Gay Marriage

[Quaker]

What forum would be complete without a good gay marriage thread...

For or against and why?

[TJ60]

i really don't care either way, what goes on behind closed doors is the person's own choice....but really do u have to be married to have an relationship??

[Quaker]

but really do u have to be married to have an relationship??Nope, but you do need to be married to get the 1,049 benefits associated with a legal marriage.

[imported_Mark]

For i dont see any reason why not. All apposing evidence comes from the bible which i think is a load of shit. If gays want to get married fine by me

[for20gurl]

i dont see who or what it hurts...

if god has a problem with it let him deal with it.:orign:

[JaiJai]

I agree. Everyone one should stop marrying the opposite sex and start being with their own genders. Men should only pound other men in the ass and women should only munch on other women. That way we will no longer reproduce and civilization will die. Then the animals can go back to living in peace.


Hahaha Quoted for emphasis .. poor animals :Shutit:

[Colander]

Out of a whole species its only a few that *ahem* pound each other in the ass or munch eachother. Surely following the darwinist arguement that Killaho takes this is a GOOD thing as their genes are a dead end route for the human race anyway (if we are assuming that a "gay gene"exists at least)...thus leaving the breeders to do just that, breed and multiply the species. As for the mairrage issue its a case of the nanny state gone mad when it is seen as neccessary to legislate one way or the other on such things.

[DeLeRiuM]

As someone who engages with both genders obviously I am for gay marriage.... if I want to go marry Kitty I should be allowed to... But in all serious I don't see what right anyone has to tell someone who they can and can't marry... I mean honestly its not going to stop someone from being gay or loving thier partner so I don't see the point in not allowing it.

[TJ60]

i'm surprised no one has mention'd children, should a gay couple be allowed to raise kids???

[Metall_fan]

didn't we have like 40+ pages thread on this in the old forum? and the thread didn't die for over a year too

gay marriage is bs in my opinion. to sum up some of my previous points:

1. why gays need to be married? isn't civil union just as good for government recognition?
2. marriage is a religious institution, so if church says no that means no. all mainstream religions are against it
3. gays have the right to marry - like everyone else, heterosexually
4 . homosexuality is not genetic, if it was all gays would be dead by now because they don't reproduce. its more like a desease that recurs in every generation, its been around for as long as humans have existed and will likely continue to exist for as long as we are populate this planet
5. if we allow gay marriage we might as well allow polygamy and marriage between humans and monkeys (or other animals). why not? actually polygamy is way better than gay marriage. hell, I don't know why there is no movement to make it legal again.

[Bellows]

I agree. Everyone one should stop marrying the opposite sex and start being with their own genders. Men should only pound other men in the ass and women should only munch on other women. That way we will no longer reproduce and civilization will die. Then the animals can go back to living in peace.

well we are overpopulated

[Colander]

[QUOTE=Metall_fan]didn't we have like 40+ pages thread on this in the old forum? and the thread didn't die for over a year too

gay marriage is bs in my opinion. to sum up some of my previous points:

1. why gays need to be married? isn't civil union just as good for government recognition?
Why does anybody "need" to be married in any other way than legally recognisable (ie in church with God as a witness)

2. marriage is a religious institution, so if church says no that means no. all mainstream religions are against it
YEs, more reason to belive tht churches are bigoted, out of date and actually founded on falsehood, half truths and deceit.

3. gays have the right to marry - like everyone else, heterosexually

moot and pointless point.
4 . homosexuality is not genetic, if it was all gays would be dead by now because they don't reproduce. its more like a desease that recurs in every generation, its been around for as long as humans have existed and will likely continue to exist for as long as we are populate this planet

Try to think of it as something slightly different to you than adisease.
5. if we allow gay marriage we might as well allow polygamy and marriage between humans and monkeys (or other animals). why not? actually polygamy is way better than gay marriage. hell, I don't know why there is no movement to make it legal again.

So you really think marrying a fag is the same as a monkey or attemted shock value?
Polygamy is silly.

[Rex Mundi]

5. if we allow gay marriage we might as well allow polygamy and marriage between humans and monkeys (or other animals). why not? actually polygamy is way better than gay marriage. hell, I don't know why there is no movement to make it legal again.

At least Bubbles would have been able to make an honest man outta Michael Jackson & MJ could have recouped his fortune in a blink of an eye by releasing a video of the wedding night.

[imported_Mark]

didn't we have like 40+ pages thread on this in the old forum? and the thread didn't die for over a year too

gay marriage is bs in my opinion. to sum up some of my previous points:

1. why gays need to be married? isn't civil union just as good for government recognition?
In most places they cant even have that
3. gays have the right to marry - like everyone else, heterosexually
You have got to be kidding me you cant possible think that it is a choice can you? Using your logic we could say the same thing to you go have a relationship with a guy you have the right to do that.
4 . homosexuality is not genetic, if it was all gays would be dead by now because they don't reproduce. its more like a desease that recurs in every generation, its been around for as long as humans have existed and will likely continue to exist for as long as we are populate this planet

What does this have to do with gay marrige that is more along the lines of homophobia
.


Metalfan you are saying the same tired rethoric that all rightwing nuts say

[Metall_fan]

[QUOTE=Metall_fan]didn't we have like 40+ pages thread on this in the old forum? and the thread didn't die for over a year too

gay marriage is bs in my opinion. to sum up some of my previous points:

1. why gays need to be married? isn't civil union just as good for government recognition?
Why does anybody "need" to be married in any other way than legally recognisable (ie in church with God as a witness)

2. marriage is a religious institution, so if church says no that means no. all mainstream religions are against it
YEs, more reason to belive tht churches are bigoted, out of date and actually founded on falsehood, half truths and deceit.

3. gays have the right to marry - like everyone else, heterosexually

moot and pointless point.
4 . homosexuality is not genetic, if it was all gays would be dead by now because they don't reproduce. its more like a desease that recurs in every generation, its been around for as long as humans have existed and will likely continue to exist for as long as we are populate this planet

Try to think of it as something slightly different to you than adisease.
5. if we allow gay marriage we might as well allow polygamy and marriage between humans and monkeys (or other animals). why not? actually polygamy is way better than gay marriage. hell, I don't know why there is no movement to make it legal again.

So you really think marrying a fag is the same as a monkey or attemted shock value?
Polygamy is silly.

1. tradition maybe? almost everyone (up until recently) was born as a result of marriage. see, no matter how much two gays/lesbians love each other no child will come out of this love

2. no comment here, its a matter of opinion

3. gays cry that they are oppressed in their rights - I say they have exact same rights as everyone else

4. this is just my hypothesis, I didn't say that to belittle homosexuals in any way

5. all I am saying here is that its a slippery slope. once gays win who is to say that next day there won't be some lunatic group advocating polygamy or human/animal marriage? and the saddest part is they will then have a firm ground to stand on


p.s. don't you just love quoting yourself? :smartass:

[Metall_fan]

didn't we have like 40+ pages thread on this in the old forum? and the thread didn't die for over a year too

gay marriage is bs in my opinion. to sum up some of my previous points:

1. why gays need to be married? isn't civil union just as good for government recognition?
In most places they cant even have that
3. gays have the right to marry - like everyone else, heterosexually
You have got to be kidding me you cant possible think that it is a choice can you? Using your logic we could say the same thing to you go have a relationship with a guy you have the right to do that.
4 . homosexuality is not genetic, if it was all gays would be dead by now because they don't reproduce. its more like a desease that recurs in every generation, its been around for as long as humans have existed and will likely continue to exist for as long as we are populate this planet

What does this have to do with gay marrige that is more along the lines of homophobia
.

