Homosexual Marriage

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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

Not like I care, but how is marriage between two gay people wrong? Of course, being gay, I'm biased on this issue, but still, there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to marry.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to marry.

You are allowed to marry. Go find someone to marry you and all will be well.

And yes, I'm going to keep doing this until we start making the distinction; we can't have a debate where the most important terms are poorly defined and interpreted differently by different people.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Haha, I was just adding a world prospective on the whole thing.

[MRTL_mrclean17]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So far the best point of this whole argument has been brought up by GuidoHunter:
"People shouldn't need government recognition to love one another." (Didn't feel like finding the actual quote)
There are very few actual benefits to being legally married, I believe one of the benefits is a meager tax deduction. Though however, not being married, I don't have as wide of a perspective on this as possible, inorder to bring some freshness to this topic, I think we should find someone who is married, and ask them if homosexuals are missing anything.

[jamuko]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Guido, what's the point of picking that out? I don't think anyone interprets "gays can't marry" to mean they can't marry heterosexually. I see what you mean about defined terms, but I think that particular one can be safely assumed by everyone.

If you're bringing it up because it means they have the same rights as everyone else, I don't think that's fair. That'd be saying "you have the right to do things our way or not at all," which is useless if you don't happen to like "our" way.


Edit: but yeah, the best solution to me was brought up earlier: removing all legal benefits to any religious ceremonies, and making a separate legal benefit for any two consenting individuals, technically "married" or otherwise bound.

[Wlfwnd91]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

So as Devonin is saying, we need to make a distinction between religious marriage, and legal marriage run by the government. Cause, you CAN get married under a church without the papers that change your status. So if you're looking to be united then it's very simple to do. I guess I'm starting to feel that any gay who's whining about gay marriage now just wants the benefits and shouldn't get married anyway.

[jamuko]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, of course they want the benefits XD wouldn't you? That doesn't mean that's all they want. It's just that homosexual pairs should get the same benefits as heterosexual ones, since the only distinction between the two seems to be religion, which is something that should be kept out of the law to begin with.

This thread has made me realize how simple it seems to just remove the religious aspect from the benefit laws. Honestly now I don't know why it hasn't been that way in the first place.

I'm not well-versed in legal matters so I can't really argue about the law vs. amendment side of things, but this is my take on it. It's hard for me to see why it's even an issue anymore. What do people have against the idea of giving benefits to couples who aren't religiously married?

[lord_carbo]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I care that they might try and rape me.

Assuming the role of your faulty logic, if you legalize gay marriage, wouldn't incentives for gay people to rape straight people be nothing?

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

That's what happens when you walk into debate unprepared. Quick question: were you grieved because you realized that your beliefs on homosexuality are stupid?

Not like I care, but how is marriage between two gay people wrong? Of course, being gay, I'm biased on this issue, but still, there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to marry.

And being straight, he's biased on the issue, no? And being straight, I'm (supposed to be) biased, right?

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

After seeing that map of the world in relation to same-sex marriage legality, I feel even better about the place I live in. I think I truly live in the best place on earth. All the benefits of being close to the US, without all the hostility, closed-mindedness, and pervasive conservativeness.

Anyway, I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore. Yes, I did read all the posts. No, I don't get where this is headed. Lamoc keeps taking it off track with "This is so sad" posts, Guido keeps trying to get technical, and everyone else seems kind of confused, and one guy thinks that "fags" are gay to get attention. I would like him to really think about what he said: would YOU do something that causes everyone to hate you, tell you you're going to burn in hell, and significantly increases your chance of committing suicide or being the victim of violent attack? Would YOU do that for attention? Would you pass up the love of women (assuming you are straight) for the rest of your life, when you really do want intimate relationships with them, just to get some goddamned attention? Don't you think there are better ways to do that than completely turning your life upside-down and denying yourself normalcy in our society, nevermind that if they are doing it for attention, they actually have straight desires, right? So they actually want women? Would YOU date men and ignore the women that you desire just to prove a point?

Okay, enough of that. I wish I could contribute something else, but this thread is going nowhere fast, and I all I have right now is criticism.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, I pointed out a page ago, and I suspect if nobody else, that GuidoHunter will agree with me, that we've basically exhausted this topic until there's a change in the legality of gay marriage in one of our nations of origin that we'd like to further discuss.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Agreed, this thread is about the legal aspect of homosexual marriage and that has been throughly discussed. It is almost unanimous that they should be allowed because not allowing it would violate our freedoms as americans. If you have a strong opinion and want something done then talk to your congressman cause telling everyone how mad you are here is not going to get it done any faster.

