»Gay Marriages or not?«

Right now in the United States there's an issue of gay marriages going on in San Fransisco. I want to know what your guiz's opinion on this is.

I personally think that gay marriages are wrong and illegal just because eight years ago, Congress passed a law saying that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. Seriously, both the senate and the house of representatives passed the law. that's the most legitimate way of passing, creating, or drafting laws in the country.

there is no real scientific proof that lesbians or gays were born that way....so lesbians or gays actually chose to be that way. if there was an issue of discrimination involving separation of race, than that would be a violation of the victim's civil rights, because how can someone help being white or black or asian?

however, if someone chooses to be gay or lesbian, and tries to marry their lover, and the government stops them, that is not a violation of civil rights, because they chose to be lesbian/gay.

and also, God created one man and one woman, and as the saying goes, "God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve!"

not that i have anything against gay people. it's not like just because they're gay i wont be their friend or something. it's just that marrying gay lovers together is just lawfully and morally wrong.

First of all:

Quote:

God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve!

That joke is old and very stale.
Firstly, I personally don't think much of marriage, so I'd say why bother doing it? but that is me, others can feel differently.
It may be that people choose to be homosexual, I don't know, but if a christian walked into my bar and I refused to serve him, would that be discrimination?
The real issue I see is: what is marriage? if it is only for heterosexuals, then perhaps there should be something similar in place for the rest.
Overall my advice would be this: "screw marriage, but if you want to go ahead with it, I don't care either way"

As an afterthought: Are you sure you don't mind "gays"? Your language seems to lead me away from that thought...

Epoch wrote:

Quote: God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve! That joke is old and very stale.

I find this funny

Never heard it before.

Unfortunately, Nocturnal, I have to disagree with you. First of all, you say that homosexuals choose to be that way. Whether or not that's true is irrelevent. What matters is that you're saying that gays shouldn't even have that choice. What the hell is that? This is the United States of America. A country that was founded on the premise that its citizens have the ability to think, feel, live, worship, and choose however they see fit. Yet because gays live a lifestyle that you feel is not "normal" or, as you put it, "lawfully and morally wrong, they can't have that choice. THAT is lawfully and morally wrong. Not giving someone a choice to love who they want is lawfully and morally wrong. Love is love. Whether that love is between a man & woman, man & man, or woman & woman makes no difference.

I know, I know, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. So what? In case you forgot, this country was also founded on the premise of a distinct seperation of the Church and the State. What the Bible says is wrong, doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I'm Catholic through and through, but I also realize that the Bible was written by man. It is NOT the word of God. It is man's interpretation of the word of God.

People are people, man. Just because you choose to be gay doesn't make a bad person. Being prejudiced and wanted to prevent gays from happiness does.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You probably have your own preconceived notion of what is right and wrong. I mean, why would I care? I'm happily married to one of the most wonderful women in the world. Why should I care? I care because I made the CHOICE to love her. If somebody told me that I couldn't love her because of whatever, that would be morally and lawfully wrong. Besides, what do you think God would want? All of his children free to make their own choices on how to be happy and enjoy his creation? Or his children having to scheme, lie, cheat, etc. just to be able to make the choices that would lead them to happiness?

GPieters wrote:

Unfortunately, Nocturnal, I have to disagree with you.

first of all, that's ok if you disagree with me. no need to say "unfortunately".

GPieters wrote:

Love is love. Whether that love is between a man & woman, man & man, or woman & woman makes no difference.

i'm not saying that love between gays are wrong. i'm just saying that them marrying and puposely defying the local officials are wrong. because as you know, 8 years ago, congress passed the defense of marriage act. and i will repeat...the Senate AND the House of Reps passed the law, which is the most legitimate way of passing laws in this country.

GPieters wrote:

I know, I know, the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. So what? In case you forgot, this country was also founded on the premise of a distinct seperation of the Church and the State.

yes...but you must remember that George Washington was one of the best leaders of america..and he said that the leader of the nation should be a religious and moral man. inferring that a nation guided with religion and morality would strengthen the country.

