Should gay marriages be legal?

[Kippky]

:wigout: I've asked this so many times at school and have only gotten one straight answer from asking over like 5 million people. And with the world all trying to be so messed up right now, I have to ask, do otakus believe in gay marriage?

[Guest Midnight Rush]

Absolutely Not.

[Jagan]

NO WAY! It wasn't legal when America was founded, why should it be legal now?

[Dagger]

[quote name='Jagan']NO WAY! It wasn't legal when America was founded, why should it be legal now?[/quote]

Yeah! It wasn't legal for women to vote when America was founded, why should it be legal now? It wasn't illegal to own slaves when America was founded, why should it be outlawed now?

PS. Does anyone want to start taking bets on how long this thread will last?

~Dagger~

[Guest lavalamp]

I think the morality of homosexuality and gay marriage is a dead horse.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
PS. Does anyone want to start taking bets on how long this thread will last?

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

I'll make ya' a custom avatar if it's not locked before the end of the day. Takers can PM Me.

Frankly, I think the government should only recognize civil unions, and the term "marriage" should only be used for unions blessed by churches or religious organizations.

[JJ]

[size=1]Like Deathbug said, it should be called a "union", and that would end the ordeal. Marriage is a religious word and from that perspective it's illegal, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT WAS FOUNDED ON! (Religion and Politics do not mix)

You can't look at this like it's some big catastrophe. Gay "unions" are in my opinion fine, because not only am I gay, but becuase I fell like people should be able to share thier expenses and taxes, and not have to sign everything in two names. If anyone deserves union privlages it's them. They put up with so much crap it's not funny.

For example, kids now a days use gay like they would retarded. It's funny and if you do something wrong your a ***. It's like being gay is smoething you can catch. People in general though, if they seet wo guys on the street holding hands they automatically change sides of the street, and in some places the predijuce is so bad that gay kids have to have thier own prom. That to me is wrong. What has America come to?[/size]

[color=DarkBlue][size=1]I throw in a cookie on closed by the end of the night.[/color][/size]

EDIT: Sorry, that was off topic and irrelevent. I appologize.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=JJRiddler][size=1]-_-' Oh man. Not to get off topic, how many of you guys that said no support Bush?
[/size][/QUOTE]

I support President Bush.

Does that throw a wrinkle in your inference? Sorry.

[Sui Generis]

[color=indigo][i]Well first off everyone knows what I'm going to say; so why am I going to say it? Because I'm a opinionated person, and I think everyone's opinion should be heard, except yours. ^_~. Nah I don't care "to each their own."

Anyways to my opinion. Its an ultimatly resounding yes. People say its a religiouse thing, and that marriages should only happen between men and women because thats the way God intended it to be.

First off. Does no one remember this wonderful thing about how religion and politics would be seperated. Everyone always says "The United States was founded on heterosexual marriages," of course thats not true. Anyone who actively studies history would know that the United States was founded on freedom; freedom of speach; freedom of religion; and freedom of assembly. The United States always has said the rights of thier citizens are SOOOO important, yet when two people just want to be recognize as the government in a "civil union" its not allowed because Christianity doesn't allow it?

Wait what? Whatever happened to freedom of religion?

Second off. If this offends you sorry, its my opinion. The simple fact is, who in the world knows what "God intended." We deemed slavery immoral and against God yet slaves were prevelant in the times of Jesus. Look in the Bible they have a book about a letter sent by Peter to a slave owner asking the owner to respect his slave.

Did he state that slavery was wrong? No. All he states was that you should treat everyone human with the same dignity. "Love thy neighbor" wait thats a commandment. Why don't we try that? Or perhaps "Hate the sin, love the sinner." What ever happened to that?

Hiding behind religion only brings out a double standard. They state that this is wrong, and Gays are going to burn in hell. Whatever happened to the commandments? "Do not cast the stone unto this sinner unless you, yourself are free of sin." Yet again. Another one of Jesus's wonderful parables. YOU are not the judge, if we are against God, then GOD will punish us. Its not your job.


As to what Jagan says:

I really don't know why I'm even commenting to that. Thats like saying killing Jews is fine because it was legal at one time, or perhaps driving 35 mph is a horrible crime because at one time it was illegal. ....I'll just stop there....




Personally I think gays should be allowed. It doesn't hurt anyone, and if its wrong God will judge us, you don't have to. You have no right to judge us, so says your own God.

[b]Clarification[/b] I'm not saying you are bad for opposing it, nor am I trying to twist the Christian faith, or call Christians hypocrits. I'm just stating what I see, and using resources as well. So if you think I'm wrong more power to you. If everyone thought the same this world would suck.

Oh and I support Bush. Kerry would do the samething, look at Edward's attack on Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. Simple fact is either way gays are screwed ^_^


[/i][/color]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Lalaith Ril][color=indigo][i]
I really don't know why I'm even commenting to that. Thats like saying killing Jews is fine because it was legal at one time, or perhaps driving 35 mph is a horrible crime because at one time it was illegal. ....I'll just stop there....

[/i][/color][/QUOTE]

When was it legal in America to kill Jewish people?

[Drix D'Zanth]

Oh boy... next thing you know, we'll have an abortion thread, an affirmative action thread (haven't seen that in a while, though), etc.

I'm think this'll be closed within two days. Not that I doubt that it shall be closed. I'm just throwing in some standard deviation, maybe James won't notice this until a day or so.. *shrug*

Hey, I'm not against gay marriage, if they can get a church to marry. Anyone can put a ring on their finger and be blessed by a "church". I'm not going to argue with two men who call themselves husband and husband. Nope, not gonna tell them it's wrong. In fact, more power to them to live together and marry, or whatever they wish to identify the process by.

