PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage what is your beef with it?



mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 09:48 AM
Here's the deal a lot of people hate on gay marriage. Yes I do think that gay marriage is against God but we also have something in the United States called freedom of religion. So take religion out of the picture what is your argument against gay marriage?

pghin08
02-20-2012, 10:21 AM
I don't have one. If you're gay, you deserve the same rights as a straight person, no matter what that means.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 10:34 AM
I could really care a less if two guys or two women get married. They must obey the SAME laws as a traditional marriage in my books. Taxes, Alimony, Etc.

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 10:48 AM
Don't really care, but I don't think marriage is a fundamental right, and I think that the states should be able to decide what they want.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 10:48 AM
Don't really care, but I don't think marriage is a fundamental right, and I think that the states should be able to decide what they want.

That's fair.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 12:26 PM
Don't really care, but I don't think marriage is a fundamental right, and I think that the states should be able to decide what they want.


I understand that point but why should someone have to leave their state of residence because it dosen't feel that some of it's citizens have the right to marry another consenting adult?

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 01:10 PM
I understand that point but why should someone have to leave their state of residence because it dosen't feel that some of it's citizens have the right to marry another consenting adult?

The whole point of the federal republican system is that the people of the states can enact the laws that most closely reflect their values, and if someone disagrees with those laws strongly enough, they have the ability to move to a state that is more in line with what they believe but remains within the United States. Otherwise, the 10th amendment has no meaning, and we might as well give all power to a centralized federal government.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 02:01 PM
The whole point of the federal republican system is that the people of the states can enact the laws that most closely reflect their values, and if someone disagrees with those laws strongly enough, they have the ability to move to a state that is more in line with what they believe but remains within the United States. Otherwise, the 10th amendment has no meaning, and we might as well give all power to a centralized federal government.


So otherwise it is ok for states to make laws that discriminate against certian groups although those same groups must still pay taxes and otherwise abide by all laws without equal protection and benefit of the law. Got ya. :winking0071:

AUTaxMan
02-20-2012, 02:10 PM
So otherwise it is ok for states to make laws that discriminate against certian groups although those same groups must still pay taxes and otherwise abide by all laws without equal protection and benefit of the law. Got ya. :winking0071:

Laws by their very nature are discriminatory. Unless they infringe on fundamental rights or discriminate against a protected class, then they are constitutional. You apparently don't understand my position that marriage is not a fundamental right and that gays are not a constitutionally protected class.

Are bigamists unconstitutionally discriminated against by laws preventing people from marrying more than one person? What about people who believe they should have the right to marry their own adult children? Are they discriminated against?

What makes these examples different from gay marriage? Is it a scientific fact that people are born gay? If not, then is gay marriage is really just based on a belief that gays should be able to marry members of the same sex? Again, how is that different from bigamists?

stoked_81
02-20-2012, 02:22 PM
i think if your gay and want to be married you should have the right to be miserable just like straight couples:tongue0011:

duane1969
02-20-2012, 02:23 PM
Here's the deal a lot of people hate on gay marriage. Yes I do think that gay marriage is against God but we also have something in the United States called freedom of religion. So take religion out of the picture what is your argument against gay marriage?

I have no issue with gay marriage. I also don't understand the need for gay marriage. A gay marriage is nothing more than a legal union. It is not recognized by any religious establishment so calling it a marriage is just terminology. By definition it is simply a legal joining for civil and legal purposes.

If the purpose of the marriage is family health benefits, rights to retirement benefits, etc. then I can understand it. If the purpose is to make a statement that a gay marriage is the same as a hetero marriage then I do not understand it.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 02:41 PM
i think if your gay and want to be married you should have the right to be miserable just like straight couples:tongue0011:


:cheer2:

shrewsbury
02-20-2012, 02:42 PM
i may get hated on, but here we go,

first "against" may be too hard of a word, but here is my reason why i think they don't "need" to be married;

the issue i have is a gay couple cannot produce children and this is the main reason for marriages, tax breaks for marriages and such. sure they can adopt and MAYBE this would be an exception to MY rules, but maybe not.

without children there is no future of anything, and without children you don't know what a relationship is about (ok maybe took it a bit far there). there are way more challenges in a relationship that involves children than without. and will truly make or break you.

why does anyone "need" to be married if you aren't planning on having kids? i sure wouldn't have!!!!

keep in mind i have gay friends, in fact was with 2 female gay couples last night, good people, but still against them being married.

tsjct
02-20-2012, 02:55 PM
i may get hated on, but here we go,

first "against" may be too hard of a word, but here is my reason why i think they don't "need" to be married;

the issue i have is a gay couple cannot produce children and this is the main reason for marriages, tax breaks for marriages and such. sure they can adopt and MAYBE this would be an exception to MY rules, but maybe not.

without children there is no future of anything, and without children you don't know what a relationship is about (ok maybe took it a bit far there). there are way more challenges in a relationship that involves children than without. and will truly make or break you.

why does anyone "need" to be married if you aren't planning on having kids? i sure wouldn't have!!!!

keep in mind i have gay friends, in fact was with 2 female gay couples last night, good people, but still against them being married.