GPieters wrote:

Besides, what do you think God would want? All of his children free to make their own choices on how to be happy and enjoy his creation? Or his children having to scheme, lie, cheat, etc. just to be able to make the choices that would lead them to happiness?

i understand that this is a rhetorical question...but i just had to reply. obviously god wants his children to make their own choices on how to be happy and enjoy his creation. but he also wants them to make the RIGHT choice.

why are people opposed to gays in the first place? (i am not opposed to them...i'm just asking why SOME particular people are so violently disagreeable with them.) i don't exactly know the answer, but if you have any ideas please share.

knnknn wrote:

Epoch wrote: Quote: God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve! That joke is old and very stale. I find this funny Never heard it before.

glad you like the joke.

You guys might be surprised to find that I am against the federal ban on homosexuality. I do find homosexuality repugnant and immoral. However, the federal government should not regulate morality.

The American federal government has been growing uncontrollably ever since the Civil War, which took away much of the state's rights. It grew again during the New Deal and later during the Civil Rights movement. The federal government is too large and has too much control. The federal government should have very limited power, which can include the enforcement of Justice alone. No morality should be legislated on this level.

However, I think that if there was no legislation of morality whatsoever, society would be doomed to forever hold the secular subjectivist morality which is so widespread these days. For this reason, I think that the state or local governments should decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriages. This way, US citizens will be able to easily see the deterioration caused by immorality and a promiscuous lifestyle, and the benefits of a virtuous lifestyle. This will give people the choice to move to a place where they can be immoral, or to move to a place where they can voluntarily submit themselves to a rational morality.

there should be more freedom of choice... of course gay marriages are ok, why shouldnt they be...
unfortunately i live in a country where you get beaten up by tough retarded guys if they even suspect you're a homosexual
thats horribly sad...

call me a hippie but i say 'live and let live'

im in favour of gay marriges
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

if both chicks are hot

Gay marriage is a good idea. My best friend is gay and he`s a nice guy. I`d like him to be happy and settle down with someone, he`d get so lonely otherwise.

stinkz wrote:

The federal government should have very limited power

no doubt you are a democrat...am i correct?

i think that being gay is a little like a religion. We have freedom of religion, so gays should be able to marry. George Bush is an asshole. He has no right whatsoever to say that gay marrige is unconstitutional. If two people are in love, whether it be men, or women, they should be allowed to get married. There's my two testicles. (1'st post)
-TP

theprofessional wrote:

George Bush is an asshole. He has no right whatsoever to say that gay marrige is unconstitutional.

sure bush is a horrible president, but he does have the right to say that gay marriage is unconstitutional...because it is. the definition of marriage inside the constitution is "a union between one man and woman"....so by marrying gays together is purposely defying the law.

gay

I really can't be bothered with this topic, so I'm going for the easy option;

The people who wrote the Dictionary wrote:

mar·riage n. 1) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. 2) The state of being married; wedlock. 3) A common-law marriage. 4) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 5) A wedding. 6) A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 7) Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

and one call out

stinkz wrote:

I do find homosexuality repugnant and immoral.

Respect,

...for having the nads to have an opinion rather than trying to keep everyone happy with the usual "I don't hate gays but..." Crap.

Quote:

sure bush is a horrible president, but he does have the right to say that gay marriage is unconstitutional...because it is. the definition of marriage inside the constitution is "a union between one man and woman"....so by marrying gays together is purposely defying the law.

Um, have you read the Constitution? Here's a link to it: house.gov.... Please show me where in there marriage is defined as a union between one man and woman. You don't seem to understand that what Bush is proposing is an Amendment saying exactly that. If it were already in the Constitution, Bush wouldn't need to do that!

Quote:

yes...but you must remember that George Washington was one of the best leaders of america..and he said that the leader of the nation should be a religious and moral man. inferring that a nation guided with religion and morality would strengthen the country.

Your point being? There's nothing immoral about homosexuality.

Quote:

i'm just saying that them marrying and puposely defying the local officials are wrong.