I just don't want to pay for it. Marriage isn't a "right"... it's a "privilage". I say this like I would say welfare is a "privilage". A lawyer making 200k annually cannot suddenly ask for a welfare check. Why not? He doesn't meet the requirements. Why should I be paying for gay marriage benefits, when i see they don't meet the requirements of marriage?

You wan't to fight for equal health insurance? fine. hospital visits? whoopie. property transfer? go for it.

A man who declares he is and always has been attracted to other men, yet admits he only dated women would commonly be referenced as "living a lie". By asking me, a member of the state, to recognize gay marriage within the same regards as heterosexual marriage when it opposes my ethical, rational, and moral values so explicitly... in voting for that, [b]I[/b] would be living a lie.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=JJRiddler][size=1]Like Deathbug said, it should be called a "union", and that would end the ordeal. Marriage is a religious word and from that perspective it's illegal, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT WAS FOUNDED ON! (Religion and Politics do not mix)

You can't look at this like it's some big catastrophe. Gay "unions" are in my opinion fine, because not only am I gay, but becuase I fell like people should be able to share thier expenses and taxes, and not have to sign everything in two names. If anyone deserves union privlages it's them. They put up with so much crap it's not funny. [/size]

[color=DarkBlue][size=1]I throw in a cookie on closed by the end of the night.[/color][/size]
.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Well I am going to differ with you on this because I think you are wrong. Since ?marriages? between a man and a woman are recognized by the government, I think that it is just for ?marriages? to be recognized between to members of the same sex. The government wants to allow gay (and straight) unions but not gay marriages for three reasons.

One, and most obvious, taxes. If you are married you receive a tax credit or exemption. In other words, you and your spouse?s taxes aren?t quite as high as two individuals taxes would be. It could be argued that the government doesn?t want to give these same tax credits to homosexuals because they (on average) make fifteen percent more money than the average heterosexual. To be honest, this is as easy problem to solve, don?t offer tax credits to married persons give a larger tax credit to parents. The majority (its in the eighty percentile, I am just not sure of the exact number) of married couples without children have two incomes but usually pay less in bills (per person) a month.

Two, language effects the way we think. No matter your religious or spiritual compass, there are quite a bit of religious minded people in the United States. Using a word like ?union? gives this majority a blanket to hide behind (they don?t feel like bigots because they have allowed gay unions but they still feel that the sacred bonds of marriage only apply to them). I think that these people need to remember that the government grants equal rights for people but cannot dictate how marriage is viewed in a religious sense.

Three, there is a huge generational difference in the perception of sexual orientation, just like there was in the sixties with the perception of skin color. Most of our parents grew up in a time where homosexuality was more than taboo, and it was kept under wraps. Because they grew up during this time they were insulated from the gay community (mainly because it was almost non-existent) and are unable to relate with that culture. [/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]I only have one thing to say, and it relates to the so-called "traditional" meaning of marriage.

I watched a documentary a while ago, which discussed the "history of the wife". It was very interesting and in particular, it discussed marriage.

[i]Originally[/i] -- before it was hijacked by religion -- marriage was a purely contractual agreement. In fact, it involved the union of two familes more than just two partners; fundamentally, it involved the [i]sale[/i] of a woman to a man (and his family). Wives were at that time considered to be the man's property.

So, the traditional argument is thrown right out the window. In my opinion, it is simply an attempt to stifle civil liberties (the word "traditional" has been used throughout history for that purpose, afterall).

The thing is, I think people worry too much about it. It's honestly no big deal at all. If a gay couple get married tomorrow, [i]how[/i] will that affect you personally? Are they coming into your house and having the ceremony? No.

If you want, you can have nothing to do with it. That's fine.

What I object to, however, is people using their [i]personal[/i] religious beliefs to actively stifle other people's civil freedoms.

Afterall, if I were Muslim and I believed in wearing a head scarf (and I'm aware that Muslims practice this in different ways), it would be wrong of me to say "You MUST wear one because it's traditional and based on an article of faith". I mean, in a modern society, personal religious beliefs and articles of faith can't be used as part of government policy. It's as simple as that.

In practice, I think it works better than most people think. The only real reason to be opposed to it is simply if you're intolerant, or you want to impose your personal views on others. I don't view gay marriage as an imposition on anyone; like heterosexual marriage, it's an arrangement and a decision that involves two people and their families. If two people next door to me get married -- gay or straight -- that doesn't impact my personal life. I can disagree, I may not like it, but why should I have the ability to block their equal rights? What gives me that power? My own personal religious view? Rubbish. If that principle were applied evenly, we'd have a far more restricted and non-pluralistic society.

So that's my two cents basically.

The only reason that this topic irks me is simply because we see it over and over and over again. Give it a break already.

I have to admit though, I'm becoming increasingly indifferent to the discussions. I mean, my feelings about the issue are very justified, but at the same time, I view this debate in the same way that I view the civil rights debate of the 1960's. My feeling is that regardless what I say, society will progress as it always has. So...in that sense, I tend not to worry too much about the opposing viewpoint. lol

But I [i]do[/i] tend to find these debates redundant, at least in the context of a message board. The actual public debate and the debate amongst public officials is the one that I would tend to focus on more heavily.[/color]

[Sui Generis]

[quote name='DeathBug']When was it legal in America to kill Jewish people?[/quote]

[i][color=indigo] Obviously if you look at the content you'll realize, I meant Germany. Its not that far of a stretch, is it?

Anyways here, sorry if there was confusion I'll explain it. (I thought it was self-explanatory, my fault.) The nazi party came into power, and killed millions of Jews. Yes everyone knows this. Genocide as we now know it, is ultimatly regarded as the gravest of human rights violations, yet in Germany it was ok. Are we to say since it was legal then we should do it again? Is Germany allowed to go kill millions of innocents agian, because it was once legal?