Metalfan you are saying the same tired rethoric that all rightwing nuts say


1. I am totally for civil unions and child adoption by gay couples. I am not homophobic - I am homosapiens.

3. I didn't get your point, but I further explained my point above - we are all equal in our rights.

4. I included this point to answer someone's earlier comment about the origins of homosexuality.

[DnD]

lets just cut to the chase. where does everybody stand on gay interspecies polygamous marriages? :w00t2:







:3some:

[Quaker]

1. tradition maybe? almost everyone (up until recently) was born as a result of marriage. Really.... never any kids out of wedlock?
see, no matter how much two gays/lesbians love each other no child will come out of this love Again lets put this in a real world context.... will this lower the overall birthrate of the population to a point where it will be in danger?? if not then your point (if it counts as one) doesn't mean anything.


3. gays cry that they are oppressed in their rights - I say they have exact same rights as everyone else Simeple question, can to men get married legally by the state (not the church the STATE)? The simple fact that 11 states have gone out of their way to ban gay marriage shows the unequal footing of the two orientations!


5. all I am saying here is that its a slippery slope. LMAO only because if you go back say 50ish years ago the same exact argument was made against allowing interacial marriages :|
once gays win who is to say that next day there won't be some lunatic group advocating polygamy You know what the great this gay marriage debate is? Its already been in effect for 15 to 20 years in a few countries so we can look at those countries and see that your "slippery slope" statement doesn't hold true.
or human/animal marriage? WRONG! Gay marriage is a marriage between two CONSENTING adults, An animal can not consent to a marriage therefore that can legally NEVER happen. The point made above this one also stands true for this comment of yours.
and the saddest part is they will then have a firm ground to stand on Really? how so?

What is the purpose of marriage? (legal and non-legal)

[Quaker]

1. I am totally for civil unions and child adoption by gay couples. I am not homophobic - I am homosapiens. Why civil unions and not legal (by the state) marriages?


3. I didn't get your point, but I further explained my point above - we are all equal in our rights. really? please reply to my previous post then ;)

[Quaker]

The Definition of Marriage
November 11, 2003 03:31 PM


I was doing some research on Dean, gay marriage and civil unions, and came across this quote from Dean in the Advocate:



Well, when same-sex marriages take place in Vermont, legally it?s called a civil union, because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.


I never knew this, so I looked it up. Sure enough, Merriam-Webster's definition:


Main Entry: mar?riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross> Whats your point??

And just as an FYI here's the "updated" definition of "marriage"


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

[Metall_fan]

To answer your points Quaker, because I am in the hot seat in this debate it seems


1. I am not concerned about global birthrate because we are overpopulated as is. gay marriage debate isn't about that.

so on to my point (thanks for help killaho):
Marriage - the mutual relation of husband and wife. The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
now insert gay marriage into this definition. see any problems? which one is the husband and which one is the wife? the latter I suppose would be the one who takes it up the ass?
look at any dictionary that wasn't published in the past 10-20 years, which undrewent political corrections, and under word marriage you will inevitably find words "man and woman"

3. this is a church/state debate. while government obviously has the final say in what legal recognitions gay couples should be getting its the church that should decide what marriage is because they are the ones who came up with the concept and practiced it for thousands of years before some smartasses decided that now is the time to redefine what marriage is.

5. there is no biological difference between interracial and same-race marriage. there is a difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage. pardon my language, but you'll have a better chance of having some sort of offspring by fucking a female monkey than another man



this is what I don't get about this whole gay rights movement. gays make it sound as if without being married government doesn't allow them to live together and be happy, it oppresses them in some painful way.
I am gonna speculate here and say that the whole debate is about naming rights - calling their unions marriage instead of civil union as to erase any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. I think that most people don't mind giving them equal legal recognition, including child adoption rights and other freedoms and priviliges. people generally don't care what is going on behind closed doors as long as its legal. but to pretend that gay marriage is the exact same thing as straight marriage is a travesty, a sham and a mockery, its a traveshamockery!

[Metall_fan]

And just as an FYI here's the "updated" definition of "marriage"
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>


And thanks for proving my point Quaker (I saw your post after I finished typing mine). What definition are we gonna "update" next?

[Quaker]

What's yours? Is it possible for anyone to post with out facing the wraith of the mighty Quaker?
Im sorry i should have noticed who the poster was.... go ahead and post more random crap without making a point please... just remember your own post when you go crying off topic.

[Quaker]

so on to my point (thanks for help killaho):
Marriage - the mutual relation of husband and wife. The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family Now in order for this point of yours to be valid you would need to show that same sex couples would NOT be able to "maintain" a family".

now insert gay marriage into this definition. see any problems? which one is the husband and which one is the wife? the latter I suppose would be the one who takes it up the ass? ummmm no i don't see a problem.... :| I don't see how having two people of the same sex affects the "maintaining a family" part of marriage, but if you do then please post away.

look at any dictionary that wasn't published in the past 10-20 years, which undrewent political corrections, and under word marriage you will inevitably find words "man and woman" Once again, as i asked killaho what is your point?


3. this is a church/state debate. while government obviously has the final say in what legal recognitions gay couples should be getting its the church that should decide what marriage is because they are the ones who came up with the concept and practiced it for thousands of years before some smartasses decided that now is the time to redefine what marriage is. Oh where to begin.... You think the whole concept of marriage is now only being changed? You really think marriage is ANYTHING like it used to be say "3000 years ago"? hmmmm is divorce legal? Are no-fault divorces legal? Is marital rape legal? Can women legally own land/property? Are women forced to marry off by their parents? Are women forced to change names? "traditional marriage" has and will continue to change as the times we live in change.

And now the 2nd point against your above raised point. NO ONE is asking for church's to change their "definition" of marriage or to accept same-sex marriages, the opposite is true in that the churches are trying to force everyone else to accept their view of "marriage". If someone want as LEGAL MARRIAGE then the church has ZERO business in it.


5. there is no biological difference between interracial and same-race marriage. hmmm same argument could be made against chosing your orientation, but thats for another thread :orign:.
there is a difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage. What is that difference? And you missed my previous point so let me reiterate it. 50 years ago it was against "traditional marriages" to allow for interracial couples to marry for the SAME EXACT reasons you have posted above, but we have come to realize what utter crap that was and the same thing will happen with gay marriages in say 20years... its just sad that we have to go through little phases such as this every single few decades and the results are pretty much the same.
pardon my language, but you'll have a better chance of having some sort of offspring by fucking a female monkey than another man Is the purpose of marriage producing offspring?


this is what I don't get about this whole gay rights movement. gays make it sound as if without being married government doesn't allow them to live together and be happy, it oppresses them in some painful way. Being a citizen of the same country as others and not being allowed the same rights is an oppression whether you agree with it or not. The whole seperate but equal arguement doesn't hold much water as has been shown in the past.

