Gay Marrige

[StressedOut]

Ok, i am hoping for a civilized debate on gay marriage. Hopefully, we won't have to resort to name calling



i am for gay marriage

i believe that it doesn't hurt anybody and that gays have the constitutional right to marry

[Kiyotie]

The "civilized debate" for gay marriages has already been attempted, it won't work

I'm against gay marriages. DON'T ask me why, I've already explained it in Sexuality, and it just starts arguments (although I don't know why, since the topic isn't suposed to be about my stance).

[Cuttooth]

Marriage is not a homosexual's constitutional rights. But, the constitution also said that blacks were considered 1/5 a person before 1860.



I believe that all people have the same rights if a citizen of this country. The gays will win this, rightfully.



Many protest today about homosexuality as did people in the 1960's about Civil rights. Some argue that this is not the same because the Civil Rights movement was racial. I disagree though, it is about the rights of minorities. It's about discrimination.

[Cindy]

*sighs* All I say is keep religon to yourself, and let Americans live in the way we want to. Religon is the key role in this debate (no offence to anyone). People usally that are aginst this quote the bible saying its aginst GODS will. Personally if the USA passes this it will be the end to what freedom we had left.



I mean, think about this, if a black straight guy and a black gay guy stands next to eachother, both dressed in the same outfit, and you look at them would youi be able to tell the difference? Change the black to any other race in the world, and ask the same question, no difference.

[iHEAVENn2]

i dont see whats so wrong about it.

their people like us right? who cares if a woman wants to marry another woman or a man wants to marry another man, thats what they want and thats what makes them happy.

its not really fair to say were a free country but you cant marry the one you love.

[Cuttooth]

Originally posted by iHEAVENn@Feb 24 2004, 05:58 PM

i dont see whats so wrong about it.

their people like us right? who cares if a woman wants to marry another woman or a man wants to marry another man, thats what they want and thats what makes them happy.

its not really fair to say were a free country but you cant marry the one you love.

Well, the point is in this argument, aside from the infinite religious quotations and headache arguments, is protecting the sanctity of marriage. If we allow to homosexuals to marry, why not allow some man to marry as many wives has he would like?

This new amendment in which the President endorses will define marriage as a union between man and a woman. However, I argue that if the point is to prevent marraige from exploding into a meaningless union..say between two men and 18 woman..simply a mess orgy, then amend the constitution to say that a marriage must be between two people. Do not deny human beings of their natural rights in love.

[broken4ubyu]

marriage is not for gays. it is a RELIGIOS act. not a constitutional right. the goverment should have nothing to do with marriage because there needs to be complete seperation of church and state. gay marriage is like having a barmitshfa for a mormon. it doesnt make sense



PS im not anti gay so dont flame, im against stupid liberals

[iHEAVENn2]

letting two men/women marry each other doesnt mean they have to start allowing a man or a woman to have more partners in marriage, it just simply means let them live their lifes, it is after all theirs isnt it? why should anyone government or religion have a say in what people feel? not letting two gays marry is to me like saying, 'Sorry you cant show the world your affection for the person you love because he/she is the same sex as you' and in my eyes thats kinda irked o.0

[Jaegermeister]

So granted, I'm bisexual and all, but still, I'm ummm... not for gay MARRIAGE. I say not for because against is too strong a word. Basically what I mean is that if you take on gay marriage issues you're taking on the entire religious world, and personally, my religon is very important to me so I'm not going to actively crusade against it. If, however, those brave individuals who fight the good fight do win, I will be forever grateful for their struggle, sacrifices, and effort. Marriage is an originally religious act that was adopted by political institutions. If religion doesn't want to allow gay marriage I suppose that is their right. I won't ask anyone to go against what their religon tells them no matter how ludicrous it seems to me.



I do however, fully support gay CIVIL UNIONS. I think that gay couples just as straight couples should be allowed tax breaks and 'unified' status in the eyes of the government. i suppose this would extend to include things like prenuptuals, divorces, yada yada the whole rigamarole. This is kind of cynical, but in the eyes of the government you are little more than a taxpayer, so it's all about how the government sees you come Tax time. Are you two individuals or one group? I think it is fair to offer the ability to be seen as one group to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.



Now, having just heard today about President Bush actively supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay MARRIAGE evoked two reactions from me. 1) He's such an idiot, because it's unconstitutional to pass any amendment about religious matters, and marriage is a religious matter. Not allowing the few religions that do perform homosexual marriages is against the rights gaurenteed to us by the Bill of Rights. The day that amendment passes is the day I pack my bags to live in Germany for the rest of my life. 2) Election day isn't really that far off, so pretty much what he is doing is taking a strong stance on an issue to try and attract voters. He'll probably attract most of the older (and decidedly more religious) voters with his stance, and many Christians and other faiths that do not condone gay marriage will be appeased by this stance as well, thus more likely to vote for him. The one thing that kept me from throwing my hands up in disgust is that he said he was open to the idea of civil unions, and that's all I'm really asking for anyways.