Times change, thats obviouse. Look at America for christ's sake. Should we not have freedom of speach? You know at one time you were beheaded for saying anything against the King? Of course that still happens in countries.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

What ever happened to what Thomas Jefferson said? Of course we had slaves back then, but do we now? Nope. Being with whom you love is that pursuit of Happiness. I mean think about this, gays arn't even hurting anyone by obtaining this happiness! We're not killing anyone, we're not forcing our believes on anyone, all we're asking is to allow us to live the same life that others can. Is it that hard to accept?


Another point with the marriage, and addressing the church. You know I'm really suprised Christians haven't gone against the whole practice of being married in a church, or atleast tried to get others not to do it. The church has no true meaning in a marriage anymore, its just a way to get money. Its total abuse when it comes to the true Christian faith. It totally defaces the whole entire concept of a union connected by God. I mean honestly (I can't tell you an exact number, but) around 40-50% of marriages are destined to divorce.

Marriage is a mockery, period. Why worry about two people that are in love? What about the gays who want these tax cuts anyways? People are greedy they'll get around your system no matter what, thats a fact. They marry some women, break up with them when they have enough money and go on.

Yes that makes marriage very sacred.

In America "married" means nothing. I can't stand how when it turns to the gay topic marriage is this "holy" or "divine" object. It may have been at one time, but guess what; in America it means nothing.

You might as well just go to Las Vegas. Oh and haven't you heard of the website helping couples cheat on eachother. (Sorry I couldn't think of the URL I'm not too keen on cheating ....) Man that makes marriage so sacred. *rolls eyes*

If you want to make marriage sacred, you have other problems to deal with. I don't even see how love can be considered a problem. I guess thats truly the whole issue though.

Ignorance vs. Tolerance

Yes I'm calling people ignorant. Its not that hard to imagine, unless you know it is to be gay, guess what you're ignorant. No one said ignorance is a bad thing, just decisions shouldn't be based on them!


[/color][/i]

[Adahn]

Marriage is not a Christian word. It exists in one form or another in almost every religious sect that has ever existed. Homosexuals aren't asking to be recognized by the Church as having a blessed union under God. Should we not recognize marriages between Jews or Muslims because they're not Christians? Or how about heterosexual atheists, buddhists, hinduists, shintoists, etc. America is a blend of religions, and some form of marriage exists within all of them. We do get alot of our morals from Christianity, but those same morals are in most other religions, too. Christians are nothing special, and the word "marriage" can't be attributed only to them. Also, the Bible does not mention female homosexual relationships.

[I]Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.[/I]

This is all it says. Nowhere does it state that women can't lie with other women. Just a point I wanted to make, since we're on the subject.

Oh, another thing. If you're a Christian, and you get a legal divorce, you're not divorced. You can only divorce someone from adultery. If you get a legal divorce and go sleep with someone else, you're committing adultery. This is sort of funny, because I know tons and tons of Christians whose parents are divorced, and they all go off and commit adultery, thinking they're not doing anything wrong. This goes to show even more that marriage is no longer something Christian, since Christians themselves don't follow the rules.

[I]Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/I]

I hope this helps to show all of you that marriage is no longer a Christian institution, and since Christians themselves have failed to uphold the word of God, they have no right to enforce other parts of the Bible on anyone.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Lalaith Ril'] Obviously if you look at the content you'll realize, I meant Germany. Its not that far of a stretch, is it?[/quote]

Well, if you look at the centries-old history of anti-Semetism in Germany, France and Eatern Europe, and compare it to the US, where anti-Semetism is very rare, then yes, it is a bit of a stretch.

[QUOTE]Genocide as we now know it, is ultimatly regarded as the gravest of human rights violations, yet in Germany it was ok. Are we to say since it was legal then we should do it again? Is Germany allowed to go kill millions of innocents agian, because it was once legal?[/QUOTE]

Well, since Germany is another country, and we're different from them, it isn't comprable; you've shown that different people did different things.

[QUOTE]Times change, thats obviouse. Look at America for christ's sake. Should we not have freedom of speach? [/QUOTE]

Of course we should. When was this a free-speech issue? Both sides of this debate have had ample avenues to express their opinions.

[QUOTE]Being with whom you love is that pursuit of Happiness. I mean think about this, gays arn't even hurting anyone by obtaining this happiness! We're not killing anyone, we're not forcing our believes on anyone, all we're asking is to allow us to live the same life that others can. Is it that hard to accept?[/QUOTE]

Not at all; no one has any problem understanding that position.


[QUOTE] You know I'm really suprised Christians haven't gone against the whole practice of being married in a church, or atleast tried to get others not to do it. The church has no true meaning in a marriage anymore, its just a way to get money. Its total abuse when it comes to the true Christian faith. It totally defaces the whole entire concept of a union connected by God.[/QUOTE]

Okay, now I have issue with you. If you are not a Christian, please don't presume to tell me or other Christians about our faith.

I will be married in a chruch, by reverend, because, guess what? It does mean something to me, and my vision of the true Christian faith.

[QUOTE]I mean honestly (I can't tell you an exact number, but) around 40-50% of marriages are destined to divorce.[/QUOTE]

Then why bother getting married at all?

[QUOTE]Marriage is a mockery, period.[/QUOTE]

Okay, [b]this[/b] is what I can't understand; if it's a 'mockery' (of...what?), then why do you care? If you see through the whole charade you make marriage out to be, why does it matter if gays are married? I mean, most of them will just divorce, like you said?

[QUOTE] What about the gays who want these tax cuts anyways?[/QUOTE]

Obviously, they should get them if they're living in a union with one another. To do otherwise would be discrimination.

