Homosexual Marriage

[Lamoc]

I'd like to let it be known that little pisses me off more than the incessant requests for locks (that means you, Chromer and madmatt). If I think it needs to be locked, I'll lock it, mmkay?

That aside, bumping is much more acceptable in CT due to how much slower this forum is and how debates and other critical thinking isn't something that often "dies".

However, a three year bump is a little extreme. The gay marriage issue is still around, but it's certainly changed since then, as have people's opinions, possibly. I think it'd be better just to start fresh rather than have everyone who's new here go back and read all those posts from members who aren't even here to rebut. So, if anyone wants to make a new thread, they can go for it.

Lastly, the only person who contributed to the discussion today was the guy who bumped the thread. I'd rather see that than the half-dozen spam posts that followed. This is a warning to you all; next time will likely be a ban. Stay on topic or don't post at all.

I thought I would put my thoughts into this. I was gone the past couple days and saw how the last time this came up, the topic was.... well destroyed. This is a serious issue. If me reposting, er reviving this topic is against the rules let me know. I couldn't find anything about it.

You can't put a ban on homosexual marriages. Thats wrong. Your restricting the rights of people as well as limiting thier future.

Lets flip this around. How about a ban on hetrosexual marriages? (Hetro meaning "straight") How would that be? To ban 2 people putting everlasting love into each other by documentation. If that makes sense.

People don't have the right to prevent others from doing something. Thats invasion of anothers right to the constitution. Your removing freedoms of a large portion of the U.S.

Homosexual marriages should be allowed. Theres no question on that.

If you guys are having trouble understanding parts of this i'm sorry. I tried the best I could to make this as easy to read as I could. Just finished driving for 14 hours and very tired.

[BumOnStreet]

I dont really care about homosexual marriages because all it means is that there is less competition for the ladies ;D

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

You can't put a ban on homosexual marriages. Thats wrong. Your restricting the rights of people as well as limiting thier future.

Wrong. You're completely missing the issue if this is what you think could happen.

Lets flip this around. How about a ban on hetrosexual marriages? (Hetro meaning "straight") How would that be? To ban 2 people putting everlasting love into each other by documentation.

So people can't have everlasting love without government recognition?

When I get married under the eyes of God I'll be married. Signing papers is a mere formality.

People don't have the right to prevent others from doing something.

Yeah we do. Last I checked we prevented others from having slaves and stabbing each other.

Thats invasion of anothers right to the constitution.

I'm quoting this to highlight the fact that your poor grammar is severely hindering your ability to make a point. What, praytell, is my "right to the constitution"?

Homosexual marriages should be allowed. Theres no question on that.

Actually, there are a lot of questions about that, some of which I detailed in the OP of the other thread from which the above quote came.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

As an interesting aside, especially since it was mentioned in the previous thread that since the first thread, a lot has changed, a group of homosexual rights activists in the United States, faced with many from the religious right objecting to gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is intended to produce children, have been planning (maybe already have) to introduce legislation to the house stating that any heterosexual couple that does not produce a child within three years should, by the religious right's logic, have their marriage forcibly dissolved.

If nothing else it neatly highlights that many of the "usual" objections to gay marriage are unacceptable to many of their proponants if turned around to reflect on all marriage.

As for myself, I feel that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into an agreement which confers exactly the same rights as any other married couple.

Governments should be made to issue marriage certificates in that case as well, but under no circumstances should any church or religious organisation with its own marriage rites ever be made to confer those against their own beliefs.

Specifically with the governmental end, this would allow for them, if they were thinking clearly, to finally make a -proper- distinction between church and state, make the concept of "Marriage" be a word in the sole purview of the church, and have the governmental side have a seperate name thatmore accurately reflects the differing status between legal marriage and religous marriage.

[Lamoc]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Wrong. You're completely missing the issue if this is what you think could happen.

So people can't have everlasting love without government recognition?

When I get married under the eyes of God I'll be married. Signing papers is a mere formality.

Yeah we do. Last I checked we prevented others from having slaves and stabbing each other.

I'm quoting this to highlight the fact that your poor grammar is severely hindering your ability to make a point. What, praytell, is my "right to the constitution"?

Actually, there are a lot of questions about that, some of which I detailed in the OP of the other thread from which the above quote came.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Most states don't allow gay marriages.

Signing papers is only a formality I agree.

We prevented others from having slaves because thats invading THIER right to the constitution and the rights of freedom.

Sorry for having bad grammer, i'm not as blessed as some of you. I could just type out in my own language if ya want and have you guys try to translate it to english. Its not as easy as it seems.

There is no question if marriages should be allowed or not by homosexuals. You're removing rights of homosexuals of getting married. Why aren't homosexuals allowed to get married? Its thier choice, not yours. Don't like gay marriages? Don't marry one.