And if a law were passed saying it is illegal to worship the Christian god, would you obey it?

Quote:

there should be more freedom of choice... of course gay marriages are ok, why shouldnt they be... unfortunately i live in a country where you get beaten up by tough retarded guys if they even suspect you're a homosexual thats horribly sad... call me a hippie but i say 'live and let live'

That doesn't make you a hippie. That makes you progressive. Out of curiousity, in what country do you live?

Quote:

The people who wrote the Dictionary wrote:

...

Fortunately, the people who wrote the dictionary are not lawmakers. Besides, if homosexual marriages lose their taboo, then I'm sure the word marriage will be redefined.

Tiefling wrote:

And if a law were passed saying it is illegal to worship the Christian god, would you obey it?

Yeah, Like that would ever happen. But until it does, I guess I'll just have to "not worship a christian god" outside the law

The principal reason I can't get into debates on this subject is that I see it as a real No Brainer. I mean, you just have to look at the roots of it all.

As has been pointed out already, the purpose of the Church is to provide Moral Guidance, the purpose of Government is to run the country, which includes making laws to protect it's citizens.

The problems start as soon as these functions become blurred and sadly I live in a country where many of the laws are based on a Christian framework.

Anyone who doubts this, simply finish the statement "Prostitution is illegal because..." and remember to include the important factor about how thiis law protects citizens.

So anyway, back to the point.

Marriage is a legal bond based on a christian philosphy, so by definition is the union between a man and a woman.

So the church gets all huffy about how bad homosexuality is and pressures government to keep marriage straight.

Well the thing I don't get is why fight it?

Shouldn't the desire to get Married be on the grounds of entering into a partnerships based on, and in acceptance of the terms of what marriage represents? The legal affirmation of a religious framework for co-existance - or some such waffle.

It's a bit like
"Hey I'd like to be a nudist, but only if I can keep my clothes on"

Why would you want to join a club, whos management openly denounces your lifestyle choices? Just walk away, they're not worth it.

A more important question should be "Why are a couple who's bond is based on religious principals be treated differently?" isn't that religious predjudice?

To the Gay community I say,

Get your own "institution",
Get your own word, How about "Pairage"
Get that accepted as legally equal to marriage,

But make it something worthwhile,

Make it what marriage was supposed to be in the first place - A gesture of your Love for, and commitment to your partner, rather than a way to get tax breaks or screw your partner out of half the house.

Then go and prove how much better you are by letting straight people join too.

marl64 wrote:

Tiefling wrote: And if a law were passed saying it is illegal to worship the Christian god, would you obey it? Yeah, Like that would ever happen. But until it does, I guess I'll just have to "not worship a christian god" outside the law

That was directed at nocturnal_anonymous, who feels it is wrong for homosexuals to marry and disobey local officials.

It's kind of funny, I see this as a no-brainer too. Why should you care, in a negative fashion, if homosexuals can legally be married? How does that make your life any worse? It's not like they're stealing from you, or murdering you, or forbidding you from entering into a heterosexual marriage. How is it that a homosexual marriage hurts you or degrades society in any way?

marl64 wrote:

Anyone who doubts this, simply finish the statement "Prostitution is illegal because..." and remember to include the important factor about how thiis law protects citizens.

Prostitution is illegal because it's degrading to women, encourages male chauvinism, encourages crime, encourages the spread of disease, and helps to decrease the duration of marriages.

marl64 wrote:

Marriage is a legal bond based on a christian philosphy, so by definition is the union between a man and a woman.

Sorry, but marriage existed long before Christianity did.

marl64 wrote:

Make it what marriage was supposed to be in the first place - A gesture of your Love for, and commitment to your partner, rather than a way to get tax breaks or screw your partner out of half the house.

I think that's part of the source of your ignorance right there. Many homosexual partners do love each other. And that's why they want to get married.

Tiefling wrote:

Prostitution is illegal because it's degrading to women, encourages male chauvinism, encourages crime, encourages the spread of disease, and helps to decrease the duration of marriages.

Do you think? I find your assumptions interesting.