[QUOTE]People are greedy they'll get around your system no matter what, thats a fact. [/QUOTE]

My system?

[QUOTE]Yes that makes marriage very sacred.[/QUOTE]

Again, if it means nothing, why do you want it? It obviouysly means something, or you wouldn't care.

[QUOTE]In America "married" means nothing.[/QUOTE]

See above.

[QUOTE] I can't stand how when it turns to the gay topic marriage is this "holy" or "divine" object. It may have been at one time, but guess what; in America it means nothing.[/QUOTE]

This, also, I take issue with. Don't tell me that marriage means nothing. This is the whoile reason I think the government shouldn't be involved: because marriage is sacred and holy, and the government being involved makes it about as important as a speeding ticket.

If people didn't think marriage was sacred or holy, why would there be an argument over it? And, again, if it means nothing, why does anyone care at all?

[QUOTE]You might as well just go to Las Vegas. Oh and haven't you heard of the website helping couples cheat on eachother. (Sorry I couldn't think of the URL I'm not too keen on cheating ....) Man that makes marriage so sacred. *rolls eyes*[/QUOTE]

You make the assumption that Las Vegas liasons and infidelity are just fine and dandy with marriage supporters.

What you have proven is that some people think marriage is sacred and some don't. Didn't we know that to start with?

[QUOTE]If you want to make marriage sacred, you have other problems to deal with. [/QUOTE]

Aren't they your problems to, since marriage means so much to you?

[QUOTE]Ignorance vs. Tolerance[/QUOTE]

Uh, ignorance and tolerence aren't mutually exclusive, nor opposites. Hitler was a smart man, after all.

[QUOTE]Yes I'm calling people ignorant.[/QUOTE]

So, you're intolerent of their ignorance?

[QUOTE]Its not that hard to imagine, unless you know it is to be gay, guess what you're ignorant.[/QUOTE]

Yet you, who aren't a Christian, were more than happy to tell Christians how to run things. You, who don't consider marriage anything sacred, are more than happy to tell those who do that they're wrong.

I'm not sure which is worse: bigoted homophibia or condescending and arrogant self-righteousness.

I think that marriage is, in fact sacred, even though a good portion of the populence doesnt. In fact, that's exactly why the government shouldn't be involved.

I want the decision I come to about marriage to be between myself and my Church, others who see marriage as sacred. Therein lies the problem: as long as marriage is a government institution, the opinions of thousands of others weigh in on what should be a private matter between myself, my church and my God.

As usual, government interference screws stuff up.

[Soliel]

[COLOR=GREEN]Okay, I say, "YES", gay marrages should be allowed. First, I want to reinerate what Lalaith Ril said about seporation of church and state. We should never, under any circumstances let religious preferences get in the way of making disissions about our government and fellow citizens. The First Amendment guarentee's the American people the freedom of religion; and I also believe this includes the freedom of lifestyle choice. What I saying here, is that regardless of your personal opinion, a choice should never be made to regulate someone else's rights unless their rights infringe upon your own, and I don't see anyone getting hurt by a gay couple getting married.

I hate the fact that the president seems to back up some of his actions with religious ideals and the people praise him. Yet, when a judge wants to keep a statue of the Ten Commandments in his court house, we all start sceaming about "seporation of church and state." The bad thing is, the president's actions affect us a whole lot more than some lame statue.

Second, I have always seen marrage, in this day and age, as a bond between two people who love each other, whether they be man and woman, two men, or two women. I believe this is a very good way to view the term "marrage" in this day and age, and to look at it in a more traditional sense would only inhibit progress, but hey, this is only my opinion.

Third, I think most of the oposision to gay marrage stems from an oposision to homosexuality in general. Many view it as a sin that God looks down upon and that proof of this is in the Bible. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is a sin to love someone of the same sex. Now, before you accuse me of being an Atheist and denouncing the Bible, let me just say that I'm a Roman Catholic and I believe in my religion (most of it at least).

Now it was actually my 11th grade religion teacher who pointed this out to me, and he was the campus minister of the catholic school I went to. There is a portion of the Bible that tells a story of a group of stangers who come to visit Abraham (I think), and he takes them in. Then some of the men of the town come knocking on Abraham's door, demanding that they take the stangers away to go sleep with them.

Now time was a LOT different back then. Back then, men would sleep with other men to show dominance. This is a simple animal instint, and the purpose of this story was to show that we, as humans, are above lower animals in that we are gifted with reason, and it also condenms lecherous gread. The only reason that it may say that men sleeping with other men is a sin is that they believed their was no other reason then this for two men to partake in such an act.

Now my fouth and final point I want to make is about right infringment. Some of you may think that marrage is a religious act, but in today's society, it is a legal contract. Now, I live in Louisiana, a state where an amendment was passed just last month, banning same-sex marrages. I was absolutly apaled by the fact that not only did it pass, but with an overwelming majority. For one thing, saying that a certain group of people are forbidon from doing something that really doesn't hurt anyone else looks really bad. Second, this perticular amendment banned civil unions as well and also has some things about tax exempt status. Basicly if a same-sex couple wanted to start a family, tax wise they wouldn't be treated the same because the state wouldn't recognise their marrage.

So basically, this whole thing boils down to my final opinion: That banning gay marrage will only lead to further persicution of homosexuals and causes us to take several steps backwards on the way to having true equality and freedom.[/COLOR]

[Epitome]

[size=1]All I have to say is, if we have a right to express religion, what we want to say, and what we think... how come we cant express how we feel towards another person if its of the same sex?

Personally, its ludacris not to allow gay marriage. I am Catholic, and I believe what God, Jesus Christ, and the bible say, but I still think they should allow gay marriage.

-Epitome[/size]

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]James, why would [i]anything[/i] on a message board change [i]anything[/i]? O_o I always saw it as a means to converse or socialize. Anyway...