I am gonna speculate here and say that the whole debate is about naming rights - calling their unions marriage instead of civil union as to erase any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. I would say for some it may be, but for the majority it would have to be having financial security without having to spend thousands of dollars on legal documents with a lawyer which can still be disputed in court. Again if it is just "naming rights" what does it matter? If the two (marriage and civil unions) are so identical then why not allow everyone to actually be EQUAL?
I think that most people don't mind giving them equal legal recognition, including child adoption rights and other freedoms and priviliges. Actually go and take a look at a recent poll which was done and the results were the exact opposite of what you "think" others think.
people generally don't care what is going on behind closed doors as long as its legal. People do care, but that changes over time as society changes.... everyone makes a big uproar about nothing and then they walk away and in 20 years they'll tell ya that i was for tha all along when they realize how 'stupid' they must of been.
but to pretend that gay marriage is the exact same thing as straight marriage is a travesty, a sham and a mockery, its a traveshamockery! Why? Once again you said above that the overall goal of marriage is maintaining a family, therefore please show how same sex couples can not maintain a family.

[A Bad Man]

Why the fuck would a man want to marry another man in the first place ?
seriously,this world is getting fucking wierd.

A mans ass is for shitting out of and not for fucking !

Definition
anus

The opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste leaves the body.

I don't see..

The opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which another man puts his cock.

[Grendel]

lets just cut to the chase. where does everybody stand on gay interspecies polygamous marriages? :w00t2:







:3some:

I'm Welsh... Draw your own conclusions! :sheep: :sheep: :sheep:

[Quaker]

And thanks for proving my point Quaker (I saw your post after I finished typing mine). What definition are we gonna "update" next? The definition that fits the times we live in.... unless ofcourse your proposing we go back to the definition of marriages say "3000 years ago".

Here's an intersting court ruling from 1886:
Judge Valentine states:


"In my opinion, the union between E. C. Walker and Lillian Harman was no marriage, and they deserve all the punishment which has been inflicted upon them. … In the present case, the parties repudiated nearly everything essential to a valid marriage, and openly avowed this repudiation at the commencement of their union."
Below find the arguments from the wife (first) then husband (second):

Whats valid in an essential marriage?


"I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate....I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.


"Lillian is and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we ... repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.... responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union."

Harman's father states:
"I do not 'give away the bride,' as I wish her to be always the owner of her person."

So now lets apply this to now day marriages.... oh wait there are no marriages now days since its been a while since i've met anyone which has signed themselves over to their husbands as they would a piece of property.

You see "traditions" change as society changes therefore the entire "traditional" marriage crap doesn't hold any water.

[Metall_fan]

I think we are getting carried too far away

Let me ask you this Quaker (and whoever else sides with him): do you think there is any relation between marriage and having children? Or you think this is one of yours "changes with times" things?

[TIG]

There is no relationship between marriage and having children.
married people often decide against children.
Unwed couples often live together for decades, raising children without getting married.
children result from a couple deciding they want to start a family, whether hetro, homo, biologically, or adopting. The decision is just as easily made with or without marriage.

I'm a firm believer that family is more then a legal document (or divinly sanctioned union).

[imported_Mark]

Marriageis the showing of a deep comminment to another person children and the abilty to reproduce has nothing to do with it or are you saying infertile people should not be allowed to marry they can have civil unions as well.

[DeLeRiuM]

I was pregnant with my third child before I got married... and I shouldn't have, I was being pressured to by my mother and my husband to be because we were having children together I didn't feel that it needed to happen because of my kids... don't get me wrong I wanted to get married but I knew it was the wrong time (and now realize the wrong person)

So obviously I don't feel children=marraige or vis versa...

but hell i don't think the government has a right at all to tell me i'm married or not :blank: if i wanted to go marry someone and not have the govt paperwork for it then i should damn well be able to and people should honor and respect that

/end rant

[Beli]

true Dellie. no one should be pressured into marriage because of kids. you can come to resent that person quickly. gay marriage or civil union would have a lot of positive points. the biggest one of all would be health care benefits (This probably applies more to the US) and divorce settlements. a friend of mine recently was left by her partner of 22 years. only the partner had retirement benefits. and since there is nothing on paper, friend is left with nothing. so i truly believe that there needs to be some type of legal joining. that being said i am more on the conservative side but trying to be open about it :)

[DeLeRiuM]

true Dellie. no one should be pressured into marriage because of kids. you can come to resent that person quickly. gay marriage or civil union would have a lot of positive points. the biggest one of all would be health care benefits (This probably applies more to the US) and divorce settlements. a friend of mine recently was left by her partner of 22 years. only the partner had retirement benefits. and since there is nothing on paper, friend is left with nothing. so i truly believe that there needs to be some type of legal joining. that being said i am more on the conservative side but trying to be open about it :)

Which states have common law marriages anyone know? I know Ohio doesn't because I tried to get on my husbands insurance before we were married... I think common law marriages should be recognized in all states... then that could cover alot more people who aren't married for what ever reason... I have several friends who don't believe in marriage the way the law or many religions do... because they have different beliefs does that mean their partner doesn't deserve the same treatment as a widowed spouse?

[Metall_fan]

I am afraid that you are missing the point. The question wasn't whether marriage = children, but whether there is any relation between marriage and children or these things are totally irrelevant in your opinion. See the difference?

But hey, at least I've learned a few new things, such as that some heterosexual married couples don't have children (!!), and that some couples have children out of wedlock (!!!)

[DeLeRiuM]

I am afraid that you are missing the point. The question wasn't whether marriage = children, but whether there is any relation between marriage and children or these things are totally irrelevant in your opinion. See the difference?

But hey, at least I've learned a few new things, such as that some heterosexual married couples don't have children (!!), and that some couples have children out of wedlock (!!!)


Maybe I just didn't get my point acrossed well enough cause I started ranting haha... I feel that no there isn't a connection... society tries to force us to see a connection though

[Metall_fan]

Maybe I just didn't get my point acrossed well enough cause I started ranting haha... I feel that no there isn't a connection... society tries to force us to see a connection though

I hear you now, and if thats your opinion on this issue then I can see why you would support gay marriage as well.

What I think it comes down to for most people is not even gays and their rights but what they view marriage as. And I am not some religious nut, but I see a strong connection between the two events (not that they necessarily have to go hand in hand).

Again, I am all for civil unions and for equal rights of gay couples (tax returns, benefits, etc), but it isn't a marriage after all.

[for20gurl]

is there any legal difference in a cival union and a marriage? do they both get the same tax benefits? can they carry each other on their insurance plans? does being termed a cival union limit them in any way? i guess i am having a hard time understanding why, if they are both the exact same thing, that it matters what it is called. does it really hurt if they want to call it a marriage? and does it really hurt that you can only call it a civil union?

[Beli]

in California two people in a same sex relationship can file for Domestic Partnership and get health insurance for their partner. i am not 100% sure but i think that they can file taxes together also. Domestic Partner can also be used to opposite sex couples that are living together. if you want specifics on it, i can ask my boss has a "Domestic Partner".
without some kind of contract, be it civil union or marriage, people are getting totally screwed when a partner dies or leaves them.

[for20gurl]

in California two people in a same sex relationship can file for Domestic Partnership and get health insurance for their partner. i am not 100% sure but i think that they can file taxes together also. Domestic Partner can also be used to opposite sex couples that are living together. if you want specifics on it, i can ask my boss has a "Domestic Partner".
without some kind of contract, be it civil union or marriage, people are getting totally screwed when a partner dies or leaves them.

