Homosexual Marriage

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

...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]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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.

[psychopete]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Well, of course it isn't. Never saying that is was, I'd just like to be able to marry the one I love. Divorce will still happen, it's natural. There's no cure for everything.

I'm just saying that people need to stop treating gays like another species and treat us like people. We're still human beings, we're not toasters (random inanimate object that isn't human, shut up).

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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.

I wasnt saying that someone said that it would be a good reason BECAUSE it would fix problems of abuse. Although, you cant say that while congress is on the topic of marriage and a benefit reconstruction that they wouldnt even just THINK about making a few changes in traditional marriage agreements. In this way i could see that for some people it would play out as being a reason to come up with a solution for those problems AS WELL AS a solution for getting rid of exclusion.

Also, i wouldnt underestimate the church. If they tell all their members that Homosexuality should be shunned then i am sure that with its millions of members it would have some sway towards the advancement of homosexuals as a whole. That is not to say that it would overturn the government or even rebel for that matter, im just sure it would create some sort of extra tension on the issue that could produce a few issues of violence. Knowing that the church really cant do anything to stop congress from enforcing the peoples freedom rights this country stands on, the only type of damage they could do is with the individuals themselves who could use it as some sort of discrimination.

[ckj846]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

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.

This is exactly the controversy over the topic. Isn't the government supposed to separate church and state? If a religious institution is going to sway opinions and views on a bill, that is already violating this philosophy.

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.

A rise in the abuse of marriage benefits? As chaz said, this is implying that all marriages should be deemed illegal. The rise in divorce rates are due to people marrying out of love instead of status, like it was in the past. I'm not saying that we shouldn't marry for love, I"m saying that the majority of the younger generation rushes to marriage because "OH I LOVE THIS WOMAN/MAN" and it really isn't a sign of compatibility.

My view on gay marriage should be obvious. I am a homosexual, and as such, I will have a huge personal bias on the subject. I am also Buddhist, which gives me another bias as well. I just can't see how gay marriage is even a huge issue because it is so insignificant compared to many other problems in the country. By restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, it just creates a second-class group and I just feel it is a bit... condemning. Not giving someone the right to a union of two people is a bit unfair. Sure, in the Bible it says that marriage is between man and woman and the purpose is to procreate. What about those couples who do not choose to have children? Also, it isn't like gay couples don't raise children, many adopt children of their own to raise.

I guess it is just hard for me to be empathetic and view this problem from the other side because of all the personal bias I have. My thoughts are really jumbled at the moment because it's Spring Break and I haven't really done anything intellectually stimulating in a while. So excuse my random jumps in logic heh.

O_o

[talisman]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

so this business about "provoking the church" is a bit off. The "church" as it were (or at least some denominations) are already rather "provoked". They're the ones leading the push to make it explicitly illegal, after all. So I don't see how legalization would arouse them anymore than they are, nor do I see it turning every evangelical into a spear-wielding warrior descending upon their secular neighbors.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

Haha, i like how everyone is taking me so very literally.
I really dont think that the church would do anything so rebellious but i do believe that if they teach that it should be shunned then many of the hardcore church-goers will take it to heart and the others will keep it in the backs of their minds at the least. Even if its not a huge step or act of discrimination, there will still be little thoughts that will make some people treat them differently because of what they have been told, kind of like how some people still discriminate African-Americans even if not with big single acts.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

talisman: I still think that it's a possibility. I'd really like to think that it's a very small possibility, but recent history has shown that I can't give crazy people with lawyers that little credit. The slippery slope problem is by no means the main reason why I support a constitutional amendment against it, but it's significant enough that I cannot disregard it.

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.

The thing is that changing the legal definition of marriage would require a constitutional amendment (that's the only surefire way to stop the slippery slope). Once it gets to that point, I'm very willing to submit to the will of the people and accept your definition if that's the way the states vote. I'd personally be voting the other way, but your suggestion in the form of an amendment (not just a law) is a perfectly fine argument.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I'm just saying that people need to stop treating gays like another species and treat us like people. We're still human beings, we're not toasters (random inanimate object that isn't human, shut up).

Thats the biggest thing I think. Everyone thinks homosexuals is like a disease or something. Go to google and look up homosexual, you will find 99% of the found topics are forums or something saying homosexuality is a disease and has to be "cured". Thats rediculous. When slavery was around it was all about frowning on african-americans. Now everyones against homosexuals. Of course I don't mean everyone but you get the point. Its time that people wake up and see that homosexuals are just like everyone else. We're not that different. In fact there are lots of famous homosexuals and such. But everyone is afraid of homosexuals for some reason and in doing so they hate them. Thus the way of americans. If you don't know what it is or don't understand it, destroy it.

Example: Van Diesle. I forget how to spell his name. He is a famous actor. He became very popular, one of the best. He came "out of the closet" a while back. Since then his popularity dropped 78%. I was reading this in an article in a magazine not too long ago.

Come on now people. Personaly I hate fish. I don't understand why people like it. So should I hate the people that eat it? No, thats thier desision, not mine.

I want to suggest this to EVERYONE. Read almost any book by a man named Brent Hartinger.

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

I simply can't comprehend any reasons not for gays to be allowed to be married.

To me, the main reason that gay marriage NEEDS to be legal is because it straightens out (no pun intended) all of the other little kinks in the system and makes life easier for everyone. For example!!! It is very, very, very difficult to get your sex changed legally, even if your sex didn't "change". For example, the doctors said you're male and guess what! They were wrong! You're female! You've always acted female and you've always felt female but the doctors said you were male. Now, you can easily go about your life as a female, not bothering with any paperwork, after all, it rarely matters - might confuse some people when legally you're a man but socially and physically you're a woman but who cares? Let them. It doesn't do anything to you.

However, if this woman is STRAIGHT, but her birth certificate/documents say she is male, and she tries to get married to a STRAIGHT man, oops! This falls under gay marriage. To get legally married, she'd have to be a lesbian.

Hope this makes enough sense. I'm a tad tired, but I really wanted to get my point across here.

It's these poor souls, who are trapped under the system, and no one thinks about them. And so what if they're a minority. You're still STEALING THEIR RIGHTS right out from under their noses, and there's not a thin they can do about it - until gay marriage is legal. Luckily for me, it's legal in Canada. I feel satisfied knowing that if I fell deeply in love with and wanted to spend the rest of my life with a woman, nobody could hold me back from that legally.

[Lamoc]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

It does a tad bit. A little off-topic.

[Chrissi]

Re: Homosexual Marriage

No, the thread's about gay marriage. In my eyes, these are the same issue - directly related. You can't have one without the other. By preventing gays from getting married, people are inadvertently preventing these people from getting married as well. To focus only on how it affects gays, to me, is rather short sighted. We need this, not just for gays, but for people who are marked down as the wrong gender, or are gender ambiguous, or somehow don't fit into the standard "You're a man(woman) and legally defined as male(female)" category. As much as people would like to separate them, they are the same issue.