gay marriages

[LightPollution07]

marriage isnt about religion. religion is completely seperate. its about being with someone you love forever, same or opposite sex

[devereaux]

Originally Posted by LightPollution07

marriage isnt about religion. religion is completely seperate. its about being with someone you love forever, same or opposite sex

Tell yourself that all you want, but religion will always be a part of marriage. Sure marriage is about being with someone you love and eternal dedication and all that jive, but if marriage didnt include religion, why would about 95% of marriage ceremonies be performed in a church or by someone from a church? For many, its not just declaring their devotion to each other in front of friends and family, but also declaring their love "before God as a witness" so to speak.

[gothictuesday]

I mentioned this above, without convincing anyone, so I'd like to make one more try before I drop the subject, only because we're now arguing about the definition of marriage, and until we resolve that argument, we're not even talking about the same thing when we say "should gays be able to be married?"

Originally Posted by lightpollution07

marriage isnt about religion. religion is completely seperate. its about being with someone you love forever, same or opposite sex

This is "personal commitment". Many unmarried people make a lifetime commitment to each other. It requires neither religious nor legal sanction.

Originally Posted by devereaux

religion will always be a part of marriage. Sure marriage is about being with someone you love and eternal dedication and all that jive, but if marriage didnt include religion, why would about 95% of marriage ceremonies be performed in a church or by someone from a church?

This is "the religious institution of marriage". It doesn't require legal sanction, it merely requires that one find an officient of the religion of one's choice who is willing to perform the ceremony. It doesn't necessarily confer legal benefits, HOWEVER religious officients may be granted authority to perform civil marriages. How they are granted authorization varies from state to state.

Originally Posted by geishagirl

The union doesn't have to be done by a minister of a church. Marriage can be preformed in a courthouse. It's called a civil ceremony.

This refers to "civil marriage", which may be performed either in a courthouse or a religious official who is authorized by the state to perform civil marriages.

These are three different things, and we must not continue to confuse them, or this issue will never be resolved in a way that is consistent with the ideals of a country that considers itself "freedom loving".

[gothictuesday]

Darnit, I misspelled "officiant" (twice, no less), and I wanted to add

Throughout our country's history (and the world's history, of course, but that's outside the scope of this argument), marriage has been used for a lot of terrible purposes (and I recommend Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation by Nancy Cott to anyone who wants an explanation of what those purposes have been) based on people's religious and personal views (which they have every right to hold), but we can only hope that our population will be strong enough to admit when we've been wrong and do what we can to right that wrong, whether it's by, as I would prefer, eliminating civil marriage entirely, or as more traditional but open-minded people would prefer, extending the benefits of civil marriage to all who seek them, regardless of their genders.

[ExistentialDisorder]

Civil Unions and Marriage are not the same thing. I'm not entirely sure of all the differences involved, but the most important issues are that #1, Civil Unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage, and #2, Civil Unions are generally only recognized by the state in which they are created/issued/obtained. So if a gay couple were to have a Civil Union in the state of Massachusetts and live in Massachusetts, then they are fine. But as soon as they leave that state, their Union isn't worth the paper their certificate is printed on, in the eyes of the government of whatever other state they go to. Unlike marriage, where if they were married in Massachusetts, then moved to say New York, or Georgia, their marriage would have to be recognized in those states. At least, that is how I understand the whole thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Regardless though, as far as I can tell, Civil Unions don't really provide much of anything to anybody except the notion that those two people are united.

As for marriage and religion, you don't have to be christian to be married, nor do you have to have your marriage in a christian church. christians didn't invent the idea of marriage. So the concept that marriage is something reserved for heterosexual christians is absurd. The only thing that's really religious about marriage anymore is the ceremony. And there are plenty of gay christian churches all over the united states, so even if religion was a deciding factor, it wouldn't be difficult at all for two gay or lesbian christians to find a church willing to marry them. The technicalities of actual marriage comes down to the licensing, does it not? And who issues the license? the government. So if you think about it, the actual ceremony is just the process of making everything official in the eyes of tradition. And tradition, if anybody really went digging for statistics, is most-likely the reason why the majority of wedding ceremonies take place in churches. My sister was married in a church. She's not christian and neither is her husband. Its just tradition. Makes the pictures look nicer.