I agree i dont think that someone should be left alone with no security should their partner die. but if a civil union or domestic partner gives that security and all other benefits of marriage, then it seems ppl are just argueing over wording. I have nothing against gays being married. I have a friend who is gay and still maintaining a relationship even though he has moved from several states away and if he decided he wanted to be married i would stand behind him 100%. (or having a civil union same thing)

[Quaker]

And I am not some religious nut, but I see a strong connection between the two events (not that they necessarily have to go hand in hand).

Please fill me in on what the difference is in hetro vs. homo marriages in relation to children. Im missing your logic in how you see a strong connection with one and not with the other.

[Metall_fan]

Please fill me in on what the difference is in hetro vs. homo marriages in relation to children. Im missing your logic in how you see a strong connection with one and not with the other.


Its quite simple Quaker. Hetero couples CAN have children, homo couples CAN NOT, ever. Thus we shouldn't call gay unions marriage simply to underscore this difference. You agree, that it is indeed a difference?

But wait, I see your next remark coming: what about those hetero couples that can't have children due to some kind of biological deficiency? The answer is simple: its an abnormality, an exception to the rule, and mother nature is taking care of such couples, just like it takes care of homosexuals (I know it sounds a bit harsh). This also goes to those hetero couples who CHOOSE not to have children, even though they can. Natural selection baby, and you can't redifine that.


And just to throw it in here, the very first definition of family (which we all seem to agree is the goal of marriage) that I came across on google: A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. http://www.answers.com/family
Now I realize that you will get us another definition that somehow encorporates homo couples in it, cause hey, the times are changing and so should the definitions.

[imported_Kat]

Its quite simple Quaker. Hetero couples CAN have children, homo couples CAN NOT, ever. Thus we shouldn't call gay unions marriage simply to underscore this difference. You agree, that it is indeed a difference?

But wait, I see your next remark coming: what about those hetero couples that can't have children due to some kind of biological deficiency? The answer is simple: its an abnormality, an exception to the rule, and mother nature is taking care of such couples, just like it takes care of homosexuals (I know it sounds a bit harsh). This also goes to those hetero couples who CHOOSE not to have children, even though they can. Natural selection baby, and you can't redifine that.


And just to throw it in here, the very first definition of family (which we all seem to agree is the goal of marriage) that I came across on google: A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. http://www.answers.com/family
Now I realize that you will get us another definition that somehow encorporates homo couples in it, cause hey, the times are changing and so should the definitions.
I really think that the argument about word definitions is silly - words change all the time to mean different things. The word marriage has only been defined as it has because of how society worked in the past, if society changes, so does language, to accomodate that change.

I can see the point to the religion argument; if something is a specifically religious ritual that should be respected. If, as an aetheist (or as a Muslim, or a pagan or whatever) I took my child down to the river, ducked him under, and claimed I'd 'christened' him - that was be inappropriate and possibly offensive to Christians. However, the argument breaks down because marriage isn't specific to one religion, it's not even specific to religion. I don't see how you can argue that state that's already being entered into by people who don't follow Christianity, in civil ceronomies, should be withheld from a certain group of people because they're not Christians (or because they're not living in what some Christians consider to be a Christian way). Marriage and Christianity have no more to do with each other than marriage and Islam, or marriage and aetheism for that matter.

[Quaker]

Its quite simple Quaker. Hetero couples CAN have children, homo couples CAN NOT, ever. Thus we shouldn't call gay unions marriage simply to underscore this difference. You agree, that it is indeed a difference? hmmmm i understand that, but i fail to see how that affects the ability of a homo couple to raise a family just because they can't give birth to one naturaly.


And just to throw it in here, the very first definition of family (which we all seem to agree is the goal of marriage) that I came across on google: A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children. http://www.answers.com/family Once again please point out why homosexual couples can not also be included in the definition you listed above. Notice your definition above does not mention anything about how the children came into the "parents" lives.

Now I realize that you will get us another definition that somehow encorporates homo couples in it, cause hey, the times are changing and so should the definitions. really? well i guess you were wrong once again :|. The definition you posted above doesn't exclude homo couples or any other couple so thx for the personal ownage ;).

[Lord_Jackariah_III]

hmmmm i understand that, but i fail to see how that affects the ability of a homo couple to raise a family just because they can't give birth to one naturaly.


A child needs a mother and a father not 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

[Metall_fan]

A child needs a mother and a father not 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

I totally disagree with that. In fact I think that most children these days are raised by a single parent (I am sure that there is a statistics somewhere to back this up).
Let a kid be raised by a family of 2 fathers or mothers than grow up in a foster care home or with crackhead parents.

So to answer your question Quaker. As I stated before, a homo family could surely raise children and should be able to adapt them just like hetero couples do, but still it isn't a marriage, but a civil union, domestic partnership or whatever else you want to call it.

Could defenders of gay marriage please tell me, why shouldn't be there a distinction between homo and hetero couples? Not in their rights or anything, but simply in the way you call such unions?

[Beli]

Originally Posted by Lord_Jackariah_III
A child needs a mother and a father not 2 mothers or 2 fathers.

based on what? i would like to hear a few facts to back up this statement. or it is just your opinion?
I think that the keys to raising a child in a healthy environment are not limited to a man and woman couple. I have no problem with a gay couple adopting/raising a child. Or having one. I think that it is wonderful that there are so many gay couple willing to take in the children that people discard. All of the gay couples I know treasure their children and treat them well.

"Could defenders of gay marriage please tell me, why shouldn't be there a distinction between homo and hetero couples? Not in their rights or anything, but simply in the way you call such unions?"

I am not really a defender per se but I do think that there should be a different name. Civil Union is fine. Or whatever name. And that is totally my personal opinion

[Keyser Soze]

i once read it doesnt matter at all if u were born or live in a hetero or homo family, this wouldnt be an issue in psycological problems, as a fact, u wont even be gay, this would be left to the same chances a person from a hetero family have. The only problem living in a gay family for a child would be society, how well or bad do society make the kid feel according to this situation. Im totally ok with gays n marriage.

[Grendel]

Could defenders of gay marriage please tell me, why shouldn't be there a distinction between homo and hetero couples? Not in their rights or anything, but simply in the way you call such unions?

I can't give a reason why they should be named differently. Conversely, can you give a reason why they should? After all you said there should be no difference in their rights etc.

[imported_Kat]

Could defenders of gay marriage please tell me, why shouldn't be there a distinction between homo and hetero couples? Not in their rights or anything, but simply in the way you call such unions?

In answer to your question, because clearly (some) gay people want to call their union a marriage - and if that's what they want and it doesn't hurt anyone else (which I don't think it does, and I haven't seen any argument why it does) then why shouldn't they be able to legally?

I don't know, but I think maybe some gay people feel that referring to their legal relationship as a civil union rather a marriage implies that a homosexual union is secondary, or inferior, to a hetrosexual union. If you want to differentiate you could say 'heterosexual marriage' and 'homosexual marriage'. I think it's the implication that hetrosexuality is the standard, and as such somehow has a right to exclusive use of the word marriage that's causing problems.

Basically, if they want it, and it doesn't harm you - why don't you want them to have it?

