Homosexual Marriage

[Wlfwnd91]

Alright, time for me to make my statement and leave, cause just like slipstrike, I don't want to turn this into another "Snickers controversy" thread which spun around in circles, which this will more than likely invariably do.

Now, before I get started I would like to say that I am bi, and also follow Satanic philosophy to a great extent, however I shall be as unbiased as I possibly can be in the rest of this little rant that I'm going to go on.

First of all, I don't believe that 1 in 4 of every students is gay/bi in any way, and I think that if it was a legitamit study it should be disregarded immediately, because first of all, a lot of high schoolers are either just confused, or trying to piss their parents off, I can't count how many guys have hit on me, and I'll get a crush on them and they immediately "Don't swing that way". I do believe there are more gays than we know about, however to quote a student study is kind of rediculous.

Marriage IS a religious institution and should NOT be controlled by the government in any way. And by this I mean that marriage should not have ANY benefits with insurance or taxes, it's simply rediculous. Then you have to take into consideration. What is "The church"? The Christian Church? The last time I checked, The Church of Satan was a certified church by the government, and the Church of Satan supports gay marriage 100%. It should be upto the church which the 2 people (or possibly more?) Chose to be united under.

The Church of Satan does hold marriage cerimonies, and you want to know what? The people being united don't receive any benefits whatsoever. And that's the way it should be. If you're getting married for benefits then you need to look at your relationship. If a sect of Christianity choses to let gays be married, then it shouldn't be condemned.

Now onto the whole homosexuality thing in general. I'm bi, and I hardly see how me kissing another guy affects a straight man or woman's life in any way. If I know a friend of mine is straight, I don't hit on him, plain and simple. I'm not going to go "Raping" some guy just because I'm gay. That's the MOST ignorant thing I've ever heard. And I love it when straight people say "You chose to be gay!" without even knowing what they're talking about. If you're not gay, you can't possibly assume something like that.

To end it off, I'm very happy being bi. And though it will never happen, we should stop judging people based on sex(ual orientation), race, religion, or anything like that. It's all a load of crap, but humans are too imperfect to accept differences.

[.4k]

Personally, I'm against it, but if two gay ppl get married, that's their problem.

[evilcowgod]

I really don't see why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Most (if not all christians) are against it because they say it goes againt the bible. So what? Could you image what the world would be like if we based all of our laws on strictly what the bible said?

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

Alright, time for me to make my statement and leave, cause just like slipstrike, I don't want to turn this into another "Snickers controversy" thread which spun around in circles, which this will more than likely invariably do.

Now, before I get started I would like to say that I am bi, and also follow Satanic philosophy to a great extent, however I shall be as unbiased as I possibly can be in the rest of this little rant that I'm going to go on.

First of all, I don't believe that 1 in 4 of every students is gay/bi in any way, and I think that if it was a legitamit study it should be disregarded immediately, because first of all, a lot of high schoolers are either just confused, or trying to piss their parents off, I can't count how many guys have hit on me, and I'll get a crush on them and they immediately "Don't swing that way". I do believe there are more gays than we know about, however to quote a student study is kind of rediculous.

Marriage IS a religious institution and should NOT be controlled by the government in any way. And by this I mean that marriage should not have ANY benefits with insurance or taxes, it's simply rediculous. Then you have to take into consideration. What is "The church"? The Christian Church? The last time I checked, The Church of Satan was a certified church by the government, and the Church of Satan supports gay marriage 100%. It should be upto the church which the 2 people (or possibly more?) Chose to be united under.

The Church of Satan does hold marriage cerimonies, and you want to know what? The people being united don't receive any benefits whatsoever. And that's the way it should be. If you're getting married for benefits then you need to look at your relationship. If a sect of Christianity choses to let gays be married, then it shouldn't be condemned.

Now onto the whole homosexuality thing in general. I'm bi, and I hardly see how me kissing another guy affects a straight man or woman's life in any way. If I know a friend of mine is straight, I don't hit on him, plain and simple. I'm not going to go "Raping" some guy just because I'm gay. That's the MOST ignorant thing I've ever heard. And I love it when straight people say "You chose to be gay!" without even knowing what they're talking about. If you're not gay, you can't possibly assume something like that.

To end it off, I'm very happy being bi. And though it will never happen, we should stop judging people based on sex(ual orientation), race, religion, or anything like that. It's all a load of crap, but humans are too imperfect to accept differences.