I really don't understand the big deal about all of it. My brother, who's the biggest homophobic, racist, redneck son of a bitch i know, claims that the purpose of marriage is for reproducing. Well that's bull shit. There are plenty of unwed mothers out there and oodles of bastard kids. Just as there are tons of married people who can't have kids, or don't want kids. Allowing gay people to marry isn't going to change that. Heteros bitch and moan about gays wanting special treatment. I don't see where allowing them to marry each other is giving them special treatment. If anything, preventing gay couples from marrying, is in fact giving hetero couples special treatment. Oh, and my favorite one, coming again from my fucked-up brother - nobody's preventing gay people from marrying. A gay man can marry a lesbian anytime they want.

Certain things can be assured in a gay/lesbian relationship by putting specifics in a Will or by naming your significant other on your insurance policies, etc etc. Other things cannot be obtained these ways and will only be assured by marriage. So the breeders want to reserve the "sacred" word of marriage as their own. Fine. Then make Civil Unions actually mean something and be upheld in all courts across the country.

As far as other comments made in previous posts here, keep in mind that as a heterosexual, you'll never truly understand what being homosexual is really like. All snide comments ignored. You can't choose to be homosexual, no more so than you can choose to be heterosexual. You can dye your hair, or wear colored contacts, but that will never change what's underneath. You can choose to experiment with your sexuality, but you'll eventually go back to the gender you feel most comfortable with, because it's a natural part of who you are.

I think of it as one of nature's ways of controlling the population.

And by the way, there is scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is in fact genetic. There was a report on the bbc about 10 years ago that showed where brain scans of homosexual men matched more closely to women in certain areas. Again, all snide comments asside. It had something to do with groups of cell clusters being closer together in heterosexual men, while those same clusters were spread further apart in homosexuals. The details now are sketchy for me and I haven't bothered researching it anytime recently. Regardless, no one has proven anything for certain yet, but research is still being done, probably now more than ever.

[Saskir]

I would agree with Metatron and Xnguela. A marriage should be based on love and nothing else.

As for the adoption of kids, surely a couple that have been prepared to fight their way through the courts to gain the custody of a child must really want to adopt said child and do right by it?

It is also just as likely that a messed up kid will come from a heterosexual background as from a homosexual background. Most of the people I see on aday to day basis at school are proof of this.

[Saskir]

As amusing as that might be, think of how confusing it would be for everyone involved. Not to mention the logistical problems of consumating the marriage (which, incidentally, is still needed to make a marriage 'legal')

[lizzy]

I think that if you love someone, (man or woman), then you should be entitled to the same rights non-gay people have.

[Saya]

In the sixteenth century in certain countries a man and a woman have to consumate their marriage on a bed carried by witnesses. Was it Germany? That would've been really weird ^_^

[ExistentialDisorder]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Hey, here's a thought: Can men with erectile disfunctions get married? If so, how do THEY consummate it?

Got plastic?

[ExistentialDisorder]

Originally Posted by Santarea

Who needs consumation, when for centuries, on th ebed check of the "morning after", little vials of chicken blood splashed on the sheets sufficed to state that virginity was taken?

Is that where the idea that it tastes like chicken came from? (I personally wouldn't know what it tastes like).

[The Minister Saint-Fond]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

If you think that heterosexual people are not doing that now, you are sadly disillusioned.

And the fact that you think that this trend will spike with the acceptance of gay marriage shows your lack of belief that homosexual couples are just as capable of loving one another as a heterosexual couple.

Your argument also shows that you think people in general are more about the getting of benifits then the sanctity of marriage. This just further goes to provide support in favor of gay marriages. Apparently, the sanctity of marriage is not as important as the anti-gay marriage people would like to believe if heterosexual people are thinking of using it just for the purpose of getting insurance.

Sorry to be tardy to the party. :P Workity work work work...

So... Of course heterosexual people work the system. But don't you think that with twice as many options for marriage, particularly marriages that can be blatantly "open", that the number of people working the system will increase?

And honestly, I'd be interested in hearing how you came to this conclusion:

shows your lack of belief that homosexual couples are just as capable of loving one another as a heterosexual couple.

I'm guessing that opinion Shawshanked its way out of your balloon knot when you weren't looking.

I'm going to assume that you're not one of those "more PC than thou" people that get a kick out of bullishly forcing themselves into a morally superior position and talking down to others without really considering their opinion and continue on in my post believing that you honestly didn't understand what I had to say. I didn’t doubt the love of gay and lesbian people in the slightest. I was, however, stating a rather general lack of faith in human nature, regardless of sexual orientation. Is that more clear?