[Metall_fan]

I can't give a reason why they should be named differently. Conversely, can you give a reason why they should? After all you said there should be no difference in their rights etc.

yeah, I gave such reasons. read above




In answer to your question, because clearly (some) gay people want to call their union a marriage - and if that's what they want and it doesn't hurt anyone else (which I don't think it does, and I haven't seen any argument why it does) then why shouldn't they be able to legally?

I don't know, but I think maybe some gay people feel that referring to their legal relationship as a civil union rather a marriage implies that a homosexual union is secondary, or inferior, to a hetrosexual union. If you want to differentiate you could say 'heterosexual marriage' and 'homosexual marriage'. I think it's the implication that hetrosexuality is the standard, and as such somehow has a right to exclusive use of the word marriage that's causing problems.

Basically, if they want it, and it doesn't harm you - why don't you want them to have it?


Kat Kat Kat, you are missing a big point here. A LOT of people are offended at the notion that gay unions could be called marriages. Various polls done in the US show that 70-75% of respondents are against gay marriages (for whatever reasons).
Also you don't think that heterosexuality should be seen as the standard at least?

[imported_Kat]

yeah, I gave such reasons. read above






Kat Kat Kat, you are missing a big point here. A LOT of people are offended at the notion that gay unions could be called marriages. Various polls done in the US show that 70-75% of respondents are against gay marriages (for whatever reasons).
I don't think that being offended is a reason to be honest - unless people can give a decent justification for their offence (like I mentioned above, I think a person's religion being disrespected would be such a reason, but I don't think this is happening). Being offended and being harmed are very different things. The 70-75% of people who are against gay marriage are not/would not be directly affected by it - in short, it's none of their business.

In a democracy the rights of minorities need to be granted or protected, majorities can't always win arguments.



Also you don't think that heterosexuality should be seen as the standard at least?

Possibly in some situations, but I don't think that in this situation we need a standard; we can just have 'marriage'.

[Metall_fan]

I don't think that being offended is a reason to be honest - unless people can give a decent justification for their offence (like I mentioned above, I think a person's religion being disrespected would be such a reason, but I don't think this is happening). Being offended and being harmed are very different things. The 70-75% of people who are against gay marriage are not/would not be directly affected by it - in short, it's none of their business.

You said gay marriages don't hurt anyone - I say they clearly do, and not just a few people, but quite a lot. Now the reasons for which they hurt them are pretty stupid in most cases. I expressed my view on this issue - why I don't think it is right to pretend that there is absolutely no difference between the two.
Also a lot of people are in fact offended due to their religious beliefs, but since we are dealing with government definition here that shouldn't play a role.
Now I remember learning back in the day (and I can't back this up with precise quotes or pages from the bible) that basically homosexuality = adultery = violation of the ten commandments punishable by death in the bible times



In a democracy the rights of minorities need to be granted or protected, majorities can't always win arguments.

thats one statement I won't argue with

[J.A.M.]

I am all for gay marriage. If two homos love eachother and want to be together, by all means let them. I am a bit shakey on the other hand about adopting kids. People were saying it doesn't hurt anyone. It deffinately can and will. Do you know how many issues kids get made fun of growing up nowadays? Having two moms or two dads will probably get you made fun of to the max. If you have a child who is self-conscious to begin with, how do you think he will feel after going through multiple years of jokes about his family and what not. That can mentally ruin some peoples life.

[Beli]

I am all for gay marriage. If two homos love eachother and want to be together, by all means let them. I am a bit shakey on the other hand about adopting kids. People were saying it doesn't hurt anyone. It deffinately can and will. Do you know how many issues kids get made fun of growing up nowadays? Having two moms or two dads will probably get you made fun of to the max. If you have a child who is self-conscious to begin with, how do you think he will feel after going through multiple years of jokes about his family and what not. That can mentally ruin some peoples life.

true. however if there is no hetro couple willing to take a child in, I would never deny a child the propect of being in a loving enviroment. the HBO special of the gay family cruise with Rosie O'Donnel had some interesting points in regards to children being raised by gay parents. several of the kids spoke and said that they wouldn't trade in their same sex parents for anything.
the foster care system in the US totally sucks. i would rather see a child in a happy, gay, stable home than in foster care. but a hetro home would be first choice.

[Quaker]

You said gay marriages don't hurt anyone - I say they clearly do, and not just a few people, but quite a lot. Now the reasons for which they hurt them are pretty stupid in most cases. I expressed my view on this issue - why I don't think it is right to pretend that there is absolutely no difference between the two. I've gone back and read over most of the thread so if i missed any other reasons you've given please do post them again. Thus far the only difference you've pointed out is that gays cannot have kids naturaly where hetro's can. That difference was already addressed previously in the context of a marriage / family and you've failed to comment to it.... What other differences if any are you reffering to?

Also a lot of people are in fact offended due to their religious beliefs, but since we are dealing with government definition here that shouldn't play a role. exactly.... so again why is this issue an issue?

Now I remember learning back in the day (and I can't back this up with precise quotes or pages from the bible) that basically homosexuality = adultery = violation of the ten commandments punishable by death in the bible times The bible (1st testament) also states that if a women is raped and you don't hear her scream then she wasn't raped......



thats one statement I won't argue with but yet you fail to uphold it ???

[imported_Kat]

You said gay marriages don't hurt anyone - I say they clearly do, and not just a few people, but quite a lot. Now the reasons for which they hurt them are pretty stupid in most cases. I expressed my view on this issue - why I don't think it is right to pretend that there is absolutely no difference between the two.
I'm honestly not being obtuse, but I don't really know what you're trying to say here. I don't think many (or in fact any) people are hurt by gay marriage - they may think they are hurt, but that's a totally different thing. In what ways do you think gay marriage harms people?

I read what you said about gay marriages not being the same as straight ones, but I don't understand why you're saying that therefore they hurt people. You may feel (as I think you're saying) that it's incongrous to call gay and straight unions the same thing because of the differences between them, but I don't believe that it would harm you if they were both called marriage - it might well annoy you a bit - but I don't think that's a basis on which to deny something which is important to many people.



Also a lot of people are in fact offended due to their religious beliefs, but since we are dealing with government definition here that shouldn't play a role.
Now I remember learning back in the day (and I can't back this up with precise quotes or pages from the bible) that basically homosexuality = adultery = violation of the ten commandments punishable by death in the bible times

I think you're just bringing this in as an interesting aside (in which case I won't re-iterate my thoughts on it), but if you're using it as an argument against gay marriage can you tell me and I'll argue against it?



I am all for gay marriage. If two homos love eachother and want to be together, by all means let them. I am a bit shakey on the other hand about adopting kids. People were saying it doesn't hurt anyone. It deffinately can and will. Do you know how many issues kids get made fun of growing up nowadays? Having two moms or two dads will probably get you made fun of to the max. If you have a child who is self-conscious to begin with, how do you think he will feel after going through multiple years of jokes about his family and what not. That can mentally ruin some peoples life.

If you're referring to me, I said gay marriage doesn't harm anyone (which I stick by) - I didn't say gay couples adopting children doesn't harm anyone.

I think on gay couples should definitely be allowed to adopt, if they can offer children a safe, secure, loving environment, and I think they should be giving the same opportunities to do so as straight couples. However, I do except that there may be problems and I wouldn't (and didn't) make the absolute statement that it doesn't harm anyone.