[archbishopjabber]

I have found that most people who have an aversion to homosexuals and there rights generally are closet homosexuals themselves leading a crusade against their own secret orientation as a way to justify their existence and repent for a part of themselves that they feel is "wrong."

In a nutshell, if you are strongly against homosexuals, it probably just means you are jealous of their strength and ability to not hide their desires.

[devonin]

In a nutshell, if you are strongly against homosexuals, it probably just means you are jealous of their strength and ability to not hide their desires.

Or have traditional and religious views of right and wrong...could be that too.

[Windscarredfaith]

I'm for gay marriage. Not arguing about it though.

PS - Homosexuals are proof of nature's way of population control. x] Jk.

[phe0nixblade]

Originally Posted by Windscarredfaith

I'm for gay marriage. Not arguing about it though.

PS - Homosexuals are proof of nature's way of population control. x] Jk.

LOL

I'm all against gay marriages. I have a couple of gay friends, I don't like them as much as I did when I thought they were straight though. But I don't like straight up getting to know someone if they were gay when I met them. Being gay isn't something I should care about, but meh, I do care, I care that they might try and rape me. I don't want that. so, yea.

[flawofhumanity]

Fiction actually wrote a pretty good article on this, and I agree with the points he makes in it for the most part. Religious marriages are probably never going to happen just because most religions don't advocate gay marriage in ANY way. However, I think homosexuals should be allowed to be recognized by the government as married, and receive the same benefits of a married couple. In a religious setting, I agree, it probably doesn't make sense to allow gay marriage, but on the level of marriage rights' as provided by the government, I see no plausible reason why it should not be allowed between homosexual couples.

[jamuko]

Originally Posted by phe0nixblade

I have a couple of gay friends, I don't like them as much as I did when I thought they were straight though.

This is the saddest thing I've heard all day.

Originally Posted by phe0nixblade

I care that they might try and rape me. I don't want that. so, yea.

And that's the most ignorant. >__>

Are you serious? Gay people aren't any more likely to rape anyone than a straight person... do you think girls live in constant fear of being raped by any straight man they see? That's the comparison you're making here...

Some part of me thinks you've got to be joking, in which case I guess you got me. But daaang.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

I have found that most people who have an aversion to homosexuals and there rights generally are closet homosexuals themselves leading a crusade against their own secret orientation as a way to justify their existence and repent for a part of themselves that they feel is "wrong."

In a nutshell, if you are strongly against homosexuals, it probably just means you are jealous of their strength and ability to not hide their desires.

I guess i cant really refute that purely on the basis that i have no idea of your experience with homosexuals but i think the general consensus is that it conflicts with religious views.

[MwarriorHiei]

I really don't see the problem with homosexual marriage.

Originally Posted by phe0nixblade

LOL

Being gay isn't something I should care about, but meh, I do care, I care that they might try and rape me. I don't want that. so, yea.

I have tons of homosexual friends but they haven't raped me...o.o

It's like if you were in love with this girl and you guys wanted to get married. But the parents won't let you cuz you aren't asian. Don't you think this would be a serious injustice to you and the girl? It's just what we are doing to the homosexual society. Last time I checked, a homosexual is still a human being and should be allowed the rights granted to human beings by the Constitution, or if not in America, at least should be allowed basic human rights. Homosexuality isn't a disease and shouldn't be persecuted. I thought we learned this after we abolished slavery.

btw im straight so don't go saying i have secret homosexual feelings for you...

[All_That_Chaz]

if you ask me, this is more a problem of separation of church and state than anything. the huge problem is that what is considered the "traditional" marriage (being between a man and a woman) is something that is controlled by private religious entities. If they don't want to marry homosexuals, ideally they shouldn't have to. however, this country is creating second-class citizens by not allowing homosexual marriage. As long as being married makes a difference in public affairs (taxes, healthcare, etc) it probably shouldn't be based on religious tradition. Either the government should stop giving benefits to married couples, or there should be a completely different "ceremony," one that is open to all citizens that want to pursue happiness like that old piece of paper says they can do.

And I'm not saying that the term marriage has no meaning. If two religious homosexuals want to get married in their church, that's something for them to discuss with their pastor, but that's treading on water saying that church's should be able to make their own rules within the religious entity, which may be subject to internal strife. To me, it's just one of those issues where really both sides have a case. Think of it this way: in 1890 the US government signed antitrust legislation. This was the first regulatory attack by the united states on the free-market economy. A bill making gay marriage legal would be the same kind of thing, it would regulate a private entity.

EDIT: Addendum -

Originally Posted by phe0nixblade

I care that they might try and rape me. I don't want that. so, yea.

yes, if we let the gays marry, they will be sodomizing us with all the more alacrity.