As far as the "sanctity of marriage", I definitely see your opinion and it is rather meritous. I know what I think about the union of marriage, what it was meant to be for, and what it is. But I'd like your opinion. Do you think marriage is no longer justified?

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Really, who cares whether or not they love each other or if they're doing it just for benefits?

No one goes around, demonstrating on street corners about how hetero couples are only getting married for the benefits.

They should be allowed to be married because the government lets heteros marry and the only reasons NOT to allow them to marry are rooted in religious beliefs. Unless anyone can show otherwise of course, and I invite you to if you can.

In my opinion, anyone who uses these following reasons to refute gays having a state license to marry...

1. It's not natural!
2. It's always been a man and a woman!
3. They're trying to get tax breaks unfairly!
4. How can they consumate it?
5. Marriage is for breeding the masses!
6. It's yucky and gross! (ps - BTW, so is Rosanne fucking Tom Arnold, and that's Hetero.)
7. How can you prove they're really a couple?

...is only against gay marriage for reasons of religion or close mindedness. None of these reasons are LEGALLY sufficient to deny citizens equal rights.
None of these reasons prevent heteros from marrying in a courthouse, mind you.

Your personal religion and my personal religion have nothing to do with what rights citizens should be afforded by their government.

So if there's anyone that can come up with a legitimate reason NOT religously rooted that shows why marriage/civil unions should only be between a man and a woman, then please, indulge us.

BTW - Infidelity is not a punishable offense in most states.

[rockandrose]

Gay old time at stag party
21/12/2005

"British pop legend Elton John and his boyfriend threw a stag party with a difference yesterday to celebrate their impending marriage.

John and long-term partner David Furnish plan to hold a civil partnership ceremony later today"

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E2902,00.html

[bedlam babe]

Originally Posted by Metatron

Marriage is about love. It's a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. It all boils down to: Just because someone is gay, does it mean they deserve to be treated horribly and differently from everyone else?

SPEAK IT.

I live in Texas,of course, and when chance came to vote on the subject,my heart fluttered with the possibility that all the narrowminded,nose pickin,god fear'n,ass wipes who have all the control could just maybe love and vote for PRO GAY MARRIAGE,however that time came and went and my souls aches for all who were affected by this.


Nice run-on huh?
Did I mention I'm a hippy at heart?

[xXambivalenceXx]

Last year in Speech, we had a debate on Gay Marriages... I was written up for calling someone a close-minded bitch... It got alittle heated, what can I say?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Don't you hate when they say that gay marriage shouldn't be supported because marriage is a sacred institution?
How sacred can it be when mora than half of the marriages end in America (curiously, there are three times more divorces in christian homes than in atheist or agnostic homes)? And not only that, but we have shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire"
Also, something people in my school (christian school ) say is that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". To begin with, it's not that funny, and how can they think homosexuality is that bad, when the first beings in the bible must have been incestuous to procreate?

[joyslayer]

I find that why should anyone else care? Its not like they are skrewing the same gender, so does it really matter that much?

[xXambivalenceXx]

You'd be surprised. Many Christians, and other nosy assholes can shove themselves in the midst of a totally unrelated matter. The joys of being a self-centered, egomaniacal dickweed.

[joyslayer]

Yeah, it is just not right. I mean honestly, I just can not fathom why they could just, be so dick headed.

[xXambivalenceXx]

It's called being inconsiderate of another's feelings.

[joyslayer]

Not just feelings, but also attempting to put out an entire communitie's rights as people.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You know? It's not just about religion that people think being gay is wrong. There are many religious people that think being gay is not a sin, and there are a lot of non-judeochristians who still don't like gay people.
Why is this? I think I have com up with the main reason behind it all:
It's the almost bestial machismo of conservative men.
Think about it: who are the ones that think being gay is wrong?
The same men whose lives revolve around sports, cars, and low-selfesteem women. It's all about keeping their "manlyhood". They're so afraid of not being manly, they question their own sexuality and feel afraid of anything around them that will not enhance their bravado.
Now, with the women that think being gay is wrong:
that is because womenn are highly territorial, which I find extremely sexy
But if you combine this with conservatism, you get a fear, bordering to phobia, of anything that is not what they are used to in their everyday lives. Maybe that's why consaervative families keep a highly predictable schedule, don't you think?

[Godslayer Jillian]

pardon if I didn't say something right or I misspelled, I'm still practicing my english

[joyslayer]

It is sad, I think.