I do not think Marriage is about having kids??? My wife and i got married because we love each other. After marriage we tried to have kids and found out after 3 years of trying (which trying is fun) we could not have kids. So we ADOPTED a beautiful child and now she is 10 and we are a happy married family.

mrveggieman
02-20-2012, 02:57 PM
So a couple who cannot have or does not want any kids shouldn't be married? What about a couple where 1 person has kids but the other dosen't? Do they not need to be married? Please let us know. Thanks.


i may get hated on, but here we go,

first "against" may be too hard of a word, but here is my reason why i think they don't "need" to be married;

the issue i have is a gay couple cannot produce children and this is the main reason for marriages, tax breaks for marriages and such. sure they can adopt and MAYBE this would be an exception to MY rules, but maybe not.

without children there is no future of anything, and without children you don't know what a relationship is about (ok maybe took it a bit far there). there are way more challenges in a relationship that involves children than without. and will truly make or break you.

why does anyone "need" to be married if you aren't planning on having kids? i sure wouldn't have!!!!

keep in mind i have gay friends, in fact was with 2 female gay couples last night, good people, but still against them being married.

stoked_81
02-20-2012, 03:13 PM
I know its a little off the main subject
this is my opinion. All marriage is, is a piece a paper that is it. The only real benefit is insurance and taxes. So what really does it matter if 2 men or 2 women want to have the piece of paper. For me im not married and dont have kids and dont really want kids. So on that, if i do get married and we decide not to have kids then there is no difference in 2 men getting married.

pghin08
02-20-2012, 03:42 PM
I do not think Marriage is about having kids??? My wife and i got married because we love each other. After marriage we tried to have kids and found out after 3 years of trying (which trying is fun) we could not have kids. So we ADOPTED a beautiful child and now she is 10 and we are a happy married family.

Good for you two. Was the process difficult? I only ask because my soon-to-be fiance had ovarian cancer when she was 18, and she had to have one of her ovaries removed, and part of the other. So it may be tough for her and I to have kids.

shrewsbury
02-20-2012, 03:46 PM
So a couple who cannot have or does not want any kids shouldn't be married? What about a couple where 1 person has kids but the other dosen't? Do they not need to be married? Please let us know. Thanks.

if you don't want kids why be married?? why?? you can love eachother just as much without marriage!

if you can't, well then you can adopt, great idea!!!!!

one that has kids and one doesn't, well if you are married, no way for this to happen, you both will have kids. same as adopting.

now just so we are all straight, just because i don't like it/understand it, does not mean i think it should be illegal, just not for me!

tsjct
02-20-2012, 03:48 PM
Good for you two. Was the process difficult? I only ask because my soon-to-be fiance had ovarian cancer when she was 18, and she had to have one of her ovaries removed, and part of the other. So it may be tough for her and I to have kids.

It is WAY TO HARD for couples to adopt. It took a lucky break for us as we were fortunate enough to find an individual to do it private. We tried the state, Churches, etc and it was ALL ABOUT MONEY and i was not into buying a child when there are so many kids out there that need a good home. Maybe its just the State of Texas which is so hard. We adopted our little girl from Louisiana. I just wish it was easier for couples to adopt. I hate when i hear how easy it is as it took us FIVE long years to get our little girl. We even put on our applications we did not care about Ethnicity, Sex of child, Etc as we just wanted a child.

theonedru
02-20-2012, 04:00 PM
I have no issue with gay marriage. I also don't understand the need for gay marriage. A gay marriage is nothing more than a legal union. It is not recognized by any religious establishment so calling it a marriage is just terminology. By definition it is simply a legal joining for civil and legal purposes.

If the purpose of the marriage is family health benefits, rights to retirement benefits, etc. then I can understand it. If the purpose is to make a statement that a gay marriage is the same as a hetero marriage then I do not understand it.

" family health benefits, rights to retirement benefits, etc. "

Duane hit it on the head perfectly,

When one segment of the population is allowed to marry they can have access to these things and another is denied marriage and as such not allowed to access to this stuff how is that fair all? And this is shows that there is more to marriage than just a religious aspect to it.

Also for the record, my wife cannot have children, but we do love each other so deeply that we committed ourselves to each other while on this earth. Love to me is a darn good reason to get married.

NY Sports Teams
02-20-2012, 04:14 PM
i think if your gay and want to be married you should have the right to be miserable just like straight couples:tongue0011:

I won't comment on politics/religion/ect but that was a good one. LOL...Rick

shrewsbury
02-20-2012, 06:37 PM
so anybody should be allowed to marry anyone else if they are in love?

what about multiple spouses? or would the exception be that it is impossible to love more than one person?

theonedru
02-20-2012, 08:53 PM
so anybody should be allowed to marry anyone else if they are in love?

what about multiple spouses? or would the exception be that it is impossible to love more than one person?

