to curse God all you want, which is fine for me, whoever wants to curse God can curse God... now whether or not cursing God is a sin or not is a different matter than whether or not it is legal to do it... The state's role is not necessarily to enforce the views of morality of any particular religion, it is simply to enforce whatever laws it deems suitable and prudent for the good of society as a whole.

Now in some cases what is good for the state also happens to be defined by God (for instance, stealing being both a sin and a crime) but in some instances there is no overlap and no clear and obvious benefit to society (for instance following the muslim fast of rammadan, not being able to masturbate etc.) in those cases those rules should be followed by whoever wants to believe those rules are beneficial to follow (like for example religious reasons) but to enforce any particular rule of any particular religion... that would be like forcing christians to follow rammadan or (as in the case of this topic) forcing non-christians to follow the christian declaration that gays should not marry.

However, if the state wishes to enforce a rule that gays should not marry based on grounds that it is good for society as a whole then that would make for a much more complicated debate because there is precident of the state enforcing laws on societal grounds that are also religiously believed to be sins (for example the laws against murder, rape, stealing, etc.). However it's a stretch to try to link gay marriage with being a threat to society. Possibly you could claim that on darwinian principles (for example gay marriage being defined as going against the law of natural selection and therefore being "unevolved" or being seen as a "defect" genetically speaking. But if you were to allow discrimination based on those grounds you would also have to allow discrimination among all humans based on genetic grounds. Then the less intelligent, less atheletic, less attractive, etc etc people on earth would therefore become legally allowed to discriminate against. Hitler used this concept as an excuse to kill others, and really, if you allow the government to lower peoples rights based on their genetic quality then it's really not to hard to come to hitlers conclusions. Maybe not about which particular races etc are to be killed off but you would then, by definition have to agree that the genetically inferior (based on whatever criteria you chose to define it) are to have less rights.... Something to think about, to me, in order to be philosophically consistent it's an all or nothing proposition either discrimination is wrong or it is something the state should be allowed to do.

For the record (in case this was confusing to some)

I am against discrimination unless of course I am magically judged as the one person on earth with the most superior genetics (just because I said so) (this is a joke of course .

I don't mind if the state allows gay marriage

But I do beleive that gay intercourse is a sin and likewize believe that anyone else is intitled to believe the opposite from a religious standpoint as well.

Bo...Is that you?

[gixxerboy1]

Bo...Is that you?

Bo knows gay