I'm too lazy to read this book right now, I saved this on my word pad for later reading.

[evilcowgod]

Originally Posted by Godnick

I'm too lazy to read this book right now, I saved this on my word pad for later reading.

Posting a longer version of tldr doesn't make your post any more intelligent.

If you don't want to read anything in CT and engage in discussion, I suggest you go back to ChitChat.

Originally Posted by evilcowgod

Posting a longer version of tldr doesn't make your post any more intelligent.

If you don't want to read anything in CT and engage in discussion, I suggest you go back to ChitChat.

True, anways, I forgot.

Oh yes, Posting a longer version will make it way more intellegent actually. and hey Mr. evilcowgod, Define the word Love.

EDIT: Sorry about the double post

[evilcowgod]

Originally Posted by Godnick

Oh yes, Posting a longer version will make it way more intellegent actually. and hey Mr. evilcowgod, Define the word Love.

Reported for spam. Keep mindless banter in ChitChat.

Also, read the rules.

Originally Posted by evilcowgod

Reported for spam. Keep mindless banter in ChitChat.

Also, read the rules.

I meant to say sorry for double posting in there, I read the whole rulez, I know what I did wrong, And stay on topic, You didnt need to tell me that. Keep in mind that this thread is about Homosexual Marriage

[devonin]

Yeah, at this point I think what we really need to do is make a greater effort to distinguish between "The religious sacrament of marriage" and "The legal status of married" when making this or that argument about them, and we'll do wonders to avoid whatever this Snickers Controversy is (I suppose I should check that Legendary Threads section maybe?)

I think it's pretty safe to say that far more people support homosexual rights to the legal status of married than would ever support homosexual rights to the religious sacrament of marriage, and I think that pretty much ends the discussion on the matter until something further happens in the political arena in some of our countries.

And as to Wlfwnd's post about distinguishing between churches, fair enough, generally when talking about religion and politics, especially in the united states, it's christianity that is intended, but bearing in mind that this is primarily a political discussion not a religious one, the state doesn't recognise any religious marriage ceremony as legally binding except insofar as people getting married in a religious service also happen to sign all the necessary legal documents too.

The state does not, and should not care one whit in what manner you carry out a religious ceremony, they just care that you both sign a document with witnesses.

[mmeegghhaann]

To start off: I am not an opinionated person at all. For some reason the whole gay marriage issue really gets to me. Everyone has mentioned above about separation of church and state. Blah Blah. As time goes on the country will take a shift from the liberal back to conservative and back and fourth, so on and so on.

Right now there is a conservative upsurge amongst the old. Our generation can be the ones who can change things. Those who are born in 1990 or earlier will be able to vote in the next presidential election. Why not try and change things. Gay marriage is accepted by good portion of our younger and more tolerant generation.

New ideas have always been opposed by many at first. For example the progression of music. Many parents were afraid when their kids were getting into rock and roll. Now artists like Elvis are considered to be classic. Even feminism took this track. Women were below men for years and as time went on it became more acceptable for a woman to work, be single, have a child out of wedlock and so on.

Eventually this pattern will start with gay marriage until most people don't even give a gay couple a second glance.

These are just my ideas. Not sure how many of them make sense.

[talisman]

so this is way back at guido,

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a constitutional amendment, or a statewide amendment, but merely a law passed that forces the IRS and local/state tax bodies as well as insurers or whatever to only pass benefits based on the number of children being raised by the couple in question. This makes the government marriage license less meaningful, only legally then being a document that can support claims to inheritance or custodial rights or co-sign rights for the doctor's office or whatever.

[Hachi86]

Originally Posted by .4k

Personally, I'm against it, but if two gay ppl get married, that's their problem.

How would it be a 'problem'? Also, homosexual marriage shouldnt be an issue at all. It dosent affect others. If two guys or two girls love each other, let them express it with marriage. I think its all a bunch of BS, from bible thumpers to wrinkly conservatives. They need to get over it.\

BTW, im straight.

[devonin]

And see this is why I just finished pointing out that we need to start making a distinction between the religious sacrament of marriage and the legal status of married, because when you just say 'marriage' it isn't always clear from context which one you mean. I -assume- when you say "let them express it with marriage" you are referring to the legal status?