What about rights and benefits only available to spouses/married couples? Is it ok to deny these things to same sex couples because thy cannot marry?

imronron
02-20-2012, 11:57 PM
"Why have governments regulated marriages historically? Why not leave the matter of intimate relationships and family to individuals and remove the state completely?"
· Nations that fail to form families suffer grave consequences, including loss of workers, loss of tax base, and decline in human ingenuity and productivity.
· The question is not about denying individual rights but about promoting the good of the whole society.
· Marriage and family provide benefits to society by producing, raising, and educating the next generation.
· A strong family life offers the benefits of mental and emotional health.
These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.
Western cultures are too deeply enamored of the concept of "individual rights" to subscribe easily to the idea that individuals ought to moderate their personal choices to benefit the entire community. We have become an atomized culture, in which each person is his own autonomous government, the Self as Supreme Command. To many, the very idea of the common good violates "personal rights." But there is no "right" to a sexual relationship. In truth, it is merely a personal choice—not a right—that is circumscribed.
Protection of heterosexual marriage is simply the state regulating and protecting the unique institution that forms an orderly community and benefits the future of the society. We must stress that there is a difference between laws made for the common good and individual preferences. Laws are not made to serve individuals.
The answer is elemental: Sex is powerful; sex makes babies. Its effect on individuals and communities is such that it is never unregulated in any society. Imagine a culture where marriage and sexual relationships have no regulations, no taboos. No stable families are formed, and thus the work of families goes untended or must be assumed by the state: Children are not properly educated, children and women are abandoned, no one is responsible for sick family members or the elderly, because where all are family, none are family, merely autonomous individuals with whom you have had a temporary liaison. Inheritance laws have no meaning, and the community is marred by jealousies, sexual violence, and pedophilia. In actuality, preserving the definition preserves the truth that men and women make babies; men and women and their babies make families. To acknowledge that observable reality in no manner detracts for the legal freedom to make a "lifestyle choice." The psychological confusion and education failures of children raised in same-sex households is widely documented. Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent.

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 12:16 AM
What about rights and benefits only available to spouses/married couples? Is it ok to deny these things to same sex couples because thy cannot marry?

and perhaps that is the main reason most gays want to marry, because they feel they are entitled to something some one else has.

you're not entitled to crap

AUTaxMan
02-21-2012, 12:37 AM
I posed these questions with respect to the discrimination argument this morning:

Are bigamists unconstitutionally discriminated against by laws preventing people from marrying more than one person? What about people who believe they should have the right to marry their own adult children? Are they discriminated against?

What makes these examples different from gay marriage? Is it a scientific fact that people are born gay? If not, then is gay marriage is really just based on a belief that gays should be able to marry members of the same sex? Again, how is that different from bigamists?

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 12:44 AM
Are bigamists unconstitutionally discriminated against by laws preventing people from marrying more than one person? What about people who believe they should have the right to marry their own adult children? Are they discriminated against?

teenagers in love, a teenager in love with an adult, a man in love with his dog. it can go on and on.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 09:09 AM
" Children raised in same-sex environments are five times as likely to suffer physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect. AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases reduce the life expectancy of homosexual persons, increasing the likelihood of early loss of a parent or surrogate parent.


And where did you come up with these stats?

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 09:11 AM
and perhaps that is the main reason most gays want to marry, because they feel they are entitled to something some one else has.

you're not entitled to crap


So it is ok for someone not to recieve benefits that the work for based on sexual preference? If that is your thinking I don't agree with you but I respect you for speaking your mind. My only thing is to be consistent. If you are ok with discrimination based on sexual orenitation you should also be ok with discrimination based on race, gender and religion. Am I right?

AUTaxMan
02-21-2012, 09:17 AM
mrv, how do you respond to my questions above?

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 09:25 AM
so if you don't like lamb chops you must not eat any meat???

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 09:53 AM
I posed these questions with respect to the discrimination argument this morning:

Are bigamists unconstitutionally discriminated against by laws preventing people from marrying more than one person? What about people who believe they should have the right to marry their own adult children? Are they discriminated against?

What makes these examples different from gay marriage? Is it a scientific fact that people are born gay? If not, then is gay marriage is really just based on a belief that gays should be able to marry members of the same sex? Again, how is that different from bigamists?

Good questions mr taxman. My spin on it is (religion asside) is that you are entitled to one spose as far as insurance, tax benefits are concerned. If you want to have religious only ceremonies to to claim other "wives" then knock yourself out but the law will only recognize 1 spouse. As far as people being born gay that is the theory I was taught in school but my bishop teaches something totally different. I am not an expert on genetics so I can't say for sure one way or another. Also incest is banned regardless of the age because of the problems that the children of an incestous relationship will have.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 10:00 AM
so if you don't like lamb chops you must not eat any meat???