If you are not familiar with the "Snicker's controversy" thread then you do not know how close this one is to becoming another rant on both sides that i regretibly took part in. As for lord_carbo's remark towards me i will only say that i was grieved because trying to vocalize my OPINION i had constant bombardment of the "ignorant" label thrown upon me because the gay people in these forums decided that i was a good person to throw all their anger at. This thread can be found a couple pages back in the critical thinking section for those interested but dont post in it cause there is nothing that needs to be added.

Back on subject, like it has already been said, even if gay marriages are illegal then you can enjoy being married through other means.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

It is almost unanimous that they should be allowed because not allowing it would violate our freedoms as americans.

No, not at all.

I don't recall ever being granted the "freedom" to have the government recognize my religious union (or provide a secular union).

We have the freedom to get married and that will never change.

We certainly are not guaranteed a "freedom" to have the government recognize (or provide) all marriages because the government is not obligated by the constitution to do so. It gets to pick and choose, which is why heterosexual marriages are given full faith and credit while gay marriages are not.

Nowhere are we guaranteed recognition of marriage, so not recognizing them all is not violating any freedom of ours.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Near as I can figure, the driving force behind the anti-gay marriage movement is one of lexicon.

If the term "civil union" were used instead of "marriage" for the joining of two people of the same gender, I am pretty sure the religious would cease to care, even if/when it came with all the same legal ramifications as marriage. As long as the border into theology is uncrossed, the theists have nothing to object to.

[Kamunt]

Re: * First FFR debate topic lol

I apologize for coming in late here. If I've missed a point of some kind or am just being repetitive, let me know so I can discuss something different or whatever. The subject of same-sex marriage is just a really touchy subject for me, one that I feel strongly about, even though I have no personal connection to it.

If the term "civil union" were used instead of "marriage" for the joining of two people of the same gender, I am pretty sure the religious would cease to care, even if/when it came with all the same legal ramifications as marriage. As long as the border into theology is uncrossed, the theists have nothing to object to.

By "theists", I'm assuming you mean people who are strongly affiliated with religion, i.e Christianity? Just clarifying before I make incorrect assumptions.
See, what you said should make sense. As long as you aren't talking about same-sex couples getting married in the religious sense, then religious conservatives [proper term usage?] shouldn't have anything to be upset about. But they're upset anyway, right? The term "civil union" is used far more commonly when referring to same-sex couples than "marriage" is, as a civil union is allow to be formed in--what, 5 states, I believe?--as opposed to same-sex marriage, which is actually called "marriage" but only so in Massachusetts. So why do the religious conservatives have an issue with this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've researched, the most common reason that people don't support same-sex marriage and/or civil unions is that they either feel that their beliefs (read: their religion) are being threatened by the concept of two people of the same sex engaging in a government-recognized ceremony, or they...well, they could just plain not like non-heterosexuals. And one of the beliefs America was founded on is that no one should have to feel threatened by anyone else, or something like, excuse me if I butchered that line. While I am a supported of at least civil unions, it's understandable that so many people feel threatened by this new minority wanting their own share of civil rights.

As long as I'm thinking of civil rights, though, when it really comes down to it, this is no different from the Civil Rights Movements of the latter half of the 20th century. Only 50-60 years ago, was it not true that probably a good 5 million Americans, and that's being nice, still thought it "wasn't right" or it was "immoral" for a Black man to marry a White woman or vice versa? Or how women weren't allowed to be lawyers, etc.? I hate being cynical (actually, that's a lie), but most of this was all just because White people were being discriminatory, racist and narrow-minded.

In the end, "Life's tough, get a helmet," just forget about the people you don't like. It's not like if you allow homosexuals the right to engage in same-sex civil unions that there'll be less people for you to marry or anything, lol. And, the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to the pursuit of happiness, and this pursuit of happiness includes for a good 99.9% of us the right to be able to love and marry those we love and want to marry. For those of us that use religion merely as a facade to hide the fact that you're all just homophobic, cut it out. And stop giving the people who are truly religious and believe in tolerance & God's and Jesus' acceptance of everyone and their true message(s) such a terrible name.

[ontherocks1320]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

let them marry!!!