[Metall_fan]

Kat, I realize that you, being the nice and loving person that you are (in my opinion), honestly can't see any harm or pain from gay marriage. But seriously Kat, it does harm a lot of people, not physically, but definitely spiritiually. Religious people, for instance, are deeply offended by it, and thats a large group of people right there. If the Pope openly stated that he is against gay marriage that gotta tell you something, because the church, just like the politicians, rarely takes a firm stand on edgy issues - but they clearly did in this case.
But otherwise, I believe, we perfectly understand each other.

Now Quaker, no offense, but you are being somewhat obtuse here. Just like you said, I've pointed out the difference between hetero and homo marriage and concluded that based on that we should also differentiate them in what we call it, because they are not the same. But just in case you still don't get that here's another evididence I found in the Constitution to prove my point conclusively:

http://www.wernersplace.com/images/gay_marriage.gif

[Quaker]

Now Quaker, no offense, but you are being somewhat obtuse here. Just like you said, I've pointed out the difference between hetero and homo marriage and concluded that based on that we should also differentiate them in what we call it, because they are not the same. So based on that logic, anyone who gets married and doesn't have kids isn't married?

I thought we were passed the whole arguement that marriage = having natural kids.....

[imported_Kat]

Kat, I realize that you, being the nice and loving person that you are (in my opinion), honestly can't see any harm or pain from gay marriage. But seriously Kat, it does harm a lot of people, not physically, but definitely spiritiually. Religious people, for instance, are deeply offended by it, and thats a large group of people right there. If the Pope openly stated that he is against gay marriage that gotta tell you something, because the church, just like the politicians, rarely takes a firm stand on edgy issues - but they clearly did in this case.
But otherwise, I believe, we perfectly understand each other.


Thanks Metall fan :) It's been a good debate!

I do understand where you're coming from with this, and it's a difficult issue. The way I resolve it for myself is that I think people have the right to their beliefs, but no right to enforce them on others. The Christian church having a say in what non-Christian civil partnerships should be defined as falls, in my opinion, into the sphere of imposing their beliefs upon others, so should not be allowed. However, this brings us into a fundamental contradiction of liberalism: if peoples beliefs include the belief that they should control what other people do to some extent, then what's the answer? Either you deny them the right to those particular beliefs (in effect denying them the right to freedom of religion), or allow them it at the expense of other peoples' freedoms. There's no acceptable answer really, but on this one I'm coming down on the side of the homosexuals who want to be legally definied as a married couples, because I think they have a higher stake in the issue than the people who don't want them to be.

[imported_Honeypot]

Okay I didn't go through and read all of this...

I'm just going to state my opinion, and I'm sorry if I say something that was already said, but I don't have the time to sit here and read every post.

I consider myself to be christian, and I am all for gay marriage. I think it is ridiculous when people let their religious beliefs get in the way of something like this. Afterall God is the only one who can judge anyone, and it is not our place to say what's right or not.

I don't necessarily think it's natural for a person to be gay, but who am I to say whether it is right or not? Nobody really knows how God feels about this except for God. If two people are in love they should be able to get married, and since there is supposed to be a separation between church and state the religious aspect of it shouldn't even be an issue.

As for gay people adopting... Why not? Are you (I'm just generalizing here) saying that gay people can't raise a child just as well as straight people?

Regardless of whether you have a mom and dad, two moms, or two dads it is inevitable that at some point in your life you will be teased about one thing or another. And if we want to teach our children acceptance, what better way? I personally don't want my children to make any kind of judgements on people based on anything other than their individual character, and I think that's where our world should be heading.

If it is wrong to be gay, then those people will have to deal with the consequences when they die. But in the meantime shouldn't we practice acceptance, because afterall isn't that what religion is really all about?

[Quaker]

** Note this post has been taken from the Civil Union thread in the interest of keeping that thread on track with one simple theme.**


cause marriage is definaed as a union between man and woman Says who?

[Puppy Dogs and Ice Cream]

me god damn it and 90% of society

[Quaker]

me god damn it and 90% of society

The same society who 50 years ago said marriage was only between same racial groups.... The same society who 100 years ago said women were the property of man?

What 90% of society? Go look at the results from this most recent election. 3 or 4 of the "defining it as a man and women" amendments passed by 50% to 60% of the population and in AZ the amendment got rejected. Looks like 90% as you put it of the people do not view it simply as a "union between a man and a women"

Are you going to continue to talk out of your ass... or actually post something of substance? Or is this really all you have?

[Colonel Sanders]

The same society who 50 years ago said marriage was only between same racial groups.... The same society who 100 years ago said women were the property of man?

What 90% of society? Go look at the results from this most recent election. 3 or 4 of the "defining it as a man and women" amendments passed by 50% to 60% of the population and in AZ the amendment got rejected. Looks like 90% as you put it of the people do not view it simply as a "union between a man and a women"

Are you going to continue to talk out of your ass... or actually post something of substance? Or is this really all you have?

And who says that society is evolving for the better? Humans make bad decisions and repeat mistakes through history. The issues of gays is becoming one of them. I have no doubt that in a 60 years gays and gay marriage will be looked at as complete equals. That does not make it right just like everything else in history.

20 years ago you would never see a tit on basic TV. You can now...does that make it right now?

[Quaker]

And who says that society is evolving for the better? Humans make bad decisions and repeat mistakes through history. The issues of gays is becoming one of them. I have no doubt that in a 60 years gays and gay marriage will be looked at as complete equals. That does not make it right just like everything else in history.

20 years ago you would never see a tit on basic TV. You can now...does that make it right now?

Whoa.... so are you saying interracial marriages are wrong and it was a "bad decision" to allow them? Are you saying women are the property of men and it was the "wrong decision" to allow them to have EQUAL rights just as anyone else?

Kaf please for you own sake read over the garbage you spew...

[Colonel Sanders]

no im not saying that. i mean just what i said about bad decisions. i didnt say what was bad decisisons except for the tit thing.

I'm eating a fudge brownie right now, how bout you hmm?

[Exploding Sockpuppet]

lets just cut to the chase. where does everybody stand on gay interspecies polygamous marriages? :w00t2:







:3some:


I'm cool with it, as long as you sign a pre-nup.

[the squid of despair]

Here's what those wacky gays are up to now...

"OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled."


http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

[Pleb]

Here's what those wacky gays are up to now...

"OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled."


http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

Cant argue the logic http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif

[the squid of despair]

Cant argue the logic http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif


Of course you can, as long as your main argument isn't that marriage is only for procreation.

[Quaker]

Of course you can, as long as your main argument isn't that marriage is only for procreation.

But thats the catch here, there was a ruling in 2006 which essentially said just that.

Andersen v. King County 2006 ruling upholding the defence on marriage act: "The legislature was entitiled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children."

and

"We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both."

Entire opinion/order (pretty good read) (http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf)

[Infernal Abomination]

Even though I know a few who would like me not to say anything here. I'm going to.

Gay "marriage" in and of itself is ridiculous. There is NO NEED for it. They shouldn't be whining about it. It serves only in a war between Church and State. As stated before in this thread, you do not need a marriage to be faithful to someone you love.