I don't eat any meat at all but I'm not sure where you are going with your point.....

AUTaxMan
02-21-2012, 10:04 AM
Good questions mr taxman. My spin on it is (religion asside) is that you are entitled to one spose as far as insurance, tax benefits are concerned. If you want to have religious only ceremonies to to claim other "wives" then knock yourself out but the law will only recognize 1 spouse. As far as people being born gay that is the theory I was taught in school but my bishop teaches something totally different. I am not an expert on genetics so I can't say for sure one way or another. Also incest is banned regardless of the age because of the problems that the children of an incestous relationship will have.

What benefits are denied gays who are joined in state-sanctioned civil unions but are unmarried?

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 10:10 AM
What benefits are denied gays who are joined in state-sanctioned civil unions but are unmarried?


That's exactly what I'm talking about. If gays have the right to the same state sanctioned civil unions that straight people are entitled to and their unions are recognized in every state then I am completely fine with it. If religions do not want to perform gay civil unions or marriages that is on them. Here in the united states the church is completely seperate from the state.

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 10:20 AM
my point is you can like or approve of one thing but not another. race and sexual preference are so far apart they don't compare.

if everyone should have the same rights, then there would be no prisons or jails, no lawyers or judges.

being consistent and giving everyone a free pass are not the same.

this is no different than the 'new" movement of giving everyone a trophy, even the losing team.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 10:25 AM
my point is you can like or approve of one thing but not another. race and sexual preference are so far apart they don't compare.

if everyone should have the same rights, then there would be no prisons or jails, no lawyers or judges.

being consistent and giving everyone a free pass are not the same.

this is no different than the 'new" movement of giving everyone a trophy, even the losing team.


Not the same thing. Yes it is much easier to hide your sexual prefrence than it is to hide your race. One could also chose to hide their religion much easier than hiding their race. You are not condoning religious discrimination are you?

*censored*
02-21-2012, 11:19 AM
teenagers in love, a teenager in love with an adult, a man in love with his dog. it can go on and on.

And exactly when was it established that a teenager or a dog could enter into a legally binding contract of any sort?

That's all marriage is per se, a legally binding contract entering people into a union. Or a civil union. Call it whatever you want. I don't care.

Why not give EVERYONE a civil union under the governmental requirements and leave the term "marriage" to the churches? What would happen in a state with both marriages and civil unions if a straight couple applied to have a civil union? Would it be granted? Or would it be a case of "separate but equal" where they could only get married while gays could only get civil unions? What's the point in having a different name for something that is exactly the same? And how long would it be before some anti-gay institution refuses to allow someone in a civil union the same benefits as someone who is married because a "civil union" is not a "marriage" via their name?

Separate but equal vis a vis race was shot down in the 1950's. It needs to be shot down for sexual orientation as well.

And as for sexual orientation and race being "so far apart they don't compare," how so? Are you claiming that sexual orientation is a choice? Why would anyone knowingly and willfully choose that lifestyle? When did you choose to be straight?

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 11:37 AM
And exactly when was it established that a teenager or a dog could enter into a legally binding contract of any sort?

That's all marriage is per se, a legally binding contract entering people into a union. Or a civil union. Call it whatever you want. I don't care.

Why not give EVERYONE a civil union under the governmental requirements and leave the term "marriage" to the churches? What would happen in a state with both marriages and civil unions if a straight couple applied to have a civil union? Would it be granted? Or would it be a case of "separate but equal" where they could only get married while gays could only get civil unions? What's the point in having a different name for something that is exactly the same? And how long would it be before some anti-gay institution refuses to allow someone in a civil union the same benefits as someone who is married because a "civil union" is not a "marriage" via their name?

Separate but equal vis a vis race was shot down in the 1950's. It needs to be shot down for sexual orientation as well.

And as for sexual orientation and race being "so far apart they don't compare," how so? Are you claiming that sexual orientation is a choice? Why would anyone knowingly and willfully choose that lifestyle? When did you choose to be straight?


CHURCH!! :love0030:

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 12:40 PM
Not saying all or any of this has been said here, but here's some arguments I've heard against gay marriage, followed by my answers:

1 - Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.
-I understand you feel that way, unfortunately we have religious freedom, so many others may not feel that way and to legislate something based on one or even many religions goes against that religious freedom (which also includes the freedom to keep no religion whatsoever).

2 - Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
-I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have the right to meet a woman in a bar and marry her 2 hours later. I then have the right to leave that woman for any or no reason...that sounds very sacred to me. Wouldn't want to defile it with two women who love each other and stay together for their lives. What kind of example would that set???[/sarcasm]

3 - Gay marriage would wreak havoc on businesses who would now have to pay out benefits to gay employees' gay partners.
This is the closest I've heard to a real coherent argument, but it still doesn't make any sense. By the logic in this one, no company would ever hire a married person. Either that or this economy was caused by businesses employing married people.