I've always noticed that the reasoning behind pro-gay persons has been rather hypocritical. Most of the support can be applied to things like incest, kids, and the mentally deranged. If you ask me, that's not a really smart angle to go about shouting, haha.

The Founder Fathers left the Declaration of Independence vague because they needed to unite a group of people and hoped for a time when these touchy issues can be addressed. I'm not saying I know how they felt about the topic at hand, but certainly, we limit the freedoms of those who have specific hinderances, and I really don't see how homosexuality is any different. When a person is drunk, he or she has lost the right/privelige to drive, has he/she not?

DISCLAIMER: I may not codone homosexual acts, but I do condone one's homosexuality. My religion may have created bias, but certainly, that's not the reasoning I've used to support my ideas here.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]
I want the decision I come to about marriage to be between myself and my Church, others who see marriage as sacred. Therein lies the problem: as long as marriage is a government institution, the opinions of thousands of others weigh in on what should be a private matter between myself, my church and my God.

As usual, government interference screws stuff up.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I disagree. Your [b]conception[/b] of marriage is ?holy matrimony?, which isn?t what the gay community (as well as so many others) is fighting for. You say that the government interferes with marriage but, for the most part that interference is necessary. Since this countries conception laws have been created that allow spouses (both men and women) legal benefits and power (insurance laws, hospitalization rights, health care coverage, social security compensation, inheritance, ect?) over certain aspects of each others lives.
These laws should be applied equally to any two consenting adults that request them, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Although I cannot speak for the gay community, I have inferred that they want the government to recognize their marriage, the really could care less if an organized religion validates their marriage. You see, your argument pretty much point blank states that you only recognize marriages related to church and God, however that also means that you don?t recognize marriages between people of other religions because their marriage isn?t affirmed by your God, which is fine. That is your religious principle. The government applies laws to all married people regardless of their religion. Therefore since they recognize marriage between all people religious or non-religious why should they not recognize the marriage of two consenting adults of the same sex? [/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I only have one thing to say, and it relates to the so-called "traditional" meaning of marriage.

I watched a documentary a while ago, which discussed the "history of the wife". It was very interesting and in particular, it discussed marriage.

[i]Originally[/i] -- before it was hijacked by religion -- marriage was a purely contractual agreement. In fact, it involved the union of two familes more than just two partners; fundamentally, it involved the [i]sale[/i] of a woman to a man (and his family). Wives were at that time considered to be the man's property. [/color][/QUOTE]

This, of course, depends at what kind of document you witness the Bible as, for instance. People including myself; believe that marriage (from Adam and Eve [Genesis]) was originally between the two ?original? people on Earth. Perhaps this means that the state effectively hijacked what was recognized as the process of marriage?

As for the women being ?property?, you have to understand the culture at the time. Women weren?t considered fit to hold positions in military, farming, and because of their perceived lack of societal worth, governing. Women were, due to the politics of the region, unable to make a living for themselves. So they effectively sold themselves for a bride price. At the time, this wasn?t considered demeaning of a woman at all, and actually gave her some sort of value in a society that seemed to have so little value for women. Jesus actually encouraged ?spiritual worth? and individual dignity to ALL persons regardless of gender, endowments, or race (gentiles, jews etc).

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
So, the traditional argument is thrown right out the window. In my opinion, it is simply an attempt to stifle civil liberties (the word "traditional" has been used throughout history for that purpose, afterall).

The thing is, I think people worry too much about it. It's honestly no big deal at all. If a gay couple get married tomorrow, [i]how[/i] will that affect you personally? Are they coming into your house and having the ceremony? No.

If you want, you can have nothing to do with it. That's fine. [/color][/QUOTE]

James, we grew up learning about the wonderful civil rights of the 60?s, of the impassioned speeches given by advocates, and sense of justice finally being served for this community of racial inequity. This feeling is so quickly and easily integrated into what is innately a personal social behavior. The civil rights movement was not about public recognition of a personal lifestyle. The issue about gay marriage isn?t just about benefits. It?s about how we as a STATE recognize marriage. I am the state, my parents are the state, and the homosexual couple down the street is the state. We are responsible to our own decisions concerning the state in how it will affect our lives. Look at the history of Supreme Court cases. Good ideas sometimes lead to bad ideas. Interracial marriage may lead to gay marriage on some of their principles, just as the civil rights act may lead to affirmative action. To say that gay marriage has no effect on myself personally is not only untrue, it has no historical bearing.


[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
What I object to, however, is people using their [i]personal[/i] religious beliefs to actively stifle other people's civil freedoms.

Afterall, if I were Muslim and I believed in wearing a head scarf (and I'm aware that Muslims practice this in different ways), it would be wrong of me to say "You MUST wear one because it's traditional and based on an article of faith". I mean, in a modern society, personal religious beliefs and articles of faith can't be used as part of government policy. It's as simple as that. [/color][/QUOTE]

Firstly, if you want to ignore personal or public religious beliefs you can throw out almost all of the rhetoric that powered the 1960?s Civil Rights movement! James, your ethics are founded upon whatever moral strategy you decide! I decide not only my own moral and ethical outline, but I rely most of my decisions upon them. You CANNOT ignore religion. How do you justify any of your moral standings? How do you justify any of your ethical principles? I have a justification, his name is Jesus.
Our gov?t is not respecting marriage as a religious institution, but a social institution. It?s asking the American public if they accept homosexual marriage as a social institution that we not only believe should be recognized, but benefit the same as heterosexual marriages.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
In practice, I think it works better than most people think. The only real reason to be opposed to it is simply if you're intolerant, or you want to impose your personal views on others. [/color][/QUOTE]