Personal opinion: the LGBT(lesbian gay, bisexual, transgendered) community as a whole screams for equality, correct? To be treated the same as a heterosexual. Then why the hell do they have GAY PRIDE??? That's seperation. Oxymorons? Maybe.

[swiss miss]

Even though I know a few who would like me not to say anything here. I'm going to.

Gay "marriage" in and of itself is ridiculous. There is NO NEED for it. They shouldn't be whining about it. It serves only in a war between Church and State. As stated before in this thread, you do not need a marriage to be faithful to someone you love.

Personal opinion: the LGBT(lesbian gay, bisexual, transgendered) community as a whole screams for equality, correct? To be treated the same as a heterosexual. Then why the hell do they have GAY PRIDE??? That's seperation. Oxymorons? Maybe.


but unfortunately, if i understand it correctly, you need a marriage to be recognised by the law as a partner in a homosexual relationship - so for example if your life long partner is terminally ill you have no say in a court of law over their families wishes - there seems to be no justice in that at all....

and im sorry but your example of gay pride being some sort of separation is a bit ridiculous in comparison. Gay pride is not a carnival strictly for gay people - yes its a celebration of gay but the organising committee and the gay people that that go dont exactly say we dont want any straight people here, there is no segregation to a gay pride festival - anyone can go along and enjoy it.

[Jimmy James]

[...]Personal opinion: the LGBT(lesbian gay, bisexual, transgendered) community as a whole screams for equality, correct? To be treated the same as a heterosexual. Then why the hell do they have GAY PRIDE??? That's seperation. Oxymorons? Maybe.

if gay pride is an oxymoron, why do you flaunt your gayness?

[Infernal Abomination]

stating that i'm a lesbian is not flaunting it.

and swiss. not to point anything out, but actually there is segregation at gay pride festivals, because the entertainment is not based on what anyone would enjoy, mostly it's based apon LGBT community members. But you also have to know I was mostly meaning the Gay Pride festival in my city, which does segregate, because they have a permanent grounds, and don't allow the Christain Activist into the grounds.

The festival in my city is treated as though it's a racial festival. I'm sorry, but I don't remember when being gay became a racial issue. Did I miss something?

Now don't get me wrong. I am not trying to say that the community as a whole is oxymoron. Just the one's who scream for equality, but beg for seperate laws and rights as well as privlidges.

As for the fact that without marriages you won't be able to visit your loved ones. That's kind of BS. If family was family, and parents/family accept you for who you are, then your signifigant other would have no problems being able to see you or visit you.

That's not a question of marriage laws, it's a question of what is morally correct, and what's unacceptably immoral.

[Quaker]

and swiss. not to point anything out, but actually there is segregation at gay pride festivals, because the entertainment is not based on what anyone would enjoy, mostly it's based apon LGBT community members. ummm that is why it is called a pride festival.... ;)
But you also have to know I was mostly meaning the Gay Pride festival in my city, which does segregate, because they have a permanent grounds, and don't allow the Christain Activist into the grounds. You call that segregation? Anytime there is a protest of anykind you will have people seperated. ie: KKK has a protest. Counter protesters are NOT going to be allowed to mingle because we all know what will happen!

Now for a pride festavile to be segregated as you claim a group of people would have to be blocked from joining simply because they are NOT gay. Is that what is happening?


The festival in my city is treated as though it's a racial festival. I'm sorry, but I don't remember when being gay became a racial issue. Did I miss something? Really, by not allowing people who despise gay people be in the middle of a whole buch of gay people? hmmmmm I think you just have issues ;).


...Just the one's who scream for equality, but beg for seperate laws and rights as well as privlidges. And those would be.....?


As for the fact that without marriages you won't be able to visit your loved ones. That's kind of BS. If family was family, and parents/family accept you for who you are, then your signifigant other would have no problems being able to see you or visit you. Thanks captain obvious! Now what if my family doesn't accept me for who I am?


That's not a question of marriage laws, it's a question of what is morally correct, and what's unacceptably immoral. So it is immoral for me to be able to see my loved one dying in the hospital?

I just can't stand self-hating homo's!

[Infernal Abomination]

funny, i don't hate myself. and to work backwards, what i was saying was that it's about the morals we teach our children, who grow into adults and have kids of their own. they're the one's who will be the parents who fight to keep gay or lesbian lovers out of the hospitals, and away from children. why fight a downhill battle, and not fight to change morals so kids learn it's all about love, and not hate, then they can grow up to be parents who love, and not hate.

edit: and the segregation people who are screaming for seperate laws, but want equal ones, are the one's who think it's alright to beat up a heterosexual to a bloody pulp and only catch an assault charge, but if you beat a gay man or woman or bisexual or transgender, you catch a hate crime which carries a heavier penalty... that's a segregated law. the law should be just as harsh no matter who's beaten, or starved, or harassed, or harmed in anyway.

[Quaker]

what i was saying was that it's about the morals we teach our children, who grow into adults and have kids of their own. they're the one's who will be the parents who fight to keep gay or lesbian lovers out of the hospitals, and away from children. why fight a downhill battle, and not fight to change morals so kids learn it's all about love, and not hate, then they can grow up to be parents who love, and not hate.

Why not do both? And I don't see it as a downhill battle, but oh well...

Now getting back to swiss's points about why marriage IS important... I still do not see your points as to why it is not needed.


edit: and the segregation people who are screaming for seperate laws, but want equal ones, are the one's who think it's alright to beat up a heterosexual to a bloody pulp and only catch an assault charge, but if you beat a gay man or woman or bisexual or transgender, you catch a hate crime which carries a heavier penalty... that's a segregated law. the law should be just as harsh no matter who's beaten, or starved, or harassed, or harmed in anyway.

How many of those straights beaten to a pulp were beaten because of the simple fact that they were straight?

[Infernal Abomination]

proove that gay people who get beat are always beat because they are straight, and not beaten because they're straight? apparently you never heard of the pink triangle mafia in newyork. because there was a "gang" so to say of gay "straight bashers" who beat on dudes that were straight. I'm not saying it's not necessary. if you read what i wrote in the first place, it was that WHY does it have to be called MARRIAGE, why can't you call it civil union if it's the SAME rights and responsibilities. if you wouldn't have put it out there that i am a self hating lesbian, i wouldn't have gotten off subject

or so i think

[Jimmy James]

proove that gay people who get beat are always beat because they are straight, and not beaten because they're straight? apparently you never heard of the pink triangle mafia in newyork. because there was a "gang" so to say of gay "straight bashers" who beat on dudes that were straight. I'm not saying it's not necessary. if you read what i wrote in the first place, it was that WHY does it have to be called MARRIAGE, why can't you call it civil union if it's the SAME rights and responsibilities. if you wouldn't have put it out there that i am a self hating lesbian, i wouldn't have gotten off subject

or so i think

you got a source for that, cause I can't find a single one

[Infernal Abomination]

it's called straight bashing, and it actually does happen. the last i heard about it though, was way before i ever knew of the internet. let me find out if it's published. and i'll get back to you. i know that they formed queer as folk's pink posse after it.

[Beli]

i have only recently heard of this straight bashing. was news to me. i can have my friend post his sources next time i am at work.