4 - If we let gays marry, then people will want to marry their pets, blow-up dolls, children, favourite lake, tasty hamburger, coffee maker, whatever.
-Seriously? Okay, first of all, there are lots of people who want to (and do) marry some of these things, but that's not the real point. 'Slippery slope' logic does have its place, but often is used ridiculously and this is no different. What is stated above is no different than saying, "Throwing snowballs is a form of hitting, Johnny. Therefor, if you throw snowballs now, you'll beat your wife when you're older." (Yes, I had a teacher tell me that once. He was also against gay marriage and legalization of any drug based solely on the slippery slope theory).

5 - If we allow gay marriage, society will begin teaching our kids to be gay.
-...

*ahem*

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

That is all.

In short, I'm all for gay marriage for one very simple reason. Many people are so against it you'd think they'd lay their lives down to stop gay marriage. Yet not one of these people can make an argument that really makes sense to me in this society (yes, the biblical thing makes sense to me, but as I said before, freedom of (non)religion. That is why, while it doesn't effect me at all, I'm in favour of it.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 01:27 PM
Not saying all or any of this has been said here, but here's some arguments I've heard against gay marriage, followed by my answers:

1 - Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.
-I understand you feel that way, unfortunately we have religious freedom, so many others may not feel that way and to legislate something based on one or even many religions goes against that religious freedom (which also includes the freedom to keep no religion whatsoever).

2 - Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.
-I've said it before and I'll say it again. I have the right to meet a woman in a bar and marry her 2 hours later. I then have the right to leave that woman for any or no reason...that sounds very sacred to me. Wouldn't want to defile it with two women who love each other and stay together for their lives. What kind of example would that set???[/sarcasm]

3 - Gay marriage would wreak havoc on businesses who would now have to pay out benefits to gay employees' gay partners.
This is the closest I've heard to a real coherent argument, but it still doesn't make any sense. By the logic in this one, no company would ever hire a married person. Either that or this economy was caused by businesses employing married people.

4 - If we let gays marry, then people will want to marry their pets, blow-up dolls, children, favourite lake, tasty hamburger, coffee maker, whatever.
-Seriously? Okay, first of all, there are lots of people who want to (and do) marry some of these things, but that's not the real point. 'Slippery slope' logic does have its place, but often is used ridiculously and this is no different. What is stated above is no different than saying, "Throwing snowballs is a form of hitting, Johnny. Therefor, if you throw snowballs now, you'll beat your wife when you're older." (Yes, I had a teacher tell me that once. He was also against gay marriage and legalization of any drug based solely on the slippery slope theory).

5 - If we allow gay marriage, society will begin teaching our kids to be gay.
-...

*ahem*

BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

That is all.

In short, I'm all for gay marriage for one very simple reason. Many people are so against it you'd think they'd lay their lives down to stop gay marriage. Yet not one of these people can make an argument that really makes sense to me in this society (yes, the biblical thing makes sense to me, but as I said before, freedom of (non)religion. That is why, while it doesn't effect me at all, I'm in favour of it.

Can get some CHURCH!! :love0030:

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 01:57 PM
What benefits are denied gays who are joined in state-sanctioned civil unions but are unmarried?
What harm does calling it a "marriage" do?

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 02:40 PM
What harm does calling it a "marriage" do?


I really don't care what you call it just call it. It it is considered a legal civil union as far as the state is concerned between a man and woman it should be called such between a legally civil unioned gay couple. Likewise if it is called a marriage between a legally wed male and female couple it should be called a marriage between a legally wed gay couple. Like some of the other members said as well as the supreme court ruling in Brown vs the Board of Education seprate but equal is fundamentally unequally and therefore illegal.

duane1969
02-21-2012, 03:03 PM
What harm does calling it a "marriage" do?

The "harm" that I see is the term marriage defines something conducted in a church by a minister. The earliest usage of the term "marriage" is found in religious texts. By insisiting that it be used in defining homosexual unions it is essentially demanding that the concept of what the term marriage means be changed.

If you want people to accept gay unions, fine. If you expect people to accept your definition of what the term "marriage" means then you are overstepping your boundaries. Demanding that someone accept a different definition of a term to fit the needs of others is an infringement on their intellectual rights.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 03:10 PM
The "harm" that I see is the term marriage defines something conducted in a church by a minister. The earliest usage of the term "marriage" is found in religious texts. By insisiting that it be used in defining homosexual unions it is essentially demanding that the concept of what the term marriage means be changed.

If you want people to accept gay unions, fine. If you expect people to accept your definition of what the term "marriage" means then you are overstepping your boundaries. Demanding that someone accept a different definition of a term to fit the needs of others is an infringement on their intellectual rights.