? Try a bit of empathy here, James. I?m not telling gay people what they ?can?t? do. They just demand me to agree with what their [i]personal views[/i] understand they ?can? do. Mass. Supreme Court wasn?t going to stop with Civil Unions. The very definition of marriage is being forwarded for change, a change that I do NOT agree with. If marriage in this nation began heterosexually it should be understand that the original rights are being imposed upon by the views of OTHERS! Now you can argue that some of these rights were self-evident and justify them accordingly, but marriage has never been a self-evidenced right unless taken from religious context, or social context. Now, were black people imposing their views upon us with regards to interracial marriage? Yes, but I can not only agree with that imposition, but regard it as equal allowance. I disagree when it comes to homosexuality.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]
I don't view gay marriage as an imposition on anyone; like heterosexual marriage, it's an arrangement and a decision that involves two people and their families. If two people next door to me get married -- gay or straight -- that doesn't impact my personal life. I can disagree, I may not like it, but why should I have the ability to block their equal rights? What gives me that power? My own personal religious view? Rubbish. If that principle were applied evenly, we'd have a far more restricted and non-pluralistic society. [/color][/QUOTE]

James, distinguish between the state and the personal recognition of marriage. Nothing?s stopping a homosexual couple from getting married. Before everyone starts typing the ?wtfwtfwtf!!?, observe what I mean. Anyone can live together with consent, and consider themselves ?married? without us telling them to. Churches can issue religious decrees that the homosexual couples have been married with their blessing. Nothing is stopping this. Even if I disagree, I won?t try to stop these, that is a matter of religious freedom and personal choice.

Care to know what gives me the power to block what they consider ?equal rights?? My vote, and the conscious reasoning that I put into said vote.

[QUOTE=Lalaith Ril][i][color=indigo]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

What ever happened to what Thomas Jefferson said? Of course we had slaves back then, but do we now? Nope. Being with whom you love is that pursuit of Happiness. I mean think about this, gays arn't even hurting anyone by obtaining this happiness! We're not killing anyone, we're not forcing our believes on anyone, all we're asking is to allow us to live the same life that others can. Is it that hard to accept? [/color][/i][/QUOTE]

Hey, be happy? just don?t make me pay for your sexual abhorrence.  Last I checked, love and marriage weren?t mutually exclusive? Nor was happiness?

[QUOTE=Lalaith Ril][i][color=indigo]
Another point with the marriage, and addressing the church. You know I'm really suprised Christians haven't gone against the whole practice of being married in a church, or atleast tried to get others not to do it. The church has no true meaning in a marriage anymore, its just a way to get money. Its total abuse when it comes to the true Christian faith. It totally defaces the whole entire concept of a union connected by God. I mean honestly (I can't tell you an exact number, but) around 40-50% of marriages are destined to divorce.

Marriage is a mockery, period. Why worry about two people that are in love? What about the gays who want these tax cuts anyways? People are greedy they'll get around your system no matter what, thats a fact. They marry some women, break up with them when they have enough money and go on.

Yes that makes marriage very sacred


In America "married" means nothing. I can't stand how when it turns to the gay topic marriage is this "holy" or "divine" object. It may have been at one time, but guess what; in America it means nothing.

[/color][/i][/QUOTE]

That?s not a very nice thing to say to the 50-60% of the people who actually may regard their marriage as SACRED. You can be for marriage and against frivolous divorce/marriage at the same time. The problem is that no one can legislate anything concerning ?frivolous divorce?? it?s too complicated between the individual members of marriage.

[QUOTE=Adahn]Marriage is not a Christian word. It exists in one form or another in almost every religious sect that has ever existed. Homosexuals aren't asking to be recognized by the Church as having a blessed union under God. Should we not recognize marriages between Jews or Muslims because they're not Christians? Or how about heterosexual atheists, buddhists, hinduists, shintoists, etc. America is a blend of religions, and some form of marriage exists within all of them. We do get alot of our morals from Christianity, but those same morals are in most other religions, too. Christians are nothing special, and the word "marriage" can't be attributed only to them. Also, the Bible does not mention female homosexual relationships.

[I]Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.[/I]

This is all it says. Nowhere does it state that women can't lie with other women. Just a point I wanted to make, since we're on the subject.

Oh, another thing. If you're a Christian, and you get a legal divorce, you're not divorced. You can only divorce someone from adultery. If you get a legal divorce and go sleep with someone else, you're committing adultery. This is sort of funny, because I know tons and tons of Christians whose parents are divorced, and they all go off and commit adultery, thinking they're not doing anything wrong. This goes to show even more that marriage is no longer something Christian, since Christians themselves don't follow the rules.

[I]Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/I]

I hope this helps to show all of you that marriage is no longer a Christian institution, and since Christians themselves have failed to uphold the word of God, they have no right to enforce other parts of the Bible on anyone.[/QUOTE]

In fairness, when marriage is recognized, it?s always understood as ?man and wife? this may because of biblical translation, or whatnot, but it?s difficult to mix the gender of such gender-specific words, no? As for the verse in Matthew.. amen. I agree with the verse.

Let?s look at marriage from a social perspective. Why would we regard marriage with benefits?? Because of kids! Surprise, gay people can?t make babies. I thought Heaven?s Cloud made a good point in saying that the benefits should probably be for parents only. That?s the reason society recognizes marriage, because it is a predictable and pretty stable baby-making social institution. That?s why I say, fight for property transfer and hospital visits, don?t fight for a change in the rules ;). Think about this? why should gay couples be the only ones to get the benefits of marriage? Why not a pair of buddies living together, why shouldn?t they put each other on their health insurance? Why not a single parent and child? Why shouldn?t they get a ?legal civil union? to help with the tax break? Sounds like circular reasoning.