[talisman]

guido are you still slippery slope?

personally, I think they ought to rewrite the laws on marriage so that taxbreaks are proportional to the number children the couple is raising (adoptively or naturally or whatever). No children? No tax breaks.

Then I don't see what the objection to letting a wo/man (to borrow a coberstism) marry a wo/man would be in the eyes of the government. If you're afraid of slippery slope, then make the things you're afraid of sliding into illegal at the same time (aka bestiality-inspired marriages, marriages to property, whatever). Just change the definition (legally) to that between two consenting individuals. Hell, make polygamy illegal at the same time if you're really scared of slippery slope. Fine with me.

[slipstrike0159]

Hmmm... I REALLY dont want to get into another "Snickers controversy thread" debate about homosexuality because that caused me way too much grief.

I will simply just say that i dont agree with Homosexuality at all and even if i wasnt religious at all i would like to believe i would think the same. HOWEVER, personal opinion aside, i could see a bill making homosexual marriages legal as being a bad idea. First of all, the churches would go crazy and i could only assume they would become more homophobic and vocally opposed to homosexuality than they are now. Needless to say, its not a good thing to pick a fight with religion seeing as how that has caused many wars in the past so its probably not the best idea to hint that an attack is being made on any one of them.

Also, with a new bill like this being passed i could see a great rise in the abuse of marriage benefits. You can see today that people are getting married and divorced left and right and approving of this would only let those numbers rise. I will even go as far as saying that some people would get married purely for the benefits of divorce, which happens a lot too. Imagine if you will that someone decides they need some money so they head down to a gay bar, pretend to be gay and get into a relationship with someone, then they marry and divorce. I dont think it would be right in this case to grant the first person the assets and benefits that comes from both the marriage and divorce just because he wants to abuse the system.

EDIT: Talisman must have posted while i was writing mine. Lol
So we are pretty much trying to get across the same idea though i went more into the subject.

On a side note - Isnt polygamy already illegal?

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by slipstrike0159

Hmmm... I REALLY dont want to get into another "Snickers controversy thread" debate about homosexuality because that caused me way too much grief.

I will simply just say that i dont agree with Homosexuality at all and even if i wasnt religious at all i would like to believe i would think the same. HOWEVER, personal opinion aside, i could see a bill making homosexual marriages legal as being a bad idea. First of all, the churches would go crazy and i could only assume they would become more homophobic and vocally opposed to homosexuality than they are now. Needless to say, its not a good thing to pick a fight with religion seeing as how that has caused many wars in the past so its probably not the best idea to hint that an attack is being made on any one of them.

Also, with a new bill like this being passed i could see a great rise in the abuse of marriage benefits. You can see today that people are getting married and divorced left and right and approving of this would only let those numbers rise. I will even go as far as saying that some people would get married purely for the benefits of divorce, which happens a lot too. Imagine if you will that someone decides they need some money so they head down to a gay bar, pretend to be gay and get into a relationship with someone, then they marry and divorce. I dont think it would be right in this case to grant the first person the assets and benefits that comes from both the marriage and divorce just because he wants to abuse the system.

EDIT: Talisman must have posted while i was writing mine. Lol
So we are pretty much trying to get across the same idea though i went more into the subject.

On a side note - Isnt polygamy already illegal?

don't allow gays to marry because the church would start another crusade? that seems highly unlikely, either that or your making a threat.

and under your logic of abuse of marriage rights, all marriage should be illegal.

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

don't allow gays to marry because the church would start another crusade? that seems highly unlikely, either that or your making a threat.

and under your logic of abuse of marriage rights, all marriage should be illegal.

Those are some shallow assumptions.

All i was saying is that it is not smart to provoke religion, even if it is very unlikely its still not a good idea. Honestly, can i really threaten the whole world with my church? No, i am pretty sure that the entire church wouldnt start a crusade because one insignificant teenager doesnt approve of homosexuality.

Also, i am merely suggesting that it would INCREASE the likelyhood that someone could abuse marriage rights. If it is a problem now then giving it more room to grow would definitely not help solve it. It would kind of be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

[psychopete]

...I personally see no problems with gay marriage. Of course, speaking on the fact that I'm gay, I would LIKE to tie the knot with someone and still live in the United States.

Of course there'll be more bigotry and there'll still be people trying to abuse marriage benefits. This will never change, but I'd rather not see religious views put into politics, a place where it shouldn't belong.

[All_That_Chaz]

alright, i was just pointing out the absurdity of comparing modern times to the middle ages where the crown was controlled by the church, not to mention conscription to force people into the military to fight this war.

making gay marriage legal is not an attempt to fix the problems of current marriage beyond its problem of exclusivity. i wouldn't ever say something like, "let's make gay marriage legal, because then nobody would ever get divorced again, or at least no gay people would ever get divorced." people just need to sign prenuptial agreements, which doesn't happen so much because of the inherent inferred lack of trust.