"Degrading to women and encouraging male chauvinism" can only be applied to female prostitution so you can't have those 'cos male prostitution is just as illegal.

"Encourages Crime" and "Encourages the spread of disease" I'd be curiousto know if there's any basis in fact for this and how "Illegal prostitution" compares to "legal prostitution" in these.

"Helps to decrease the duration of marriages" I'm sorry, but that's just a joke. Surely the main factor here is the faithfulness of partners irrespective of whether they pay or play.

Tiefling wrote:

Sorry, but marriage existed long before Christianity did.

Not as a legal status with benefits, before then people used to do it for the right reasons.

Tiefling wrote:

I think that's part of the source of your ignorance right there. Many homosexual partners do love each other. And that's why they want to get married.

I think you need to read my post again, that was what I was saying, marriage for many is a sham, a token, not what it was supposed to be. Giving advantages to married people has to be part of the reason.

My suggestion is that they should create an alternative and this time get it right. No special perks, not financial rewards, no "improved career prospects". Let it be its own reward.

Can't understand how you missed that
(been a few posts since I've been called ignorant)

Quote:

I think you need to read my post again, that was what I was saying, marriage for many is a sham, a token, not what it was supposed to be. Giving advantages to married people has to be part of the reason. My suggestion is that they should create an alternative and this time get it right. No special perks, not financial rewards, no "improved career prospects". Let it be its own reward. Can't understand how you missed that (been a few posts since I've been called ignorant)

My apologies, I misread what you wrote. (I thought you were saying that homosexual marriages were inspired by tax breaks, not love)

I think the problem with creating a separate institution for homosexual marriages is because it's reminiscent of segregation. White restrooms and "colored" restrooms. "Them" and "us". I think homosexuals are striving to be recognized as normal people, instead of being treated as freaks. (How often do we hear on forums, "Oh, that's gay.")

Currently, many homosexual partners do form unions, that although are not legally binding, are nonetheless emotionally binding. There are even ceremonies to recognize them, although these are, once again, not in any way binding.

Tiefling wrote:

My apologies, I misread what you wrote.

No problem, thought that was the case, it happens.

Tiefling wrote:

I think the problem with creating a separate institution for homosexual marriages is because it's reminiscent of segregation. White restrooms and "colored" restrooms. "Them" and "us". I think homosexuals are striving to be recognized as normal people, instead of being treated as freaks. (How often do we hear on forums, "Oh, that's gay.")

I couldn't agree more, I'm annoyed by things like positive discrimination which at the end of the day it what it purports to combat - discrimination. It's just swinging the door the other way.

Hence the last part about going one better, sure it could start out as a "gay" alternative (but it doesn't have to), but by welcoming straight people equally, you set yourself above the petty intollerences of what came before.

My suggestion that they don't seek "marriage" as it stands was more along the lines of "Why look to be recognised by an institution that is founded on principals which don't accept you? Show that you are better than them"

Quote:

Um, have you read the Constitution? Here's a link to it: house.gov... Please show me where in there marriage is defined as a union between one man and woman.

yup i've read some parts of it. and it doesnt say anything about marriage being definied as a union between one man and woman. sorry...wrong word...i wasnt talking about the constitution. there was a defense of marriage act that was passed 8 years ago by Congress. yea. read this passage from Bush's speech.

"Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage."

okie dokie...i'll let you dwell on that for a while.
p.s. i'm glad that everyone's still posting into this thread! i thought it was gonna go dead...

From cnn.com...:

Quote:

The [Defense of Marriage Act] would not bar states from legalizing gay marriages within their borders, but states would not be obligated to recognize such marriages performed in another state.

Therefore, homosexuals marrying does not "defy local officials," as you claim. Nor is it unconstitutional. Nor, for that matter, is it immoral.

actually...the gay marriages in San Francisco were defying the local officials, as California has not legalized gay marriages.

There are no laws against it, however.

But even assuming the law says homosexuals cannot get married.... are you saying no laws could be written that you would choose to defy, for what you saw to be the greater good?