[quote name='ssjSolarPrinces][COLOR=GREEN']Okay, I say, "YES", gay marrages should be allowed. First, I want to reinerate what Lalaith Ril said about seporation of church and state. We should never, under any circumstances let religious preferences get in the way of making disissions about our government and fellow citizens. The First Amendment guarentee's the American people the freedom of religion; and I also believe this includes the freedom of lifestyle choice. .[/COLOR][/quote]

So just as governments don't respect institutions of religion, they shouldn't respect the establishment of institutions of lifestyle choice such as marriage? That puts a sty in the whole gay marriage advocacy, doesn't it?

Now that I?ve made the rounds, I should be getting to Adahns questioning Christianity thread 

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I swear, less than two weeks have gone since we had another one of these. And about four weeks since the one before that.

Catch the old driftola?

Anyway, I support gay marriage. I'll give you the short version of why.

a) It's none of my business what other people do, as long as they don't interfere with me.
b) It isn't Government's business to do that, either. If homosexuals can find a Church or other... group that will marry them legally, then so be it. If they can't, they should be allowed civil unions.

And thats really all there is to the matter. If someone interferes with me, I have by inference, a right to interfere with them. If someone is interfering with the Government, then they have a right to intervene too. But, if they don't, then the Government shouldn't. And frankly, it's none of the Government's business who is allowed to get married. Provided all parties are human.

Anyone who wants to perform gay marriages should be allowed to. I think that this up-and-coming generation will be a helluva lot more tolerant of homosexuality than the last. I hope, anyway. Nobody that I know [as far as I'm aware] has a problem with homosexuality. I think that view will spread, as homosexuality becomes a bigger and more widespread thing.[/size]

[Circ]

I say yes.

I say that in our modern society, marriage has lost most of it's religious significance.

I say that in our society, traditionnal family cannot be maintained.

I say that marriage is nowadays firstly a form of officializing a socially accpepted relationship.

I say that people marrying are making a statement that they are ready to build their life togethers.

I say that marriage gives social and legal advantages no other form of official union gives (e.g., spouses cannot be forced to witness against each other in criminal affairs.).

I say that denying gays the possibility to marrie is to deny them social acceptance.

I say that for all these reasons, denying gays the right to marry is immoral and unethical.

I say I will not waft in the religious issues. There are two many things already religion didn't foresee into it's system.

I have said.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1] I can see that despite my very best intentions, I am going to be drawn into this through the stubborn-mindedness of others.

[quote name='Drix'] Try a bit of empathy here, James. I?m not telling gay people what they ?can?t? do. They just demand me to agree with what their personal views understand they ?can? do.[/quote]

That?s crap Drix. And I think you know that ~_^ They couldn?t care what you think about gay marriage, or their:

[quote name='Drix'] sexual abhorrence[/quote]

They just want the right to be married. And by the way, does the term ?sexual abhorrence? sound like one coming from the mouth of a fair and un-biased person?

[quote] If marriage in this nation began heterosexually it should be understand that the original rights are being imposed upon by the views of OTHERS![/quote]

It staggers me how you can say that your rights are being imposed on me. [i]It absolutely blows me away[/i] that you can say that. Gays right to marriage is being imposed upon. There is no curbing of rights involved here. There is an expansion. Your damn ?original rights? are not being imposed upon. Since when is expansion, imposition?

[quote] James, distinguish between the state and the personal recognition of marriage. Nothing?s stopping a homosexual couple from getting married. Before everyone starts typing the ?wtfwtfwtf!!?, observe what I mean. Anyone can live together with consent, and consider themselves ?married? without us telling them to. Churches can issue religious decrees that the homosexual couples have been married with their blessing. Nothing is stopping this. Even if I disagree, I won?t try to stop these, that is a matter of religious freedom and personal choice.[/quote]

Is it just me, or is the Government [i]banning gay marriage[/i]? And is merely living with someone that equal of marriage? If so, abolish marriage. Why do we need a dated institution such as this, when Drix says that by merely living together with consent, we can all experience marriage. And be married? It?s a miracle!

[quote] That?s not a very nice thing to say to the 50-60% of the people who actually may regard their marriage as SACRED. You can be for marriage and against frivolous divorce/marriage at the same time. The problem is that no one can legislate anything concerning ?frivolous divorce?? it?s too complicated between the individual members of marriage.[/quote]

What about the 100% of homosexuals who would regard their chance to be married as sacred?

[quote] Let?s look at marriage from a social perspective. Why would we regard marriage with benefits?? Because of kids! Surprise, gay people can?t make babies.[/quote]

You?re quite right there Drix. But they can adopt thousands of children that don?t have any heterosexual parents left. Or were taken away from their despicably unsuitable parents. Or isn?t that a good enough cause for you?

[quote] Think about this? why should gay couples be the only ones to get the benefits of marriage? Why not a pair of buddies living together, why shouldn?t they put each other on their health insurance? Why not a single parent and child? Why shouldn?t they get a ?legal civil union? to help with the tax break? Sounds like circular reasoning.[/quote]

Is it just me, or are you wearing blinkers? You cannot compare gay couples and ?room mates? or indeed, any group of people that are not in a ******* relationship. I mean, come on. Take off the blinkers, and at least have a look around before you spout useless crap onto the page.