I'm sorry but I never knew that anyone had a copyright on the word "marriage". Are churches going to start suing for copyright infringment? :smash:

duwal
02-21-2012, 03:25 PM
i may get hated on, but here we go,

first "against" may be too hard of a word, but here is my reason why i think they don't "need" to be married;

the issue i have is a gay couple cannot produce children and this is the main reason for marriages, tax breaks for marriages and such. sure they can adopt and MAYBE this would be an exception to MY rules, but maybe not.

without children there is no future of anything, and without children you don't know what a relationship is about (ok maybe took it a bit far there). there are way more challenges in a relationship that involves children than without. and will truly make or break you.

why does anyone "need" to be married if you aren't planning on having kids? i sure wouldn't have!!!!

keep in mind i have gay friends, in fact was with 2 female gay couples last night, good people, but still against them being married.


silly me, I thought people got married because they loved that person and wanted to spend their life with that one person. Wasn't under the understanding that you're supposed to get married mostly to make babies. Going by your understanding than it also comes to reason you believe that a straight couple who do not have the ability or means to have children shouldn't get married. Or straight couples that love each other but have no plans to have children or grow into a family shouldn't be married as well

bud7562
02-21-2012, 05:06 PM
i may get hated on, but here we go,

first "against" may be too hard of a word, but here is my reason why i think they don't "need" to be married;

the issue i have is a gay couple cannot produce children and this is the main reason for marriages, tax breaks for marriages and such. sure they can adopt and MAYBE this would be an exception to MY rules, but maybe not.

without children there is no future of anything, and without children you don't know what a relationship is about (ok maybe took it a bit far there). there are way more challenges in a relationship that involves children than without. and will truly make or break you.

why does anyone "need" to be married if you aren't planning on having kids? i sure wouldn't have!!!!

keep in mind i have gay friends, in fact was with 2 female gay couples last night, good people, but still against them being married. the kids will not have a father, who will they go to than.thats why lots of kida get in troble no father to help them in the way. it should a man and a woman to get marrie not the same sex. in the bible god made a man and woman not two of the same????

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 05:10 PM
the kids will not have a father, who will they go to than.thats why lots of kida get in troble no father to help them in the way. it should a man and a woman to get marrie not the same sex. in the bible god made a man and woman not two of the same????


Again not everyone who gets married has or is interested in having kids. Also a lot of people go by the bible but a lot of people do not. We cannot force the bible on non believers just like we cannot force the koran or the book of morman on them either.

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 05:23 PM
And as for sexual orientation and race being "so far apart they don't compare," how so? Are you claiming that sexual orientation is a choice?

Yes it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
those who say it is not, well prove otherwise, you can't!!!!!

i am sure i am one of the only straight married people on here that has regular, near daily, contact with, conversation with, and hangs out with gays.

My wife's best friend is a lesbian, was married before that and her partner was married. she has a choice, but the situation she was in made her partner the same sex.

this does not make her a freak, just made a different choice than others, no problem with that, but you made the choice, deal with it.

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 05:27 PM
silly me, I thought people got married because they loved that person and wanted to spend their life with that one person. Wasn't under the understanding that you're supposed to get married mostly to make babies. Going by your understanding than it also comes to reason you believe that a straight couple who do not have the ability or means to have children shouldn't get married. Or straight couples that love each other but have no plans to have children or grow into a family shouldn't be married as well

don't know if you are silly or not.

and it is not my understanding, it is my opinion, whether you agree or not is your opinion. my opinion is right for me, but not right for everyone else, nor should it be.

and why get married if you are not planning a family? is it because you need a legal contract to keep you on the straight and narrow, if it is just about love, then love them.

mrveggieman
02-21-2012, 05:31 PM
Yes it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
those who say it is not, well prove otherwise, you can't!!!!!

i am sure i am one of the only straight married people on here that has regular, near daily, contact with, conversation with, and hangs out with gays.

My wife's best friend is a lesbian, was married before that and her partner was married. she has a choice, but the situation she was in made her partner the same sex.

this does not make her a freak, just made a different choice than others, no problem with that, but you made the choice, deal with it.

None of us can prove that being gay is not a choice just like none of us can prove that it is. I also used to hang with lesbian and bisexual girls so I know how the gay/bi mind works as well. Also do you really think with all the hell that gays have to go through would anyone in their right mind chose to be gay?

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 05:46 PM
a lot of people make choices they have to live with, whether you get your face pierced, or a KKK tattoo on your head, they have to go through hell for their beliefs. (and i am against both of those as well)

theonedru
02-21-2012, 05:48 PM
Yes it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
those who say it is not, well prove otherwise, you can't!!!!!

i am sure i am one of the only straight married people on here that has regular, near daily, contact with, conversation with, and hangs out with gays.

My wife's best friend is a lesbian, was married before that and her partner was married. she has a choice, but the situation she was in made her partner the same sex.

this does not make her a freak, just made a different choice than others, no problem with that, but you made the choice, deal with it.