But the legality of marriage has nothing to do with love, you go to an office, you sign a paper, and your legal status changes. Not very romantic. From experience many gay couples (as well as many straight couples) have -no- intention of even -wanting- a public wedding ceremony, and in the case of both (since it is legal in Canada) they simply intend to sign the documents because it is financially beneficial to be "married" rather than "single" for tax purposes.

They love each other regardless of whether they have a sheet of paper and -definitley- regardless of whether or not they have a ceremony in a church.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by talisman

so this is way back at guido,

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a constitutional amendment, or a statewide amendment, but merely a law passed that forces the IRS and local/state tax bodies as well as insurers or whatever to only pass benefits based on the number of children being raised by the couple in question. This makes the government marriage license less meaningful, only legally then being a document that can support claims to inheritance or custodial rights or co-sign rights for the doctor's office or whatever.

That is, indeed, a thought, but I'm not very educated on what benefits are given currently to a legal marriage, so I can't really consider the implications of that.

Regarding the law vs. amendment thing, my whole basis on the slippery slope is that any law can get overturned with the right lawyer in front of the right judge in the right state. We've already seen laws disallowing AND allowing gay marriages get overturned by state judges; the same could happen for national laws, as far as I'm concerned. For that reason, I think any significant change is going to have to be in the form of an amendment in order to really secure what it says.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Not that amendments can't also get overturned, it's just a lot more difficult to do so (Much to my chagrin as regards the 2nd, and much to my relief as regards the 22nd)

[GuidoHunter]

I'd like to think that, if 3/4 of the states are willing to create a new amendment, it would last until there was a huge swing in the sentiments of the entire population (1/4 or less into 3/4 or more) until it got overturned. I would presume that that would be a very long time.

Also: CANADIAN HAET GUNS! =)

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Hey the statistics on the one bear me out, but gun control is -definitely- something that is its own whole thread, not something that needs tacking on here.

I think if a constitutional amendment passed, it would indeed indicate that the climate of opinion was one vastly in support of homosexual marriage rights, I just really don't think that a 3/4ths majority would be something that would happen.

People opposed to a cause are usually more vocal in their opposition than those who support it are for theirs, especially when it comes time to vote.

-Most- of the people would (I suspect) say more that they didn't oppose it than would say that they did actively support it. And the percentage who really just don't care one way or the other (Which is a vote in support if you ask me) would likely also not bother voting one way or the other.

So if you just assumed a 75/25 split in opinion, it would be more like 15% in rabid support, 25% in rapid opposition and 60% who think that since it doesn't effect them, they could really care less. That would not result in a 75/25 -vote- though, not by a long shot.

[Lamoc]

I think its sad how people can't accept everyone. The question of whats "normal" comes up alot around homosexuals. Alot of times people say i'm not normal or wierd, like what the hell. To me normal is liking the same sex. Its all where you grew up.

Did you if your homosexual they frown apon donating blood? Everytime I donate blood it asks me if i'm gay or lesbian and if i've ever done anything with someone of the same sex. It being the sheet I fill out before donating. I have to write down that i'm hetro and no I haven't, if not they won't accept my blood. This isn't just where i'm at, i've been many other places and the same thing happens.

Homosexuals ALSO weren't allowed in the military for a very long time. Now they're allowed ONLY if they do not express it. If they express thier homosexuality, its a federal offence. I dare you to look that up.


The Blackish states - Same sex marriage permitted
The Dark Blue States - Laws permitting civil unions or domestic partnerships
The Light Blue states - Same sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships prohibited

ONE state allows same sex marriage. 6 States allow domestic partnerships.

Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South african allow it. Beyond that, we get this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...ality_laws.png

This is a messed up world.

[devonin]

So uh...despite the fact that we've already said that our heartstrings are sufficiently pulled, and that we understand your point about how silly the discrimination is...we get a "this is a messed up world" post?

I thought we'd agreed on that, and moved on to the political ramifications of trying to legalise gay marriage in the United States, how such an attempt ought to be phrased, and how it ought to be done...

That said, I'm utterly unsurprised that the northeast is the most liberal portion of the United States, and given your love for appeals to the heartstrings, am surprised you didn't also bring up a map of the places where sodomy is still against the law (of which there are several states, though as of recently -not- texas which will probably surprise a lot of people with long-held assumptions about the deep south.)