I like you as a person Drix, but your views on some things are dated and foolish.[/size]

[Sui Generis]

[b][color=indigo]Side Note:[/b] Sorry just a side note, if this is rude sorry. I just got back from debate so I'm in a debative mood, and I had some rather abusive and down right mean people so if you say something and I took it completely out of context then just tell me, I'll most likely apologize. Again sorry if I piss you off.[/color]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]
Well, since Germany is another country, and we're different from them, it isn't comprable; you've shown that different people did different things.[/quote]
[color=indigo] Exactly. I'm different than you, you don't see it fit that gay's should be legally binded and married, I see it is. I'm just attacking the fact that person said "It was bad back then, so its bad now." Times change, thats my whole argument I didn't think you'd take it word for word. Theres something called context.[/color]



[quote name='deathbug']Of course we should. When was this a free-speech issue? Both sides of this debate have had ample avenues to express their opinions.[/quote]

[color=indigo] Yet again wonderful world called context. Look at what my point is, not every single sentence. The simple fact is its proving an over all point. Sitting here nit picking everything I say is pointless. Where are you going to get arguing little sentences, look at the point of an argument. Yet again arguing the above statement. This argument had no relevance to anything you stated initially.[/color]


[quote=deathbug]
Okay, now I have issue with you. If you are not a Christian, please don't presume to tell me or other Christians about our faith.

I will be married in a chruch, by reverend, because, guess what? It does mean something to me, and my vision of the true Christian faith. [/quote]

[color=indigo]I'll use what you said. "Okay, now I have usse with you." (I'm assuming you meant an issue.) Now you are assuming that I am not a Christian. You are stating that I am not Christian therefor I am not allowed to even bring up the topic. Well guess what just because I'm bisexual doesn't mean I'm not Christian. Did I ever say that I wasn't Christian. Guess what: I AM!!

I study the bible, I pray, I go to church, Jesus is my savior. Everyone sins, simple fact. Every sinner can be a Christian, don't automatically assume something.[/color]



[quote=deathbug]Then why bother getting married at all?



Okay, [b]this[/b] is what I can't understand; if it's a 'mockery' (of...what?), then why do you care? If you see through the whole charade you make marriage out to be, why does it matter if gays are married? I mean, most of them will just divorce, like you said?



Obviously, they should get them if they're living in a union with one another. To do otherwise would be discrimination.[/quote]

[color=indigo] For convience of time I'll just group all these together.

You know its amazing, that you believe that I don't want to be married. Why should I still want this? I want this because I believe in something superior to the current ideal of marriage.

I believe in love, I believe in union because of love not all the other material mumbo jumbo that people marry for now. The simple fact is again I'm proving a point.

Marriage already has tons of problems, how are people trying to marry for love a problem? You're stating that Gays shouldn't marry, but why? We don't hurt anyone, we don't trounce on your rights, the only thing concievable is we go against someone's religion. Well damn that happens all the effin time. Who cares?

Acceptance, its been taught; lets put it into action.[/color]






[quote name='deathbug']This, also, I take issue with. Don't tell me that marriage means nothing. This is the whoile reason I think the government shouldn't be involved: because marriage is sacred and holy, and the government being involved makes it about as important as a speeding ticket. [/quote]

[color=indigo]Arn't you just reaffirming what I'm saying? Seperation of religion from politics. Most gays arn't even asking for the marriage to be accepted religiously, we just want it affirmed by the government. It doesn't even have to be in a church for the most part.

I'm not going to speak for everyone out there, I don't have the authority, but I really don't undrestand what you're trying to get at...sorry.[/color]




[quote=deathbug]Uh, ignorance and tolerence aren't mutually exclusive, nor opposites. Hitler was a smart man, after all.



So, you're intolerent of their ignorance?[/quote]

[color=indigo]I invite you to read my post again; I said ignorance wasn't a bad thing. I'm ignorant. Everyone is ignorant, I'd be stupid (not ignorant) to think otherwise. I'm just saying that thats the issue.

As ignorance and tolerance not correlating. If you are ignorant of something (perhaps not you, but mostly society) then you don't tolerate something. Simple fact. Look ALL throughout history, NOT just the United States. Its not that hard to find examples of what I'm saying.[/color]



[quote=deathbug]Yet you, who aren't a Christian, were more than happy to tell Christians how to run things. You, who don't consider marriage anything sacred, are more than happy to tell those who do that they're wrong.

I'm not sure which is worse: bigoted homophibia or condescending and arrogant self-righteousness.[/quote]

[color=indigo]Speaking of arrogant self-righteousness.....

Look I've come up here and said I respect everyone's opinions. If you think differently then thats great! Congratulations! As I said the world would suck and be totally boring if everyone thought the same thing. Big whoop, you're point is what?

I am passionate about what I believe in? THat makes me arrogant and self-righteouse? Please I'd love to see how I am so. I've apologize for what I mislead you as, I took time to explain it, I stated that I didn't care if you thought of something different that was fine, I didn't even attack you directly.

Yet you come up here, [b]ASSUME[/b] I'm not a Christian. Come out and say that I'm arrogant and self-righteouse, accuse me of trying to tell you how to lead your life, and attack ME not what I say.

Arn't you aware that a debate is about an issue, not the person?![/color]



[quote name='deathbug']I think that marriage is, in fact sacred, even though a good portion of the populence doesnt. In fact, that's exactly why the government shouldn't be involved.[/quote]

[color=indigo] And I think the current essence of marriage is horrible, and that marriage should be sacred, and that love is sacred. So look at the facts we believe that love is sacred, congrats.[/color]

[quote=deathbug]I want the decision I come to about marriage to be between myself and my Church, others who see marriage as sacred. Therein lies the problem: as long as marriage is a government institution, the opinions of thousands of others weigh in on what should be a private matter between myself, my church and my God.

As usual, government interference screws stuff up.[/QUOTE]
[color=indigo] Gotta say I agree with you. Thats what I'm trying to get across (Sorry if its otherwise)

I agree, marriage is personal, let it be personal. Let same sex marry eachother, we say its sacred, because its love. You say its sacred, because of God? (Perhaps not you, but you get the jist)

But YES let it be personal!!! Thats what I'm saying.[/color]