And where is your proof it is a choice for everyone?

theonedru
02-21-2012, 05:49 PM
a lot of people make choices they have to live with, whether you get your face pierced, or a KKK tattoo on your head, they have to go through hell for their beliefs. (and i am against both of those as well)

So your comparing being gay to getting a tattoo or a piercing? They are not even in the same league

theonedru
02-21-2012, 05:51 PM
None of us can prove that being gay is not a choice just like none of us can prove that it is. I also used to hang with lesbian and bisexual girls so I know how the gay/bi mind works as well. Also do you really think with all the hell that gays have to go through would anyone in their right mind chose to be gay?

Just because you hang with them doesn't man you know how their mind works. I have dozens of gay friends and I have no clue how they or my straight friends minds work

wogman56
02-21-2012, 05:57 PM
What about the good old quote, "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?"

duwal
02-21-2012, 06:22 PM
don't know if you are silly or not.

and it is not my understanding, it is my opinion, whether you agree or not is your opinion. my opinion is right for me, but not right for everyone else, nor should it be.

and why get married if you are not planning a family? is it because you need a legal contract to keep you on the straight and narrow, if it is just about love, then love them.


so in your opinion are you saying that a man shouldn't feel like he should want to marry a woman if she doesn't have the ability to have children?

Marriage has nothing to do directly with children or getting a family together. Nowhere in their vows or in the preachers words does it say that they are or should be doing this to make babies. Marriage is a joining of two people who want to spend their life with one another

shrewsbury
02-21-2012, 06:25 PM
that is your opinion, and believe it or not it is respected by me


So your comparing being gay to getting a tattoo or a piercing? They are not even in the same league

why not it has been compared to race?

duane1969
02-21-2012, 06:37 PM
I'm sorry but I never knew that anyone had a copyright on the word "marriage". Are churches going to start suing for copyright infringment? :smash:

I never said that, but thanks for trying to twist my statement into something it wasn't. Simple fact, the people who are most adamantly fighting gay marriage are the ones who define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of their god. Demanding that they redefine their idea of what marriage is will result in nothing. You can not force people to accept something that they fundamentally do not believe in, no matter what laws or legislation you pass.

So what those who are fighting this fight need to decide is what is more important. Getting governments and businesses to accept gay legal unions as those equal to male/female marriages in terms of benefits and rights or is it more important to force people to accept a term to mean something other than what they have thought of it as their entire lives? That decision will define whether or not this is a winnable fight.

*censored*
02-21-2012, 07:55 PM
You can't prove a negative, so there's no way of proving it's not a choice.

Now prove to me that it IS a choice since that's a claim you CAN try to prove.

bud7562
02-21-2012, 08:42 PM
I never said that, but thanks for trying to twist my statement into something it wasn't. Simple fact, the people who are most adamantly fighting gay marriage are the ones who define "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of their god. Demanding that they redefine their idea of what marriage is will result in nothing. You can not force people to accept something that they fundamentally do not believe in, no matter what laws or legislation you pass.

So what those who are fighting this fight need to decide is what is more important. Getting governments and businesses to accept gay legal unions as those equal to male/female marriages in terms of benefits and rights or is it more important to force people to accept a term to mean something other than what they have thought of it as their entire lives? That decision will define whether or not this is a winnable fight. show me what religion has the same sex marriage, does not matter what religion you are all belived in man and woman not the same sex??

*censored*
02-21-2012, 11:03 PM
show me what religion has the same sex marriage, does not matter what religion you are all belived in man and woman not the same sex??

Atheism. We don't put limits on who can love whom. Ditto on many pagans and wiccans.

Your move.

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 11:10 PM
The "harm" that I see is the term marriage defines something conducted in a church by a minister.
Well, I'm married. It was performed by a Justice of the Peace in a Community Hall.
So why can I be legally "married" when the ceremony was not performed in a church or by a minister or priest?

Wickabee
02-21-2012, 11:11 PM
Atheism. We don't put limits on who can love whom. Ditto on many pagans and wiccans.

Your move.
Don't forget about those who do believe in God but think the very idea of religion actually goes against God's word.

duane1969
02-21-2012, 11:16 PM
Well, I'm married. It was performed by a Justice of the Peace in a Community Hall.
So why can I be legally "married" when the ceremony was not performed in a church or by a minister or priest?

You are legally married. What I was speaking about was the general public opinion of what the word "marriage" means. If by wanting gay marriage to be legal the goal is to change public perception of what a marriage is then I think it is a misguided goal.

Let's be honest. Even if gay marriage is entirely legal there will be 1000 male/female marriages for every one gay marriage and when a person says "I am married" the general idea will still be that they married a person of the opposite sex.

Legalizing gay marriage will not change people's perception of what the word marriage means to them.

mrveggieman
02-22-2012, 11:03 AM
show me what religion has the same sex marriage, does not matter what religion you are all belived in man and woman not the same sex??


This is a discussion about civil rights not religion. What does religion have to do with it? Are you suggesting that religion and civil rights cannot co-exist?

ensbergcollector
02-22-2012, 11:04 AM
Atheism. We don't put limits on who can love whom. Ditto on many pagans and wiccans.