[Quaker]

proove that gay people who get beat are always beat because they are straight, and not beaten because they're straight? apparently you never heard of the pink triangle mafia in newyork. because there was a "gang" so to say of gay "straight bashers" who beat on dudes that were straight. Here let me save you the trouble of trying to find sources to cite:

Anti-Homosexual (total victims) 237
Anti-Heterosexual (total victims) 18 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm)

Now again show me how this is segregation? and how the law as you say applys to one population and not the other?


I'm not saying it's not necessary. if you read what i wrote in the first place, Oh but i did and here i'll even quoate it again

"There is NO NEED for it. They shouldn't be whining about it. It serves only in a war between Church and State. As stated before in this thread, you do not need a marriage to be faithful to someone you love."

Says nothing about civil unions.

If you are now chaning your tune please show how seperate but equal is okay. Unless of course your saying you essentially feel the way you do because you don't want the 'church' to feel uncomfortable?

Simple question for you... (valid meaning able to get state benefits)

-- If someone gets married in a church and the state does NOT recognize it is it a valid marriage?

-- Now if someone gets married by the state and the church does NOT recognize it is it a valid marriage?

Answer those two questions and you'll see why the church has NOTHING to do with marriage.


If you wouldn't have put it out there that i am a self hating lesbian, i wouldn't have gotten off subject Oh, we haven't even broached the topic of you being a self-hating homo... Advocating against 'your people' having equal rights is where that label came from ;).

[Infernal Abomination]

see now you're going to go off and call them "your people" being gay isn't a race, and doesn't deserve the label.

and even IF the count is higher for HOMOSEXUAL's who have been beaten, the question was if straight bashing occured as such, which it does. no one deserves to be hit, or even verbally abused for a BELIEF. Which a sexuality can fall into a "belief" or even the one's who say that they are born that way, you should not be beaten for something you can change, or something you can't. it's not right to swing a fist either way.


i have only recently heard of this straight bashing. was news to me. i can have my friend post his sources next time i am at work.
Beli, thank you. I will also try to find a link to where I've heard it from.

[Quaker]

see now you're going to go off and call them "your people" being gay isn't a race, and doesn't deserve the label.I do NOT interpert 'you people' to mean a race. My using of it was placing you in a group with other members of the LGBTQ community. Didn't realize we had to be PC on here... let me rephrase my orignial statement:

Being a homo and advocating against rights for other homo's (ie: 'your people') is where the label self hating came from. Therefore you are a self-hating homo.

Is that PC enough for you?


and even IF the count is higher for HOMOSEXUAL's who have been beaten, Wait wait just one second... were you honestly doubting that the count would be higher?
the question was if straight bashing occured as such, which it does. no one deserves to be hit, or even verbally abused for a BELIEF. Which a sexuality can fall into a "belief" or even the one's who say that they are born that way, you should not be beaten for something you can change, or something you can't. it's not right to swing a fist either way. Thanks again captain obvious!! When did anyone say otherwise?

I am still waiting for you to back up this statement:


..Just the one's who scream for equality, but beg for seperate laws and rights as well as privlidges.

I love how you have yet to back up ANYTHING you have said in this thread... you just jump from one non-issue to the next. (Y)

So to sum up your posts... "I am agianst gay marriage because _______________"..... please do fill in the gap ;)

[Infernal Abomination]

you know being synical isn't going to make you look ecool. oh and i really dont have time for this, i said what i wanted to say. it's out there. your disagreement to what i stated really isn't influencial on my opinion. (meaning you can't change what i think) so why do you bother to ask questions about it? I failed to realize where this forum became the e-debate's

[Quaker]

oh and i really dont have time for this, i said what i wanted to say. it's out there. your disagreement to what i stated really isn't influencial on my opinion. (meaning you can't change what i think) so why do you bother to ask questions about it? I failed to realize where this forum became the e-debate's I am sorry you failed to realize this was the serious discussion forum... if you don't want people to question your opinions then please do not post them in a public forum which was created for the purpose of questioning each others thoughts.

As far as making your points clear... you haven't done such a thing. Maybe you're just horrible at getting your point across... so why not finish this simple sentence...

"I am against gay marriage because ____________________"

Being unable to support your own opinions is not my problem, nor do i honestly care to change your opinion. Now on the other hand if you actually had an opinion you really felt strongly about you wouldn't be having the problems you are with backing it up.


you know being synical isn't going to make you look ecool. eh I've always replied to everyone in the same fashion, feel free to look at my post history and you'll see, could care less about how i come off.

[Infernal Abomination]

if i was against it i would finish that sentance. i am not against nor for.

my opinion is this.

IF you can have the same rights without it being called a marriage, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make?

Why NOT take the rose which by any other name that would smell just as sweet, and call it a tulip? It's still sweet.

[Quaker]

IF you can have the same rights without it being called a marriage, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make? Good point... what difference does it make?

Here lets try and break this down a little bit more. Can you please finish this sentence?

"I am against the term gay marriage because...


Why NOT take the rose which by any other name that would smell just as sweet, and call it a tulip? It's still sweet. So seperate but equal is okay?

[VikesWookie]

what's with pachouli oil? that stuff is so pungent & seems to be an odor adopted by many gay ppl...

who cares if gays get married? is it really going affect ppl in an adverse way? ahhhh yes... i'm going to hell b/c my neighbor has chosen to pack sludge...

[Infernal Abomination]

omg. i'm not against the term. i...just like anyone who has read shakespere or seen any romeo and juliet movies, believe that no matter what, the rights are what should be important, not the term you list them under.


Because I eat with something that is metal and has 4 prongs to stab food with, and I call it a Cello, does that mean it doesn't have the same functions as a FORK?

edit: and no i'm not very articulate Quaker. sorry.

[Quaker]

omg. i'm not against the term. i believe that no matter what, the rights are what should be important, not the term you list them under. Agreed... so why the insistance on labeling it as a civil union? Why don't we stick to the already established term of 'marriage'?

[the squid of despair]

Agreed... so why the insistance on labeling it as a civil union? Why don't we stick to the already established term of 'marriage'?

I thought ot was because "Marriage" was established by religious factions and the ground rules were set by those who created it, just checking...

[Infernal Abomination]

i believed that marriage was more of a term the state came up with. forgive me if i'm a little wrong here, but i believe some countries that have church don't have marriage...

correct if needed please

[Quaker]

I thought ot was because "Marriage" was established by religious factions and the ground rules were set by those who created it, just checking...

Now for the sake of saving time lets say that is true.

Are atheists allowed to get 'married'?

[the squid of despair]

Now for the sake of saving time lets say that is true.

Are atheists allowed to get 'married'?


I don't know... :)

[SweetHoney]

Interesting discussion...

If we are going to bring a "god" factor into this, however, I must first off make a statement. God gave you freedom of choice...who on this earth gave the state or any religious faction the right to take away your "God-Given Right"?

My opinion...marriage is a union of two souls on a journey to the same place if it is done in the right spirit, therefore, go with a kindred spirit, or with whomever pleases you, and allow others to do the same.

Call it whatever you want to...it is what it is.

If it's merely a matter of legality, leave a detailed Will specifying a set amount for each individual that might lay claim to your fortunes (can be a single dollar bill or even an item) If you include a reason for doing so, there should be no reasonable dispute for your choice if it is made with sound judgment. Your endowment cannot be disputed as an over site, so long as you do not leave anyone eligible out "altogether". One can only argue the details themselves, or the sound-mindedness of the deceased at the time the Will was drawn up.