TJ



I can't believe I used the word "rigamarole" Wow I am old... sigh.



PS Kiyote would you possibly be as kind as to provide us with a link to what you said in Sexuality on this topic? Thanks!

[Brad]

I believe marriage is between two consenting adults that are in love with each other. I may not understand how two men or women could fall in love with each other, but it's their choice.



Politics should stay out.

[Mim]

marriage is not for gays. it is a RELIGIOS act. not a constitutional right. the goverment should have nothing to do with marriage because there needs to be complete seperation of church and state. gay marriage is like having a barmitshfa for a mormon. it doesnt make sense



PS im not anti gay so dont flame, im against stupid liberals

Marriage stops becoming a religious act when the government gets involved. I.E, Civil Union. And if the government had nothing to do w/ marriage, then why wouldn't they allow gays and lesbians to marry? Since you're looking at it from a religious point of view, then for a complete separation of church and state, you would have to allow gays to marry, b/c it's unfair to force someone to live by your religion/your rules. Let's face it, this debate is not about the 'sanctity of marriage', b/c that went out the window a long time ago...does anyone know exactly what the divorce rate in this country is these days?



I believe it should be up to each individual church as to whether or not to perform homosexual marriage...if one church doesn't want to do it, then another could. Or if there are churches that refuse, then couples could get a civil union. In any case, I definitely think they should have the right to get married, without government interference.

[yoaliens3000]

i think that gays should not be allowed to get married. but its fine for them to get a civil union. theres alot of difference in the 2.

[four]

There is a difference between marriage as defined by the state and mariage as defined by the church, and that is okay. Just because the state issues a marriage license does not mean that a church has to accept it as a marriage, they can keep on thinking the way they wish to and so can everyone else. What this really comes down to is a constitutional matter. And the constitution is clear:

Originally posted by 14th Ammedment@ Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Cuttooth]

[LedZep04]

Well I just wanted to know what you all think on the gay marrige. I am from the Bay Area.. about 30minutes from San Francisco and I am totally against this gay marrige. Sorry, but marrigle isn't for two men, or two women. Two men or two women can't make a baby by themselves. Not like they all want kids, but now they will try to adopt them because they can't make them together. Anyways thats what I think.



I am pretty angry about SF turning into this little gay place. I mean I have lived here for 17 years, and it makes me pretty angry that SF has been turned into this. When I travel to So Cal and I tell them where I am from they start laughing because all they know about SF are gay people. Gets me mad that SF is known as the gay capitol of the world. Geez ;\



This isn't a debate.. I don't want to fight about it, just want to read what you all think.

[Brad]

How do does gay marriage hurt you? And why should you be embarrassed if SF is considered the 'gay capitol' of the world?

[Zarie]

Originally posted by LedZep04@Feb 25 2004, 11:49 PM

Not like they all want kids, but now they will try to adopt them because they can't make them together. Anyways thats what I think.

Isn't adopting kids a good thing? It has no relevance to whether the parents are gay or not, but I'd rather see a child with parents than one without struggling to survive.

About the rest of your post, it just sounded like a bunch of homophobic dribble that a teenager with a 13 year old intellect would say.

[LedZep04]

like I said before this isn't a debate. I don't mind answering your questions though so whatever.



To Brad it doesn't hurt me. I just don't agree with it like a lot of other people don't. Some do some don't. As for why I would be embarrassed b/c it's called the gay capitol of the world because there is much more to SF then all the gay people that go there. When people think of SF they don't think of anything but that gay people live there.



To Zarie... yeah adopting kids is a good thing, but I don't think gay people should be raising kids. Just how I feel about it. Like I said, I am not looking for a debate, just wondering what you all thought on the situation. Just because I don't believe in something you do doesn't mean I have a 13 year old intellect.

[Mim]

Marriage is NOT an institution solely for the making of babies....people get married all the time who never want kids, and others have lots of kids and they never get married.



As for homosexuals raising kids, I know people (str8 couples) who have kids, who have absolutely no business having kids, and I know a lot of gay couples who would be great, loving parents. In the end it's all about the child, and how much love and attention they recieve, and I don't think the sex of the parents has anything to do w/ it.



And when I think of SF I think of the big bridge thing, I wasn't aware it was the 'gay capitol' of the U.S.

[Kiyotie]

I totally agree with you, but only about the adoption part. I tried to create a topic before about Gay Adoptions, but it became flamed Just pray this doesn't get moved to Sexuality or you'll practically get gang-raped