Your move.

we are reminded on here quite often that atheism is not a religion.

Wickabee
02-22-2012, 12:06 PM
You are legally married. What I was speaking about was the general public opinion of what the word "marriage" means. If by wanting gay marriage to be legal the goal is to change public perception of what a marriage is then I think it is a misguided goal.

Let's be honest. Even if gay marriage is entirely legal there will be 1000 male/female marriages for every one gay marriage and when a person says "I am married" the general idea will still be that they married a person of the opposite sex.

Legalizing gay marriage will not change people's perception of what the word marriage means to them.
I'm not worried about what marriage means to the average person. I'm worried about what marriage means under law. I see no reason to cut gays out of 'marriage' unless everyone who isn't married by a priest or minister is forced into 'civil union'.

I'll put it this way. Marriage is a sacred institution because of its place in bible teachings, etc, etc. Monogamous marriage is apparently important to God. My getting married had absolutely nothing to do with any of that and everything to do with how I feel about my wife. I am right now married.

but

What if everything in my life were exactly the same except my wife was actually a man. Same ceremony, same guests, same JP. Same everything but it's somehow not a wedding now.

At the same time I can go to Vegas, find a cheap stripper and marry her all within less than a day and that is a legal marriage.

In short, there's two things that don't make sense to me here:
1 - Why can a man and a woman have a quicky wedding or a sham marriage and still have the right to be called 'married' while two men or two women who love each other cannot?

2 - Why are so many people so hung up on this word 'marriage'? What is going to happen if the word includes gay relationships?

*censored*
02-22-2012, 03:34 PM
we are reminded on here quite often that atheism is not a religion.

According to whom?

http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

"Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions."

Atheism as a whole is not a religion, but there are various religions that are (or can be) atheist. Secular humanism, Buddhism, and Unitarian Universalism to name a few. It's like how not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

mrveggieman
02-22-2012, 04:50 PM
Some atheists do take atheism as a religion. They actually have meetings once a week similiar to going to a church or a mosque. Some do not. It depends on the particular atheist.

allonblack
02-22-2012, 10:21 PM
I came into this thread expecting a train wreck but was happily surprised to find (some) logic involved. Why would anyone care who gets married? The only "real" purpose of marriage is to enter into a legally binding agreement. Once money and assets become involved (both very tangible and quantifiable things), the beliefs that marriage has anything to do with unquantifiable concepts of love, sexual preference, or any "feelings" really, don't mean anything.

theonedru
02-23-2012, 03:29 AM
homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. And we are the only species to exhibit homophobic tenancies. Goes to we are far from the dominate species on this planet.

duane1969
02-23-2012, 11:32 AM
homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. And we are the only species to exhibit homophobic tenancies. Goes to we are far from the dominate species on this planet.

So we are an inferior species because as a species we do not openly accept homosexuality?

I would counter that our ability to reason that the primary purpose for sex is procreation and in that regard, sex with someone of the opposite sex is pointless, that we are more logical thinkers and thus, more dominant.

Using your logic, only a few dozen of the thousands of species of animals are mates for life, thus marriage in general makes us inferior to animals. So gays arguing for the right to marry is in essence them arguing for the right to be inferior to animals.

duane1969
02-23-2012, 11:40 AM
I'm not worried about what marriage means to the average person. I'm worried about what marriage means under law. I see no reason to cut gays out of 'marriage' unless everyone who isn't married by a priest or minister is forced into 'civil union'.

I'll put it this way. Marriage is a sacred institution because of its place in bible teachings, etc, etc. Monogamous marriage is apparently important to God. My getting married had absolutely nothing to do with any of that and everything to do with how I feel about my wife. I am right now married.

but

What if everything in my life were exactly the same except my wife was actually a man. Same ceremony, same guests, same JP. Same everything but it's somehow not a wedding now.

At the same time I can go to Vegas, find a cheap stripper and marry her all within less than a day and that is a legal marriage.

In short, there's two things that don't make sense to me here:
1 - Why can a man and a woman have a quicky wedding or a sham marriage and still have the right to be called 'married' while two men or two women who love each other cannot?

2 - Why are so many people so hung up on this word 'marriage'? What is going to happen if the word includes gay relationships?

My point was simple. If you fight for gay marriage to achieve legal rights such as pensions, retirement, health car, etc. then you will find people to be more accepting. If your goal is to force others to redefine what marriage means to them then you will meet great resistance.

Trying to force or demand that people accept your definition of the word marriage seems kind of silly to me. We do not all have to be sheep accepting the ideas of others because they feel that they or their ideas/opinions are in some way superior to others. If you want to think of "married" to mean a man/man or woman/woman relationship then that is your choice. Just don't try to force others to redefine what it means to them.

Wickabee
02-23-2012, 12:47 PM
I get what you're saying. My point is, don't look now, but the definition was changed a long, long time ago.